Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: May 11, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-26-000085
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(39) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: SIREG 700 Parkhill Inc.
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Refusal by Approval Authority
Description: To permit the conversion of an existing one-hundred and twenty-eight (128) unit townhouse rental housing project to condominium ownership
Reference Number: 15CDM-25501
Property Address: 700 Parkhill Road W.
Municipality/UT: Peterborough/Peterborough
OLT Case No.: OLT-26-000085
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-26-000085
OLT Case Name: SIREG 700 Parkhill Inc v. Peterborough (City)
Heard: May 7, 2026 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
SIREG Parkhill Inc.
M. DiVona
City of Peterborough
S. Seabrooke
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BRAUN ON MAY 7, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was held for the purpose of organizing an appeal by SIREG Parkhill Inc. (“Appellant”) against the decision of the City of Peterborough (“City”) to refuse a Draft Plan of Condominium (“Draft Plan”) for the property located at 700 Parkhill Road West (“Subject Property”). At present, the Subject Property is developed with 10 two-storey residential townhouse blocks with a total of 128 residential units.
2The Appellant proposes to change the tenure of ownership from a single rental property to private residential condominium ownership, whereby the Owner would sell individual units to private investors that would then be rented out and continue to be managed by a property management/investment company on behalf of the investors. No new buildings/structures, operational changes, nor site alterations are proposed.
3The Tribunal received an Affidavit of Service dated April 15, 2026, confirming that Notice of this CMC (“Notice”) was properly given and that no issues were raised with the sufficiency thereof. Accordingly, no further Notice is required.
STATUS REQUESTS
4In response to the Notice, the Tribunal received one written request for Participant status, from Jennifer Lacey, a tenant of the Subject Property who opposes the proposed conversion. Concerns raised in the request include that no new housing will result from the proposed conversion and approval of the proposal would result in negative impacts on the City’s rental housing market, given that the existing units at the Subject Property represent approximately 17% of the three-bedroom rentals. With no objections, the Tribunal granted Participant status to Ms. Lacey, who has a genuine interest in the outcome of the appeal.
5No other individuals or entities appeared at the CMC seeking status of any kind. Accordingly, the matter will proceed with the involvement of the herein identified Parties and Participant.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SETTLEMENT
6The Tribunal canvassed opportunities for settlement, including the use of Tribunal-assisted mediation, and was advised that the Parties have already been engaged in productive discussions aimed at resolving or narrowing the issues for a future hearing. In addition, the Parties advised that some of their anticipated expert witnesses have also been engaged in conversations aimed at scoping the issues.
7As such, the Tribunal was advised that assisted mediation is not necessary at this time. The Parties indicated that they are familiar with the process of availing themselves of this resource via the submission of a request for a mediation assessment through the Case Coordinator, should they so desire.
PROCEDURAL ORDER/ISSUES LIST AND POTENTIAL PRE-HEARING MOTIONS
8Although the Parties each provided their own draft Procedural Orders (“PO”) and Issues Lists (“IL”) in advance of the CMC, they were unable to agree upon one list of issues to be adjudicated at a future hearing. The Parties requested an opportunity to continue discussions in the hopes that one IL could be agreed upon and submitted for the Tribunal’s approval, on consent. It was anticipated that an agreed-upon IL and draft PO could be submitted by Tuesday, May 19, 2026.
9The Parties are reminded that issues put forward for adjudication must not be overly broad but must instead particularize the relevant policies which are in dispute. This allows the Parties to call appropriately experienced expert witnesses to speak to those applicable policies, focussing the evidence presented at the hearing on those relevant disputed policies, ensuring an efficient and cost-effective hearing.
10In the event the Parties are unable to agree upon an IL, they are free to pursue a future motion for directions in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”).
11The Parties were also unable to agree upon whether a request would be made on consent to have the future hearing recorded. The recording of Tribunal hearing events is generally prohibited unless the Tribunal member presiding over the hearing authorizes the recording, subject to a number of conditions set out in the Rules. Once a hearing of the merits has been scheduled, the Parties are free to make a request in accordance with the Rules and, if necessary, may seek a motion for directions.
12Counsel for the City noted the Appellant might make revisions to the application in advance of the Hearing and sought the Tribunal’s guidance with respect to an anticipated request pursuant to s. 51(52.3-52.5) of the Planning Act, to allow City Council an opportunity to reconsider its decision in light of any new information/material that might be presented at the Hearing.
13Should such a request be necessary, the Tribunal directed that it be determined by way of a pre-Hearing motion, following the exchange of the new evidence giving rise to the request. The Parties are encouraged to consider agreeing upon, and including in a draft PO, a deadline by which a revised proposal is to be circulated, following which, the City may request such a motion, if necessary.
SUBSEQUENT CMC
14Given the lack of agreement on an issues list, which informs the number of witnesses and disciplines thereof, and in turn informs the number of days required for a hearing, out of an abundance of caution, a second CMC was scheduled to be held by videoconference on Thursday, June 11, 2026, at 10:00 am. The purpose of the CMC will be to discuss the scheduling of dates for a hearing of the merits and/or, if necessary, discuss the scheduling of pre-hearing motions.
15In the event the Parties reach agreement on an issues list in advance of the scheduled CMC and do not require further case management, they may submit a draft PO and IL, on consent, for the Tribunal’s review and approval, provide the assigned Case Coordinator the estimated number of days required for a hearing, along with counsel/witness availability, and request that the CMC be cancelled and hearing dates be scheduled administratively.
16Parties are asked to log in to the CMC by video at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/638422541
Access code: 638-422-541
17Parties 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 GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html.
18Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (Toll Free): 1-888-299-1889. The access code is 638-422-541.
19Individuals 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 CMC by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.
20As 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
21The case management directives above are so ordered.
22There will be no further notice.
23The Member is not seized, but may be available for additional case management, should the Tribunal’s calendar permit.
“S. Braun”
S. Braun
VICE-CHAIR
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: 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.