Ontario Land Tribunal

655 Bay Street, Suite 1500 Toronto, ON M5G 1E5 Telephone: (416) 212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248 Website: olt.gov.on.ca

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire 655 rue Bay, suite 1500 Toronto, ON M5G 1E5 Téléphone: (416) 212-6349 Sans Frais: 1-866-448-2248 Site Web: olt.gov.on.ca

February 24, 2026

TO: All recipients of the Ontario Land Tribunal Decision and Order issued on

February 3, 2026

RE: OLT CASE NO.: OLT-25-000157, DECISION ISSUED ON FEBRUARY 3, 2026

On February 3, 2026 the Ontario Land Tribunal issued its Decision and Order (“Decision”) on the above noted case.

Rule 24.4 of the Ontario Land Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rule”) states that the Tribunal may at any time correct a technical or typographical error made in a decision or order.

The Tribunal has corrected the Decision under the authority of this Rule by:

1. Adding Liam McDermott (Articling Student)” in the Appearances Section under the Director’s representative

2. Correction to the Provincial Officer’s Order referenced in the last sentence of paragraph 4 should be “PO612” and not “PO839”

3. Correction to the sum amount of paragraph 20(c) should be “$74,640” and not “$74,638”.

A corrected version of the Decision issued on February 3, 2026 is enclosed with this communication. This enclosed Decision replaces the Decision and Order issued on February 3, 2026.

Thank you,

“Matthew D.J. Bryan”

MATTHEW D.J. BRYAN

REGISTRAR

Encl.

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement

du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

February 03, 2026

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-25-000157

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 140(1) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19, as amended

Appellant:

AMG Home Developers Inc.

Respondent:

Director, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks

Subject of appeal:

Order requiring the financial assurance for post closure monitoring and/or maintenance activities

Reference No.:

1-875808106-A1

Property Address/Description:

644B West Moira Street

Municipality/Upper Tier:

Belleville/Hastings

OLT Case No.:

OLT-25-000157

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-25-000157

OLT Case Name:

AMG Home Developers Inc. v. Ontario (Environment, Conservation and Parks)

Heard:

January 13, 2026 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative*

AMG Home Developers Inc.

Gurnek Gahunia*

Director, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and

Sara Shams

Nadine Harris

Parks

Liam McDermott (Articling Student)

DECISION DELIVERED BY A. SNOWDON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision arises from a Merit Hearing (“Hearing”) relating to an appeal brought pursuant to s. 140(1) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19, as amended (“Act”) against the Amended Director’s Order No. 1-875808106-A1 (“ADO”) issued by the Director, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks (“Director”) prescribing Financial Assurance (“FA”) in the amount of $74,638.00 from AMG Home Developers Inc. (“Appellant”) relating to a former Waste Disposal Site (“WDS”) at the property municipally known as 644 Moira Street West (“Site”) in Belleville.

2The deadline set to submit the FA in Director’s Order No. 1-875808106 (“DO”) was March 31, 2025 but was extended to May 31, 2025 in the ADO. The DO and ADO were issued under s. 157.3 of the Act.

3The Site was operated by Zebedee Container & Disposal Service Ltd. (“Prior Owner”) as the Zebedee Waste Disposal Site. The Site functioned as a landfill operation from approximately 1973 until 1991, leading up to its closure in 1992. Provincial Officer’s Order No. 1-129435839 (“PO839”), dated September 26, 2022, was issued to the Prior Owner requiring seven work items to be completed.

4The Appellant purchased the Site from the Prior Owner and the Director received a Notification of Change of Ownership in August 2023, indicating that the Appellant is the owner of the Site. On July 27, 2024, Certificate of Approval A362506 (now known as an Environmental Compliance Approval (“ECA”)) issued in 1988 was revoked and replaced with an ECA of the same number. Subsequently, Provincial Officer’s Order No. 1-855793612 (“PO612”), the DO, and the ADO were issued to the Appellant.

ISSUES

5The only issue before the Tribunal is when should submission of the required FA to the Director, as required by Item No. 1 of the ADO, be made.

STATUS REQUESTS

6The Tribunal did not receive any requests for Party or Participant status prior to or during the Hearing.

EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES

7The Appellant filed:

a. a 4-page Witness Statement for Jaspal Singh Gahunia (marked as Exhibit 1);

b. a 3-page Witness Statement for Gurnek Gahunia (marked as Exhibit 2);

c. a 6-page email chain regarding the Prior Owner (marked as Exhibit 3);

d. a 2-page email to the Prior Owner’s realtor (marked as Exhibit 4);

e. a 37-page FA Re-evaluation authored by BluMetric and dated June 21, 2024 (marked as Exhibit 5);

f. a 4-page Report from BluMetric dated June 2024 (marked as Exhibit 6);

g. a 1-page Freedom of Information Request email (marked as Exhibit 7);

h. a 2-page Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (“MECP”) Freedom of Information Request email (marked as Exhibit 8); and

i. an 8-page Business Profile of Prior Owner (marked as Exhibit 9).

8Jaspal Singh Gahunia, the owner of AMG Home Developers Inc., testified with respect to the evidence set out in his witness statement. Mr. J. Gahunia spoke as a lay witness to the facts of this proceeding.

9Gurnek Gahunia, an employee of AMG Home Developers Inc., testified with respect to the evidence set out in his witness statement. Mr. G. Gahunia spoke as a lay witness to the facts of this proceeding.

10The Director filed:

a. a 227-page Book of Witness Statements (marked as Exhibit 10);

b. a 164-page Book of Documents (Tabs 1-4) (marked as Exhibit 11); and

c. the 3-page Instrument QR284247 (marked as Exhibit 12).

11Cathy Chisholm, the District Manager of the Kingston District of the MECP, testified with respect to the evidence set out in her witness statement. Ms. Chisholm spoke as a lay witness to the facts of this proceeding.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1: When should the submission of the required FA to the Director, as required by Item No. 1 of the ADO, be made?

Legislation

12For an appeal under s. 140(1) of the Act, the Tribunal is empowered by s. 145.2 of the Act to substitute the Tribunal’s opinion in place of the Directors and “may confirm, alter, or revoke the action of the Director that is the subject matter of the hearing.”

Submissions

13Ms. Chisholm stated that the Certificate of Approval was issued to the Prior Owner in 1977. In 1980, the Certificate of Approval was registered on title for the Site under registration number QR284247. She said that an ECA was still in place when the Appellants purchased the Site in 2023. On cross-examination, Mr. J. Gahunia acknowledged that he reviewed the parcel register prior to purchasing the Site.

14Ms. Chisholm explained that a closure plan is required to close a WDS and that it is necessary for the MECP to have FA from the Appellant to, if necessary, close the Site on behalf of the owner.

15Ms. Chisholm stated that, although the Site closed in 1992, it was determined in 2010 that post-closure monitoring was not completed. The Prior Owner was required to start monitoring and to provide FA for this. Ms. Chisholm stated that some monitoring and sampling was conducted in 2016. On September 26, 2022, PO839 was issued to the Prior Owner, with a list of work items required to bring the Site into compliance.

16Ms. Chisholm stated that the Prior Owner did not comply with PO839 and the Site changed ownership in 2023. As such, the new owner, the Appellant, inherited the ECA and the responsibilities of it.

17Ms. Chisholm said that the Director contacted the Appellant after they took ownership to explain the ECA. The Appellant hired BluMetric Environmental Inc. (“BluMetric”) to start monitoring, sampling, and to provide a FA calculation.

18BluMetric produced a FA calculation (included in Exhibit 11) dated June 21, 2024 for a value of $223,916 based on a seven-year monitoring scenario. Ms. Chisholm stated that normally a WDS FA uses a 25-year window. She said that the shortened post-closure monitoring period was used by BluMetric because the WDS closed in 1992.

19Ms. Chisholm shared that s. 4.3.1 of the F-15: Financial Assurance Guideline (“F-15”) sets the rules and conditions to determine when FA should be required. Section 4.4 of the F-15 provides a list of scenarios under which FA should be required in conjunction with s. 4.3.1. The Site qualifies as it is a private landfill where the waste residuals are judged to be high risk.

20Ms. Chisholm stated that in the ECA, s. 4 details the FA required to be paid by the Appellant to the Ministry of Financial Assurance as:

a. $74,638 by September 30th, 2024

b. $74,638 by September 30th, 2025

c. $74,640 by September 30th, 2026

21According to the ECA, the owner is to conduct groundwater and surface water monitoring and submit an annual report to the Director starting by June 30, 2025. The annual report will include:

a. a plan of the Site outlining monitoring locations;

b. a summary of inspections required by Conditions 6(1);

c. an assessment of surface water quality in relation to the Provincial Water Quality Objectives and trigger concentrations (if and when the surface water trigger mechanism is in place);

d. an assessment of groundwater quality in relation to Ministry Guideline B-7 and to the trigger concentrations (if and when the groundwater trigger mechanism is in place);

e. conclusions of the monitoring data, a review of the adequacy of monitoring programs, recommendations for any changes to monitoring programs that may be necessary;

f. a statement as to compliance with all Conditions of the ECA and with the inspection and reporting requirements of the Conditions; and

g. a summary of any public complaints received by the owner and the responses made.

22Ms. Chisholm stated that the Appellant has not been sampling, reporting, or paying the FA as directed. In response to this, PO612, dated December 3, 2024, was issued to the Appellant with one item for compliance:

a. By December 20, 2024, AMG Home Developers Inc. shall submit financial assurance in the amount of $74,638.00 in an acceptable form to the Director as defined in ECA number A362506.

23Ms. Chisholm stated that she had a meeting with the Appellant following the issuing of the PO612 and extended the compliance date to March 31, 2025 in the DO dated December 12, 2024.

24According to Ms. Chisholm, the Appellants missed the appeal deadline for the DO. However, the Appellant requested, on January 17, 2025, to extend the deadline for the FA until May 31, 2025. The Appellant’s request was for additional time to connect with the Prior Owner to attempt to resolve the finances. Ms. Chisholm extended the deadline to May 31, 2025 and issued the ADO dated February 27, 2025. Following the issuing of the ADO, the Appellant appealed to the Tribunal.

25Mr. J. Gahunia stated that he wants to co-operate with the MECP by bringing the Site into compliance, however, he stated that the BluMetric Report from the initial monitoring and sampling did not show any issues. On cross examination, the Director highlighted that the BluMetric Report states “As outlined in the 2023 [BluMetric] monitoring report, the extent of leachate impacts has not been delineated and the WDS is not in compliance with Guideline B-7.”

26Mr. J. Gahunia stated that annual monitoring is too expensive and he takes issue with the fact that the Prior Owner was not held accountable for these costs. On cross-examination, the Director had the Appellant confirm that they hired BluMetric for the 2023 monitoring but did not engage their services for 2024 or 2025 due to cost.

27Mr. J. Gahunia stated that the Appellant has not completed the required work detailed in the BluMetric Report to conduct new studies, install new monitoring wells, or sample groundwater or surface water.

28Mr. G. Gahunia, on cross-examination, confirmed that he worked with BluMetric to develop the 2023 workplan to address the items in the PO839. He confirmed that he reviewed the FA calculation and submitted it to the MECP for review.

29Mr. J. Gahunia stated, when questioned by the Tribunal, that he filed a civil matter with the Ontario Superior Court, on October 27, 2025, against the Prior Owner and other parties including the MECP. Both, Mr. J. Gahunia and Mr. G. Gahunia said that the Appellant should not be required to pay the FA until the civil matter is resolved.

30The Director stated that the Tribunal has been provided with no evidence that supports setting a new date for FA and should dismiss the appeal.

Findings

31The Tribunal finds that there was sufficient information available to the Appellant on the parcel register to know there was an ECA registered on title.

32By the Appellant’s own admissions, there has been no monitoring, sampling, or reporting undertaken since 2023 and no FA has been submitted to date. The Tribunal finds that the Appellant has not complied with PO839 or the ADO.

33The Tribunal finds that, based on the 2023 BluMetric Report, the risk of contaminant discharge to the environment from the WDS is unknown and further study, which would determine this risk, has not been conducted as was outlined in the workplan submitted by the Appellant to the Director.

34The Tribunal has not been provided with evidence from the Appellant to justify why there should be a delay in paying the FA. The Tribunal finds that the Appellants request to have the FA deadline extended until the civil matter has been resolved is not in the public interest or the environment’s interest and will not result in the Site being brought into compliance.

35Under the Act, s. 27 requires an ECA for a WDS, s. 20.3 allows the Director to approve an ECA with conditions, and s. 132 permits the Director to include FA as part of an order, ECA, or Certificate. Sections 4.3.1 and 4.4 of the F-15 describe that FA is required due to the use of the Site and the unknown contaminant risk. Section 6.8.4 of the F-15 states that FA payment schedules should be included as conditions of orders or approvals.

36With respect to the timing of the FA, s. 6.7.7.7(b) states that “Financial Assurance for post-closure maintenance and monitoring plus contingency costs should be obtained as soon as possible.”

37The Tribunal finds that the Appellants are to pay the first installment of the FA by May 1, 2026.

Order

38The Tribunal orders THAT the appeal is dismissed and Director’s Order No. 1-875808106-A1 is confirmed with the FA payment being submitted no later than May 1, 2026.

“A. Snowdon”

A. SNOWDON

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.