Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 28, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-26-000084
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Brantford C9 Landowners Group Inc.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: To permit the inclusion of the properties in the Settlement Area Boundary
Reference Number: OP-05-25
Property Address: 0, 170 and 194 Powerline Road
Municipality/UT: Brantford/Brantford
OLT Case No.: OLT-26-000084
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-26-000084
OLT Case Name: Brantford C9 Landowners Group Inc v. Brantford (City)
Heard: April 10, 2026 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative* |
|---|---|
| Brantford C9 Landowners Group Inc. | Jennifer Meader, Mark A. de Jong |
| City of Brantford | Brian Duxbury, Stephen Brogden |
| Adwait “Dwight” Kulkarni | Self-represented* |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BITA M. RAJAEE ON APRIL 10, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This event was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) before the Tribunal with respect to an Appeal under section 22(7) of the Planning Act (“Act”) by Brantford C9 Landowners Group Inc. (“Applicant”) resulting from the failure of the City of Brantford (“City”) to make a decision within the statutory timeframe on an application for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) pertaining to lands located at 0, 170 and 194 Powerline Road, in the City (“Subject Property”). The application seeks to amend the City’s Official Plan to include the Subject Property within the Settlement Area Boundary and redesignate the portions of the Subject Property currently designated Rural / Agricultural Area to the Neighbourhoods designation.
2At the CMC, the Tribunal canvassed the Parties, who confirmed that there were no issues with the service of the Notice of CMC. The Tribunal is in receipt of the Affidavit of Service sworn by Victoria Peacock on March 16, 2026, which was marked as Exhibit 1, and confirms that Notice was adequately served. As such, no further notice is required.
STATUS REQUESTS
3The Tribunal was tasked with adjudicating a Party status request received from Adwait “Dwight” Kulkarni, who lives adjacent to the Subject Property. He raised a number of concerns with the proposal including:
…the proposed changes deleteriously impact our property, its use, and value, through the rezoning of agricultural lands from low density farmland to extremely high density dwellings.
We are providing notice that we oppose increased density. I would like to arrange a phone conference to understand our rights with respect to the proceedings.
Our reasons for opposing the changes are as follows:
Powerline road contains easements for powerlines and also hilly terrain, which prevents road widening. The road infrastructure is not suited to handle the level of density. Worsening traffic would adversely impact our quality of life as the roads cannot handle the zoning causing traffic jams.
The land around Fairchild creek is sensitive environmental area with slopes and rolling hills that feeds into the drainage basin. By adding excessive houses, changing the slope of the land the ability of the catchment area to absorb drainage will be reduced. This in turn impacts the features of our property.
4Considering Mr. Kulkarni is a self-represented Party, the Tribunal explained to him the differences between being a Party and a Participant, including potential liability to cost consequences if he was added as a Party. Mr. Kulkarni maintained that he wanted to seek Party Status.
5The other Parties did not object to the addition of Mr. Kulkarni as a Party.
6The Tribunal considered the written status request received and the submissions of Mr. Kulkarni and determined that he had demonstrated reasonable grounds to be added as a Party. He has direct interest in the Appeal, the request complies with the requirements of the legislation and the Tribunal’s Rules and Practice and Procedure, and his involvement will assist the Tribunal, help it understand the potential impacts of the OPA on the local community, and allow it to make a fulsome decision. Thus, the Tribunal granted Party status to Mr. Kulkarni.
7The Tribunal did not receive any Participant status requests.
NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
8Prior to the CMC, Mr. Kulkarni filed a motion raising a Notice of Constitutional Question (“NCQ”). He served this NCQ on the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of Ontario as well. The basis for the NCQ, as outlined in his Notice to the Attorney Generals, was as follows:
…the Six Nations Consultation and Accommodation Process (CAP) Team has issued a formal and strenuous objection to the proposed rezoning. Their position is clear: the high-density redevelopment of these lands constitutes a direct threat to the natural heritage and ecological corridors essential to the exercise of their inherent Treaty Rights.
The City of Brantford and the Appellant developer have, to date, provided only perfunctory "lip service" to these concerns. They have failed to recognize that the Duty to Consult and Accommodate is a non-discretionary constitutional imperative under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. This obligation is an expression of the Honour of the Crown and is not subject to legislative override. As established in the seminal rulings of Calder v. British Columbia (1973) and Haida Nation v. British Columbia (2004), and further reinforced by the recent landmark decision in Cowichan Tribes v. British Columbia (2025), the Crown’s duties are proactive and mandatory.
These legal precedents confirm a clear "chain of provenance" treating historic treaties not merely as artifacts, but as binding obligations. Reasonable requirements to protect farmland, green space, and ecological corridors are substantive compliance markers that the Crown—both Provincial and Federal—is duty-bound to uphold. By proceeding with this appeal in the face of such explicit objections, the proponents are acting in violation of the Constitution of Canada.
In light of this evidence, we are seeking increased and permanent protections for these vital ecological corridors. While this specific appeal concerns a localized site, it raises the broader constitutional question of the Crown’s ongoing obligations across the entirety of the Haldimand Tract. We urge the Attorney Generals to intervene and ensure that these non-discretionary constitutional protections are strictly enforced.
[Emphasis in the Original.]
9Prior to the CMC, Alexandra Clark, senior Counsel from the Crown Law Office acknowledged service of the NCQ on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario. Michael McCullock, Senior Counsel with the Department of Justice (on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada), was included in these correspondences as well and was aware of the NCQ. Ms. Clark attended the CMC, but only in the capacity of an observer.
10At the CMC, the Tribunal explained to Mr. Kulkarni that the Motion would not be considered that day. The Applicant’s Counsel suggested that her initial review indicated that this is not a proper question at this stage but that this issue can easily be addressed as an issue on the final Issues List and can be dealt with at the Hearing. The Applicant did not believe that an earlier-scheduled motion was necessary. The City’s Counsel disagreed, submitting that leaving it for the Hearing would be pushing it too far down the road. The Tribunal agreed with the City, and found that this was a preliminary matter that may impact whether the Hearing proceeds. As a result, it would not be prudent to leave it to be addressed at the Hearing itself. Instead, the Tribunal scheduled a Motion, with details outlined below in this Decision, to address this issue.
11The Tribunal directed that materials with respect to the Motion be provided as follows:
a. April 24, 2026: the Moving Party (Mr. Kulkarni) is to serve his Motion materials on the other Parties and both the Attorney Generals of Canada and Ontario, and file them with the Tribunal;
b. May 11, 2026: the Responding Parties (the Applicant and the City) are to file their Responding Motion materials;
c. May 19, 2026: the Moving Party (Mr. Kulkarni) is to serve his Reply Motion materials on the Parties and both Attorney Generals, and file them with the Tribunal; and
d. May 22, 2026: the Motion is to be heard by the Tribunal.
PROCEDURAL ORDER AND NEXT STEPS
12Prior to the CMC, the City advised the Tribunal that it would seek that a second CMC, and not a Hearing, be scheduled for this matter for the following reason:
The City is formulating a report which will go to City of Brantford Council on May 12, 2026, to provide further direction in respect to the City’s overall approach to settlement boundary expansion requests or application. The City will not have instructions in respect to the above noted matter until that time…
The City is prepared to have a second CMC scheduled shortly after the May 12 event, such that the City will then have instructions and, if the Tribunal determines that a hearing should be scheduled, will be in a position to formulate an Issues List. However, for the purposes of the April 10 CMC, it is the City’s position that scheduling a hearing in this matter is premature.
13At the CMC, the Applicant suggested that both a Hearing and a second CMC be scheduled. It strongly opposed the City’s suggestion that scheduling a Hearing was premature. Rather, the Applicant indicated that failure to schedule the Hearing would cause significant delay, in addition to the delays the City had already caused in this matter (such as not deeming the Application complete and necessitating a motion, which the City ultimately withdrew). Moreover, the purpose of a CMC is to schedule a Hearing. Thus, to prevent further unnecessary delays, it requested that a three-week Hearing be scheduled for no earlier than November 2026, along with a second CMC. If the Hearing is not scheduled at this CMC, the Applicant would be significantly prejudiced because: this Application is time-sensitive as it is based on land needs; more similar applications may come forward; and Counsel and witnesses may no longer be available for a November 2026 Hearing. The Applicant added that Council’s May 12 meeting could not impact this Appeal as the Tribunal could not consider any new direction that Council decided to take with respect to these sorts of applications.
14The Applicant provided the Tribunal with a draft Procedural Order that included an Issues List, which anticipated what issues the City may raise with the proposal. The Issues List had not been prepared or approved by the City, and the City had declined to provide any Issues List at all (but could do so swiftly if a Hearing was scheduled).
15At the CMC, the City reiterated the position that it required further Council instruction, which it would receive on May 12, 2026. Its Counsel explained that this is a settlement boundary expansion application, and not a routine matter. It will have City-wide implications. Thus, it is important to the City to get Council instruction on this, especially considering this Appeal was filed as a result of no decision by Council and therefore, there has been no Council direction to date. The Council meeting is only one month away, and instructions will be provided on these types of issues and how the City intends to manage them. The City requested that no Hearing be scheduled prior to then.
16The Tribunal determined that it was premature to schedule a three-week Hearing for November of this year in light of the fact that a new Party had just been added at the CMC and had not provided their Issues List, a Constitutional Question had been raised which needed to be answered, and the City had yet to provide an Issues List. Based on the information before it, the Tribunal did not have the ability to determine whether three-weeks was sufficient for this Hearing, and whether a timeline of November 2026 would be appropriate as none of the other Parties had provided any input on the steps required to occur prior to the Hearing. Moreover, the timeline requested by the City for the next CMC was minimal and would not cause meaningful delay in the proceedings. The Applicant did not demonstrate that it would be significantly prejudiced if scheduling the Hearing took place in a month from this CMC. Thus, the Tribunal scheduled a second CMC only, to take place on the same day as the NCQ Motion. Of note, while one of the purposes of a CMC is to schedule a Hearing, it is not always appropriate to do so. This is one of those cases where it is premature.
17The Tribunal directed that the Procedural Order and Issues List, or a status update, be provided to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator by May 19, 2026. The Applicant’s Counsel undertook to submit them to the Case Coordinator by that date.
MOTION AND SECOND CMC DATE AND DETAILS
18As discussed above, a Motion for Directions to address a NCQ and a second CMC have been scheduled to take place by video conference on Friday, May 22, 2026 at 10 a.m.
19The Parties/or Participants and/or Observers are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before it begins to test their video and audio connections:
GoToMeeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/765631861
Access Code: 765-631-861
20Parties and/or Participants 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
21Persons 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) 497-9391 or (toll-free) 1-888-455-1389. The access code is: 765-631-861.
22Individuals 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.
23As 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.
MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT
24The Parties are directed to advise the Tribunal in writing should they reach a Settlement with respect to some or all of the issues, and should they wish to pursue Tribunal-assisted mediation, they may make a written request to the Tribunal through the Case Coordinator for those services.
ORDER
25THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS as follows:
a. Adwait “Dwight” Kulkarni is now a Party in the proceeding.
b. A second Case Management Conference is scheduled as described above in this Decision.
c. A Motion for Directions is scheduled as described above in this Decision.
d. The Procedural Order and Issues List, or a status update, are to be provided to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator by Tuesday, May 19, 2024.
26There will be no further notice.
27This Member is not seized but may be contacted through the Case Coordinator should procedural issues arise.
“Bita M. Rajaee”
BITA M. RAJAEE
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.