Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: January 23, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000667 OLT-25-000679
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Elora Sands Development Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit a settlement area boundary expansion and redesignate the Subject Site for urban uses Reference Number: OP003-2025 Property Address: 6574 Gerrie Road and 7581 Nichol Road 15 Municipality/UT: Centre Wellington/Wellington OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000667 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000667 OLT Case Name: Elora Sands Development Inc. v. Centre Wellington (Township)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Elora Sands Development Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit a settlement area boundary expansion and redesignate the Subject Site for urban uses Reference Number: OP-2025-06 Property Address: 6574 Gerrie Road and 7581 Nichol Road 15 Municipality/UT: Centre Wellington/Wellington OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000679 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000679 OLT Case Name: Elora Sands Development Inc. v. Wellington (County)
Heard: December 2, 2025 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Elora Sands Development Inc. | Ira Kagan, Daniel Angelucci |
| Township of Centre Wellington | Peter Pickfield, Colin Leger |
| County of Wellington | David Bronskill, Cristin Hunt |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY YASNA FAGHANI ON DECEMBER 2, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This is the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) for the above-noted matter. Elora Sands Developments Inc. (the “Applicant”) has filed an appeal against the Township of Centre Wellington’s (“Township”) failure to make a decision regarding an application for an Official Plan Amendment “(“OPA”) pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Planning Act “(Township OPA”).
2The subject property consists of two adjoining properties located at 7581 Nichol Road 15 and 6574 Gerrie Road (collectively referred to as the “Subject Property”). In addition, the Applicant filed a concurrent OPA application, OLT-25-000679, regarding the County of Wellington’s failure to make a decision (“County OPA”) related to the Subject Property. The County adopted the urban expansion in the Official Plan in April 2025 and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing approved it on November 18, 2026 (“OPA 126”).
3The Applicant seeks to expand the urban boundary and redesignate the Subject Land for urban uses in order to accommodate future residential and community growth to the year 2051.
4There were no issues identified with the Affidavit of Service sworn by Christopher Drew dated November 14, 2025 (marked as Exhibit 1) as such, no further notice is required.
CONSOLIDATION REQUEST
5Counsel for the Applicant requested that the Township OPA and County OPA be consolidated. He submitted that these appeals are related to the same Subject Property asking for urban expansion at the Township and County level. Moving forward, one Hearing should address both appeals. There was no opposition to the request from Counsels from the Township or County. On consent of the parties, the Tribunal granted the request to consolidate the Township OPA and County OPA pursuant to Rule 16.2 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedures, as the issues are likely to be substantially the same and it would be duplicative and inefficient to have separate proceedings.
PARTY/PARTICIPANT STATUS REQUEST
6The following entities requested Party Status: Upper Grand District School Board (“School Board”), Tribute (Fergus Oaks Limited), Polocorp Inc. and Fergus South Inc., and Sobara/Tribute Brubacher Holdings Inc. At the outset, the School Board advised that it would like to change its Status Request from Party to Participant. Counsel for the School Board advised that at this stage his client would be content if it was granted Participant Status so that the Tribunal can incorporate the appropriate policies and requests into the OPA that address the needs for a school site. If the applications are granted, there would be a need for a school. Neither the Applicant Counsel’s nor Counsels for the County or Township opposed the School Board’s request. The Tribunal granted Participant Status to the School Board.
7With respect to the remaining entities requesting Party Status, all counsels agreed that it would be best to address Party Status at a future CMC. As explained by the Applicant’s counsel, the entities are landowners and have filed (or are in the process of) appeals against the Township and County for inclusion within the settlement area. Deferring the Party Status Requests to a future date will allow time for respective counsels to discuss common issues in all the various appeals and ensure that they are heard once. Also, as suggested by Counsel for the Applicant, discussions surrounding phasing of the Hearing can occur (for example common issues first followed by issues pertaining to other Parties). Additionally