Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: May 12, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-26-000134

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Appellant: Made-True Developments Inc.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit the creation of eight lots for 16 three-storey semi-detached dwelling units

Reference Number: ZBA-2024-0005

Property Address: 361 Townline Rd N L1E 2K3

Municipality/UT: Clarington/Durham

OLT Case No: OLT-26-000134

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-26-000134

OLT Case Name: Made-True Developments Inc. v. Clarington (Municipality)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision

Description: To permit the creation of eight lots for 16 three-storey semi-detached dwelling units

Reference Number: S-C-2024-0004

Property Address: 361 Townline Road N

Municipality/UT: Clarington/Durham

OLT Case No: OLT-26-000135

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-26-000134

OLT Case Name: Made-True Developments Inc. v. Clarington (Municipality)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6

Request by: Municipality of Clarington

Motion for: Directions

Heard: In Writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Made-True Developments Inc.

Meaghan McDermid Grace O’Brien

Municipality of Clarington

John R. Hart Siddarth Verma

DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BOBKA AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision relates to a motion for direction (“Motion”) regarding appeals filed by Made-True Developments Inc. (“Appellant”) pursuant to s. 34(11) and 51(34) of the Planning Act (“Act”) regarding applications for a zoning by-law amendment (“ZBA”) and draft plan of subdivision (together, the “Applications”) made to the Municipality of Clarington (“Municipality”) for the property municipally known as 361 Townline Road North (“Subject Property”).

MOTION TO ADJOURN

2The materials before the Tribunal on the Motion are:

Exhibit 1: Motion Record of the Municipality – April 16, 2026, (31 pages)

Exhibit 2a): Responding Motion Record of the Appellant – April 23, 2026, (113 pages)

Exhibit 2b): Book of Authorities of the Appellant – April 23, 2026, (102 pages)

Municipality’s Position on the Motion

3The relief requested by the Municipality includes:

a. An Order adjourning the subject Hearing currently scheduled on June 22-26, 2026, to the weeks of August 3 and/or August 10, 2026, or such other dates as the Tribunal orders;

b. An Order for the costs of this motion, in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), in such amount as the counsel for the Municipality may request and as the Tribunal deems appropriate; and

c. Such further and other relief as the counsel for the Municipality may request and as the Tribunal may permit.

4The grounds for the Motion include:

a. On March 10, 2026, the Tribunal, through the Case Coordinator, advised the Parties via email that the hearing date for these appeals had been set to proceed from June 22-26, 2026. This scheduling occurred despite the Municipality’s in-house counsel having asked that dates not be set until after the Municipality’s Council (“Council”) provided instructions, which was anticipated to occur on April 27, 2026.

b. After learning of the Hearing dates, the Municipality retained Andrew Biggart on March 27, 2026, as its legal representative.

c. Once retained, Mr. Biggart spoke with counsel for the Appellant, Ms. Meaghan McDermid, on April 1, 2026, to request her client’s consent to adjourn the Hearing, as he would be unavailable to appear in said Hearing since he was required to appear in another hearing during the same week. Mr. Biggart suggested alternate dates between August 4, 2026, and August 14, 2026.

d. Mr. Biggart followed up with Ms. McDermid on April 9, 10, and 14, 2026, concerning the adjournment request. On the latter, Ms. McDermid responded that her client did not consent to the adjournment.

e. Council was to receive a Confidential Report regarding this appeal on April 27, 2026, and it was anticipated that instructions would be provided to staff and to Mr. Biggart on that same date.

f. The Municipality submitted that there is insufficient time to prepare for a contested hearing between April 27, 2026, and June 22, 2026.

g. The Municipality also stated that: “Mr. Biggart is not aware of any prejudice to the Appellant if this hearing is adjourned for a period of approximately six (6) weeks.”

Appellant’s Position on the Motion

5The relief requested by the Appellant includes:

a. An Order dismissing the Motion in its entirety;

b. An Order confirming that the Hearing scheduled for June 22-26, 2026, will proceed on the scheduled hearing dates; and

c. An Order for the costs of this motion in accordance with Rule 23 of the Tribunal’s Rules to be determined in writing following the Tribunal’s decision on the Motion.

6The grounds raised by the Appellant can be categorized as follows:

a. Review of the relevant background information;

b. Review of the applicable law;

c. The Municipality failed to provide its availability when canvassed by the Case Coordinator;

d. The Municipality was aware of the scheduled Hearing dates at the time it retained Mr. Biggart;

e. The Municipality had sufficient time to prepare for the Hearing;

f. Granting the adjournment would result in unnecessary delay; and

g. The Municipality made no effort to retain alternate counsel or to explain why alternate counsel would not be appropriate.

Background

7The Applications, following pre-consultation beginning November 17, 2022, were deemed complete on July 9, 2024. After initial feedback from municipal departments and public agencies, a second submission was filed on October 8, 2024. Following a statutory public meeting and further comments, a third submission was filed on March 25, 2025.

8On May 7, 2025, municipal staff issued comments on the third submission, raising new concerns about lot frontages, rear yard setbacks, and parking spaces. Additional zoning concerns followed on May 20, 2025. The Appellant continued discussions with municipal staff through summer and fall 2025 and into January 2026 in an effort to address these issues.

9Ultimately, the concerns could not be resolved and on January 30, 2026, the Appellant appealed the Applications to the Tribunal.

10On February 13, 2026, the Tribunal issued an Acknowledgement Letter to Robert Maciver, the Municipality’s in-house counsel, and Ms. McDermid, the Appellant’s counsel. Counsel exchanged emails on February 20 and 23, 2026; in the latter exchange, Mr. Maciver indicated that external counsel would be retained.

11On February 23, 2026, the Tribunal Case Coordinator emailed counsel for the Parties to inquire how they wished to proceed and to request their joint availability.

12On March 3, 2026, Mr. Maciver advised Ms. McDermid that the Municipality did not consent to scheduling a hearing, as it was awaiting Council instructions following meetings in April, with confirmation not expected until after the next Council meeting on April 27, 2026.

13On March 4, 2026, Ms. McDermid advised the Tribunal that the Parties disagreed on scheduling. She requested that a hearing be scheduled at the earliest opportunity and provided her unavailable dates. In support of the request, she provided the following reasons:

a. Clarington had more than ample time to consider the Applications, which were filed nearly two years ago;

b. Scheduling a hearing represents the most fair and efficient course of action;

c. A 4–5 day hearing would be sufficient based on the nature and scope of the comments received from municipal staff on the third submission of the Applications;

d. A Case Management Conference was not necessary given that the expected hearing length was 5 days or less and it was not anticipated that there are other persons who would be seeking party status; and

e. The Parties could work cooperatively to establish an agreed upon timetable for evidence exchange in advance of the hearing, without the need for a formal Procedural Order. (Exhibit 2a, pages 9-10, paragraph 18)

14On March 5, 2026, Mr. Maciver emailed the Tribunal to suggest that a hearing should not be scheduled until after Council instructions were received following the April 27, 2026, meeting, and to advise that external counsel would be retained in the next two weeks. He did not provide any unavailable dates. Ms. McDermid responded to the Tribunal on the same day, maintaining the Appellant’s request that a hearing be scheduled as soon as possible.

15In an email sent on March 10, 2026, by the Case Coordinator, the Tribunal scheduled a five-day Hearing to begin on June 22, 2026.

16On March 31, 2026, Mr. Biggart advised Ms. McDermid of his retainer and requested the Appellant’s consent to an adjournment, as he was unavailable on the scheduled Hearing dates. Follow-up emails were sent to Ms. McDermid on April 9 and 10, 2026, inquiring whether consent to adjourn would be provided. On April 10, 2026, Ms. McDermid responded and advised that a response would be provided after meeting with her client on April 13, 2026.

17On April 14, 2026, Ms. McDermid advised that the Appellant did not consent to the proposed adjournment.

18On April 16, 2026, the Municipality served its Motion Record formally requesting an adjournment.

19On April 20, 2026, the Tribunal issued the official Notice and Direction confirming that five days were scheduled for the Hearing beginning on June 22, 2026.

Applicable Law

20The Appellant highlighted:

a. Section 12(2) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021 (“OLTA”) which requires the Tribunal to “adopt any practices and procedures provided for in the rules or that are otherwise available to the Tribunal that, in its opinion, offer the best opportunity for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the proceedings.”

b. Rule 17 of the Tribunal Rules which governs adjournments, specifically the following Rules:

17.1 Hearing Dates Fixed Hearing events will take place on the date set unless the Tribunal agrees to an adjournment. Adjournments will not be allowed that may prevent the Tribunal from completing and disposing of its proceedings within any applicable prescribed time period.

17.4 Emergencies Only The Tribunal will grant last minute adjournments only for unavoidable emergencies, such as illnesses so close to the hearing date that another representative or witness cannot be obtained. The Tribunal must be informed of these emergencies as soon as possible.

21The Appellant relied on several previous cases of the Tribunal or its predecessors to highlight the following points:

a. Hearing dates are fixed as the Tribunal’s calendar is a public resource and must be managed judiciously. Losani Homes (1998) Ltd. v. Grimsby (Town), 2023 CarswellOnt 2541 (O.L.T.) (“Losani”) McIsaac v Port Colbourne (City), 2022 CanLII 23487 (O.L.T.) (“McIsaac”)

b. Without the consent of the Parties, there is a high bar to satisfy when an adjournment is requested. Parties are expected and required to be prepared for a hearing, including enabling resources required for last minute preparations. Rondax Holdings Inc. v. Adiala-Tosorontio (Township), 2018 CarswellOnt 3756 (O.M.B.) (“Rondax”)

c. While choice of counsel is important, it is “not an absolute right that dictates the scheduling and organization of a tribunal’s calendar … [A] tribunal must consider the prejudice to the parties … [and] whether reasonable efforts have been made to secure alternate counsel.” Valastro v. London (City), 2018 CarswellOnt 7294 (L.P.A.T.) (“Valastro”)

d. Delay is prejudice. Claireville Holdings Limited v. Toronto (City), 2017 CarswellOnt (O.M.B.) (“Claireville”)

e. Applicants and municipalities are entitled to have an “appeal heard in in a timely manner without unreasonable delay.” McIsaac

Failure to Provide Availability

22On February 23, 2026, the Case Coordinator emailed the Parties to confirm joint availability. Ms. McDermid provided her availability; however, Mr. Maciver did not provide the Municipality’s availability for the timeframe suggested.

23The Appellant maintained that:

Mr. Maciver is experienced counsel and he ought to have known that there was a possibility that the Tribunal would agree to the Applicant’s request and schedule the Hearing. The Tribunal case-coordinator had specifically requested that availability be provided in his initial email. If Clarington wanted to have input into the Hearing dates, Mr. Maciver should have provided availability when scheduling was being discussed. After choosing not to provide its availability, Clarington cannot now claim it was not given an opportunity to do so. (Exhibit 2a, page 13, paragraph 41)

Awareness of Hearing Dates

24In its Notice of Motion, the Municipality stated, “After learning of the [hearing] dates [scheduled] in June, the Municipality of Clarington retained Mr. Andrew Biggart on March 27, 2026, to represent the Municipality.” (Emphasis added by the Appellant)

25The Motion Record does not explain why the Municipality waited almost two months (56 days) after the filing of the Appeals to retain external counsel. The Appellant argued that if the Municipality had acted reasonably and expeditiously to retain external counsel after the Appeals were filed on January 30, 2026, “it could have provided input on the availability of that counsel’s schedule during the discussions about scheduling of the Hearing [that occurred] at the beginning of March.”

26Moreover, the Motion Record fails to explain why the Municipality:

… chose to retain Mr. Biggart as external counsel, 17 days after learning of the hearing dates, when Mr. Biggart was unavailable for those exact hearing dates. Once the Hearing dates were set on March 10, 2026, Clarington ought to have retained counsel who would be available for those dates. Mr. Biggart’s Affidavit similarly provides no explanation why he would accept a retainer for a Hearing on dates when he is unavailable. Had the adjournment been a necessary condition for Mr. Biggart to be able to carry out his retainer, Clarington ought to have requested the adjournment prior to confirming the retainer. (Emphasis added by the Appellant) (Exhibit 2a, page 14, paragraph 44)

27The Appellant submitted that it should not be prejudiced due to the Municipality’s decision to retain counsel who was not available for the scheduled Hearing dates.

Adequate Time to Prepare

28The Hearing is scheduled to begin almost five months (143 days) after the appeals were filed (which occurred on January 30, 2026). The Appellant submitted that this is within the normal and expected timeframe for a five-day hearing.

29The Appellant highlighted that there has been no explanation (either by Mr. Maciver in his correspondence with the Tribunal, nor in the Motion Record) as to why the Municipality needed almost three months (87 days) until April 27, 2026, to bring the matter before Council for direction.

30The Appellant submitted that there have been Planning and Development Committee and Council meetings on February 9, February 23, March 2, March 9 and March 23, 2026. The Municipality has not explained why Council direction could not have been obtained on one of these dates. The Appellant states that:

Clarington staff and counsel are in control of when they seek direction from Council. Their own delay in bringing the matter to Council in a reasonable and expeditious timeframe should not be a reason why the Hearing of the Appeals should be delayed. (Exhibit 2a, page 15, paragraph 50)

31The Appellant further submitted that it anticipates that one or more of the Municipality’s planning staff will be called as witnesses for the Hearing, and that by the time of the Hearing the Municipal staff will:

a. Have been in possession of the Applications for more than 2 years since their initial submission on May 29, 2024; b. Have reviewed the Applications and resubmissions and provided comments on the original and second submissions on September 10, 2024 and November 27, 2024 respectively; c. Have been in possession of the most current form of the Applications for more than one year since the third submission was filed on March 25, 2025; d. Have provided comments on the most current submission more than one year before on May 7 and 20, 2025; e. Have known about the Appeals for almost 5 months (143 days) since they were filed on January 30, 2026; and f. Have had over 3 months (104 days) since the Hearing was scheduled on March 10, 2026 to prepare. (Exhibit 2a, page 15, paragraph 51)

32The Appellant argued that the Municipality’s witnesses will have had sufficient time to prepare, and that the Tribunal has previously found:

a. That a period of 1.5 months is sufficient for notice of a hearing. Losani

b. That a period of 2 months is appropriate to obtain Council instructions. De Filippo, Re., (2012) 71 O.M.B.R. 399 (O.M.B.) (“De Filippo”)

Unnecessary Delay

33The Appellant emphasized that as stated in Claireville, delay is prejudice and that:

Clarington has already delayed making a decision on the Applications well beyond the statutory timelines in the Planning Act. Further delay of the resolution of the Applications, caused entirely by Clarington’s decision to retain unavailable counsel, is prejudicial and unfair to the Applicant [Appellant]. (Exhibit 2a., page 16, paragraph 55)

34The Appellant submitted that the Municipality also delayed in retaining external counsel after the Appeals were filed and delayed in bringing the matter before Council to obtain instructions. The Appellant argued that the requested “adjournment will cause additional, unnecessary delay to the Applicant [Appellant] in obtaining a decision on long-outstanding Applications.”

35As stated in McIsaac, the Appellant highlighted that the Tribunal has held that applicants and municipalities are entitled to have an appeal heard in a timely manner without unreasonable delay.

No Attempt to Retain Other Counsel

36In Valastro, an adjournment request due to the unavailability of counsel was refused by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. In that case, it was clearly stated that canvassing for availability was a courtesy and was not required by either the governing legislation or the Rules. It also emphasized the importance of trying to secure alternate counsel, which had not occurred in that case.

37The Appellant submitted that:

The Motion Record does not identify any steps that Clarington took to secure reasonable alternate counsel. As in Valastro, this failure should weigh heavily in favour of refusing the adjournment. Further, Clarington has not claimed that Mr. Biggart has any institutional or historical knowledge of the Applications which, should he not be able to represent Clarington at the Hearing, would prejudice the municipality. (Exhibit 2a, page 17, paragraph 57)

38In NDA Investments Limited v. Oshawa (City), 2022 CarswellOnt 2870 (O.L.T.) (“NDA Investments”), a key witness was unavailable as she was scheduled to testify in another OLT hearing. In that case, the Tribunal denied the request, finding that it was up to the requestor to show that an adjournment should be granted and that the requestor had not provided any evidence of its efforts to find a different expert witness.

39The Appellant submitted that this case is similar and that the Municipality has neither provided any evidence of its efforts to retain alternate external counsel, nor has it explained why alternate counsel could not be used, nor has it claimed any serious hardship should the Hearing proceed as scheduled.

Conclusion

40The Appellant argued that the Municipality has not claimed that the request for adjournment is due to an emergency, an illness, or that it will suffer serious hardship without an adjournment. Instead, the requested adjournment is due to the lack of availability of counsel, who was retained after hearing dates had been set by the Tribunal.

41For the reasons stated above, the Appellant concluded that the Municipality:

… has failed to meet the high threshold and demonstrate that there is a compelling reason for the Tribunal to grant the requested adjournment. Accordingly, the Motion should be dismissed … Maintaining the scheduled Hearing dates offers the most fair, just, expeditious and cost-effective resolution of the merits of the Appeals. (Exhibit 2a, page 18, paragraphs 60-61).

Ruling on the Motion

42The issue to be considered is whether a brief adjournment of the scheduled Hearing should be granted.

43The Tribunal has considered the materials before it and finds that the Municipality’s Motion for Adjournment should be dismissed for the following reasons.

44While the cases presented by the Appellant are not binding on the Tribunal, this Panel did find several to be instructive. As expressed in NDA Investments, the onus is on the Municipality to demonstrate to the Tribunal that its request for an adjournment is warranted. In the Tribunal’s view, the Municipality has not done so in this case.

45As stated in Rondax, when considering a disputed request for adjournment, the Tribunal must “balance the tension between expediency and procedural fairness.” In this case, the Municipality has not shown why or how it would be unfair to proceed with the Hearing as scheduled.

46In its Motion Record, the Municipality only briefly mentions the reason for the adjournment, at paragraph 9, which states “There is insufficient time to prepare for a contested hearing between the time of April 27, 2026, and June 22, 2026.” It does not identify any reasons why or how the time is insufficient.

47After his review of the pertinent dates, Mr. Biggart’s Affidavit (contained within the Motion Record) states at paragraph 21 that:

… adjournment of the hearing is necessary as I am double booked during the week of June 22, 2026, and cannot be in two places at the same time. I will also require sufficient time to prepare for the hearing after I receive instructions from my client, Clarington Council, on April 27th. (Exhibit 1, page 15, paragraph 21)

48The Municipality did not demonstrate that it had made efforts to retain alternate external counsel and had been unsuccessful. Nor was there an explanation provided as to why Mr. Biggart was retained on March 27, 2026, despite his lack of availability from June 22-26, 2026, when those hearing dates had already been set by the Tribunal on March 10, 2026.

49The Tribunal notes that the Municipality did not provide any materials in reply to the Appellant’s Response to the Motion, and as such, the Tribunal can only rely on the Municipality’s brief Motion Record.

50From a review of its own record, the Tribunal confirms the Appellant’s assertions that the Appeals were filed in a letter sent by the Appellant dated January 30, 2026, and that an Acknowledgement Letter from the Tribunal was issued on February 13, 2026. The Parties were aligned in their motion materials that the Tribunal emailed the Parties on March 10, 2026, scheduling the Hearing to begin on June 22, 2026.

51In its Motion Record, the Municipality does not explain why:

a. It did not retain external counsel until March 27, 2026;

b. It chose to retain external counsel who would not be available on the days the Hearing was scheduled to proceed;

c. Alternate external counsel was not sought or not appropriate;

d. Instructions could not be obtained before April 27, 2026; and

e. It is unable to prepare within the nearly two-month timeframe between April 27, 2026, and the scheduled start of the Hearing on June 22, 2026.

52As stated in Valastro the “Tribunal fixes its hearing dates, and those dates remain fixed unless the Tribunal agrees to an adjournment.”

53Based on the materials before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is any compelling reason to agree to an adjournment in this instance. The Tribunal finds that an adjournment in this case would not represent the best opportunity for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the Appeals. The Tribunal therefore denies the adjournment request, and the Hearing will proceed by video hearing as scheduled, beginning on Monday, June 22, 2026, at 10 a.m. for five days.

54Parties and/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:

GoTo Meeting: https://meet.goto.com/765093501

Access code: 765-093-501

55Parties 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

56Persons 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: 765-093-501.

57Individuals 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.

58As 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.

59In their requested relief, both Parties included an award of costs. A decision to award costs is discretionary and relatively rare, as an award of costs must meet a high bar. Although it is not obvious to the Tribunal that either Party acted in a manner that would warrant a costs award, the Parties remain free to proceed with a written motion for costs, in accordance with Rule 23 of the Tribunal’s Rules.

60The Parties are reminded of the Tribunal direction that all materials for the Hearing are to be provided to the Tribunal on or before Monday, June 15, 2026.

ORDER

61THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Motion to Adjourn brought by the Municipality of Clarington is denied and the Hearing on the Merits is to proceed as outlined in paragraph [53].

“S. Bobka”

S. BOBKA

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.