Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 23, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000684, OLT-25-000702
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Georgian Bay Harbour Ltd.
Subject: Site Plan
Description: Five-storey mixed use building including a residential apartment building, one commercial unit and two levels of underground parking
Reference Number: SP08-2024
Property Address: 23 & 37 Trowbridge Street East
Municipality/UT: Meaford
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000684
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000684
OLT Case Name: Georgian Bay Harbour Ltd. v. Meaford (Municipality)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 46(2) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Georgian Bay Harbour Ltd.
Subject: Passing of Application
Description: Five-storey mixed use building including a residential apartment building, one commercial unit and two levels of underground parking
Reference Number: HER05-2025
Property Address: 23 & 37 Trowbridge Street East
Municipality/UT: Meaford/Grey
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000702
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000702
OLT Case Name: Georgian Bay Harbour Ltd. v. Meaford (Municipality)
Heard: April 20, 2026 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Georgian Bay Harbour Ltd. ("Appellant") | Jason Park |
| Municipality of Meaford ("Municipality") | Harold Elston |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY D. ARNOLD ON APRIL 20, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was held to prepare for a hearing on the merits of two appeals to the Tribunal by the Appellant (“Appeals”) regarding: 1) the Municipality’s decision with respect to conditions of a permit issued by the Municipality pursuant to s. 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, as amended, with respect to the property municipally known as 23 and 37 Trowbridge Street East, in the Municipality (“Subject Property”), that is located within the Meaford Heritage Conservation District (“Heritage Permit Appeal”); and 2) the Appellant’s appeal to the Tribunal pursuant to s. 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, of the Municipality’s failure to approve the plans or drawings for site plan approval for a proposed mixed use development (“Proposed Development”) of the Subject Property (“Site Plan Appeal”).
2There were no requests for additional party status and one request for participant status in these proceedings.
3James Sullivan submitted a written request for participant status in respect of the Heritage Permit Appeal and appeared to make further oral submissions in support of this request.
4Mr. Sullivan seeks participant status in the Heritage Permit Appeal in order to address his concerns relating to the mass and height of the Proposed Development and, in particular, as it relates to the principles, objectives, and standards of the Meaford Heritage Conservation District Plan. Mr. Sullivan advised the Tribunal that he had participant status in the earlier Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment appeals before the Tribunal in respect of the Proposed Development. Mr. Sullivan was dissatisfied with the extent of his opportunity to offer his opinion on the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments that formed the basis for the settlement between the Appellant and the Municipality, and that were approved by the Tribunal by way of its decision and order in late 2023 (“2023 Tribunal Decision”). Mr. Sullivan continues to have concerns with the mass and height of the Proposed Development and seeks participant status in these proceedings in order to continue to express those concerns.
5The Appellant opposed Mr. Sullivan’s request for participant status and submitted that Mr. Sullivan’s issues pertaining to mass and height were addressed in the settlement and order of the 2023 Tribunal Decision, which included consideration of a cultural impact study. The Appellant submitted that Mr. Sullivan’s request for participant status with respect to the Heritage Permit Appeal is “an attempt to relitigate the official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment appeals”. The Appellant submitted that there would be “nothing added” by Mr. Sullivan’s participant status in relation to the Heritage Permit Appeal as the issues of mass and height were considered and disposed of in the 2023 Tribunal Decision.
6The Municipality took no position on Mr. Sullivan’s request for participant status in the Heritage Permit Appeal.
7The Tribunal denied Mr. Sullivan’s request for participant status for the following reasons. The issues in respect of which Mr. Sullivan seeks participant status, namely mass and height of the Proposed Development, were the subject of consideration and disposition in connection with the 2023 Tribunal Decision. The Tribunal was not satisfied that granting Mr. Sullivan participant status in the Tribunal’s adjudication on the merits of the Heritage Permit Appeal would assist the Tribunal as Mr. Sullivan’s issues will not be material to the adjudication of the Heritage Permit Appeal.
8The Parties requested the Tribunal to order that the proceedings pertaining to the Heritage Permit Appeal and the Site Plan Appeal be heard together, as provided for in Rule 16 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. As the Heritage Permit Appeal and the Site Plan Appeal both pertain to the Subject Property and the Proposed Development, the Tribunal granted this request.
9At the CMC, the Parties indicated that they intend to undertake settlement discussions and may request consideration of Tribunal-facilitated mediation in this regard, all with a view to reaching settlement between themselves of some or all of the issues of the Appeals. To allow time for these settlement discussions, and potential mediation, the Parties requested that a second CMC be scheduled in early to mid-July, 2026. In the event that a full settlement is achieved between the Parties, then the second CMC may be converted to a settlement hearing for the Tribunal to consider the proposed settlement. In the event that a full settlement is not achieved prior to the second CMC, then the second CMC will be utilized to consider the Parties’ submissions on potential hearing date(s) to adjudicate the merits of the Appeals, as well as a draft Procedural Order in respect of such hearing. The Tribunal concurred with the foregoing proposed next steps in these proceedings.
SECOND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
10The second CMC is scheduled to proceed by video on Monday, July 13, 2026 at 10 a.m.
11Parties are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before it begins to test their video and audio connections:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/656004293
Access code: 656-004-293
12Parties are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoTo Meeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html
13Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to it by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: +1-647-497-9373 or (toll-free) +1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 656-004-293.
14Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the event to ensure that they are properly connected at the correct time. Questions prior to the event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator.
15As of March 30, 2026, all hearing events are governed by the Tribunal’s Artificial Intelligence Practice Direction. This Practice Direction requires a party, participant, or witness to include a declaration within each submitted document if generative AI was used to create or generate content.
ORDER
16The Tribunal Orders as follows:
(a) The request of James Sullivan, for participant status in the proceedings pertaining to the appeal under the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, as amended (“Heritage Permit Appeal”), is denied;
(b) The proceedings pertaining to the Heritage Permit Appeal and the appeal under the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Site Plan Appeal”), shall be heard together (collectively “Appeals”);
(c) A second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) is scheduled to take place as set out above, with the proposed agenda anticipated to include the Tribunal’s consideration of either: (a) a proposed settlement of the Appeals; or (b) a draft Procedural Order (including a draft Issues List) and the setting of hearing date(s) for a hearing on the merits of the Appeals;
(d) The Parties are directed to advise the Tribunal (through the Case Coordinator) by no later than Monday, June 29, 2026 of the Parties’ request to convert the second CMC to a settlement hearing together with submission of any witness statement(s) in support of the proposed settlement;
(e) The Parties are directed to provide to the Tribunal (through the Case Coordinator) by no later than Monday, July 6, 2026 a draft Procedural Order, including Issues List, if the second CMC will be utilized to consider setting hearing date(s) for the adjudication of the merits of the Appeals; and
(f) The Tribunal so orders and provides these CMC directives for the purposes of the case management of the Appeals.
17The Member is not seized in this matter but will remain available for continued case management, to the extent that the Tribunal’s calendar permits.
18No further notice is required or will be given.
“D. Arnold”
D. ARNOLD
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.