Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: May 11, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000583

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Appellant: Pegasus Development Corporation o/a Olympia Home

Subject: Zoning By-law

Description: To enact the Town-wide Development Permit By-law

Reference Number: By-law 53-2025

Property Address: Town-wide

Municipality/UT: Carleton Place / Lanark

OLT Case No: OLT-25-000583

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000583

OLT Case Name: Olympia Home v. Carleton Place (Town)

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

Request by: Pegasus Development Corporation

Motion for: Directions

Heard: In Writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Pegasus Development Corporation o/a Olympia Home	C. McCarthy, R. Aburto
Town of Carleton Place	E. Blanchard
Inverness Homes Inc.	M. Cicchino, M. Polowin

DECISION DELIVERED BY S. DEBOER AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal was a Motion brought forth by Pegasus Development Corporation (“Appellant” or “Pegasus”) as per Rule 10 of the Ontario Land Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, requesting that procedural dates be modified and certain issues be removed and revised from the previously agreed upon Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List (“IL”), as per s. 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act.

BACKGROUND

2The Appellant had filed an appeal due to the Town of Carleton Place’s (“Town”) approval of a new Town-wide Development Permit By-law (“DBL”). The purpose of the DBL would provide development requirements, provisions, and standards that the Town would require to be met before any development approvals could be issued.

3The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) on November 20, 2025. The results of the CMC included the approval of Inverness Homes Inc. (“Inverness”) as a Party to the appeal, the approval of the PO and IL, and the scheduling of a hearing of the appeal.

4Since the time of the CMC, the Parties have held discussions concerning the issues and witness lists that had been exchanged. As a result of these discussions, certain issues have been resolved through an Agreed Statement of Facts (“AOS”) and the Appellant advances that these issues should be removed from the IL.

MOTION HEARING

5The following were marked as Exhibits to the Motion Hearing:

Exhibit 1 – Affidavit of Service of Notice by Amanda Russo, dated April 9, 2026;

Exhibit 2 – Motion Record of the Appellant comprising 71 pages;

Exhibit 3 – Appellant’s Book of Authorities comprising 12 pages.

6The purpose of the Motion was requesting that the Tribunal remove certain issues from the IL as the Appellant and the Town have come to an agreement on these issues. As these issues are no longer going to be contested at the hearing, it was the request of the Appellant, with consent from the Town, that these issues be removed from the IL and the remaining dates on the PO be revised to reflect the removal of items that will not be issues in the hearing and allow an appropriate amount of time for the preparation of the witness statements on the remaining issues.

7The Tribunal notes that the Appellant’s Motion also requests the addition of an issue pertaining to a specific policy, of which, the other parts of this policy are still in contention and covered by the IL.

8In the Appellant’s Record of Motion, the Appellant contends that the Tribunal has the authority to govern its proceedings in a manner that will allow for a fair, just, expeditious and cost-effective process of resolving the issues before it.

9The Appellant submitted that s. 9 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, provides that:

The Tribunal has authority to make orders or give directions as may be necessary or incidental to the exercise of the powers conferred on the Tribunal under this or any other Act.

10Section 12 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, states that:

The Tribunal shall, in respect of each proceeding, 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.

11The Appellant further submitted that under the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is referenced on many occasions such as under Rule 1.6 that the Tribunal has the authority to make procedural directions:

The Tribunal may grant all necessary exceptions from these Rules or from any procedural order or grant other relief as it considers necessary and appropriate, to ensure that the real questions in issue are determined in a fair, just, expeditious and cost-effective manner.

12The Appellant contended that the PO itself contemplates the Tribunal’s discretion to make amendments to the PO and IL:

The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own motion.

13It was the Appellant’s position that the Tribunal can and should exercise its authority to grant the requested relief as this request will still allow for a fair, just, expeditious and cost-effective process to occur and allow for the Tribunal to focus on the issues that remain in dispute before it.

14The Appellant stated that the adding of the issue concerning provision 4.2.3.5 of the DBL does not introduce any new issues that had been outlined in the previous PO. This issue is a sub-issue to the issue concerning provision 4.2.3 and therefore is naturally relevant to the Appellant’s concerns and should be added to the IL. The adding of this issue will not cause any delay or prejudice to the Parties for the upcoming hearing event and would allow the Appellant to fully advance its concerns with this issue.

15As demonstrated in the case of Jannock Properties Ltd. v. Mississauga (City), 2003 CarswellOnt 8030, the Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”) (a previous version of the OLT), the OMB stated that:

The Board has the authority to allow new issues to be added to the proceedings if it is satisfied that it is in the public interest to include them, even after a Procedural Order has been established and the hearing has started. New issues can be introduced provided that all of the parties are given a fair and sufficient opportunity to consider the new issues and respond to them. Just as the Board can add new issues to the hearing, so too can the Board remove issues from the issues list.

16It was the Appellant’s position that the removal of issues and the addition of one issue further scopes the remaining issues before the Tribunal, and bringing this Motion early in the hearing process has provided the other Parties with ample opportunity to respond to the request. The Appellant continued with its argument that the addition of the issue concerning provision 4.2.3.5 is in the public interest to ensure all the provisions of the DBL are consistent and conform with the relevant planning instruments.

17The Appellant argued that there would be no prejudice to the other parties from the proposed amendments to the IL, and these proposed amendments are in the public interest.

18Concerning Inverness, the Non-Appellant Party to the proceedings, it was the Appellant’s position that as per Rule 8.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure:

A party to a proceeding before the Tribunal which arises under any of subsections 17(24) or (36), 34(19), 37(17), 42(4.9) or 51(39) of the Planning Act or section 14 of the Development Charges Act who is not an appellant of the municipal decision or enactment may not raise or introduce a new issue in the proceeding. The non-appellant party may only participate in these appeals of municipal decisions by sheltering under an issue raised in an appeal by an appellant party and may participate fully in the proceeding to the extent that the issue remains in dispute (Emphasis added).

19The Appellant argued that in Caledon Residences Inc. v. Ontario Land Tribunal, 2025 ONSC 6546 the Division Court dismissed a Non-Appellant Party’s application for leave due to the Appellant and the approval authority settling an issue prior to that issue being heard by the Tribunal. The Non-Appellant Party sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision, and the Court dismissed the application as the party had to shelter under the Appellant’s issues and since that issue was resolved, that issue could no longer be argued before the Tribunal. The Court’s opinion on the matter was that the Non-Appellant party takes a certain risk that issues could be resolved not to their satisfaction as a Non-Appellant Party.

20The Appellant argued through its Motion materials that the request to remove the issues that have been settled and adding the one issue will only serve to refine the hearing process and focus on the remaining issues, while providing for a fair, just, expeditious and cost-effective hearing to still occur.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

21The Tribunal notes that the only Motion materials received were from the Appellant on consent with the Town. Inverness, as the Non-Appellant Party, did not file any materials in response to the Motion.

22The Tribunal agrees with the Appellant and finds that the Tribunal has the authority to make or give orders as it deems necessary as per section 9 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021. The Tribunal further finds that it has the authority to make the most fair, just and expeditious resolution to the merits of the proceedings as per section 12(2) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021. Further, the Tribunal agrees with the Appellant and finds that Rule 1.6 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure gives the Tribunal the discretion to make procedural directions it finds will help it make a fair, just, expeditious and cost-effective hearing process occur.

23The Tribunal finds that the request made in the Motion pertaining to the removal of issues is appropriate and should be approved as requested. As for the addition of the requested issue, the Tribunal finds that this request is a sub-issue that does not introduce a new topic or new issue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal finds that the addition of this issue is connected to the rest of the issue itself and in fact, may help the Tribunal in making a final determination on the rest of the sub-issues in this matter. As such, the Tribunal finds that the addition of this specific issue is appropriate and will be helpful to the Tribunal in any of its final determinations on the Appeal.

24The Tribunal further finds that the removal of the requested issues and the addition of the one issue will not cause any prejudice to any of the Parties with regards to the proposed updated Procedural Order and Issues List.

25The requested modifications to the dates as presented in the Motion materials are appropriate and should be approved as presented.

ORDER

26THE TRIBUNAL ORDER THAT the requested modifications to the Procedural Order and Issues List are approved and the Amended Procedural Order, with Issues List, is attached as Schedule 1 to this Order. The Tribunal Orders that the Amended Procedural Order and Issues List will govern the proceedings leading up to and including the next scheduled hearing event.

27This Tribunal Member is not seized but may be spoken to if further procedural issues arise, schedule permitting.

“S. deBoer”

S. DEBOER

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.

SCHEDULE 1

Amended Procedural Order

ISSUE DATE: CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000583

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER Sections 70.2 and 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13.

Applicant/Appellant: Pegasus Development Corporation

Subject: Appeal of By-law 53-2025

Property Address/Description: Town-wide

Municipality/Upper Tier: Town of Carleton Place, Lanark County

Municipal File No.: By-law 53-2025

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000583

OLT File No.: OLT-25-000583

OLT Case Name: Pegasus Development Corporation v. Town of Carleton Place

1. The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own motion.

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will begin on August 10, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., for a duration of 5 days.

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/442599157 Access Code: 442-599-157

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 5 days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible. The procedural order deadlines are generally found in Attachment 1.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 2 (see the sample procedural order for the meaning of these terms).

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 4 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

7. Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.

8. Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Order and in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified. A party who wishes to call a witness in reply to a witness identified in a witness list filed by another party must deliver a revised witness list within twenty (20) days of receiving a list of witnesses from the other party.

10. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before July 6, 2026 (35 days prior to the start of the hearing) and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before July 16, 2026 (25 days prior to the start of the hearing).

11. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 13 below. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.

12. Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence as in paragraph 13 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 13 below.

13. On or before May 15, 2026 (87 days prior to the start of the hearing), the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

14. On or before May 15, 2026 (87 days prior to the start of the hearing), a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

15. On or before July 23, 2026 (18 days prior to the start of the hearing), the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

16. On or before July 31, 2026 (10 days prior to the start of the hearing), the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

17. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence within forty-five (45) days after the evidence is received and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

18. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before July 29, 2026 (12 days prior to the start of the hearing).

19. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

20. A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal by August 3, 2026, at the latest (7 days before the hearing) that the written evidence is not part of their record.

21. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before August 3, 2026 (7 days prior to the start of the hearing) with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

22. All filings shall be submitted electronically and in hard copy. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by Rule 7 of the Tribunal’s Rules.

23. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

This Member is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE:

Name of Member:

Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

Attachment 1

Summary of Dates

DATE	EVENT
30 days from the date of issuance of this Order	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
20 days from the date of receipt of the relevant party’s witness list	Last date to submit a revised witness list
Friday, May 15, 2026 (87 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of witness statements and participant statements
Monday, July 6, 2026 (35 days prior to the start of the hearing)	Experts meeting prior to this date
Thursday, July 16, 2026 (25 days prior to hearing)	Agreed Statement of Facts and Issues
Thursday, July 23, 2026 (18 days prior to hearing)	Parties to advise Tribunal if any hearing dates are to be released from the hearing calendar (if any)
Wednesday, July 29, 2026 (12 days prior to hearing)	Finalize Joint Document Book
Friday, July 31, 2026 (10 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
Monday, August 3, 2026 (7 days prior to hearing)	Advise of any written evidence that is no longer part of the party’s record
Monday, August 3, 2026 (7 days prior to hearing)	File Preliminary Hearing Plan
August 10, 2026	Hearing commences

Attachment 2

List of Parties

	Counsel
1	Pegasus Development Corporation Roberto Aburto & Conor McCarthy Dentons Canada LLP Suite 1420, 99 Bank Street Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1H4 Email: roberto.aburto@dentons.com conor.mccarthy@dentons.com Tel: 613-288-2716
2	Inverness Homes Inc. Michelle Cicchino & Michael Polowin Gowling WLG Canada LLP Suite 2600, 160 Elgin Street Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1C3 Email: michelle.cicchino@gowlingwlg.com michael.polowin@gowlingwlg.com Tel: 613-786-0158
3	Town of Carleton Place Emma Blanchard Borden Ladner Gervais Suite 1300, 100 Queen Street Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1J9 Email: eblanchard@blg.com Tel: 613-369-4755

Attachment 3

ISSUES LIST

Note: The identification of an issue on this list does not mean that all parties agree that such an issue, or the manner in which it is expressed, is appropriate or relevant for the proper determination of the appeals. The extent of the appropriateness and/or relevance of the issue may be a matter of evidence and/or argument at the hearing. Any party may call or not call evidence on any issue.

1. What is the appropriate test on an appeal of a development permit by-law?

2. In adopting Sections 3.34 (setbacks for second storey balconies); 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 (PUDs as discretionary uses); 4.2.3.1, 4.2.3.2, 4.2.3.4, and 4.2.3.5 (Development Standards – Certain Housing Typologies) (collectively the “Contested Provisions”) of By-law 53-2025 (the “Development Permit By-law”), did Town Council have regard to matters of provincial interest enumerated in s. 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections:

a. 2(e),

b. 2(f),

c. 2(h),

d. 2(j); and,

e. 2(r)?

3. Are the Contested Provisions consistent with the following policies of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, as amended from time to time:

a. Chapter 1

b. 2.2.1;

c. 2.3.1;

d. 2.9.1; and,

e. 6.1.

4. Are the Contested Provisions consistent with the general intention and objectives of the Lanark County Sustainable Communities Official Plan (“SCOP”), specifically considering sections emphasizing efficient development patterns and affordable housing, and including:

a. Introduction

b. 2.1;

c. 2.3.1.5;

d. 2.6.2.4;

e. 8.2.5;

f. 8.2.9; and

g. Appendix 1 to the SCOP (Integrated Community Sustainability Plan)?

5. Are the Contested Provisions consistent with the general intention and objectives of the Town of Carleton Place Official Plan (March 31, 2025 consolidation), including:

a. 1.1.3

b. 2.0;

c. 2.1;

d. 2.2;

e. 2.4;

f. 3.4 (Introduction);

g. 3.4.1;

h. 3.4.3

i. 3.4.4.2;

j. 4.3.1.1;

k. 6.13.5;

l. 6.13.7; and

m. 6.20.1.

6. Do the Contested Provisions represent good land use planning?

Attachment 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Appellant

2. Inverness Homes Inc.

3. Town of Carleton Place

4. Reply of the Appellant

Attachment 5

PURPOSE OF THE PROCEDURAL ORDER AND MEANING OF TERMS

Meaning of terms used in the Procedural Order:

A party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. An unincorporated group cannot be a party, and it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorisation from the party.

NOTE that a person who wishes to become a party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

A participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.

A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.

Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

A witness statement is a short-written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which he or she will discuss; and a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons supporting their opinions and conclusions and (5) a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the participant’s position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submissions of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports or materials, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.

Additional Information

A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.

The order of examination of witnesses is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:

• direct examination by the party presenting the witness;
• direct examination by any party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;
• cross-examination by parties of opposite interest;
• re-examination by the party presenting the witness; or
• another order of examination mutually agreed among the parties or directed by the Tribunal.