Citation and Court Information
CITATION: 2341066 Ontario Limited v. County of Oxford, 2017 ONSC 2117
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-16-0005
DATE: 20170405
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
H. Rady, D. L. Corbett, J. Fregeau JJ.
BETWEEN:
2341066 Ontario Limited Appellant
– and –
County of Oxford Respondent
Simon Adler, for the appellant
Keith Jones, for the respondent
Stan Floras, for Ontario Municipal Board
HEARD AND DECIDED: April 3, 2017
Oral Reasons for Judgment
D. L. CORBETT J. (orally):
[1] The appellant appeals the decision of Vice-Chair Stefanko of the Ontario Municipal Board dismissing a request to designate a Special Policy Area amendment to the County of Oxford Official Plan respecting a two-acre portion of its land located on Cobble Hills Road, Township of Zorra.
[2] This application is a condition precedent to an application to sever the two-acre portion of land.
[3] This appeal comes to us pursuant to s. 96 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act, which provides in (1) “Subject to the provisions of part four, an appeal lies from the Board to the Divisional Court with leave of the Divisional Court on a question of law.”
[4] The standard of review on an appeal from the Ontario Municipal Board is reasonableness. This court shows deference to the OMB on questions of law falling within its area of expertise.
[5] In this case, the questions of law involved are all matters of planning law, including the Official Plan of Oxford County, Provincial Policy Statements and applicable provisions of the Planning Act. The Vice-Chair’s decision on these issues lies within the core competence of the OMB.
[6] As was stated in London (City of) v. Ayerswood Development Corp., 2002 3225 (ON CA), at para. 7:
Questions of law that engage the special expertise of the Ontario Municipal Board, such as the interpretation of its own statute attract a standard of reasonableness. Questions of law that are of general application for which the OMB has no special expertise are reviewed on a standard of correctness.
[7] Overall, on an appeal from the Ontario Municipal Board, this court should intervene only if a decision from the Ontario Municipal Board fails to fall “within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes, which are defensible in respect of the facts and law”. Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 at para 54.
[8] The applicant owns and operates a golf course on 114 acres of land. The land is zoned environmental and agricultural and lies within a band of land that falls within general agricultural zoning.
[9] A prior owner of the golf course constructed a 3000 square foot house on the golf club property ancillary to the property’s overall use as a golf course, presumably as a residence for the head greenskeeper or some such other purpose. The current owner of the golf club no longer requires the home in connection with the golf course. It is no longer an ancillary use.
[10] The house being surplus to its needs, the applicant wishes to sever two acres on which the house is situated. The OMB said no. The OMB concluded that the applicant was not entitled to its requested amendment to the Official Plan and that as a sound matter of planning policy, it should not be permitted. The entire area, golf course and surrounding area, is precluded from residential development. The house was built as ancillary to the golf course. If it is no longer needed for that purpose, then it can be used for other golf club purposes, but it may not be severed and thus transformed into a residential use.
[11] The Vice-Chair captured the policy basis of his decision in para. 28 of his decision:
It is patently unfair, in my estimation, for a party to rely upon an “accessory use” permission to build a home but resile from that position when attempting to secure the requisite approval to sell the home. If I were to accede to the argument of Ltd. in that regard, I would be creating interpretive chaos in relation to certain provisions of the county Official Plan and I am not prepared to do so.
[12] This statement of principle is reasonable. The Vice-Chair’s interpretation of the Official Plan, Provincial Policy Statements and the Act are consonant with this principle and are reasonable.
[13] The appeal is dismissed.
“Justice D. L. Corbett” D. L. Corbett J.
I agree:
“Justice H. A. Rady” Rady J.
I agree:
“Justice J. Fregeau” Fregeau J.
Released: April 5, 2017
CITATION: 2341066 Ontario Limited v. County of Oxford, 2017 ONSC 2117
COURT FILE NO.: DC-16-0005
DATE: 20170405
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
H. Rady, D. L. Corbett, J. Fregeau JJ.
BETWEEN:
2341066 Ontario Limited Appellant
– and –
County of Oxford Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
D. L. Corbett, J.
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: April 3, 2017
Released: April 5, 2017