Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: January 09, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001264
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 28(15) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 27, as amended
Appellant: Jason Raymond Pavy
Respondent: Quinte Conservation
Subject: Appeal of refusal to grant permission for development
Property Address: 612 Hiscock Shores Road
Municipality: Carrying Place
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001264
OLT Case Name: Pavy v. Quinte Conservation
Heard: May 30, 2022 and June 10, 16 and 17, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Jason Pavy
Richard Butler and Madiha Vallani
Quinte Conservation Authority
Jennifer Savini and Daniel Querques
(student-at-law)
DECISION DELIVERED BY hugh s. wilkins AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Introduction
1Jason Pavy (“Appellant”) applied for permission from the Quinte Conservation Authority (“Conservation Authority”) to undertake development to facilitate the construction of a dwelling and the installation of a holding tank for sewage and wastewater storage on the property located at 612 Hiscock Shores Road (“subject property”) in Carrying Place.
2The subject property is vacant. The site of the proposed development (“proposed site”) on the subject property is on a peninsula surrounded by wetlands and Lake Ontario.
3On June 17, 2021, the Conservation Authority’s Hearing Committee (“Hearing Committee”) held a hearing regarding the Appellant’s development permission application.
4On June 28, 2021, the Hearing Committee denied the Appellant’s application.
5On July 27, 2021, the Appellant appealed the Hearing Committee’s decision to the Tribunal under s. 28(15) of the Conservation Authorities Act.
6On May 30, 2022 and June 10, 16 and 17, 2022, the Tribunal heard the appeal by video hearing.
Issues
7In a proceeding brought under s. 28(15) of the Conservation Authorities Act, the Tribunal may refuse permission to undertake development or may grant permission with or without conditions. To be successful, an appellant must satisfy the applicable statutory, regulatory, and policy tests for granting permission, which, in the present case, are:
a. whether the proposed development permission would comply with the regulatory requirements in Ontario Regulation 319/09 (Quinte Conservation Authority: Regulation of development, interference with wetlands, and alterations to shorelines and watercourses) (“Regulation 319/09”);
b. whether the proposed development permission would be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”); and,
c. whether, having regard to the Conservation Authority’s policies created for the purpose of guiding the exercise of its powers under the Conservation Authorities Act and Regulation 319/09, the proposed development permission should be issued. The relevant policies are set out in the Conservation Authority’s “Watershed Regulations (O. Reg. 319/09) Policy Manual” (“Conservation Authority’s Policy Manual”).
Evidence, Submissions and Findings
8At the hearing, the Appellant produced three witnesses:
the Appellant, Mr. Pavy, who provided fact evidence;
Will Barbour, who the Tribunal qualified to provide opinion evidence as an ecologist with experience in the area of environmental impact studies; and,
Martin Burger, who the Tribunal qualified to provide opinion evidence as an engineer with experience in the assessment and design of wastewater systems and geotechnical investigation.
9The Conservation Authority presented one witness:
- Paul McCoy, who provided fact evidence. He is the Planning and Regulations Manager at the Conservation Authority.
10Each of the above-noted issues is addressed below.
Issue 1: Regulation 319/09 on the Quinte Conservation Authority
11Regulation 319/09 was enacted pursuant to s. 28(1) of the Conservation Authorities Act, which empowers conservation authorities to make regulations prohibiting, regulating, or requiring permission for development. Such regulations must comply with Ontario Regulation 97/04 (“Regulation 97/04”) (on the Content of Conservation Authority Regulations under s. 28(1) of the Conservation Authorities Act), which sets out their permitted scope. Among other things, s. 3 of Regulation 97/04 directs that conservation authorities prohibit development in wetlands and in enumerated area types adjacent to wetlands and Great Lake shorelines. There are exceptions to these prohibitions. These exceptions, set out in its s. 4, include situations where the control of flooding, erosion, or the conservation of land will not be affected by a development proposal.
12In accordance with these requirements, Regulation 319/09 relating to the Quinte Conservation Authority prohibits development on lands adjacent to wetlands or Lake Ontario that are within the Conservation Authority’s jurisdiction. Section 2(1) of Regulation 319/09 states, in part:
2(1) Subject to section 3, no person shall undertake development or permit another person to undertake development in or on the areas within the jurisdiction of the Authority that are,
(a) adjacent or close to the shoreline of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River System or to inland lakes that may be affected by flooding, erosion or dynamic beaches, including the area from the furthest offshore extent of the Authority’s boundary to the furthest landward extent of the aggregate of the following distances:
(i) the 100 year flood level, plus the appropriate allowance in metres for wave uprush and, if necessary, an appropriate allowance in metres for other water related hazards, including ice piling and ice jamming,
(ii) the predicted long term stable slope projected from the existing stable toe of the slope or from the predicted location of the toe of the slope as that location may have shifted as a result of shoreline erosion over a 100-year period,
(iii) where a dynamic beach is associated with the waterfront lands, an allowance of 30 metres inland to accommodate dynamic beach movement, and
(iv) an allowance of 15 metres inland;
(d) wetlands; or
(e) other areas where development could interfere with the hydrologic function of a wetland, including areas within 120 metres of all provincially significant wetlands and wetlands greater than 2 hectares in size, and areas within 30 metres of wetlands less than 2 hectares in size.
13It is not disputed that the proposed site lies adjacent to a Great Lake (Lake Ontario). It is also not disputed that the proposed site lies within 120 m of a provincially significant wetland (Weller’s Bay Provincially Significant Wetland) (which is also a wetland greater than 2 hectares (“ha”) in size).
14Regulation 319/09 sets out exceptions to the s. 2(1) prohibitions. The exceptions are set out in s. 3(1) of the Regulation, which states:
3(1) The Authority may grant permission for development in or on the areas described in subsection 2(1) if, in its opinion, the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches, pollution or the conservation of land will not be affected by the development.
15In Laforme v. The Corporation of the Town of Bruce Peninsula, 2021 ONSC 5287, the Divisional Court interpreted similar regulatory language to that in s. 3(1). At paragraph 48 of the decision, the Court found that, when applying these provisions, the Court must determine whether a proposed development would have no negative impact on the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches, pollution, or the conservation of the lands in question. The burden is on the appellant to demonstrate this (see Gilmor v. Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, 2017 ONCA 414 (“Gilmor”), at paragraph 78).
16In the present case, Mr. Barbour provided opinion evidence as an ecologist on behalf of the Appellant. In his environmental impact study, dated March 31, 2021, Mr. Barbour acknowledged that if the proposed development proceeded without mitigation and enhancement measures, it would result in negative impacts; but, with the implementation of such measures, he said there would be a net benefit to the environment. Mr. Barbour stated that his recommended measures include the use of a holding tank for sewage and wastewater, the prohibition of fertilizer and salt use on the proposed site, the conveyance of runoff from impermeable surfaces to outlets greater than 30 m from the wetland boundary, and the installation of a silt fence. They also include a requirement that the lawn on the proposed site be mowed to avoid creating species habitat and a requirement for the development of a vegetation enhancement plan with specifications on plantings and layout. Mr. Barbour stated that the measures would include the planting of native plants, the installation of a bird nesting pole and platform, and other alterations to the proposed site to attract turtle and bird nesting. He stated that 15 to 25 metre (“m”) buffers from the adjacent wetlands would be sufficient provided that these recommended measures are implemented.
17In his environmental impact study, Mr. Barbour elaborated that with the implementation of his recommended measures, “there is acceptably low probability of adverse effects on environmental receptors occurring within the area of impact around the site, including the [Provincially Significant Wetland] and shoreline of Wellers Bay”. He said the measures would “create overall benefits for all identified environmental receptors consistent with ‘no negative impact’ from the proposed development”. Mr. Barbour elaborated that, if the recommended mitigation and enhancement measures are taken, there should be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts from the proposed development. He stated that the proposed development is not expected to cause changes to local hydrology due to the highwater table and the proximity of the wetlands. He also said no wetland vegetation or species-at-risk habitat would be removed.
18In regard to the 100-year flood level and the control of flooding, the Appellant had a survey undertaken of the proposed site to demonstrate that, with a 15 m buffer, there is sufficient land above the 100-year flood level to establish a suitable building envelope. The Appellant’s engineer, Mr. Burger, stated that a 15 m setback from the 1:100 year flood level would be appropriate for addressing wave uprush during a storm. He stated at the hearing that the proposed development would be safe for occupants given that its floor elevation would be 300 millimeters (“mm”) above a 100-year flood elevation of 75.86 m. He stated that the proposed dwelling would not have a basement and that although sections of the driveway would be below the 100-year flood level, the safe passage of vehicles would be possible. Mr. Burger acknowledged that it is unlikely that there is sufficient space on the proposed site above the high water level for a Class 4 onsite wastewater system (with a treatment unit and stone effluent loading area and dispersal bed). However, he said a Class 5 system with a holding tank that is regularly pumped by a sewage hauler would be workable, if it is permitted under the Building Code. With respect to erosion control issues, Mr. Burger said the effects and associated risks caused by water level fluctuations at the proposed site could be mitigated through the placement of boulders and vegetation within the flood plain to dissipate wave energy during high water events.
19The Conservation Authority submitted that the proposed site is located within the Conservation Authority’s regulated area along Lake Ontario and the Weller’s Bay Wetland Complex and is subject to the setback requirements in Regulation 319/09. It submitted that based on the proposed site’s proximity to the Lake and wetlands, the proposed development permission would affect erosion, the conservation of land, and pollution. It submitted that filling and other activity on the proposed site has already resulted in erosion and affected the control of flooding and the wetlands. It submitted that the conservation of land constitutes the protection, management, or restoration of lands within the watershed ecosystem for the purpose of maintaining or enhancing the natural features and hydrologic and ecological functions within the watershed. It submitted that the proposed mitigation and enhancement measures would fail to achieve this. It submitted that the proposed development permission would result in adverse effects, including noise, light, and other pollutants, which, with the proposed reduced setbacks, would adversely affect the wetland’s ecological features and functions.
20The Conservation Authority also submitted that a Class 5 wastewater system is not permitted on the proposed site based on the requirements in s. 8.8.1.1 and 8.8.1.2 of the Building Code. It submitted that the Appellant’s proposed mitigation and enhancement measures may not work to ensure the prevention of erosion or pollution or ensure the conservation of land and the Conservation Authority does not have the capacity to enforce them. Also, the Conservation Authority submitted that the 75.86 m flood level applied by the Appellant has recently been updated to 76.07 m; however, the Conservation Authority did not provide supporting evidence that this new standard has been adopted.
Analysis and Findings
21Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the proposed site lies within the Conservation Authority’s regulated area and is subject to the requirements in Regulation 319/09. Section 2(1) of Regulation 319/09 prohibits development within 120 m of a Provincially Significant Wetland, which applies in the present case.
22Regarding the application of the exceptions in s. 3(1), the Tribunal finds that the Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development permission would have no negative impact on the control of flooding, erosion, pollution, or the conservation of lands. Mr. Barbour acknowledged that the proposed development on its own would result in negative environmental impacts, but stated that his proposed mitigation and enhancement measures would provide environmental benefits that would compensate for the negative impacts. These measures include the prohibition of specific activities, installation of plantings and species habitat, and requirements for ongoing mitigation actions on the proposed site. He stated that 15 to 25 m setbacks from the wetlands, accompanied by these measures, would result in an acceptably low probability of adverse effects on environmental receptors.
23The test to be applied is whether there will be no negative impact on the control of flooding, erosion, pollution, or the conservation of lands. Neither Mr. Barbour nor Mr. Burger demonstrated that there would be no negative impact in these areas. There was no detailed evidence regarding the impacts of the proposed storm protection and erosion measures on flooding, no evidence on how light and noise pollution would be addressed, no comprehensive evidence on the impacts of the proposed erosion control measures on the conservation of lands for maintaining or enhancing the natural features and hydrologic and ecological functions within the watershed, and no evidence demonstrating that the proposed mitigation and enhancement measures would in fact work. Mr. Barbour stated that the productivity and biological needs of the wetlands can be addressed through enhancement plantings on adjacent lands with structures that support habitat function, but he did not elaborate on specifically how these would maintain or enhance the natural features and hydrologic and ecological functions within the watershed.
24The Tribunal also notes that there was also no compelling argument that a Class 5 wastewater system would be permitted under the Building Code on the proposed site and there was no suggestion of a contingency plan in case the proposed measures do not work as planned. Another general difficulty with the proposed measures is their temporal nature and the lack of tools to monitor or enforce them.
25Given these findings, the Tribunal finds that the proposed development permission would permit development within 120 m of a Provincially Significant Wetland and the exceptions under s. 3(1) of the Regulation do not apply. The Tribunal finds that the proposed development permission does not comply with Regulation 319/09.
Issue 2: PPS
26In Gilmor, at paragraph 51, the Court of Appeal found that, for the purposes of s. 3(5) of the Planning Act, a conservation authority is a “local board” that is required to act in a manner consistent with provincial policy statements, including the PPS (see also Laforme, at paragraph 55).
27PPS policies 2.1.4 to 2.1.8 set out restrictions on development and site alteration in wetlands, significant wildlife habitat, coastal wetlands, fish habitat, endangered or threatened species habitat, and adjacent areas. PPS policy 2.2 sets out restrictions to ensure the protection of water. It requires planning authorities to protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of water by, among other things: minimizing potential negative impacts; maintaining linkages and related functions among natural heritage features and areas; restricting development to protect, improve or restore sensitive water features and their hydrologic functions; and ensuring proper stormwater management practices. Policy 2.2 also states that development must be restricted in or near sensitive surface water features so that they, and their related hydrologic functions, are protected, improved or restored. PPS policy 3.1 sets out restrictions regarding development and site alteration on or near hazardous lands, including lands associated with flooding.
28The Appellant submitted that the proposed development permission would be consistent with the PPS. He submitted that the proposed development would be outside of wetlands in accordance with policy 2.1.4. Mr. Barbour stated, in this environmental impact study, that the productivity and biological needs of the wetlands can be addressed through enhancement plantings on adjacent lands with structures that support habitat function and stewardship among landowners. He said these measures and the proposed setbacks would “meet” the requirements in PPS policies 2.1 and 2.2 and there would be no adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated.
29Regarding the significant wildlife habitat provisions in policy 2.1.5, Mr. Barbour stated in his environmental impact study that most of the Weller’s Bay Wetland Complex is privately owned and that the best way to protect significant wildlife habitat is to prevent the spread of invasive species. Although he acknowledged that the mowed lawn on the proposed site offers little direct habitat value as a vegetation community and little buffer value compared to more complex vegetation communities, he said it facilitates significant wildlife habitat functions by providing a potential turtle nesting area and a potential amphibian movement corridor.
30Regarding the fish habitat provisions in policy 2.1.6, Mr. Barbour acknowledged in his environmental impact study that given the proximity of the wetlands and Lake Ontario, stormwater will run off into these features. To maintain the health of surrounding vegetation and aquatic life, he recommended that no harmful chemicals should be used on the proposed site. He said machinery and potential pollutants during construction must be kept at least 30 m from the wetlands and the shoreline, and erosion and sediment control measures should be applied throughout the duration of the project.
31Regarding the species-at-risk provisions in policy 2.1.7, Mr. Barbour stated that he assumed in his environmental impact study that species-at-risk, including potentially Blanding’s Turtle and King Rail, are present on the proposed site based on baseline data. He said most of the impacted habitat would be within areas that have already been disturbed due to past grading activities on the proposed site. He stated that the Weller’s Bay Wetland Complex provides habitat for species-at-risk turtles, birds, and bats, and has more suitable habitat for them than the existing mowed grass and vegetation on the proposed site.
32Regarding requirements for adjacent lands in policy 2.1.8, Mr. Barbour recommended in his environmental impact study that a 15 m buffer from the wetlands be maintained along the northern side of the proposed site, a 25 m buffer from the wetlands along the Wellers Bay shoreline, and a 15 m from the limit of the 1:100 year floodplain. To mitigate the environmental impacts from salt, sediment, erosion, and nutrients from wastewater, Mr. Barbour recommended that a holding tank be used for sewage and that the use of fertilizers and salt be prohibited on the proposed site. He recommended that impermeable surfaces must convey runoff to outlets greater than 30 m from the wetland boundary and a silt fence must be installed during grading to prevent erosion. He stated that a vegetation enhancement plan should be developed that facilitates habitat creation and natural system enhancement. In this regard, he stated that meadow planting would enhance buffering and better protect the adjacent wetlands and species habitat. Mr. Barbour stated that the planting of native plants, the installation of a birding nesting pole, and alterations to the proposed site to attract turtle and bird nesting would mitigate the impacts of the proposed development. He stated that his recommended measures “can be utilized to create useful habitat on the Site in order to better support and protect the identified features and needs in the adjacent [Provincially Significant Wetlands], even in the case of slightly reduced setbacks”.
33In his environmental impact study, Mr. Barbour stated that the proposed development meets the criteria in PPS policy 2.2. The Appellant submitted that the proposed site is not on hazardous lands and PPS policy 3.1 and 3.2 does not apply. Applying a cost/benefit analysis of the proposed mitigation and enhancement measures, he reiterated that the proposed development would enhance the affected environmental features.
34The Conservation Authority’s staff report, dated June 17, 2021, states that the PPS requires that site alterations should have no negative impact on features such as Provincially Significant Wetlands. The Conservation Authority submitted that a minimum 30 m setback from wetlands is generally used when applying the PPS and that, in the present case, activities on the proposed site have already created negative impacts. The Conservation Authority submitted that, based on the proposed setbacks, the requested development permission would not be consistent with PPS policies 2.1 and 2.2 on water or policies 3.1 and 3.2 on natural hazards.
Analysis and Findings
35It is not contested that the proposed development would constitute “development” and requires “site alteration” as defined in the PPS.
36PPS policy 2.1.8 states that development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to natural heritage features, unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions. It states:
2.1.8 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.4, 2.1.5, and 2.1.6 unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions.
In this context, “negative impacts” are defined in the PPS as “degradation that threatens the health and integrity of the natural features or ecological functions for which an area is identified due to single, multiple or successive development or site alteration activities”. The test to be applied under PPS policy 2.1.8 is whether there would be no negative impacts on adjacent natural features or on their ecological functions. This is distinct from the test under Regulation 319/09, which focuses on whether there would be no negative impact on the control of flooding, erosion, pollution, or the conservation of lands.
37In his environmental impact study, Mr. Barbour stated that, with the implementation of his recommended mitigation and enhancement measures, 15 to 25 m setbacks from the wetlands would be adequate and there would be an acceptably low probability of adverse effects. Mr. Barbour testified that the proposed development would enhance ecosystem functions and that there would be no negative impacts on the ecosystem if the proposed buffers and mitigation measures are used. He said that applying a cost/benefit analysis, the proposed development with the recommended mitigation and enhancement measures would enhance the affected environmental features.
38The Tribunal finds that the Appellant has failed to demonstrate that there would be no negative impacts on the adjacent natural features or on their ecological functions resulting from the granting of the development permission. The Appellant’s proposed mitigation and enhancement measures attempt to enhance parts of the proposed site, replace habitat, and prevent pollution, but they do not ensure that the proposed development would have no negative impacts on the adjacent natural features or on their ecological functions. The Appellant’s environmental impact study identifies adjacent natural features but does not comprehensively analyze the impacts of the proposed development on them. In terms of the adjacent wetlands, it references past wetland evaluations that have been conducted, but does not comprehensively assess the impacts of the proposed development on the features identified in those evaluations. Similarly, it assumes the presence of species-at-risk habitat, but does not assess the impacts of the proposed development on that habitat or the species themselves. It recommends the installation of nesting areas for species-at-risk, but provides no evidence on their effectiveness. It proposes measures to avoid run-off that could affect adjacent fish habitat, but does not assess other impacts to fish habitat, such as from measures proposed for the mitigation of risks caused by water level fluctuations through the placement of boulders and vegetation within the flood plain to dissipate wave energy during high water events.
39The Tribunal notes that the Appellant assumes that a Class 5 sewage system with a holding tank would be used, while the evidence before the Tribunal is that such a system would not be permitted on the proposed site under the Building Code. The PPS requires planning authorities to protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of water. As discussed above, no evidence was provided demonstrating that the proposed mitigation and enhancement measures are workable and no contingency plans were provided to address situations where the proposed measures do not work.
40The Tribunal finds that the Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development permission would have no negative impacts on the natural features of the wetlands or on their ecological functions. Based on these findings, the Tribunal finds that the proposed development is not consistent with the PPS.
Issue 3: Conservation Authority’s Policy Manual
41The Conservation Authority’s Policy Manual was created for the purpose of guiding the exercise of the Conservation Authority’s powers under the Conservation Authorities Act and Regulation 319/09. In Laforme, at paragraph 40, the Divisional Court found that a development permit decision should be consistent with a conservation authority’s policies.
42In his environmental impact study, Mr. Barbour referred to provisions in the Conservation Authority’s Policy Manual stating that wetland buffers may be between 3 m and 30 m depending on the circumstances. He stated that a 3 m buffer is appropriate for addressing direct impacts, such as damage to features, and that the proposed 15 to 25 m setbacks adequately address this. He stated that with the proposed mitigation and enhancement measures, the proposed setbacks would assist in creating physical distance between impacts and the wetlands.
43The Conservation Authority’s staff report states that s. 3.7.3 of the Manual requires that where there is an existing vacant lot of record, such as the subject property, no new development is permitted where the lot does not have safe access or the lot is within a natural feature, area or system contributing to the conservation of land. This includes areas providing hydrologic or ecological functions or within required setbacks. The Conservation Authority submitted that s. 3.7.9 of the Manual states that new development within a regulated area shall be set back at least 30 m from wetlands that are 2 ha or more in size. It submitted that this is also reiterated in s. 8.4.5 and 8.4.6 of the Manual, which requires that development setbacks for evaluated wetlands and for wetlands that are greater than 2 ha in size shall, in general, be 30 m. It submitted that s. 8.4.7 of the Manual requires that development within lands 120 m adjacent to wetlands may require an analysis of the hydrologic impact on the wetland. It submitted that s. 8.6 states that the applicability, width, and vegetation composition of a setback will depend on the potential sediment, erosion, habitat protection, and other potential impacts and the sensitivity of the wetland type.
Analysis and Findings
44The Conservation Authority’s Policy Manual states that hydrologic impacts to a wetland often occur in the lands adjacent to a wetland from changes in imperviousness/infiltration due to a removal or change in vegetation, soil compaction, or disruption of groundwater flows. To address this, it sets out a general prohibition in s. 8.4.5 that there shall be no development within 30 m of an evaluated Provincially Significant Wetland or a wetland greater than 2 ha in size. Section 8.7.1 provides more specific restrictions regarding development adjacent to these wetlands, stating that development within 120 m of a Provincially Significant Wetland or a wetland greater than 2 ha can be permitted provided that certain criteria are met. These criteria include a minimum setback of 30 m (as set out in s. 8.4.5).
45In the present case, the Tribunal finds that the proposed development would be located within 30 m of a Provincially Significant Wetland and the proposed development permission, therefore, is not consistent with and does not have regard to the Conservation Authority’s Policy Manual.
Conclusions
46Based on the evidence and submissions before it, the Tribunal finds that the requested permission to undertake development on the proposed site does not comply with Regulation 319/09, is not consistent with the PPS, and is not consistent with or have regard for the Conservation Authority’s Policy Manual.
ORDER
47The Tribunal orders that the appeal is dismissed.
“Hugh S. Wilkins”
hugh s. wilkins
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.