HALDIMAND—The Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) has dismissed an appeal by Ward 1 Councillor Debera McKeen that challenged Haldimand County’s new seven-ward electoral system.
The decision, released August 25, 2025, ends months of uncertainty about how residents will be represented in future elections.
The OLT found no grounds to overturn Council’s February 2025 decision to adopt By-law 2588-25, which established the new ward boundaries.
by the Ontario Land Tribunal following an appeal by Councillor Debera McKeen, who submitted the appeal before she won the byelection.
McKeen had filed the appeal before she was elected in the March 2025 byelection. Her argument centred on the claim that Council rushed to adopt a seven-ward configuration that had not been presented to the public during earlier stages of consultation. She maintained that an alternative six-ward option, known as Preliminary Option 4, better upheld the guiding principles of effective representation.
The OLT heard the case on July 15, 2025 in a one-day video hearing.
McKeen was represented by Nathan Kolomaya, while Haldimand County was represented by Sarah Premi.
Expert witnesses Dr. Robert Williams and Jack Ammendolia, who conducted the ward review, appeared as a panel for the County. County Clerk Chad Curtis also provided testimony on the process leading to the adoption of the bylaw.
Curtis told the OLT that ward realignment was declared a priority of Council in April 2023. In August 2023, Council approved the scope and budget for a boundary review. Consultants from Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. were hired through a request for proposals.
A series of public consultations followed. An introductory workshop was held in May 2024. Open houses took place in June, and four preliminary ward options were shared with the public in October. Curtis said these opportunities were advertised widely and supported by an online engagement portal.
A final report was released on January 30, 2025. It presented two configurations: a six-ward option and a seven-ward option.
Council chose the seven-ward system, called Final Option 2, on February 4, and passed the bylaw on February 10.
McKeen’s appeal argued that the introduction of a seven-ward structure at the final stage was unfair. She said residents had not been given the chance to comment on it before Council’s decision.
She also raised concern that Final Option 2 scored lower than Preliminary Option 4 when measured against the guiding principles.
Preliminary Option 4, she noted, received top marks in four of the five categories and was assessed as fully successful in addressing population trends.
By contrast, Final Option 2 was only deemed partially successful in accounting for future growth.
McKeen argued that this flaw could weaken representation over time and that it was unreasonable to adopt a model known to have such shortcomings.
The County’s witnesses disagreed. Williams and Ammendolia testified that the seven-ward approach evolved organically through the process. They said Council made it clear they wanted to provide two wards in Caledonia while preserving the exisiting two wards in Dunnville, something that could not be achieved effectively under six wards.
The panel also rejected what it described as a “scoring system” advanced by McKeen. They said the guiding principles are not binding rules, but rather factors that must be balanced. Some principles are empirical, like population parity, while others are subjective, such as communities of interest. They emphasized that principles are not equally weighted and sometimes conflict with one another.
Williams and Ammendolia explained that their role was to present viable options that addressed the principles to a reasonable degree. They maintained that Final Option 2 met the standard of effective representation, even if not all principles were satisfied equally. They also pointed out that Council meetings are themselves public forums and that residents, including McKeen, spoke against the seven-ward option before the bylaw was passed.
Premi argued that the OLT should only intervene when there are clear and compelling reasons, which she said were not present. She defended the County’s process as robust, transparent, and consistent with case law.
In his written decision, OLT Vice-Chair Steven Cooke agreed. He said it is common for recommendations to evolve during deliberations and public workshops.
Based on the uncontested expert evidence, Cooke concluded that the decision to consider a seven-ward structure was a natural development and not an unreasonable shift.
“There is no basis for the Tribunal to believe that the Council altered or intervened in a way that would have changed the outcomes of the recommended options,” Cooke wrote. He said it was ultimately Council’s responsibility to weigh the evidence and make the final decision.
The OLT’s order dismissed the appeal, leaving the seven-ward configuration in place for the next municipal election.
The ruling means that Caledonia and Dunnville will each have two wards of representation, while the rest of the County is divided into three wards.
With the Tribunal’s decision now delivered, Haldimand County can proceed with its preparations for the next municipal election under the seven-ward system, scheduled for October 26, 2026.
