Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: June 05, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000035

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

Appellant: Elizabeth Lippa and Anthony Lippa Appellant: Leslie Carr Appellant: Miller Paving Limited Appellant: Our Muskoka Stakeholders Association Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment Description: Adoption of the Township of Muskoka Lakes Official Plan Reference Number: 2022-171/PLN-7-14/09/23 Property Address: Town-Wide Municipality/UT: Muskoka Lakes/Muskoka OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000035 OLT Case Name: Miller Paving Limited et al. v. Muskoka (District)

Heard: May 14, 2026 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel

Miller Paving Limited and Elizabeth Lippa (together, “Appellants”) Marc Kemerer John Ewart

Township of Muskoka Lakes (“Township”) Evan Barz Edward Veldboom Chris Barnett (in absentia)

District Municipality of Muskoka (“District”) Jennifer Savini Daniel Querques (in absentia)

Leonard Lake Stakeholders Association and Muskoka Lakes Association (together, “Lake Associations”) Lee English Allison Lalla (Articling Student) Piper Morley (in absentia)

Skeleton Lake Cottagers Organization Inc. (“Skeleton Lake) David Donnelly Sophia Christopher

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY GREGORY J. INGRAM ON MAY 14, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1The Tribunal convened a fifth Case Management Conference (“CMC”) with respect to appeals initially filed by Miller Paving Limited, Our Muskoka Stakeholders Association, Leslie Carr, and Elizabeth Lippa pursuant to s. 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), against the District’s approval, as modified, of the new Township’s Official Plan (“TOP”). The Lake Associations and Skeleton Lake were added Parties.

2The TOP was approved by the Township on October 30, 2022. The District reviewed and approved the TOP, with modifications, on November 20, 2023. The TOP provides a framework that establishes updated goals, objectives, and policies to guide decision-making in the Township affecting land use planning through to the year 2046.

3In addition to this CMC, the Tribunal has convened four other CMCs, beginning in May 2024, three motion hearings, and a settlement hearing in writing. The Tribunal initially directed the Parties to submit a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) prior to the second CMC in September 2024. Miller Paving Limited and Elizabeth Lippa remain as Appellants.

4Following the issuance of the December 2025 Motion Hearing (“Motion Heating”), the Appellants requested clarity from the Tribunal regarding the wording of two orders included in the decision. The Tribunal considered the request, and the Decision was reissued, including the following revised Orders (“Amended Order”):

[84] THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that Miller Paving Limited and Elizabeth Lippa shall not include issues related to the non-conformity of any Township of Muskoka Lakes Official Plan policies with the District of Muskoka Official Plan in their final draft Issues List.

[86] THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that Miller Paving Limited and Elizabeth Lippa shall only include issues related to the consistency of the Township of Muskoka Lakes Official Plan policies with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 specifically named in their Notices of Appeal.

5Subsequently, the Appellants requested that paragraph [86] of the Amended Order be reverted to its original wording. The Tribunal received submissions from the Parties regarding this request, determined that the wording would not be changed, and that the Tribunal would hear submissions regarding the Issues List (“IL”) at this CMC.

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE – MAY 14, 2026

Issues List

6Counsel for the Appellants argued that the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”) is to be read in its entirety, and policies related to aggregates, rural and resource management, transportation, and water should be included. It was also the Appellants’ position that Official Plan policies identified in the Notice of Appeal (“NoA”) may be considered in their entirety as the TOP policy K4, in its entirety, is under appeal. The Appellants said that the addition of these policies will not result in any additional costs or prejudice to any Party as this case is about “policy matters…not technical” issues. Counsel for Elizabeth Lippa fully supported this position.

7The other Parties to this case provided submissions in support of the IL provided by the District. These Parties argue that it adheres to the wording in the Order which only permits “issues specifically named in the notices of appeal”. The IL provided by the Appellants includes polices from the PPS and the TOP that are not referenced in the NoA, which, in essence, results in setting aside the direction by the Tribunal in the Order. The Parties contend that the inclusion of additional policies will result in added costs by requiring additional witnesses and time.

8The Parties concurred that it was appropriate for the Tribunal to apply Rule1: General Matters of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure in determining this matter, and specifically, Rule 1.4, which states:

The Tribunal may at any time in a proceeding before it make orders and direct practices and procedures that offer the best opportunity for a fair, just, expeditious and cost-effective resolution (emphasis added)

9The Tribunal, having considered the submissions of the Parties, both in writing and orally, directed that the IL presented by the District be used in the PO.

10The Tribunal prefers the position of the District/Township and added Parties that the District’s IL best complies with the Tribunal’s Amended Order and provides the “best opportunity for a fair and just process”.

11The Tribunal notes that the development of an issues list began in 2024 and then was substantially argued during the Motion Hearing, in December 2025, resulting in the Amended Order being issued and a “fair [and] just” process having occurred.

HEARING PLANNING DETAILS

12The Tribunal invited submissions from the Parties to assist in planning for a hearing of the merits (“Merit Hearing”).

13The Appellants submitted that they anticipate calling a land use planner as their only witness, indicating that the issues are policy focused, and no other expert witnesses would be required. They indicated that three to five days would be adequate and requested that the other Parties coordinate their witness testimony to reduce duplication as much as possible.

14The District/Township, with support from the added Parties, submitted that 15 days be scheduled for this matter. They anticipate calling witnesses with expertise in land use planning, traffic/transportation, environment, ecology, hydrology, and air quality. They argued that Elizabeth Lippa’s Notice of Appeal specifically referred to the need for “scientific evidence” to support the policies in dispute, and as a result, the additional witnesses are required.

15The Tribunal finds that it is reasonable for the District/Township and added Parties to anticipate the need for additional expert witnesses given the references in the Appellants’ Notices of Appeal and supporting documents, which point to a lack of “science” and “technical” evidence to support the change in policies reflected in the Township’s new Official Plan.

HEARING DATES

16The Tribunal proceeded to set dates for a 13-day Merit Hearing to proceed by video on Monday, February 1, 2027, at 10 a.m. The Tribunal will not be sitting on Monday, February 15, 2027.

17Parties, Participants, and Observers are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before it begins to test their video and audio connections:

GoTo Meeting: https://meet.goto.com/996288525

Access code: 996-288-525

18Parties and Participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoTo Meeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

19Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to it by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: +1-647-497-9391 or (toll-free) +1-888-455-1389. The access code is: 996-288-525.

20Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the event to ensure that they are properly connected at the correct time. Questions prior to the event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator.

21As of March 30, 2026, all hearing events are governed by the Tribunal’s Artificial Intelligence Practice Direction. This Practice Direction requires a party, participant, or witness to include a declaration within each submitted document if generative AI was used to create or generate content.

22The Parties submitted a final draft PO prior to the issuance of this Decision. The PO was reviewed, and the approved final copy is attached as Schedule 1 to this Decision and is in full force and effect.

23The Member is not seized, and no further notice is required.

ORDER

24THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS the directions as set out in this Decision.

“Gregory J. Ingram”

GREGORY J. INGRAM 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

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000035

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

Appellant: Elizabeth Lippa and Anthony Lippa Appellant: Leslie Carr Appellant: Miller Paving Limited Appellant: Our Muskoka Stakeholders Association Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment Description: Adoption of the Township of Muskoka Lakes Official Plan Reference Number: 2022-171/PLN-7-14/09/23 Property Address: Town-Wide Municipality/UT: Muskoka Lakes/Muskoka OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000035 OLT Case Name: Miller Paving Limited et al. v. Muskoka (District)

PROCEDURAL ORDER

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 Monday February 1, 2027, at 10:00 a.m., for a duration of 13 days. The Tribunal will not be sitting on Monday, February 15, 2027.

Link: https://meet.goto.com/996288525

Access code: 996-288-525

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 13 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.

4. The parties and participants identified at the first case management conference held on March 21, 2024, second case management conference held on September 11, 2024, are set out in Attachment 1.

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 2. 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 3 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. A summary of the applicable procedural dates, as outlined at paragraphs 10 to 24 of this Order, is set out in Attachment 4.

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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 on or before September 10, 2026 and in accordance with paragraph 23 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.

11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before October 5, 2026 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 November 2, 2026.

12. 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 14 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.

13. 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 14 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 14 below.

14. On or before November 13, 2026 the parties shall provide copies of their expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

15. On or before November 13, 2026 a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

16. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before December 14, 2026 after the evidence is received and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

17. On or before January 8, 2027, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

18. On or before January 15, 2027, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

19. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before January 15, 2027.

20. 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.

21. 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 at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

22. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before January 22, 2027 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.

23. All filings shall be submitted electronically. 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 the Rule 7.

24. 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.

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.

Attachment 1

List of Parties and Participants

1. Township of Muskoka Lakes c/o Chris Barnett Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP 416-862-6651 cbarnett@osler.com

2. District Municipality of Muskoka c/o Jennifer Savini and Daniel Querques Templeman LLP 613-966-2620 jsavini@tmlegal.ca dquerques@tmlegal.ca

3. Miller Paving Limited c/o Marc Kemerer McMillan LLP 416-865-7222 marc.kemerer@mcmillan.ca

4. Elizabeth Lippa c/o John Ewart Ewart O’Dwyer LLP 705-874-0404 jewart@ewartodwyer.com

5. Muskoka Lakes Association c/o Lee English and Piper Morley Borden Ladner Gervais LLP 416.367.6169 lenglish@blg.com pmorley@blg.com

6. Skeleton Lake Cottagers Organization Inc. c/o David Donnelly Donnelly Law 416.572.0464 david@donnellylaw.ca

Erin Dixon (Participant) 705.817.3746 centreseed@gmail.com

7. Ross Earl (Participant) c/o Tom Newman thomasnewman@yahoo.com

Attachment 2

Issues List

The identification of an issue does not mean that all parties agree that such issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing.

1. Do polices K1(a), K3.1(b) and, K4 of the as approved Official Plan, in limiting or prohibiting the extraction of mineral aggregate resources:
   1. have appropriate regard to the provincial interest as set out in section 2 of the Planning Act, 2(c), (e), (l), (m), (n) and (p);
   2. conflict with proposed Official Plan policies K1(b)-(e) and K2(b);
   3. intrude on areas of provincial jurisdiction under the Aggregate Resources Act and Regulations with respect to site rehabilitation, impacts on agricultural resources, haul routes and the quality/quantity of aggregate on a site; and
   4. represent good planning?
2. Are polices K1(a), K3.1(b) and the first paragraph of K4 and K4 f) of the as approved Official Plan, in limiting or prohibiting the extraction of mineral aggregate resources consistent with sections 4.5.2.1 of the Provincial Planning Statement 2024;
3. Does/is Part N, and particularly N9.1, Implementation and Administration, of the as approved Official Plan, in seeking to phase out mineral aggregate resource operations located within 2,000 metres of Waterfront Areas or farther than 10 kilometres from a Provincial highway:
   1. consistent with section 4.5 of the Provincial Planning Statement 2024;
   2. conflict with proposed Official Plan policies K1(b)-(e) and K2(b); and
   3. represent good planning?
4. Should the as approved Official Plan include transition policies to reflect and protect known deposits of mineral aggregate resources and current planning applications including those under appeal?

Attachment 3

Order of Evidence

1. Miller Paving Limited
2. Elizabeth Lippa
3. Township of Muskoka Lakes
4. Skeleton Lake Cottagers Organization Inc.
5. District Municipality of Muskoka
6. Muskoka Lakes Association
7. Miller Paving Limited (in reply)
8. Elizabeth Lippa (in reply)

Attachment 4

Summary of Procedural Dates

Event	Date
List of Witnesses	September 10, 2026
Meeting of Experts	October 5, 2026
Statement of Agreed Facts/Opinions	November 2, 2026
Witness and Expert Witness Statements	November 13, 2026
Participant Statements	November 13, 2026
Confirmation of Hearing Dates	January 8, 2027
Reply Witness and Expert Witness Statements	December 14, 2026
Visual Evidence	January 15, 2027
Joint Document Book	January 15, 2027
Preliminary Hearing Plan	January 22, 2027
Hearing	February 1 – 18, 2027