Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: January 28, 2026 CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000824

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 11(5) of the Aggregate Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.8.

Referred by: Ministry of Natural Resources Objector: Niagara Water Protection Alliance Objector: Cindy Mitchell Objector: David Henderson Objector: Gary Gaverluk Objector: Harry Wells; and others Applicant: Port Colborne Quarries Inc. Subject: Application for Class A Licence Description: To operate a Quarry Reference Number: 626511 Property Address: Part Lot 17, 18, 19, Concession 2 Municipality/UT: Port Colborne/Niagara OLT Case No: OLT-25-000824 OLT Case Name: Niagara Water Protection Alliance et al. v. Ontario (Ministry of Natural Resources)

Heard: January 20, 2026 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties — Counsel*/Representative

Port Colborne Quarries Inc./Rankin Construction Inc. — D. Germain*, J. Goraya*

Objectors:

Melissa Bigford — Self-represented Jack Hellinga — Self-represented Josef van Ruyven — Self-represented Harry Wells — Self-represented Niagara Water Protection Alliance — Gary Gaverluk

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BRAUN ON JANUARY 20, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This was the first Case Management Conference ("CMC") held for the purpose of organizing a hearing with respect to an application by Port Colborne Quarries Inc. ("Applicant") for a Category 2 Class A (quarry below water) licence to extract aggregate from a quarry of approximately 106 hectares located in Part 17, 18, 19, Concession 2 and Plan 59-R16702, City of Port Colborne ("Subject Property"). The permit sought would allow for the expansion of an existing quarry known as Pit 3.

2The Ministry of Natural Resources ("MNR") received a total of 10 objections to the application, from the following individuals/entities:

• Ron Baarda
• Melissa Bigford
• Gary Gaverluk
• Jack Hellinga
• David Henderson
• Vernon Hennigar
• Cindy Mitchell
• Josef van Ruyven
• Harry Wells
• Niagara Water Protection Alliance

3On October 31, 2025, MNR referred the application and objections to the Tribunal for a hearing, pursuant to s. 11(5) of the Aggregate Resources Act ("ARA"). MNR also advised that it does not intend to be a party to the hearing.

4In response to the Tribunal-issued notice, no written requests for status were received and no individuals appeared at the CMC seeking status of any kind. No concerns were raised with respect to the sufficiency of the notice and, as such, no further notice is required.

OBJECTORS/PARTIES AND OBLIGATIONS

5At the CMC, Mr. Gaverluk appeared representing the Niagara Water Protection Alliance ("NWPA"). He withdrew the objection previously filed in his capacity as an individual. Accordingly, there are now nine (9) remaining Objectors. Mr. Gaverluk was directed to submit to the assigned Case Coordinator a copy of the NWPA Articles of Incorporation and written authorization to represent the NWPA.

6Pursuant to s. 11(6) of the ARA, all those who submit objections are Parties to the hearing of the referred application and objections. Rule 8.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure ("Rules") sets out the roles and obligations of a Party. The following Objectors were not in attendance at today's CMC: Ron Baarda, David Henderson, Vernon Hennigar and Cindy Mitchell.

7In advance of the CMC, the Applicant and all Objectors were directed to submit their proposed lists of issues, along with information regarding anticipated witnesses and an estimation of time required to present their case at a future hearing. The NWPA, Jack Hellinga, Harry Wells and Melissa Bigford complied with the direction, but no communication was received from Ron Baarda, David Henderson, Vernon Hennigar, Cindy Mitchell nor Josef van Ruyven. Mr. van Ruyven, however, attended the CMC and provided the required information when called upon to do so.

8The Tribunal acknowledges that those who object to an application under the ARA may not fully appreciate that, on a referral to the Tribunal, they automatically become Parties to a hearing and thereby have specific obligations under the Rules. Accordingly, for the benefit of those who did not attend today's hearing event, it should be noted going forward that all Parties are expected to attend all hearing events, including any further CMCs and/or motions which may be scheduled. Parties are also expected to comply with all Tribunal-issued directions and Orders and ensure they are familiar with all applicable legislation, policies and the Rules.

9In the interest of fairness and to ensure all Parties have an opportunity to be heard, the Tribunal directs Messrs. Baarda, Henderson, Hennigar and Ms. Mitchell to each submit to the Tribunal (copying counsel for the Applicant and the other Parties), no later than three weeks from the issuance of this decision and Order, a written update which includes the following:

• Indication of whether their objections are withdrawn or maintained;
• if maintained, whether they intend to retain legal representation for a future hearing or intend to represent themselves;
• whether they intend to call any expert witnesses, and if so, the professional disciplines of those anticipated witnesses;
• whether they intend to call any lay witnesses and if so, what those witnesses will speak to;
• an estimate of the length of time required to present their case (including opening/closing submissions and presentation of evidence);
• their list of proposed issues for adjudication (note: issues put forward for adjudication must not fall outside of the Tribunal's jurisdiction, must have a clear connection to the legislative tests to be met under the ARA, and must be stated in the form of a question in neutral language).

10If those Parties identified in paragraph [9] above do not comply with the foregoing direction, the hearing will proceed as scheduled and on the basis of the issues submitted and set out in a future procedural order governing the proceedings. It will be assumed that those individuals do not intend to present a case or participate in the hearing and any request to do so or to add issues following the passage of the specified deadline will require leave of the Tribunal through a motion.

11All Parties should take note that the merit of an argument is not strengthened by repetition, nor does the Tribunal assign greater weight to a piece of evidence or an argument based on the number of times it is repeated. Parties are reminded that the Tribunal makes its decisions based on evidence and all Parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements where possible.

12With respect to opportunities for settlement, counsel for the Applicant indicated his client is open to pursuing discussions aimed at resolving or narrowing the issues and the Tribunal reminded the Parties of the availability of Tribunal-assisted mediation, which may be requested through the assigned Case Coordinator.

13Tribunal hearings are open to the public and Parties to this proceeding who have not previously participated in an OLT proceeding are encouraged to attend and observe a hearing which may assist them in preparing to represent themselves at a future hearing of the merits. Should Parties wish to do so, they may contact the assigned Case Coordinator, who can provide video coordinates or telephone call-in details and dates.

ISSUES FOR ADJUDICATION

14As directed, counsel for the Applicant submitted a draft Procedural Order (PO) and a draft Issues List ("IL") in advance of the CMC. That IL incorporated the majority of the issues submitted by the NWPA, Ms. Bigford and Messrs. Hellinga and Wells, while eliminating unnecessary repetition. Although Mr. van Ruyven did not provide a list of issues in advance, at the CMC he did note his satisfaction with the draft IL submitted by the Applicant's counsel, which he felt appropriately captured the issues he intends to address at a future hearing.

15The NWPA, Mr. Hellinga, Mr. Wells and Ms. Bigford however, noted that they were not satisfied with the IL submitted by the Applicant's counsel, pointing out that several of their issues had not been adequately captured/expressed. Counsel for the Applicant explained that some issues were not included because, in his submission, they are either not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal or are irrelevant to the matter before it. He further submitted that some of the issues submitted by the other Parties were overly broad or vaguely worded, such that it was not possible for his client to determine the case to be met and the evidence necessary to answer those issues at a hearing. Finally, he expressed concern that a number of issues were raised despite a lack of intent on the part of any other Parties to tender evidence in support of those issues.

16A lengthy debate ensued with respect to the appropriateness of certain issues and, despite explanations from counsel for the Applicant and the Tribunal with respect to the limits of the Tribunal's jurisdiction, the specific tests to be met for a permit under the ARA, and the need for issues to be sufficiently detailed so that the opposing party can know the case they have to meet and properly prepare for a hearing, no agreement could be reached at the CMC with respect to one combined list of issues.

17As a result of the foregoing, counsel for the Applicant proposed to include on the issues list for the hearing all issues raised by the Parties, while reserving the right to seek to strike certain issues at a pre-hearing motion or alternatively make submissions to the presiding panel at the hearing on the appropriateness of any specific issues which remain in dispute. As such, it should be noted by the Parties that the mere identification of an issue in a future procedural order does not mean that all parties agree, nor does it mean that the Tribunal accepts, that such an issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing.

18With respect to issues identified as being vaguely worded or overly broad and lacking in detail (for instance, transportation/traffic issues raised by Mr. Wells and health issues raised by Ms. Bigford) the Tribunal directs those Parties, to the extent they are able, to provide further detail or clarification to counsel for the Applicant (copying the Tribunal and all other Parties) no later than three (3) weeks following the issuance of this decision and Order. If no further detail is provided, counsel for the Applicant may seek to strike such issues either at a pre-hearing motion or at the future hearing of the merits.

19Finally, with respect to the concern raised about Parties not tendering evidence in support of an issue raised, the Tribunal noted that it routinely allows such issues to remain on an issues list. This is because it is often the case that Parties, while not calling their own expert to speak to such issues, may nevertheless wish to cross-examine the proponent's expert witnesses.

20Notwithstanding the inability of the Parties to agree on one combined IL at the CMC, the Tribunal nevertheless encourages continued discussions aimed at resolving disputes in this regard. Parties, whether aligned in interest or not, are always encouraged to work collaboratively at all stages of a proceeding to ensure an organized and efficient hearing which does not, as suggested by one of the Parties, constitute a conflict of interest.

NEXT STEPS

21On the strength of the relatively detailed issues lists provided by the Parties and based on information shared regarding the number of witnesses to be called and the estimated amount of time required to present the Parties' cases, the Tribunal scheduled a 15-day hearing by video to commence at 10:00 am on July 6, 2026.

22Parties are asked to log into the hearing by video at least 15 minutes before the start of the event, to test their video and audio connections:

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

Access code: 996-288-525

23Parties 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.

24Persons 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.

25Individuals 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 hearing by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal's Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

26Should it be necessary, following receipt of the list of items discussed in paragraph [9] from Messrs. Baarda, Henderson, Hennigar and Ms. Mitchell and any further detail/clarification from the other Parties with respect to issues identified by counsel for the Applicant as being overly broad or vague (as discussed in paragraph [18] above), the Parties may request additional time for the hearing through the Case Coordinator. Parties are to be aware that doing so may result in the rescheduling of the hearing altogether.

27Finally, counsel for the Applicant was directed to submit, for the Tribunal's review and approval, a draft PO with deliverable deadlines along with an IL or ILs, no later than 2 weeks following the passage of the deadlines discussed in paragraphs [9] and [18].

RECORDING OF HEARING EVENTS

28Following the CMC, it was brought to the attention of the Tribunal that a violation of Tribunal Rule 22.5 (Photographic, Audio or Video Recording) had occurred, despite the following caution being provided by the presiding Member to the Parties in opening remarks:

"Everyone is reminded of the prohibition on recording of hearing events which includes taking/attempting to take screenshots, photos, video, or any other recording, or to disseminate any recording unless specifically pre-authorized to do by the Tribunal, and under s.29 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, contravention of this prohibition carries a fine of up to $25,000.00 on conviction".

Rule 22.5 Photographic, Audio or Video Recording states:

No person shall take or attempt to take a photograph, motion picture, video recording, or other recording capable of producing audio or visual representations by electronic means, or otherwise, at any proceedings of the Tribunal otherwise open to the public, unless the presiding Tribunal Member authorizes the recording. The following conditions must be satisfied by the person making the request:

a) the Tribunal Member determines that the proceedings will not be disrupted or delayed if approval is given;

b) the Tribunal Member determines that the approval will not result in any prejudice to any party to the proceedings;

c) the equipment must be of a type approved by the Tribunal and be placed in locations approved by the Tribunal Member so as to be unobtrusive; and

d) a photograph or visual recording may only take place in such a manner that will not disrupt or interrupt the proceedings.

29All Parties to this proceeding, whether in attendance at this hearing event or not, are once again reminded that they are expected to be familiar with and follow the Tribunal's Rules.

ORDER

30The case management directives above are so ordered.

31There will be no further notice and this Member is not seized but may be available for additional case management should the Tribunal's calendar permit.

"S. Braun"

S. Braun

VICE-CHAIR

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.