Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 08, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001574
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 25(5.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.2, as amended
Appellant: Jean-Paul Babineau (File No. 001741)
Appellant: Virginia Graham (File No. 001742)
Applicant: Bruce Trail Conservancy c/o Adam Brylowski
Respondent: Niagara Escarpment Commission
Subject of appeal: Approval of a Development Permit Application to construct an expansion of an existing parking lot, including placement of gravel on an existing Hemlock Ridge Conservation Corridor
Reference No.: D/L/2021-2022/13
Property Address/Description: 873603 5th Line East
Municipality: Town of Mono
Upper Tier: County of Dufferin
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001574
OLT Case Name: Babineau v. Ontario (Niagara Escarpment Commission)
Heard: May 30, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Jean-Paul Babineau
Self-represented
Bruce Trail Conservancy
A. Brylowski
DECISION DELIVERED BY JENNIFER CAMPBELL AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This Decision arises from a hearing (the “Hearing”) in respect of the appeals brought by Jean-Paul Babineau and Virginia Graham (together “Appellants”) regarding the approval by the Niagara Escarpment Commission (“NEC”) of a development permit to construct or expand a parking area at 873603 5th Line East in the Town of Mono.
2At the first CMC in this proceeding, held on February 1, 2022, neither of the Appellants attended. During the CMC, the Hearing Office’s Case Coordinator contacted Ms. Graham who informed the Case Coordinator that she would not be attending. Subsequent to the CMC, Mr. Babineau informed the Hearing Office that he experienced technical issues and was unable to join the call. The Hearing Office subsequently directed that a further CMC would be held on February 17, 2022 and stated that if a Party failed to attend that CMC, the Hearing Office may proceed without that Party and the proceeding may be disposed of in their absence.
3At the second CMC, held on February 17, 2022, again neither of the Appellants attended. The Hearing Office converted the CMC into a hearing and heard evidence and submissions from the NEC and the Bruce Trail Conservancy on the merits of the appeals.
4Subsequent to the second CMC, Mr. Babineau informed the Hearing Office that he had an emergency at work that prevented him from attending.
5On February 25, 2022, the Hearing Office solicited submissions from the Parties on the possibility of the Tribunal setting a one-day hearing on a pre-emptory basis to provide the Appellants with an opportunity to call evidence and make submissions on the merits of the appeals. None of the Parties objected to this course of action. Accordingly, the Hearing was scheduled on a pre-emptory basis.
6Neither Ms. Graham nor the NEC attended at the Hearing. At the Hearing, Mr. Babineau made submissions in respect of the appeals indicating that he was unopposed to an application to create a new parking lot on the subject property, but took issue with the application being referenced as an expansion of an existing parking lot. Given that Mr. Babineau had not attended either of the previous CMCs and was not represented by legal counsel, he requested additional time to consider whether any different criteria was prescribed by the Niagara Escarpment Plan 2017 (“NEP”) for a new parking lot as compared to an expansion of an existing lot, which would be relevant to the appeals. The Bruce Trail Conservancy did not oppose this course of action. The Hearing Office instructed Mr. Babineau to submit any final submissions in writing by June 2, 2022, following which the NEC and the Bruce Trail Conservancy would be given an opportunity to respond in writing, if applicable.
7No written submissions were provided by Mr. Babineau by the June 2, 2022 deadline set by the Hearing Office. On June 4, 2022, Mr. Babineau provided written submissions to the Tribunal to the effect that the application should be referenced as the construction of a new parking lot, as opposed to the expansion of an existing parking lot, for transparency reasons. Mr. Babineau did not provide any submissions as to how the proposed development – whether characterized as a new or expanded parking lot – failed to meet the development criteria set forth in the NEP.
8Ms. Graham, the NEC and the Bruce Trail Conservancy were each given the opportunity to respond to the written submissions of Mr. Babineau by June 8, 2022. Neither Ms. Graham nor the Bruce Trail Conservancy responded. The NEC responded and confirmed that the history of the parking use at the subject property is unknown, although it appears to have been used as a parking lot since at least 2008. In either case, the NEC submitted that the analysis for approval of the Development Permit Application would remain unchanged and would still be based on achieving the same objectives as set forth in Parts 1.3.4 and 2 of the NEP.
Discussion, Analysis and Findings
9Based on the submissions of the NEC, the Hearing Office agrees that same criteria and analysis would apply whether the Development Permit Application is characterized as a new or an expanded parking area, and neither Mr. Babineau nor Ms. Graham presented any evidence to the Hearing Office as to how the Development Permit failed to meet any such development criteria set forth in the NEP. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer finds that the Development Permit does not conflict with the provisions of the NEP and is of the opinion that the decision of the NEC in issuing the Development Permit was correct, should not be changed and should be confirmed.
ORDER
10The Hearing Office orders that the appeals are dismissed.
11The decision of the Niagara Escarpment Commission to approve the Applicant’s Development Permit Application D/L/2021-2022/13 is deemed to be confirmed pursuant to s. 25(12) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.
“Jennifer Campbell”
Jennifer Campbell
HEARING OFFICER
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.