Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: May 26, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000048

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

Applicant and Appellant: Bartels Environmental Services Inc.

Subject: Zoning Bylaw Amendment

Description: To permit a biosolid storage facility on the subject property

Property Address: 6903 Perth Line 34

Municipality/UT: West Perth/Perth

Municipal File No.: D14-16-21

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000048

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000048

OLT Case Name: Bartels Environmental Services Inc. v. West Perth (Municipality)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Bartels Environmental Services Inc.

Subject: Site Plan

Description: To permit a biosolid storage facility on the subject property

Property Address: 6903 Perth Line 34

Municipality/UT: West Perth/Perth

Municipal File No.: D11-06-21

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000049

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000048

OLT Case Name: Bartels Environmental Services Inc. v. West Perth (Municipality)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Bartels Environmental Services Inc.

Subject: Permission under Planning Act, s. 45(2)(a)(ii)

Description: Appeal of Municipality of West Perth Committee of Adjustment decision refusing an application under Planning Act, s. 45(2)(a)(ii)

Reference Number: D13-A06-24

Property Address: 6903 Perth Line 34

Municipality/UT: West Perth/Perth

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001034

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000048

OLT Case Name: Bartels Environmental Services Inc. v. West Perth (Municipality)

Heard: March 20, 25, 27-28, 31 and April 1-2, 2025, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
Bartels Environmental Services Inc.	A. Sadvari P. Gross
Municipality of West Perth	S. McAnsh
Ashley and Jeffrey Kroonen	Self-represented*

DECISION DELIVERED BY F. Lavoie AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1From the early 1960s until its closure in 2017, Sofina Foods Inc.’s (“Sofina”) poultry processing plant in Dublin treated its wastewater using three lagoons just outside the community, at 6903 Perth Line 34, West Perth, Ontario (“Subject Property”). In 2020, Sofina sold the Subject Property to the Appellant, Bartels Environmental Services Inc. (“Bartels”). These appeals concern Bartels’ proposed use of the Subject Property’s lagoons for the storage of non-agricultural source material (“NASM”), specifically sewage biosolids sourced from other municipalities. To that end, Bartels applied for a Zoning By-Law Amendment (“ZBA”) and permission through s. 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Planning Act (“legal non-conforming use application”).¹ The Municipality of West Perth (“West Perth”) refused both applications. Bartels appealed.

2West Perth submits both appeals should be dismissed. West Perth’s position is that the Prime Agricultural Area Guidelines² apply, that the ZBA is not consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (“PPS”), that the historic use at the Subject Property was abandoned by Sofina when it left, and that in any event, Bartels’ proposed use is not the same as Sofina’s use.

3Ashley and Jeffrey Kroonen (“Kroonens”) are Bartels’ immediate neighbours to the west. The Kroonens were granted Party status at a previous Case Management Conference. Like West Perth, the Kroonens ask the Tribunal to dismiss the appeals. The Kroonens bought the property (“Kroonen Property”) in 2012, from Jeffrey Kroonen’s family. It was originally acquired in 1957. They argued Bartels’ proposal is not about local agriculture or the local community, but about managing waste streams from outside the community. They say that the appeals directly impact them. Of particular concern – the adverse impacts to the Kroonen Property’s potential for agricultural or other purposes which could arise from Bartels’ proposal, which they describe as “a conversion of the Subject Property to a waste storage lagoon for biosolids and digestate”.

DECISION

4Bartels’ s. 34(11) and s. 45(12) appeals are dismissed. Their ZBA is not consistent with the PPS because it does not meet the criteria for agriculture-related uses or non-agricultural uses. The legal non-conforming use was discontinued. The s. 41(12) appeal is therefore moot.

SUBJECT PROPERTY

5The Subject Property is an approximately 11.2-hectare lot just east of Dublin, with 202.9 metres (“m”) frontage on Highway 8. The northern portion has a woodlot and access to the rest of the lot from Highway 8, as seen in Figure 1 below.

6The middle of the Subject Property has three existing uncovered lagoons cells. They all have a compacted clay liner to prevent groundwater infiltration. The first cell has approximately 72,000 cubic metres (“m³”) total effective operating capacity at an operating depth of 3 m. The second cell has approximately 20,800 m³ at an operating depth of 2.1 m. The third and final cell collects the supernatant from the first and second cells, with an effective operating capacity of approximately 37,200 m³ at an operating depth of 3 m. Four surface aerators provide oxygen to the third cell (collectively, the “lagoons”). Waste streams placed into the system will, with time, settle, and the supernatant layer above can be reused.

7The Subject Property is presently zoned agricultural. Bartels’ ZBA would rezone the portions not covered by the woodlot to Agricultural Commercial/Industrial with a Special Provision (ACM-31), which would specifically permit the “Biosolids Storage” use. Bartels separately received its Environmental Compliance Approval (“ECA”) to use the Subject Property and its lagoons as a waste disposal site. Issued on July 1, 2022, the ECA approved the receipt, temporary storage, processing, and transfer of the following types of waste:

a. washwaters, including materials containing food-grade cleaners, from cleaning the processing equipment and the surrounding area of a brewery or distillery, similar in physical and chemical characteristics to a NASM Category 2, Item #3(e) as described in Schedule 4 of O. Regulation 267/03;

b. organic waste matter produced in a dissolved air flotation process used for the treatment of wastewater from food or feed processing or preparation facilities, similar in physical and chemical characteristics to a NASM Category 3, Item #5 as described in Schedule 4 of O. Regulation 267/03;

c. anaerobically digested sewage biosolids similar in physical and chemical characteristics to a NASM Category 3, Item #11 as described in Schedule 4 of O. Regulation 267/03; and

d. aerobically digested sewage biosolids similar in physical and chemical characteristics to a NASM Category 3, Item #11 as described in Schedule 4 of O. Regulation 267/03

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

8Bartels sought the consolidation of its different appeals, which the Tribunal, differently constituted, granted in its Decision issued on December 11, 2024.³ In the same Decision, the Tribunal rejected West Perth’s Motion challenging the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to determine legal non-conforming status.⁴

ISSUES

9The Appeals turn on the following two core questions:

a. Can Bartels’ proposed waste disposal site be rezoned as either an agriculture-related use or a non-agriculture-related use?

b. In the negative, can Bartels rely on legal non-conforming use pursuant to s. 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Planning Act?

LAW

10The Tribunal’s Decision must be consistent with the PPS, have regard to matters of provincial interests, to Council’s decision on the applications, and to any information and materials considered by Council.⁵

11To be granted, the ZBA must conform to the County of Perth Official Plan (“OP”) and represent good land use planning, such that it is in the public interest.

12Pursuant to sub-paragraph 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Planning Act, the Tribunal may permit the use of land, building, or structure for a purpose that is either similar to the purpose it was used the day the by-law prohibiting such use was passed, or that is more compatible with the uses permitted by the by-law than the purpose for which it was used on the day the by-law was passed. To be permitted, the use must have been lawful before prohibited by the by-law and must have continued until the date of the sub-paragraph 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Planning Act application.

13The Parties referred to the seminal case of Saint-Romuald, for its approach in characterizing a legal non-conforming use. Saint-Romuald establishes that, among other things⁶: (1) the purpose of the pre-existing use must be characterized as a function of the activities actually carried on before the new by-law restrictions; (2) mere intensification of pre-existing use will rarely be open to objection, though intensification could reach a difference in kind; (3) where a landowner expands activities beyond those it did before, the added activities may be too remote from the earlier activities to be protected under the non-conforming use; (4) if activities are altered or added within the scope of the original purpose, a balancing of landowner’s interest against the community interest occurs; and (5) the characterization of the legal non-conforming use should not be so general as to liberate the owner of the constraints of what was actually done, nor be so narrow to rob the owner of some flexibility in the reasonable evolution of prior activities.

THE HEARING

14Over seven days, the Tribunal heard the following witnesses’ testimony:

a. Ron Nienhuis – Director of Operations at Bartels;

b. Dave Barrett – Bartels’ Land Use Planner;

c. Christine Hill – Bartels’ Water and Wastewater Engineer;

d. Steve Davies – Bartels’ Hydrogeologist;

e. S. Pellatt – for Bartels regarding Air Quality, including Odour;

f. William C. Maria – Bartels’ Transportation Engineer;

g. Peter Johnson – Bartels’ Agronomist;

h. Dan Hobson – West Perth’s Clerk and Acting Chief Administrative Officer;

i. Robert Stovel – West Perth’s Land Planner and Agrologist; and

j. Jeffrey Kroonen – Fact witness testifying on their own behalf;

15The Tribunal received Participant statements from the following individuals, each granted Participant status at the CMC: Bruce and Jennifer Bettles, Mark Cox, Colleen Eickmeier, Doug and Anne Fuhr, Scott Saunders, and Peter Van Bergen.

16The Participants all live in Dublin, are opposed to Bartels’ repurposing of the lagoons, and raised a number of concerns, set out below:

a. The lagoons have not been in continuous use, which ceased when Sofina moved their Dublin operations to their new plant in Mitchell;

b. The proponent’s unwillingness or inability to provide information about the volume of NASM that would be stored in the lagoons;

c. The potential for negative impacts on water quality in and around Dublin;

d. The potential for negative impacts to health of Dublin residents;

e. Skepticism about the safety of the application of NASM to agricultural lands;

f. Negative impacts from the transportation by truck of the NASM to the lagoons; and

g. Negative impacts from odour during the storage and eventual application of NASM.

17Participants’ statements consistently identified smell as being a historical issue, which ceased following Sofina’s plant closure in 2017. These common experiences fuel the concerns that the resumption of the lagoons’ use would again result in odour impacts.

18At the beginning and conclusion of the Hearing, the Parties raised procedural issues on which the Tribunal ruled.

West Perth’s Request for Order Excluding Witness

19West Perth sought at the beginning of the Hearing for an Order excluding witnesses during the testimony of other witnesses. Bartels responded that excluding witnesses is an exceptional remedy and not the default rule at the Tribunal. The Tribunal was not convinced West Perth’s authorities apply here. Moreover, no notice was provided for this request. Accordingly, the Tribunal refused West Perth’s request for an Order excluding witnesses from the Hearing room until their testimony.

Bartels’ Request to Provide Rebuttal Evidence from Mr. Johnson

20After all Parties had closed their case, Bartels requested to recall Mr. Johnson to provide rebuttal evidence. In particular, the scope of Mr. Johnson’s proposed evidence would be to address the issues of rehabilitation of the Subject Land and the need for NASM. West Perth objected to Bartels’ request, citing R v Krause, 1986 CanLII 39 (SCC), [1986] 2 SCR 466 (“Krause”) at paragraphs 16-17. West Perth argued the Appellant’s request does not meet the test articulated in Krause as it was Bartels who adduced evidence on the need for NASM in its case, and who raised the matter of rehabilitation in cross-examining Mr. Stovel.

21In response, Bartels submitted the Tribunal should allow the rebuttal evidence. The Appellant characterized Mr. Stovel’s evidence on suitability of land for agricultural use as “false and unreliable” and argued it had no reason to anticipate that rehabilitation would be raised in cross-examination. Further, whether agricultural lands are taken out of production if this proposal was approved is fundamental to this case, and therefore this matter is not collateral. They argue West Perth would not suffer prejudice, which in any event could be addressed by their ability to cross-examine following the rebuttal evidence, citing R v Campbell, 2018 ONCA 205 at paragraphs 16, 17, 19-20, and 25. Bartels lastly conceded to narrow the scope of Mr. Johnson’s rebuttal evidence only to the matter of rehabilitation.

22The Tribunal allowed the Municipality’s objection and denied Bartels’ request for rebuttal evidence. In the Tribunal’s view, the matter of rehabilitation is collateral. The Appellant’s proposal is seeking to use the pits, not rehabilitate them. The Tribunal therefore finds the rule against rebuttal on collateral issues applies here. Even if the issue had not been collateral, the Tribunal would not have exercised its discretion to allow rebuttal evidence in these circumstances. Bartels should have simply challenged Mr. Stovel on his evidence about rehabilitation.

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

Issue 1: Can Bartels’ proposed waste disposal site be rezoned as either an agriculture-related use or a non-agricultural use?

Agriculture-Related Uses

23Bartels raised a preliminary “question of law” regarding the role the Prime Agricultural Areas Guidelines. Bartels submitted to the Tribunal that “requiring the parties to turn to the OMAFRA [Prime Agricultural Area] guidelines to decipher how the PPS criteria should be applied in this context is an error of law that flies in the face of the legislature’s intent to spell out a choice in [PPS] Policy 4.3.2.1”. They refer to the Tribunal’s decision in Ferragine v Bradford West Gwillimbury (Town)⁷, which held the Prime Agricultural Area Guidelines “represent best practices rather than specific standards that must be met in every case”. Responding to a witness statement which claimed the Prime Agricultural Area Guidelines were contravened, the Tribunal in Ferragine was clarifying that a guideline cannot be contravened, unlike a policy, “without inappropriately trying to elevate mere guidelines to what they are not”.

24Ferragine concerned the development of an Ahmadiyya Muslim cemetery on prime agricultural lands. Indeed, two paragraphs later, the Tribunal explained:⁸

[58] For the Tribunal, the added challenge of the OMAFRA Guidelines is that they deal very little with proposed cemetery use, and very little is to be gained by analogies to other types of non-agricultural uses, such as golf courses and firework storage facilities, that have no ethnoculturally significant considerations.

25In contrast, the Prime Agricultural Area Guidelines do deal with the storage of NASM. The Prime Agricultural Area Guidelines say those uses are not agriculture-related uses, even if the products of such facilities are spread on farmland. They explain the primary function of such facilities is to manage non-agricultural waste streams, rather than produce a product for application to farmland.

26Bartels also relies on its reading of chapter 1 of the PPS passage that “municipal official plans are the most important vehicle for implementation of the [PPS]…” and the text of PPS Policy 4.3.2.1 in arguing the OP criteria should be preferred. The Tribunal agrees with Bartels that PPS Policy 4.3.2.1 contemplates a choice between two sets of criteria:

4.3.2 Permitted Uses

1. In prime agricultural areas, permitted uses and activities are: agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses and on-farm diversified uses based on provincial guidance. Proposed agriculture-related uses and on-farm diversified uses shall be compatible with, and shall not hinder, surrounding agricultural operations. Criteria for these uses may be based on provincial guidance or municipal approaches, as set out in municipal planning documents, which achieve the same objectives.

[emphasis added]

27As for the rest of Bartels’ analysis which they submit applies in interpreting PPS Policy 4.3.2.1, the Tribunal cannot countenance that approach. In the Tribunal’s view, the starting point in interpreting Policy 4.3.2.1 of the PPS is the plain reading of the provision. The PPS provides a discretionary choice between criteria based on either provincial guidance or municipal planning documents, each achieving the same objectives. The policy itself indicates no hierarchy between the two sources of criteria. The Tribunal holds the PPS reference to OPs as the most important vehicle for implementation of the PPS and does not imply a hierarchy whereby its criteria would necessarily supplant provincial guidance.

28Thus, faced with the discretion to choose between two sets of equally valid criteria, the Tribunal prefers a case-by-case approach which looks at each set of criteria to determine which is more appropriate given the circumstances. Understandably, Bartels urged the Tribunal to ignore the Prime Agricultural Area Guidelines – they identified NASM facilities as not being agriculture-related.

29The Tribunal finds Mr. Johnson’s opinion evidence unreliable regarding the primary function of NASM storage facilities. His opinion states but does not explain why NASM storage facilities’ primary activity is providing direct products and/or services to farm operations. The Tribunal finds that NASM storage facilities’ activities include both “managing non-agricultural waste streams” through the sourcing and storage of NASM, and the provision of “direct products to farm operations” once NASM is removed from storage to be applied to agricultural lands. Determining which activity is the primary one is a question of fact. The Tribunal does not find the opinion evidence of Mr. Johnson probative in characterizing the primary activity of all NASM storage facilities, let alone the primary activity of the NASM storage facility proposed by Bartels. Mr. Johnson’s opinion was that based on his research and judgment, agricultural productivity would benefit from additional organic amendments, including NASM. He disagreed with the Prime Agricultural Area Guidelines’ assessment of the primary function of NASM storage facilities, concluding both that “NASM is a valuable agricultural product” and “NASM storage is an agricultural-related use”.

30In contrast, Mr. Stovel’s opinion relied on and aligned with the Prime Agricultural Area Guidelines. He identified the relevant portions of the Prime Agricultural Area Guidelines, such as the inclusion of “sewage biosolids storage and composting facilities for non-agricultural source material” as “examples of uses that would typically not be agriculture-related use”. The Tribunal prefers Mr. Stovel’s evidence that the Prime Agricultural Area Guidelines apply over Mr. Johnson’s evidence that they do not.

31This outcome also aligns with the use of the Prime Agricultural Area Guidelines by the Tribunal in the Shire decision.⁹ Shire is useful as an example showing the Tribunal relied on the Prime Agricultural Area Guidelines, though they were then only in draft form, in ruling on different proposal also for the conversion of a poultry processing plant’s wastewater lagoons to the storage of NASM. The Ontario Municipal Board rejected Shire Corporation’s proposed storage of NASM into its desired lagoons.

32Bartels suggested Shire should be distinguished on a factual basis: lands and evidence are different, land in Shire was viable for use as a greenhouse, the NASM facility here would primarily service the surrounding agricultural communities, the lesser scale of the proposed facility by Bartels, and that Bartels considered alternatives.

33The Tribunal finds irrelevant Bartels’ attempt to “distinguish” Shire factually. Neither Shire, nor any of the Tribunal’s other decisions for that matter, bind the Tribunal. Even if it did, the Tribunal does not find the facts raised by Bartels make a cogent case to depart from Shire.

34Having found the Prime Agricultural Area Guidelines persuasive, and because Bartels failed to prove the primary activity of their proposal is the provision of direct products/services to farm operations, it is unnecessary to canvas the remaining criteria for agriculture-related uses. That said, Bartels would have failed to meet the fifth criteria as well: whether the “proposed use provides direct products and/or services to farm operations as a primary activity”.

35Accordingly, Bartels’ proposed waste disposal site does not meet the criteria for agriculture-related uses in prime agricultural areas.

Non-Agricultural Uses

36In the alternative, Bartels says the proposed use meets the criteria for non-agricultural use in a prime agricultural area, referencing PPS Policy 4.3.5.1. Policies 4.3.5.1 and 4.3.5.2 of the PPS are set out below:

4.3.5 Non-Agricultural Uses in Prime Agricultural Areas

1. Planning authorities may only permit non-agricultural uses in prime agricultural areas for:

a) extraction of minerals, petroleum resources and mineral aggregate resources; or

b) limited non-residential uses, provided that all of the following are demonstrated:

1. the land does not comprise a specialty crop area;

2. the proposed use complies with the minimum distance separation formulae;

3. there is an identified need within the planning horizon identified in the official plan as provided for in policy 2.1.3 for additional land to accommodate the proposed use

4. alternative locations have been evaluated, and

i. there are no reasonable alternative locations which avoid prime agricultural areas; and

ii. there are no reasonable alternative locations in prime agricultural areas with lower priority agricultural lands

2. Impacts from any new or expanding non-agricultural uses on the agricultural system are to be avoided, or where avoidance is not possible, minimized and mitigated as determined through an agricultural impact assessment or equivalent analysis, based on provincial guidance.

[emphasis added]

37The third criterion asks if there is an identified need within the planning horizon identified in the OP, for additional land to accommodate the use. Bartels submits that Mr. Johnson’s evidence supports a finding that there is a clear need within the County of Perth for the temporary storage of NASM before land application in the area can take place. West Perth submits Bartels has not demonstrated a need for this use in the County OP.

38Mr. Stovel’s evidence on this point turned to the Prime Agricultural Area Guidelines, which at page 40 provides guidance for demonstration of need:

…Identification of need for a proposed limited non-agricultural use requires appropriate justification which is usually provided through a planning report and justification study. The scope of this study depends on the proposed use and starts by identifying the specific geographic market or service area for the proposed use. It usually includes information on and analysis of:

• the demand for the product or service

• an inventory of current suppliers/competitors

• how much of the current and future projected demand is met within a given market or service area

• distance to markets or clients

• economic impacts of the proposed use

• a preliminary assessment of the potential impacts on agricultural operations in the area

39The Tribunal finds Mr. Johnson’s evidence fell short of identifying a need for the proposal as set out above. In any event, the Tribunal was also not convinced by Bartels’ evidence that they adequately evaluated alternative locations, nor that the requirements of Policy 4.3.5.2 of the PPS for an agricultural impact assessment had been met.

40Accordingly, the Tribunal holds Bartels’ proposal does not meet the criteria for non-agricultural uses in prime agricultural areas.

Issue 2: Can Bartels rely on legal non-conforming use pursuant to s. 45(2)(a)(ii)?

41The starting point is characterizing the purpose of the pre-existing use. To Bartels, that is “the storage of biosolids in the lagoons”. To West Perth, it is an “accessory industrial sewage works”. The Kroonens did not put forward their characterization of the purpose but focused their submissions on the discontinuance of the use arising from the gap between the shutdown of Sofina’s plant and Bartels’ application.

42Following Saint Romuald, first the Tribunal must characterize the pre-existing use’s purpose. The purpose for which the premises were used (i.e. “the use”) is a function of the activities actually carried on at the site prior to the new by-law restrictions.¹⁰ The purpose of Sofina’s use of the Subject Property was as an accessory industrial sewage works for their poultry processing plant at 174 John Street in Dublin.

43In the Tribunal’s view, characterizing the use as “storage of biosolids in the lagoons” is so general as to liberate the owner from the constraints of what Sofina [or owners before it] actually did. Core elements of what occurred at the property are suppressed in this formulation, namely: which biosolids? and; from where? This is important because both the sources of and materials themselves will change under Bartels’ proposal. Sofina’s purpose with the site was not the storage of any biosolids from any source. The evidence was that Sofina used the lagoons exclusively for the treatment of their own wastewater.

44In defining Sofina’s use as the treatment of their own wastewater, the Tribunal is mindful of the majority’s ruling in Saint Romuald that this exercise “will always have an element of subjective judgment” but also that the analysis’ outcome “should not turn on personal value judgments” and that the criteria attempt to ground the decision in the objective facts.

45Characterized properly, Sofina’s use ended in 2017. Bartels applied to the West Perth Committee of Adjustment on July 2, 2024. As Bartels themselves submitted, the use must have continued until the date of the sub-paragraph 45(2)(a)(ii) application. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds Bartels legal non-conforming use application does not meet the requirements of s. 45(2)(a)(ii).

CONCLUSION

46Bartels proposed to store NASM in lagoons formerly owned and used by Sofina for their wastewater treatment. Bartels claimed three routes could green-light the proposal: rezoning as an agriculture-related use, rezoning as a non-agricultural use, and an evolution of a claimed legal non-conforming use based on Sofina’s alleged “storage of biosolids” use of the Subject Property. None succeeded.

47Firstly, Bartels failed to show their proposal is an agriculture-related use. Despite urging the Tribunal that reliance on the Prime Agricultural Area Guidelines is “an error of law”, they cited no relevant authority for that proposition. The Tribunal prefers Mr. Stovel’s evidence to Mr. Jonhson’s evidence on the applicability of the Prime Agricultural Area Guidelines. The Tribunal finds the Prime Agricultural Area Guidelines apply, and that they unequivocally say NASM storage facilities’ primary function is to manage non-agricultural waste streams. Accordingly, Bartels’ proposal is not an agricultural-related use.

48Secondly, Bartels failed to show a need identified in the OP for the planning horizon. They also did not meet other requirements for non-agricultural uses (agricultural impact assessment). Accordingly, Bartels’ proposal does not meet the requirements to be approved as a rezoning for a non-agricultural related use.

49Therefore, the ZBA application is neither consistent with the PPS policies 4.3.2.1 (for agriculture-related uses) nor 4.3.5.1 (for non-agricultural uses).

50Lastly, Bartels cannot rely on legal non-conforming use, because Sofina’s use, properly characterized, ended in 2017. The cited case law shows that much shorter time periods were sufficient to show a use ceased.

51Since the s. 34(11) and s. 45(2) appeals are dismissed, the s. 41(12) Site Plan appeal is moot.

ORDER

52THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Zoning By-law Amendment appeal is dismissed, and the requested amendment to By-law No. 100-1998 is refused. Further, the s. 45(2) appeal is dismissed, and the use is not permitted.

“F. Lavoie”

F. LAVOIE 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.

Footnotes

1. 1Planning Act, RSO 1990, c P.13.
2. 2Ontario, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Publication 851: Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario’s Prime Agricultural Areas (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2024). [Prime Agricultural Area Guidelines or “Guidelines”]
3. 3Bartels Environmental Services Inc. v West Perth (Municipality), 2024 CanLII 126195 (ON LT) at paras 21-24.
4. 4Ibid, paras 16-20.
5. 5Planning Act, supra note 1 s. 2, 2.1, 3(5).
6. 6Saint-Romuald (City) v Olivier, 2001 SCC 57 at para 39. [Saint-Romuald]
7. 7Ferragine v Bradford West Gwillimbury (Town), 2024 CanLII 65197 (ON LT) at paras 56 [Ferragine].
8. 8Ibid para 58.
9. 9Shire Corporation v Lincoln (Town), 2016 CanLII 30050 (ON LPAT) [Shire]
10. 10Saint Romuald, supra note 6 at para 39.