Auburn Developments Inc. v. Middlesex (County), 2026 CanLII 46904

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: May 12, 2026 CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001073

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Appellant: 1571145 Ontario Limited Appellant: 2817053 Ontario Limited Appellant: Auburn Developments Inc. Appellant: Paisley Hill Ltd. and others

Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment Description: Update to the Middlesex Centre Official Plan Reference Number: OPA 59 Property Address: Municipality-wide Municipality/UT: Middlesex Centre/Middlesex OLT Case No: OLT-23-001073 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-001073 OLT Case Name: Auburn Developments Inc. v. Middlesex (County)

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

Request by: Municipality of Middlesex Centre Request by: County of Middlesex Motion for: Directions

Heard: February 9, 2026 in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Municipality of Middlesex Centre	Paula Lombardi
County of Middlesex	Alex Ciccone, David Samuels
Farhi Holdings Corporation and Farhi Farming Corporation	Denise Baker, Chantal Conroy, Sylvain Rouleau
Watermark Komoka 2021 Inc. (c/o York Developments)	Patrick Duffy, Jonathan Cheng
Tridon Properties Ltd.	Analee Baroudi
Paisley Hill Ltd.	Analee Baroudi
2817053 Ontario Limited	Analee Baroudi
1571145 Ontario Limited	Analee Baroudi
1000730334 Ontario Inc.	Amy Dale
Sifton Properties Limited	Matthew Helfand, Peter Van Loan
South Winds Development Co. Inc.	Kim Mullin, Mithea Murugesu
Comgord Limited	John Goudy, Grant Inglis
Cirrus Developments Limited and 1564326 Ontario Ltd.	Eric Davis, Chris Manning

DECISION DELIVERED BY K.R. ANDREWS and ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Introduction

1The Municipality of Middlesex Centre (“Municipality”) and the Corporation of the County of Middlesex (“County”) bring this motion before the Tribunal, requesting that the Tribunal settle the following appeals by approving the related site-specific modifications to Official Plan Amendment 59 (“OPA 59”):

1. The Watermark Komoka 2021 Inc. and York Developments Middlesex Inc. (collectively “Watermark”) Appeal, amending Middlesex Centre’s Official Plan, Schedule ‘A- 2’ – Komoka Kilworth Urban Settlement Area and Secondary Plan to designate the lands located at 9763 Glendon Drive (the “Watermark Land”) to ‘Medium Density Residential’ and amending the Settlement Area Boundary to include these lands as set out in Attachment 1 of this decision (the “Watermark Settlement”);

2. The Tridon Properties Ltd. (“Tridon”) Appeal, amending Middlesex Centre’s Official Plan, Schedule ‘A-2’ – Komoka Kilworth Urban Settlement Area and Secondary Plan to designate 9749 and 9757 Glendon Drive (the “Tridon Land”) to ‘Medium Density Residential Special Policy Area 45 (SPA#45)’ (“SPA 45”), incorporating SPA 45 and amending the Settlement Area Boundary to include the Tridon Lands as set out in Attachment 2 of this decision (the “Tridon Settlement”);

3. The Farhi Farming Corporation (“Farhi”) Appeal, amending Schedule ‘A-2’ – Komoka-Kilworth Urban Settlement Area and Secondary Plan to designate its lands, located on the north side of Glendon Drive, just west of Komoka Road (the “Farhi Land”), to Residential, Medium Density Residential and Settlement Commercial as set out in Attachment 3 of this decision (the “Farhi Settlement”); and

4. The Sifton Properties Limited (“Sifton”) Appeal, amending Schedule ‘A-1’ – Ilderton Urban Settlement Area to designate its lands, located north of Ten Mile Road, west of a multi-use trail, and south of the Timberwalk Subdivision (the “Sifton Land”), to the Residential designation as set out in Attachment 4 of this decision (the “Sifton Settlement”).

2The contesting party is Sifton, despite the proposed settlement including the relief sought in its appeal letter. Notably, Sifton does not object to the relief sought by the moving Parties, in essence; however, Sifton insists that those approvals must be conditional upon one of the following concurrent findings:

• it be based on a finding of a “quantitative land need” for the Municipality of at least 670.3 gross hectares (“ha”) of land to 2051; or
• no party should be permitted to advance evidence or make an argument in the main hearing of this matter that there is insufficient land needed to accommodate Sifton’s appeals – or the appeals of any other party. Sifton contends that, to allow such arguments in the main hearing, it would be unfair and would mean that different parties are not treated equally.

3Sifton purports to base its position on a matter of fairness, claiming that, without one of the above conditions, it may prejudice other parties, including itself. This is premised on Sifton’s contention that approval of the settlements could ‘use up’ all of the land available for Settlement Area Boundary expansion before other applications are considered.

Operation of the new policies of the PPS 2024

4Central to the parties’ arguments is their interpretation of how the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”) is supposed to function. Notably, the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS 2020”) was still in effect when OPA 59 was initially approved and the associated appeals were filed with the Tribunal. However, by operation of s. 3(5) and 26(1)(c) of the Planning Act (“Act”), these appeals must now be consistent with the newer PPS 2024.

5Importantly, PPS 2024 features a number of substantive changes from the PPS 2020, and so the appeals must now be considered by the Tribunal within a different policy-matrix than the one that existed when OPA 59 was initially passed by Council. The Tribunal finds that these changes are clearly designed to make it easier to expand settlement area boundaries to support the provision of more housing. These changes include:

• requiring the use of the Ontario Population Projections published by the Ministry of Finance (Policy 2.1.1);
• requiring a planning horizon of a minimum of 20 but not more than 30 years (Policy 2.1.3);
• facilitating and permitting Settlement Area Boundary Expansions outside of a Municipal Comprehensive Review process and changing the tests associated with the consideration for Settlement Area Boundary Expansions (Policy 2.3.2);
• changing the definition of Employment Area to accord with the definition of Area of Employment in section 1.1 of the Act.

6The removal of the requirement to complete a Municipal Comprehensive Review as a prerequisite for a Settlement Area Boundary expansion represents a significant shift from the prior PPS. Under the PPS 2020, Settlement Area Boundary expansions could only occur at the time of a Municipal Comprehensive Review process, being a defined term. That process required the demonstration that intensification opportunities, redevelopment, and designated growth areas throughout a municipality were insufficient to meet the Municipality’s projected land need. To put it simply, incremental expansions of settlement boundaries could not occur on a case-by-case basis outside of the Municipal Comprehensive Review process before the implementation of the PPS 2024.

7The PPS 2024 allows municipalities to approve new settlement areas or Settlement Area Boundary expansions at any time provided it considers the criteria set out in Policy 2.3.2.1. The criteria include:

• the need to designate and plan for additional land to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of land uses;
• infrastructure capacity;
• avoidance of specialty crop areas and prime agricultural areas;
• compliance with minimum distance separation formulae;
• mitigation of impacts on agriculture; and
• the phased progression of urban development.

8The Tribunal finds that the inclusion of the words “shall consider” in the policy is key, setting a relatively low bar for a municipality to permit a Settlement Area Boundary expansion. The Tribunal finds that the term “shall consider” falls on the ‘standards of adherence’ spectrum at approximately the same point as “shall have regard to” found at s. 2 of the Act – which the Tribunal has repeatedly found “command[s] a minimal degree of adherence but nevertheless impos[es] an obligation to at least scrutinize and carefully consider” (see: 1455136 Ontario Ltd. v Waterloo (Region), 2023 CanLII 50968 (ON LT) at paras. 22-26).

9Two of the present settlements, Tridon and Watermark, contemplate proposed Settlement Area Boundary expansions.

10The Farhi and Sifton settlements involve the redesignation of their lands from a municipally-designated “Settlement Employment” area to a mix of uses including residential. This circumstance led to submissions from the parties concerning another change in the PPS 2024; specifically, the definition of “Employment Area” and associated requirements to remove such lands from this designation. Under the PPS 2024, lands that are designated employment in an official plan that do not meet the definition of Employment Area under the PPS 2024 no longer require a comprehensive review or land needs assessment to permit the removal of those lands from the employment designation (i.e., to redesignate as residential). Further, where lands do qualify under the PPS 2024 definition, requirements for removal are listed at Policy 2.8.2.5., which still does not require the same onerous process under the previous PPS. The Tribunal finds that, once again, these changes provide a clear intention to make it easier to change planning instruments to support the provision of more housing.

11The PPS 2024 defines Employment Area as:

… those areas designated in an official plan for clusters of business and economic activities including manufacturing, research and development in connection with manufacturing, warehousing, goods movement, associated retail and office, and ancillary facilities. An employment area also includes areas of land described by subsection 1(1.1) of the Planning Act. Uses that are excluded from employment areas are institutional and commercial, including retail and office not associated with the primary employment use listed above.

This definition is very similar to that of “area of employment” found at s. 1(1) of the Act.

12For lands that meet this definition, Policy 2.8.2.5 of the PPS 2024 gives municipalities the capability to remove such lands from an employment area where it is demonstrated that:

• there is an identified need for the removal, and the land is not required for employment area uses over the long term;
• the proposed uses do not impact the overall viability of the employment area;
• existing or planned infrastructure are available to accommodate the proposed use; and
• the Municipality has sufficient employment land to accommodate employment growth.

13While the Fahri and Sifton settlements involve lands that are currently designated “Settlement Employment” areas in the Official Plan, the moving Parties emphasize that this municipal-designation does not mean that the lands necessarily meet the definition of “Employment Area” under the PPS 2024 or “area of employment” under the Act. As it stands, it is their position that the lands do not meet these definitions and the redesignation of these lands from “Settlement Employment” therefore does not trigger the requirements of policy 2.8.2.5. Consequently, they submit that redesignation of these lands can be done at the discretion of the municipality as a matter of good planning.

Sifton’s Position

14Sifton claims that there are three reasons why a “quantitative land need” must be determined prior to approval of the proposed settlements:

1. policy 2.1.3 of the PPS 2024 requires it;
2. PPS 2024 policy criteria for boundary expansions (policy 2.3.2.1) and employment conversions (policy 2.8.2.5) each speak to a “need” requirement “as informed by provincial guidance”; and
3. (in Sifton’s words) “the Settlements involve the introduction of new residential land beyond that which was originally approved by County Council through Middlesex Centre OPA 59. The amount of land required cannot be approved based on the land needs assessment in support of OPA 59, because that land quantity was too low.”

15The Tribunal does not accept Sifton’s position any of these points for the following reasons.

16Regarding the first point, policy 2.1.3 of the PPS 2024 states:

At the time of creating a new official plan and each official plan update, sufficient land shall be made available to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of land uses to meet projected needs for a time horizon of at least 20 years, but not more than 30 years, informed by provincial guidance.

17The Tribunal acknowledges that approval of OPA 59 will need to be consistent with this section, including the requirement to make sufficient land available for the projected needs and time horizon. However, PPS 2024 also allows for incremental boundary expansions pursuant to Policy 2.3.2.1 apart from the municipality’s obligation to provide the land necessary under Policy 2.1.3. The Tribunal finds that these are two distinct sections, intentionally separate to provide municipalities with the necessary flexibility to adjust settlement boundaries apart from the Official Plan update process.

18The Tribunal has also considered Sifton’s argument that:

While PPS 2024 now permits private applications for conversions and expansions, there are no such private applications before the Tribunal. These particular expansions/conversions are being advanced as part of an official plan update. Therefore, the Official Plan review policies (i.e., policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.3) apply alongside the specific policy criteria for expansions/conversions (i.e. policies 2.3.2.1 and 2.8.2.5).

19The Tribunal accepts that there are no private applications for boundary expansions currently before it; however, the Tribunal also finds that this does not stop it from considering the proposed settlements apart from a land needs assessment that may be required as part of the residual OPA 59 appeal. Firstly, the appeal presents a unique situation whereby the private application process was not available at the time when the appeals were filed, so the Tribunal finds that the situation calls for accommodation to reach an appropriate resolution. The Tribunal finds that this approach remains consistent with the PPS given the enactment of Policy 2.3.2.1, and it further satisfies Tribunal’s overarching responsibility to deal with matters in an expeditious and cost-effective manner.

20Having found that Policy 2.1.3 and 2.3.2.1 are distinct and one is not paramount over the other, and upon allowing the necessary flexibility to deal with the special circumstances of the appeals insofar as the policies of the PPS 2024 dealing with boundary expansion fundamentally changed after the appeals were filed, the Tribunal finds no requirement to import the policy obligations of section 2.1.3 into a Policy 2.3.2.1 analysis.

21Turning to the second point, the Tribunal finds that policies 2.3.2.1 and 2.8.2.5 include the word “need”, but the words “as informed by provincial guidance” are simply not there. The latter language that is found in policy 2.1.1, which speaks to how planning authorities establish “population and employment growth forecasts”. The Tribunal finds no explicit connection between these sections which would result in the latter words being read into policies 2.3.2.1 or 2.8.2.5.

22Looking at the third point, Sifton contends that the land needs assessment that was done as part of OPA 59 must be updated in advance of approving the settlements. The Tribunal does not concur, given that the PPS 2024 no longer requires a Municipal Comprehensive Review to consider Settlement Area Boundary Expansions under Policy 2.3.2.1. While a land needs assessment might be required as part of a final approval of the appealed OPA 59, the Tribunal has already found that this does not necessarily impact the Tribunal’s authority to resolve the settlements under Policy 2.3.2.1.

23Overall, the Tribunal finds the language of polices 2.3.2.1 (boundary expansions) and 2.8.2.5 (employment conversions) to provide clear direction to resolve the present settlements. The Tribunal further finds that Sifton asks to read-in language and requirements into these sections that is not there. The Tribunal acknowledges that interpretation exercises include consideration of both the plain wording of the policies together with its broader context, but the Tribunal nevertheless finds that there are no express or implied requirements to determine a “quantitative land need” prior to approving the proposed settlements, or any Settlement Area boundary expansion under Policy 2.3.2.1. Further, the Tribunal finds the meaning and intent of the policies to be heavily informed by the stark changes made to the PPS 2024, insofar as the requirement for a Municipal Comprehensive Review process was removed. Clearly, the purpose of doing this was to make it easier to expand settlement area boundaries, be it through a comprehensive municipal-wide process or on an ad hoc case-by-case basis in accordance with policy 2.3.2.1. With this intent in mind, the Tribunal finds Sifton’s burdensome approach to be out of line with the goals and aims of the changes.

24Regarding Sifton’s claim that no party should be permitted to advance evidence or make an argument in the main hearing that there is insufficient land needed to accommodate Sifton’s or and other party’s appeals, as a matter of fairness, the Tribunal does not accept this argument either. Being the claimant of this argument, the onus is on Sifton to prove a lack of fairness.

25Sifton argues that approvals of the settlements could lead to unfairness if all of the available land needed for settlement areas is ‘used up’. However, at the same time, they argue that the land needs for the area is far greater than what the settlements represent. Sifton cannot have it both ways.

26While the Tribunal finds that it is not the moving Parties’ responsibility to prove that there will be enough land available to accommodate other Parties’ requests (to be included within a Settlement Area Boundary expansion), their evidence and submissions nevertheless demonstrate that the land area needed to accommodate the settlements is minor and does not suggest that it will exhaust the supply needed for the prescribed time horizon. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that Sifton has failed to prove a likelihood of unfairness resulting from an approval of the settlements – certainly not to a degree to justify the extraordinary step of making a pre-emptive ruling to limit evidence and submissions of a future hearing.

27Having come to these findings, the Tribunal will consider the settlements according to the analytical framework proposed by the moving Parties. Evidence in support of the proposed settlements was provided by Stephanie Bergman, called by the municipalities and duly qualified as an expert in Land Use Planning. For clarity, Sifton did not make comprehensive submissions about the proposed settlements within this framework – its submissions were almost entirely focused on arguing that one of the two findings noted at para. 2 above must accompany any approval of the settlements. Consequently, the following findings are based almost entirely on the submissions and evidence provided by the municipalities.

Watermark Settlement

28The Watermark Settlement proposes to designate the Watermark Land ‘Medium Density Residential’ and include this parcel in the Settlement Area Boundary. The Watermark Land is currently a vacant parcel that is 1.55 ha (3.8 acres) in area, fronts along Glendon Drive and situated at the westerly edge of the Komoka-Kilworth Urban Settlement Area, abutting the Tridon Land.

29Ms. Bergman confirmed that Watermark is seeking to have its land included in the Komoka-Kilworth Urban Settlement Area Boundary for the purposes of medium-density development, proposing a 66-unit townhouse development. Municipal infrastructure, water and sanitary services are available to accommodate the development, being situated approximately 300 metres to the east. The extension of the municipal infrastructure to the Watermark Land has been identified in the Middlesex Centre Servicing Master Plan.

30The Watermark Land has historically been designated for Commercial uses in the Komoka-Kilworth Urban Settlement Areas and Secondary Plan.

31Ms. Bergman opined that the proposed redesignation and inclusion of the Watermark Land in the Komoka-Kilworth Urban Settlement Area Boundary has regard for matters of provincial interest as set out in section 2 of the Act, by:

• efficiently using municipal water and wastewater systems that have been planned to service these lands (section 2(f));
• providing a range of housing types and affordable forms of housing given the proposal for a 66-unit townhouse development on these lands (section 2(j));
• not placing a financial or economic burden on the Municipality, County or Province (section 2(l));
• constituting a logical expansion taking into consideration the availability of services, existing land uses and its location along a major arterial road as well as its location west of the existing Komoka-Kilworth Urban Settlement Area Boundary and forming a part of the gateway into the Komoka community (section 2(p)); and
• including human-scale design elements orienting units inward to connect residents and active frontages along Glendon Drive to identify an entrance into the community (section 2(r)).

32Ms. Bergman further opined that the Watermark Settlement is consistent with the PPS 2024, because:

• the proposed development increases housing stock in the form of townhouse units contributing to the mix of housing options in the Municipality (Policy 2.1.6);
• the medium density development of the Watermark Land allows for the intensification of an underused site providing more diversity and housing type options available to the community. The proposed Medium Density efficiently utilizes the planned infrastructure along Glendon Drive (Policy 2.2); and
• a municipal comprehensive review is no longer required in order to expand or alter the boundaries of a settlement area (Policy 2.3.2.1).
• it represents an efficient and coordinated use of planned infrastructure with stormwater management being addressed through the design stage of development (Policy 3.6).

33In confirming adherence to policy 2.3.2.1 of the PPS 2024, Ms. Bergman testified that consideration of the following criteria has been adequate:

• the extended planning horizon, the requirement to utilize the Ministry of Finance population projections and the 2025 Draft County Growth Management Study, all of which demonstrates a need to designate and plan for additional land to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of land uses. The addition of the Watermark Land is minor as compared to the overall need for residential land;
• There is sufficient capacity available in the existing water and wastewater system to service the Watermark Land;
• The Watermark Land does not include speciality crop areas;
• The Watermark Land is not currently farmed and not a suitable size for agricultural uses;
• The closest livestock barn to the Watermark Land is 760 metres away, complying with minimum distance separation formulae;
• There are no impacts on any agricultural lands or operations as a result of the proposed development; and
• The inclusion of the Watermark Land into the Komoka-Kilworth Urban Settlement Area represents a logical extension of the existing Komoka-Kilworth Settlement Area Boundary and there is no ‘leap-frogging’ of development.

34Looking at the County Official Plan (“County OP”), Ms. Bergman testified that it directs a significant portion of the County’s future growth to settlement areas to ensure the efficient use of water and sewage services. The Komoka-Kilworth Urban Settlement Area is identified within the County OP to be the focus of future population growth. She opined that the proposed expansion of the Komoka-Kilworth Urban Settlement Area Boundary to include the Watermark Land is a minor expansion of the Boundary and is supported by the County’s Growth Management Hierarchy and housing policies.

35Adherence to the considerations listed at policy 2.3.2.1 of the PPS 2024 were not fundamentally challenged by Sifton, and the Tribunal did not receive evidence to the contrary. The Tribunal accepts Ms. Bergman’s evidence and similarly finds that the Watermark Settlement supports the provision of local housing options through the efficient use of land and infrastructure and avoids any adverse impacts on agricultural, employment, and natural heritage areas. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that the proposed change in land use designation to “Medium Density Residential” and inclusion of the Watermark Land in the Komoka-Kilworth Urban Settlement Area is appropriate, has regard for matters of provincial interest, is consistent with the PPS 2024 pursuant to s. 3(5) of the Act, including policy 2.3.1.1., conforms to the County OP in accordance with s. 17(34.1) of the Act, and has the proper regard to the decision of the municipality to support the settlement pursuant to s. 2.1 of the Act. The Tribunal therefore grants the relief being sought through the Watermark Settlement.

Tridon Settlement

36The Tridon Land is approximately 4.8 ha (12 acres) in size, irregularly shaped, fronts along Glendon Drive, and abuts the Watermark Land along the westerly property line. The Tridon Land is currently designated Agricultural and Natural Heritage, but it is surrounded by existing and future urban land uses.

37Similar to the Watermark Settlement, the Tridon Settlement proposes to designate the Tridon Land ‘Medium Density Residential’ and include it in the Komoka-Kilworth Urban Settlement Area; however, subject to a new SPA 45. It is adjacent to the existing Komoka-Kilworth Urban Settlement Area, abuts the Watermark Land, and similarly has access to the planned water and wastewater infrastructure that is situated along Glendon Drive.

38Ms. Bergman testified that the Tridon Settlement has regard for matters of provincial interest as set out in section 2 of the Act in the same way as the Watermark Settlement. She also opined that it is consistent with the PPS 2024 because:

• it results in an increase of medium density housing stock to provide a mix of housing options (Policy 2.1.6);
• it represents an intensification of an underused site and provides much-needed housing options for the changing demographics and diverse needs of Middlesex Centre where the housing stock is currently dominated by single detached dwellings (Policy 2.2); and
• it represents an efficient and coordinated use of planned infrastructure with stormwater management being addressed through the design stage of development (Policy 3.6).

39Turning to the criteria to be considered under policy 2.3.1.1 of the PPS 2024, Ms. Bergman testified that it has been satisfied, insofar as:

• the 2025 Draft Growth Study demonstrates a need to designate and plan for additional land to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of land uses. The 4.8 ha (twelve acres; 2 acres of which is proposed to be used for commercial uses and a portion being undevelopable as it is natural heritage) is a relatively minor area;
• sufficient municipal water and wastewater capacity exists;
• the limited size and constraints of the Tridon Land limits any viable agricultural use, is considered a low priority for agricultural uses, and is not currently being farmed;
• the proposed development complies with minimum distance separation formulae and it does not otherwise impact the agricultural system; and
• the Tridon Land and the lands immediately to the east (being the Watermark Land) represent a logical extension of the existing Komoka-Kilworth Urban Settlement Area Boundary and there is no “leap-frogging” of development.

40Ms. Bergman further testified that the proposed expansion of the Komoka-Kilworth Urban Settlement Area Boundary to include the Tridon Land is supported by the County’s Growth Management Hierarchy and housing policies.

41Again, adherence to the considerations listed at policy 2.3.2.1 of the PPS 2024 was not fundamentally challenged by Sifton, and the Tribunal did not receive evidence to the contrary. The Tribunal accepts Ms. Bergman’s evidence and similarly finds that the Tridon Settlement supports the provision of local housing options through the efficient use of land and infrastructure and avoids any adverse impacts on agricultural, employment, and natural heritage areas.

42Consequently, the Tribunal finds that the proposed change in land use designation and inclusion of the Tridon Land in the Komoka-Kilworth Urban Settlement Area subject to SPA 45 is appropriate, has regard for matters of provincial interest, is consistent with the PPS 2024 pursuant to s. 3(5) of the Act, including policy 2.3.1.1., conforms to the County OP in accordance with s. 17(34.1) of the Act, and has the proper regard to the decision of the municipality to support the settlement pursuant to s. 2.1 of the Act. The Tribunal therefore grants the relief being sought through the Tridon Settlement.

Farhi Farming Corporation (“Farhi Settlement”)

43The Farhi Settlement proposes to change the existing Settlement Employment designation of the Farhi Land to Residential, Medium Density Residential, and (for a portion of the land fronting along Glendon Drive) Settlement Commercial.

44The Farhi Land is located on the north side of Glendon Drive, just west of Komoka Road and is approximately 32.83 ha (81 acres) in area. It is surrounded by stormwater and residential uses to the east, Komoka Creek and natural heritage designated lands to the west, commercial, residential and natural heritage designated uses to the south, and hazard lands / stormwater uses to the north.

45The Farhi Land is currently designated Settlement Employment and is located within the existing Komoka-Kilworth Urban Settlement Area Boundary. The Farhi Land is zoned Restricted Agricultural (A2) by the Municipality’s Zoning By-law 2005-005, which limits intensive agricultural uses that are not desirable in proximity to the village /urban areas.

46The moving Parties contend that the Farhi Land does not meet the definition of “Employment Area” under the PPS 2024 (or “area of employment” under the Act) and consequently is not subject to the employment land removal policies set out in Policy 2.8.2.5. In support of their position, the moving Parties highlight the fact that the Farhi Land is surrounded on all four sides by non-employment land use designations and natural features and is not contiguous with any other employment lands. Consequently, they contend that it does not form part of a “cluster[s] of business and economic activities”, as Employment Area is defined in the PPS. Additionally, because the municipality’s Settlement Employment designation specifically permits office park uses, including office buildings which are expressly excluded from the definition of Employment Area in the PPS, they submit that the Farhi Land is not considered to be an Employment Area and therefore not subject to the removal policy at s. 2.8.2.5 of the PPS.

47Alternatively, the moving Parties submit that it makes no difference if the Farhi Land is considered an Employment Area, because removal of it from its current designation is nevertheless supported by Policy 2.8.2.5. Given this alternative position, the Tribunal elects to examine whether it passes the Policy 2.8.2.5 test first, and then consider whether it is necessary to determine if it meets the Employment Area definition.

48Ms. Bergman testified that, while she does not believe that the Farhi Land meets the definition of Employment Area, the proposed redesignation of it to residential uses with a small portion being commercial is nevertheless consistent with Policy 2.8.2.5 of the PPS 2024 because:

• the need for the removal is demonstrated;
• the land is not required for employment area uses over the long term;
• the proposed uses do not impact the overall viability of the surrounding employment area;
• existing or planned infrastructure are available to accommodate the proposed uses; and
• the Municipality has sufficient employment land to accommodate employment growth.

49She went on to testify that the 2025 Growth Management Study demonstrates a need to designate and plan for additional land to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of land uses in the area, and the 2022 OPA 59 Watson Study also notes a surplus of employment lands in the Komoka-Kilworth Urban Settlement Area.

50Furthermore, because the Farhi Land is surrounding on all sides by non-employment land uses and any change in designation has no impact on the overall viability of the other employment lands in the area, the redesignation will have no impact on other employment lands nor the overall employment land objectives of the Municipality. Additionally, municipal infrastructure is readily available along the Glendon Drive corridor for the new proposed residential uses, and there are other, more strategic lands designated within OPA 59 for employment purposes. Ms. Bergman ultimately opined that the redesignation of the Farhi Land is appropriate considering all of the factors concerning the location and context of the land.

51Adherence to the requirements listed at policy 2.8.2.5 of the PPS 2024 were not fundamentally challenged by Sifton, and the Tribunal did not receive evidence to the contrary. The Tribunal finds that the requirements of policy 2.8.2.5 have been satisfied for the same reasons stated above by Ms. Bergman. Upon finding that the requirements of policy 2.8.2.5 have been met, the Tribunal finds no need to definitively determine whether the lands meet the definition of Employment Area.

52Apart from policy 2.8.2.5 of the PPS 2024, Ms. Bergman further opined that the proposed redesignation of the Farhi Land from Settlement Employment to a mix of residential and commercial uses is consistent with Policy 2.1.6 of the PPS 2024 because it results in an increase in the Municipality’s housing stock and contributes to an improved mix of housing options within the Municipality.

53Turning to the County OP, Ms. Bergman testified that the designation of the Farhi Land to a mix of residential with a section of commercial along Glendon Drive conforms to it because:

• the lands are not required for employment purposes over the long-term;
• the change in designation does not impact the viability of an employment area;
• infrastructure is available to accommodate the proposed uses;
• there are non-employment uses surrounding the property on all sides;
• there are no land use compatibility issues;
• it is consistent with the County’s and Municipality’s objectives;
• the property provides limited market choice for employment uses due to its size; and
• there is no potential for future expansion of existing or neighbouring employment lands.

54Again, Sifton did not challenge the balance of Ms. Bergman’s evidence. The Tribunal accepts the remainder of her evidence and similarly finds that the Farhi Settlement has regard for matters of provincial interest listed at s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the PPS pursuant to s. 3(5) of the Act, and conforms with the County OP in accordance with s. 17(34.1) of the Act by contributing to the supply and mix of local housing options without negatively impacting provisions for employment within the municipality. The Tribunal also finds that the approval of the settlement demonstrates proper regard to the decision of the Municipality pursuant to s. 2.1 of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal grants the relief being sought through the Farhi Settlement.

Sifton Properties Limited (“Sifton Settlement”)

55The Sifton Land is located in the community of Ilderton, is irregularly shaped, is approximately 19 ha (46 acres), vacant and currently being used for agricultural purposes. It is currently designated Settlement Employment on Schedule A-1 Ilderton Settlement Area and is not situated within the Strategic Employment Boundary.

56Ms. Bergman testified that the Watson 2022 Growth Management Study recommended that the Sifton Land be redesignated to a residential use based on its location adjacent to residential uses and the land’s otherwise inappropriateness to serve as a successful Settlement Employment Area due to its physical attributes. She further opined that the designation of the Sifton Land for residential purposes represents the natural extension of the adjacent Timberwalk Subdivision via an extension of Songbird Lane.

57Ms. Bergman also opined that the designation of the Sifton Land to residential uses has regard to matters of provincial interest; specifically, the use of existing infrastructure and provision of a diverse range of housing in the Ilderton community.

58Similar to the Farhi Land, Ms. Bergman opined that the Sifton Land does not meet the definition of Employment Area under the PPS 2024 or the Act. However, she again testified that conversion of the lands to residential uses would satisfy policy 2.8.2.5 of the PPS 2024 regardless of whether it is considered an Employment Area. Her reasons are essentially the same as those provided with respect to the Farhi Land.

59The Tribunal accepts this evidence for the same reasons and in the same way as it considered the Farhi settlement. Again, as a result, the Tribunal finds no need to definitively determine whether the lands meet the definition of Employment Area.

60Ms. Bergman further opined that conversion of the Sifton Land for residential uses facilitates an increase in housing stock and appropriately contributes to a mix of housing options, is resultingly consistent with Policy 2.1.6 of the PPS 2024, and it utilizes existing infrastructure situated within the Urban Area of Ilderton, being consistent with Policy 2.2.

61Similar to the Farhi Settlement findings, the Tribunal accepts Ms. Bergman’s evidence and also finds that the Sifton Settlement has regard for matters of provincial interest listed at s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the PPS 2024 pursuant to s. 3(5) of the Act, and conforms with the County OP in accordance with s. 17(34.1) of the Act by contributing to the supply and mix of local housing options without negatively impacting provisions for employment within the Municipality. Again, the Tribunal also finds that the approval of the settlement demonstrates proper regard to the decision of the municipality pursuant to s. 2.1 of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal grants the relief being sought through the Sifton Settlement.

ORDER

62THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT in accordance with subsection 17(50) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, that the appeals be allowed as follows:

1. For those lands identified as the Watermark Glendon Land, that: a. the Municipality of Middlesex Centre’s Official Plan, Schedule ‘A-2’ – Komoka-Kilworth Urban Settlement Area and Secondary Plan be amended by changing the designation of the lands legally described as Part of Lot 3, Concession 1, Lobo Township, designated as Parts 1 & 2 on Plan 33R18646 and municipally identified as 9763 Glendon Drive, in the Municipality of Middlesex Centre, in the County of Middlesex, Province of Ontario, being the “Watermark Glendon Land” as identified on Attachment 1 to this Order to the ‘Medium Density Residential’ designation; and b. amending the Settlement Area Boundary to include the Watermark Glendon Land as shown on Attachment 1;

2. For those lands identified as the Tridon Properties Ltd. Lands that: a. the Municipality of Middlesex Centre’s Official Plan is amended to incorporate a site-specific policy, being Site Specific Policy 45, as set out on Attachment 2 to this Order; and b. the Municipality of Middlesex Centre’s Official Plan, Schedule ‘A-2’ – Komoka-Kilworth Urban Settlement Area and Secondary Plan be amended by changing the designation of the lands legally described as CON 1 PT LOT 3 RP 33R7988, PARTS 1 & 2, and municipally identified as 9749 and 9757 Glendon Drive in the Municipality of Middlesex Centre, in the County of Middlesex, Province of Ontario, being the “Tridon Properties Ltd. Lands” as identified on Attachment 2 to this Order to ‘Medium Density Residential Special Policy Area 45 (SPA#45)’ designation; c. the Settlement Area Boundary be amended to include the Tridon Properties Ltd. Lands as shown on Attachment 2.

3. For those lands identified as the East Farhi Lands, that the Municipality of Middlesex Centre’s Official Plan, Schedule ‘A-2’ – Komoka-Kilworth Urban Settlement Area and Secondary Plan be amended by changing the designation of the lands legally described as PT LT 3, CON 2, AS IN 940498, EXCEPT PT 7, MRD98, MIDDLESEX CENTRE, TWP/LOBO TWP MUNICIPALITY OF MIDDLESEX CENTRE in the Municipality of Middlesex Centre, in the County of Middlesex, Province of Ontario, being the “East Farhi Lands” as identified on Attachment 3 to this Order, from the Settlement Employment designation to the Residential designation and Medium Density Residential designation and the Settlement Commercial designation for a portion of the lands fronting along Glendon Drive which shall not exceed a total of 2 hectares in area and subject to SPA#29; and

4. For those lands identified as the Sifton Properties Ltd. Land that the Municipality of Middlesex Centre’s Official Plan, Schedule ‘A-1’ – Ilderton Urban Settlement Area be amended by changing the designation of the lands legally described as LONDON CON 10 PT LOT 25 RP33R19510 PARTS 1 AND 2 in the Municipality of Middlesex Centre, in the County of Middlesex, Province of Ontario, being the “Sifton Properties Ltd. Land” as identified on Attachment 4 to this Order from the Settlement Employment designation to the Residential designation.

“K.R. Andrews”

K.R. ANDREWS MEMBER

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.

Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4