Ontario Land Tribunal
Issue Date: May 19, 2026
Case No(s).: OLT-25-000754
Proceeding commenced under subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: UrbanLink Developments (Beamsville) Ltd. and UrbanLink Developments (5205 King) Ltd.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: To permit the development of two mixed-use residential buildings with commercial space
Reference Number: PLOPA-2025-0001
Property Address: 5205 King Street
Municipality/UT: Town of Lincoln
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000754
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000754
OLT Case Name: UrbanLink Developments (Beamsville) Ltd. et. al. v. Lincoln (Town)
Proceeding commenced under subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: UrbanLink Developments (Beamsville) Ltd. and UrbanLink Developments (5205 King) Ltd.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit the development of two mixed-use residential buildings with commercial space
Reference Number: PLZBA-2025-0001
Property Address: 5205 King Street
Municipality/UT: Township of Lincoln
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000753
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000754
Proceeding commenced under subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6
Request by: Beamsville Bench Winery Association
Request for: Request for Directions
Heard: In Writing
Appearances
| Parties | Counsel/Representative |
|---|---|
| UrbanLink Developments (Beamsville) Ltd. and UrbanLink Developments (5205 King) Ltd. | Denise Baker |
| Town of Lincoln | Tom Halinski |
| Beamsville Bench Winery Association | Marc Kemerer |
Decision Delivered by Bita M. Rajaee and Order of the Tribunal
Introduction
1This was a Motion brought by Beamsville Bench Wineries Association ("BBWA") before the Tribunal to seek Party status in this proceeding.
2UrbanLink Developments (Beamsville) Ltd. and UrbanLink Developments (5205 King) Ltd. ("Respondents") brought appeals pursuant to sections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act ("Act") against the failure of the Town of Lincoln ("Town") to make decisions within the statutory timeframes on an Official Plan Amendment ("OPA") and a Zoning By-law Amendment ("ZBA") pertaining to lands known as 5205 King Street in the Town ("Subject Property"). The Subject Property is currently designated and zoned for a mix of commercial and limited residential uses, as well as environmental conservation, with certain restrictions such as a maximum building height of 12.5 metres in the commercial zone. The purpose of the OPA and ZBA is to facilitate development of two mixed-use residential buildings, six and seven storeys tall, with 246 dwelling units, ground-floor retail space, indoor and outdoor amenity areas, and associated parking.
3A Case Management Conference ("CMC") took place on January 22, 2026, wherein it was confirmed that adequate Notice had been provided and no further Notice was required. Matthew Barkovich, Scott Hatch, and Ryan Conlin were granted Participant status. A Merit Hearing was scheduled for nine days, to commence on Monday, October 5, 2026 (with the Tribunal not sitting on October 12, 2026).
4At the CMC, BBWA sought Party status. The Respondents contested this request, and the Town took no position. This Motion was scheduled to allow the Tribunal to consider this request. Of note, at present, the Town is the only other Party involved in the appeal. Neither the Niagara Region nor the Niagara Escarpment Commission sought Party status.
Statutory Test
5The Tribunal has the power under the Act, namely sections 17(44.1)(44.2) and 34(24.1)(24.2), and its Rules of Practice and Procedure ("Rules"), namely Rule 8.2, to add a group, such as BBWA, as a Party to a proceeding if there are reasonable grounds to do so, provided that the person's presence is necessary to enable the Tribunal to adjudicate effectively and completely.
6Additionally, caselaw has provided the Tribunal with guidelines in determining when it is appropriate to add a Party. BBWA provided the often-cited case of 1137528 Ontario Ltd. v. Oakville (Town), [2010] O.M.B.D. No. 770 ("Oakville Case"), which set out the factors that can be considered when deciding whether to grant Party status. These include whether there is an existing appeal, whether the request serves the public interest, whether it would prejudice other Parties, whether the group has a direct interest in the appeals, whether it would avoid multiple hearings, and whether the group was involved earlier in the process.
7However, as the Respondents' Counsel submitted, Party status is not automatic. Prospective Parties must meet a two-step test outlined in Rule 8.2 of the Rules. First, they must meet the legal requirements set out in the Act. Second, the Tribunal must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to add them, including that their participation is necessary to help resolve the appeal effectively. The Tribunal also aims to avoid adding unnecessary Parties, since doing so can increase the time, cost, and complexity of a case. As a result, Party status is only warranted when the proposed Party can contribute something distinct, necessary, and not otherwise before the Tribunal (as outlined in the case of TRG (Cherokee) Holdings Inc. v. Gravenhurst (Town), 2024 CanLII 9768 (ON LT), provided by the Respondents).
Position of the Parties
8BBWA argues that it meets all the requirements under the Act, the Rules, and past caselaw to be granted Party status. There are clear and reasonable grounds for it being added as a Party and its input is necessary for the Tribunal to fully understand the issues. It has a direct interest in this matter, there is an active appeal, it participated in the earlier public process, and its involvement would support the public interest because it brings specialized knowledge and represents specific local concerns, with the Town supporting the inclusion of these interests at the Hearing. Its participation would not harm or delay the proceeding, as the Hearing is already scheduled, and the inclusion of BBWA would likely not change the length of the Hearing or result in a multiplicity of proceedings. The other Parties would not be prejudiced. By contrast, BBWA would be prejudiced if it is not added as a Party, since its members are directly affected by the proposed development. For these reasons, it asks the Tribunal to grant it Party status and approve its proposed list of issues.
9The Respondents argue that BBWA's request for Party status should be denied because it does not meet the legal requirements under the Act or the Rules. They say BBWA has not shown a direct interest in the proposed development, since its member wineries are not situated close enough to the Subject Property. They also argue that the issues raised by BBWA are either already being addressed by the Town or are not relevant to the Tribunal's Decision because they have no basis in provincial, regional, and/or local planning policy. As a result, BBWA would not add anything meaningful to the case and would only duplicate evidence and arguments, making the Hearing longer and more complex. In fact, BBWA's addition as a Party would unnecessarily lengthen the Hearing (Southwest Georgetown Landowners Group Inc. v. Halton Hills (Town), 2021 CarswellOnt 18381 ["Southwest Georgetown Case"], provided by the Respondents). They ask the Tribunal to dismiss the Party status request entirely, as BBWA's inclusion would not assist the Tribunal in the fair, efficient, and timely adjudication of these appeals, and would instead undermine the Tribunal's mandate by introducing duplication and unnecessary complexity. In the alternative, if Party status is granted, the Respondents ask the Tribunal to limit BBWA's involvement and remove certain issues from its proposed issues list. The Respondents suggest that BBWA should instead participate in a more limited role as a Participant.
10The Town advised the Tribunal by email as follows: "As noted at the CMC, the Town supports the request by the Beamsville Bench Winery Association for party status in this matter." It did not file any other materials with respect to this Motion.
Direct Interest and Participation in the Hearing
11An entity seeking Party status must show that it has direct interest in the appeal.
12BBWA submits that it has a direct interest in this Appeal because the proposed development could negatively affect its members' winery operations, specialty crops, and the Wine Route. It is an incorporated organization that represents seven wineries on the Beamsville Bench and has participated in past Ontario Municipal Board (this Tribunal's predecessor) and Niagara Escarpment Plan hearings (now addressed by this Tribunal). It aims to promote and protect the interests of local wineries, which are a key part of the Town's economy through agritourism that generates millions of dollars each year for local wineries and businesses. The vineyards produce specialty crops that are protected under provincial policy and are sensitive to nearby development. In response to the Respondents' concerns about distance and the proximity of these wineries to the Subject Property, BBWA submits that the relevant measure is the proximity of vineyard lands, not winery buildings. BBWA provided a map showing that distances from the boundaries of vineyard lands (where crops are grown) to the Subject Property are much less than suggested by the Respondents.
13The Respondents argue that BBWA should not be granted Party status because it has not shown a direct interest given that BBWA's interests are geographically remote from the Subject Property and are not shown to suffer a foreseeable impact by the proposal (Southwest Georgetown Case). BBWA did not clearly identify where its member wineries are located, how far they are from the Subject Property, or how they would be affected. Based on available information, the Respondents estimate that the seven wineries are between about 0.72 and 2.06 kilometres away from the Subject Property, which they argue is too far to establish a direct impact. There is no basis for wineries at these distances to have any direct interest in the Proposed Development. The Respondents point out that the Act, when considering notice for a public meeting for an official plan amendment or zoning by-law amendment, sets a distance of 120 metres from the subject lands as a reflection of those who have a direct interest in the applications (see: O. Reg 543/06 subsection 3(4)(a) and O. Reg 545/06 subsection 5(4)(b)). The seven wineries who are members of BBWA are located well beyond 120 metres from the Subject Property. As a result, the Respondents argue that BBWA's interests are too remote, it has not provided enough evidence of impact, and its request for Party status should be denied for not having direct interest.
14The Tribunal finds that BBWA does have direct interest in the proceeding. It indicates its concerns with the proposed development to be the blocking of air flow and the change in the character of the area caused by the proposed development. The Tribunal was persuaded by BBWA's evidence from land use planner Jay McGuffin, who explained in a sworn Affidavit that BBWA has retained an expert to provide evidence on how the proposed development will block air flow to surrounding specialty crop areas. Mr. McGuffin opined that this is an appropriate issue of impact to be adjudicated by the Tribunal. Moreover, BBWA also raised concerns with matters of visual impact, the appropriate location for intensification, impacts on drainage/hydrology and tourism, protecting agriculture specialty crop areas, and parking considerations. Bearing in mind the unique area the Subject Property is located in, as well as the potential impact it could have on wineries and the agritourism industry, the Tribunal finds that BBWA could be directly impacted by the proposed development, despite being located more than 120 metres from the Subject Property. Of note, based on the map provided, the lands surrounding the Subject Property seem to be agricultural and large parcels of land. Thus, a distance of larger than 120 metres would be appropriate to consider. Lastly, the distance for notice outlined in the Act is the minimum distance – not maximum – for which Notice must be provided. In this case, while BBWA properties may be located farther than 120 metres from the Subject Property, the Tribunal finds that they could still be impacted by the proposed development.
Submissions Before Council
15As outlined in sections 17(44.2)(1) and 34(24.2)(1) of the Act, a factor to consider when granting Party status is whether the entity made oral submissions at a public meeting or written submissions to Council.
16BBWA submits that it became involved in the development applications by meeting with Town Staff and submitting written concerns on July 2, 2025 for consideration at the upcoming public meeting. BBWA's submissions were part of the public record. After the Appeals were filed, it continued discussions with Town Staff and legal counsel to clarify its distinct issues for a future hearing. Lastly, BBWA notes that these Appeals arose from a failure by Council to make a decision, and therefore there has not been a Council meeting at which it could have made submissions.
17The Respondents do not raise issue with the level of BBWA's prior participation or claim that there was a lack of submissions made before Council. However, the Respondents' position is that simply making earlier submissions during the municipal process is not enough to justify granting Party status in this appeal.
18With respect to this branch of the test, the Tribunal finds that BBWA did participate prior to the commencement of the Appeals by way of comments it provided before the Appeals were filed. The Tribunal further finds that BBWA could not have made submissions before Council as no Council meeting regarding these applications took place. Thus, this part of the test has been met. The Tribunal does agree with the Respondents, however, that this alone is not sufficient to justify granting Party Status.
Necessity
19According to the Act, for an entity to be added as a Party, the Tribunal must be satisfied that "there are reasonable grounds to add the person or public body as a party" (sections 17(44.2)(2) and 34(24.2)(2)). The Tribunal's Rules further qualify this to indicate that an entity can be added as a Party "provided that the person's presence is necessary to enable the Tribunal to adjudicate effectively and completely" (Rule 8.2).
20BBWA submits that its full participation as a Party is necessary for the Tribunal to properly assess the impacts of the development. The development will have significant and adverse impacts on nearby agricultural lands and wineries, including impacts on the broader area context, environment, landscape, and conditions needed for grape growing. BBWA further submits that the Respondents take a purposely narrow view of the planning regime applicable to this matter, focusing only on the permissions for the Subject Property instead of the wider planning context. Mr. McGuffin, BBWA's land use planner, states that the Tribunal must consider the wider area, including nearby farms and wineries, and not just the Subject Property itself, as the development is being proposed near sensitive agricultural lands. If added as a Party, BBWA will bring this perspective before the Tribunal and allow it to make a fair and fully-informed decision. Moreover, BBWA submits that it will fully participate in the proceedings a Party, including: retaining legal counsel; providing an Issues List, which it did as part of this Motion; and hiring experts to present evidence in areas such as planning, air flow, protection of specialty crops, and tourism.
21BBWA further submits that, as the Appeals were filed due to the Town's failure to make a decision, there has not been a fulsome public process or review of the proposal, and its participation is needed to ensure all issues are properly considered. In response to the Respondents' objection that BBWA's concerns replicate those raised by the Town, BBWA points to its Issues List, saying that its concerns are mostly different from those raised by the Town. BBWA also notes that while there may be some overlap with the Town's issue, some overlap protects the interests of BBWA should the Town settle with the Respondents prior to the Hearing. Moreover, there is no caselaw or legislative provision to require no overlap at all. BBWA cites the case of Miller Paving Limited et al. v Muskoka (District), 2024 CanLII 43231 (ON LT), where Party status was granted to the cottager associations (at paragraph 24) even though those associations' issues were not distinct from the Township.
22Additionally, BBWA points out that the Town supports the Party status request, which means that granting the request would be in the public interest. Overall, BBWA argues that its unique perspective and evidence are important for a fair and complete review of the applications. BBWA is committed to participating responsibly, avoiding duplication, and helping the Tribunal understand the impacts of the development on tourism and the local economy. Thus, its participation in this Hearing is necessary.
23The Respondents argue that BBWA should not be granted Party status because its involvement would not assist the Tribunal in the fair, efficient, and timely adjudication of this matter. Many of the issues raised by BBWA overlap with those already being addressed by the Town. BBWA has not adequately explained what unique perspective it will bring on these particular issues that will not otherwise be addressed through the Town's issues and evidence. As the issues are the same, it can be expected that the allegedly pertinent BBWA issues can and will be fully canvassed by the Town. With respect to the issues that do not overlap, the Respondents argue that that they are not relevant to the Tribunal's Decision because they are not supported by planning policies, and therefore there is no basis for BBWA to argue that it will contribute something distinct and necessary to the proceeding. The Respondents relied on the affirmed Affidavit of David Falletta, a land use planner, wherein he went through the various issues raised by BBWA and opined that they were not applicable to the Subject Property (such as certain provisions of various policies like the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024) or did not apply to the proposed development (for example the Greenbelt Plan, the Niagara Escarpment Plan, certain policies in the Niagara Regional Official Plan, etc.).
24As a result, the Respondents argue, the Tribunal can rely on the Town to fully address the important matters without needing additional Parties. Overall, granting Party status to BBWA would create unnecessary duplication, expand the scope of the proceeding, and increase time and costs for everyone involved. Moreover, BBWA does not represent the broader public interest, as this role already belongs to the Town. BBWA is an umbrella organization with no direct stake in the Proposed Development. The Town, which is already a Party, has the statutory responsibility to represent and protect the public interest. BBWA represents the interests of its seven (7) member wineries only. BBWA will not offer any distinct expertise or perspective that would assist the Tribunal. Thus, BBWA should not be added as a Party, but could instead participate in a more limited role if needed.
25The Tribunal agrees that BBWA's participation is necessary. While the Respondents presented evidence from a planner that the issues raised by BBWA do not have valid planning merit, BBWA presented evidence from a planner that they do. Moreover, the Tribunal agrees with BBWA that this Motion is not the appropriate venue for the Tribunal to make a determination on the merits of BBWA's case. The planners would have to be subject to cross-examination to allow the Tribunal to fully assess and make a finding as to whether the issues posed have planning merit. The Tribunal at this stage can simply assess whether BBWA has raised issues that fall within the range of issues to be raised in such a proceeding, and whether those issues are necessary to its adjudication of the case. The Tribunal finds that BBWA has raised appropriate issues that will assist it in arriving at a decision in this case. To clarify, while the Respondents argue that BBWA, in the Motion Record, has not outlined how the applications are not consistent with or do not conform to applicable planning policies, the Tribunal finds that this is not relevant at this stage. This is something to be determined at the upcoming Hearing. At the current stage, BBWA has raised appropriate questions. Doing so, in addition to various ways that it meets the test for being a Party, is sufficient.
26Moreover, the Tribunal agrees with Mr. McGuffin, BBWA's land use planner, that this application is not a typical review of settlement area policies given the proximity and importance of the adjacent agritourism uses, with BBWA raising unique concerns related to this compatibility of land uses. The Tribunal must review the planning context as a whole, and this necessarily includes potential impacts of the proposed development on adjacent areas, including lands owned by members of BBWA. Overall, the Tribunal finds that the issues BBWA has raised are unique to the interests of its members and, in a general sense, are appropriate in the context of provincial, regional, and local planning policies. The particular merit and applicability of each issue can be assessed at the Hearing.
27Regarding any potential overlap between issues raised by the Town and BBWA, the Tribunal finds that this is not a bar to being granted Party status. The Tribunal agrees that some overlap is acceptable. Moreover, if BBWA's issues are indeed the same as those raised by the Town, then the Tribunal will not be prejudiced as it will simply deal with them once. In other words, if there is duplication here, the Tribunal will still deal with it only once and this will not impair the Tribunal's ability to adjudicate this matter. BBWA has retained witnesses to provide evidence at the Hearing. Those witnesses will be subject to cross-examination. Thus, with BBWA's participation in the proceeding as a Party, the Tribunal will be able to assess the issues in the dispute in a fair and comprehensive way. BBWA's participation as a Party is necessary.
Prejudice
28BBWA argues that adding it as a Party will not unfairly delay or expand the Hearing. The Hearing is already scheduled for nine days, and the Tribunal has recognized (at the CMC) that a few extra days may be needed if BBWA is included. BBWA says it will work with the Town and the Respondents to stay within the planned timeline as much as possible. There would be greater harm and prejudice in excluding it, as the unique perspective of its members will not be adequately represented. Moreover, it has been involved in the process and has hired expert witnesses to present important evidence. This evidence, particularly about impacts on specialty crops and the local wine industry, will help the Tribunal make a fair and fully-informed decision.
29The Respondents argue that granting BBWA Party status would result in prejudice to the Respondents by expanding the scope of the proceeding, introducing additional and irrelevant issues, and increasing the time and expense incurred by all Parties including potentially having to call evidence on issues that are not relevant to adjudicate. BBWA would not provide anything new or necessary but would instead duplicate evidence and arguments. Including BBWA would make the Hearing longer, more expensive, and more complex, especially since BBWA plans to call several witnesses.
30The Tribunal agrees that the prejudice to the Respondents is minimal and not sufficient to overcome the benefits of adding BBWA as a Party. If additional days for the Hearing are required, this was already anticipated by the Parties as early as when the CMC took place, and no unwarranted expansion of the proceedings has resulted here. Considering BBWA's prior involvement, the Respondents have been well aware of BBWA's position and are not unfairly surprised by having to respond to those concerns at this juncture. By contrast, BBWA would be significantly prejudiced if it is not added as a Party. Lastly, the Tribunal may be negatively impacted in its ability to make a fair and comprehensive decision if the evidence BBWA is planning to present is not before it.
Respondent's Alternate Request – Limiting Issues
31If BBWA is given Party status, the Respondents sought an alternate relief. They requested an Order:
a. striking irrelevant and unsupported issues from BBWA's proposed Issues List. Namely:
i. issue no. 1 (in part, with respect to policies 2.9 a), 2.5.1 a), f) and h) and 4.3.1)
ii. Issue no. 2
iii. Issue no. 3
iv. Issue no. 4 (in part, with respect to policy 4.1)
v. Issue no. 5 (in part, with respect to policies 1.3.4.2, 1.3.5.2, 1.3.7.2i), 1.4.3, 1.5.1, 1.6.5, 1.6.7, 3.1.1, 3.1.13, 3.1.15, 3.1.5.2, 3.1.5.3, 4.8, 4.12 and 5.1.4)
vi. Issue no. 6
vii. Issue no. 7; and
viii. Issue no. 9
b. limiting BBWA's participation as a Party in the proceeding (such as making them a Participant instead) to ensure that there is no duplication of evidence or argument that will otherwise be advanced by the Town with respect to issue nos. 1 (parts not struck), 4 (parts not struck), 5 (parts not struck), and 8 on BBWA's Issues List, which issues have already been raised by the Town.
32The basis for this request, according to the Respondents, is that some of the issues BBWA has raised duplicate those of the Town's and others are not relevant to the Tribunal's Decision. The Respondents submit that, for the overlapping issues, BBWA has not explained what new or unique perspective it would bring, so the Tribunal can rely on the Town to fully address them. For the remaining issues, they are not grounded in any applicable planning policies and should not be considered at all. Specifically, the Respondents argue as follows:
a. Several of BBWA's issues rely on policies that do not apply to the Subject Property, such as Greenbelt policies or agricultural system policies, since the Subject Property is not located in those areas.
b. Other issues, like concerns about air flow, visual impact, or impacts on tourism and the Wine Route, have no basis in provincial, regional, or local planning policies.
c. Certain studies requested by BBWA are not required under the planning framework.
d. BBWA's request to impose conditions on approval (Issue 9) is legally invalid, since the Tribunal does not have the authority to approve zoning by-laws or official plan amendments with conditions.
33BBWA argues that all the issues listed on its Issues List are valid, relevant, and unique to its members, and should be considered by the Tribunal. It relies on Affidavits from Mr. McGuffin, BBWA's land use planner, as well as from Harold Thiel, a winery owner and long-time BBWA board member. They state that each of BBWA's concerns and issues are legitimate planning issues, grounded in provincial, regional, and local planning policies, and have little overlap with those raised by the Town. BBWA went through each of its issues to explain this. For example, it says policies in the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 and the Greenbelt Plan support the protection of tourism and specialty crop areas. It also argues that visual and agricultural impact studies are relevant, and that local and regional policies require consideration of agricultural protection and appropriate development. Regarding air flow, BBWA states that it has hired an expert to show how the development could harm nearby crops. It also emphasizes that the importance of agritourism and the Wine Route are recognized in planning policies. Overall, BBWA maintains that its issues are necessary for a full and fair review of the Appeal, though it is open to making minor revisions to its Issues List.
34The Tribunal agrees with BBWA that the issues it has raised are appropriate in this context, and finds as follows:
a. With respect to overlapping issues between the Town and BBWA, in its Motion materials, the Respondents assert that "BBWA does not add anything to the proceeding by raising these issues..." However, the Tribunal was not persuaded that this is the case. As mentioned above, any duplication can be avoided by the Parties through the careful presentation of the evidence at the Hearing. Moreover, while the issues may be the same or similar, BBWA's concerns regarding those issues may be unique, as will become apparent through the cross-examination of the witnesses, as well as through final submissions. The Tribunal was persuaded that BBWA has unique concerns that are largely independent of those raised by the Town. This does not mean there cannot be some overlap. Moreover, if the Town resolves its particular concerns with the Respondents, BBWA, as a Party, will still be able to raise its own concerns regarding those issues. At this point, the Tribunal does not have sufficient information before it to determine that BBWA and the Town have the same exact perspective simply because both named the same policy provision as an area of dispute.
b. With respect to the Respondents' assertions that some issues are irrelevant or lack planning merit, the Tribunal cannot make a decision on this. Both sides presented evidence from land use planners regarding various policies raised. The Respondents' land use planner said that those policies are not relevant. BBWA's land use planner said that they are. Neither planner was subject to cross-examination. Thus, at this stage, the Tribunal is not going to engage in making a finding on the merits of those issues. Rather, it will only assess whether the issues are appropriate ones to be raised at a Hearing pertaining to these sections of the Act, and it finds that the issues are appropriate. At the upcoming Hearing, the witnesses testifying will be subject to cross-examination and the Parties can make submissions regarding the applicability and merit of the various policies raised. The Tribunal will be able to make a finding on those issues. However, at this stage, the Tribunal does not have sufficient evidence before it to make such a finding.
For example, the Respondents state that Issue 2 should be struck because the policies raised from the Greenbelt Plan do not apply as the "subject site is not located within the Greenbelt Plan area." However, the Town's draft Issues List contains the following issue: "2. Do the applications conform to or have appropriate regard for the Niagara Peninsula Tender Fruit and Grape Area policies of the Greenbelt Plan?" Thus, the Tribunal on this Motion will not strike an Issue from the Issues List when the Town is raising the same provincial policy that the Respondents say does not apply. These issues and which provisions apply to this Subject Property can be clarified at the Hearing.
Moreover, the Tribunal agrees with BBWA that the Appeals seem to engage an unusual circumstance in terms of their impacts. This application is not a typical review of settlement area policies given the proximity and importance of the adjacent agritourism uses. For example, the Respondents argue that some policies raised do not apply "because the Subject Site is not within the Agricultural System..." However, the Tribunal is persuaded that the Subject Property's proximity to those areas may allow for consideration of those policies. The Tribunal is not making a decision on the merits here but finding that it cannot strike those issues at this stage until they have been properly assessed by way of a fulsome review, including cross-examination of witnesses testifying on this.
c. With respect to the issue regarding conditions to be imposed on the instruments (Issue 9), BBWA stated in its Reply motion materials that "this issue is captured by Town Issue 15 and could be reworded as such." Thus, Issue 9 can be resolved between the Parties through the wording of the issue being revised.
35The Tribunal will not strike the issues raised by BBWA from the draft Issues List. The Tribunal will also not ratify the Issues List as part of this Motion. At the CMC on January 22, 2026, the presiding adjudicator gave the following direction: "A Procedural Order and Issues List is to be filed with the Tribunal within 3 days of the written Motion's Decision or Order" (paragraph 8 of the Tribunal's Decision, issued on January 30, 2026). In its Reply Motion materials, BBWA indicated as follows:
There are some slight revisions to the BBWA Issues List that could be made, deleting PPS 2024 Policy 2.9(a) and Town Official Plan polices 1.5.1, 3.1.2(f) and 3.1.4(d)(i). As well the following Issue should be added: Do the applications have appropriate regard for the provincial interest set out in subsections 2(b), (h), (l) and (p) of the Planning Act?
36Thus, the Tribunal directs that, in accordance with the CMC Order, the final Procedural Order and Issues List from the Parties be provided to the Tribunal, for review and ratification if appropriate, within three days of this Decision being issued. The Parties are directed to also advise the Tribunal at the same time regarding whether additional dates are required for the Hearing.
Conclusion
37The Tribunal finds that BBWA has direct interest in the proceedings, made prior submissions regarding these applications, will participate fully as a Party, and its participation is necessary to the Tribunal's adjudication of these Appeals. BBWA's addition as a Party will allow the Tribunal to make a full and complete Decision on the issues in dispute. Moreover, the Tribunal finds that the issues that BBWA has raised are appropriate (with the caveat that Issue 9 is to be revised).
Order
38THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:
a. The Motion by Beamsville Bench Wineries Association ("BBWA") seeking Party status in this proceeding is granted and BBWA is now a Party in the proceeding; and
b. The Parties are to provide the Tribunal with a final Procedural Order and Issues List within three days of the issuance of this Decision, and to advise the Tribunal at the same time regarding whether they require additional dates for the upcoming Hearing in October 2026.
39This Member is not seized but the Tribunal may be spoken to in the event that some matter should arise in connection with the implementation of this Order.
"Bita M. Rajaee"
BITA M. RAJAEE
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.