Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 24, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001223

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Justin and Susan Lepore

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit a Tourist Establishment and Accessory Dwelling.

Reference Number: 2023-14

Property Address: 661 Old Highway 7

Municipality/UT: Papineau-Cameron

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001223

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001223

OLT Case Name: Lepore v. Papineau-Cameron (Township)

Heard: June 20, 2024, via Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Justin and Sue Lepore	Marc Kemerer
Township of Papineau-Cameron	Mandy Ng

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY G. ROSS and N. Eisazadeh ON june 20, 2024, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision and Order arises from a first hearing event, initially scheduled as a Merit Hearing, on the Appeals by Justin and Sue Lepore (“Applicants”) filed in relation to the refusal by the Township of Papineau-Cameron (“Township”) to approve Applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) seeking a site-specific change in zoning from Rural (“RU”) to Commercial-Recreational ("CR”) Special Exception in order to permit a Tourist Establishment and Accessory Dwelling (“Subject ZBA”) over a portion of the Applicants’ lands municipally known as 661 Old Highway 7, in the Township of Papineau-Cameron, Nipissing, Ontario (“Subject Property”).

2Notwithstanding that the Applicants and Township advised prior to the Hearing that they had settled the Appeal and wished to convert the event to a Settlement Hearing, the event was maintained as a Merit Hearing and managed as a lengthy Case Management Conference to address preliminary issues associated with individuals seeking Party Status. The Merit Hearing itself was ultimately rescheduled to proceed on Thursday July 25, 2024.

3The Affidavit of Service of Nicole Flynn sworn April 9, 2024, evidencing service of Notice of the present Hearing was marked as Exhibit 1.

APPLICATION HISTORY AND CONTEXT

4The Applicants filed the Subject ZBA Application on February 22, 2023. Multiple Township Council Meetings were subsequently held; the first on September 12, 2023, wherein Council resolved to issue the public notice of the Subject ZBA Application. Additional Council meetings which were open to the Public were then held on October 10, 2023, October 24, 2023, and November 2, 2023. The Minutes of the Meetings reflect that during the October 10, 2023 meeting, the Planning Consultant on record for the Township, Wayne Simpson of Tulloch Engineering Inc., attended in support of the Subject ZBA and proposed development, as reflected in his written Planning Report dated August 30, 2023. However, members of the community in attendance expressed various concerns. Two public comments of note and that are relevant to the status requests at the present Hearing include those from (i) Peter Dumont and Theresa Parise (the “Dumonts”) and (ii) Marty Warkentin. Both were present at the public meetings and made both oral and written submissions. The Dumonts’ written comments are by way of email dated, October 8, 2023; and Mr. Warkentin’s by way of email dated October 9, 2023. A third individual, Nathan Rainville, is a signatory as a community resident to the written submission of Mr. Warkentin. Of significance, is that the two written submissions detail the same concerns in nearly the exact same language, which can be summarized as follows:

i. environmental concerns relating to potential water pollution from boating activities and improper waste disposal;

ii. habitat disturbance of plant and wildlife from excessive tourism;

iii. soil erosion and sedimentation issues arising from construction and development associated with heightened tourism;

iv. noise pollution from recreational watercrafts and tourist activities;

v. introduction of invasive specifies through watercraft activities impacting the native ecosystem;

vi. the Historical Canadian Heritage River System designation of the Mattawa River and Lake Champlain which requires protection;

vii. the requirement of traffic and parking studies to evaluate the impact of commercial activities on local infrastructure;

viii. maintaining compatibility with the existing character of the residential neighborhood and community;

ix. the negative impact on neighboring and nearby property values;

x. evaluation of the satisfactory availability of existing local and municipal infrastructure and utilities including waste disposal;

xi. safety and security of the public arising from increased commercial activity; and,

xii. long term planning and sustainability goals.

5The Township Council’s decision on the Subject ZBA Application was deferred to a future meeting to provide Council with the opportunity to discuss the issues raised with their Planning Consultant, Mr. Simpson.

6On October 24, 2023, the second Public Meeting was held wherein the Applicants presented and explained that their development proposal sought only 10 accommodation units with an Accessory Dwelling Unit (“ADU”) for either family use or short-term rental, that they would follow noise by-laws, and that they will not be offering power-boats nor all-terrain-vehicles (“ATV”) to guests. At that time, the proposed Application continued to include the option of motel and restaurant uses which were opposed by members of the public in attendance. Again, a decision on the Subject ZBA Applications was deferred to a future meeting so that Council could consider all comments.

7On November 2, 2023, the third Public Meeting was held wherein a second planner of Tulloch Engineering Inc., Mr. Steve McArthur, on behalf of the Township attended and presented a second written Planning Report dated November 2023, which provided a formal response to Council’s deferral of the proposed rezoning. Mr. McArthur responded to comments received from the public that addressed the economic considerations, location, access and traffic, environmental and other considerations, and remained in support of the Subject ZBA and proposed development. Mr. McArthur opined that the Subject ZBA Application remained consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”), and in conformity with both the Upper Tier and Lower Tier applicable Official Plans and Township ZBL. While the Applicants had agreed to remove hotel, restaurant, take-out, and retail store from the permitted uses, the rezoning was still required to allow the 10 accommodation units which is not permitted by the rural residential zone. The change to commercial recreational zone would also allow for site plan control, not otherwise available under rural zoning.

8Notwithstanding the professional planning opinions in support of the Application and the added value of site plan control with the change in zoning, on November 14, 2023, Township Council denied the Subject ZBA. The Notice of Decision explained the reasons for the non-passing of the Subject ZBA which amount to five key reasons as follows: (i) that Council needs to consider not only the Planning Act on such Applications but also social, economic and environmental needs; (ii) there were strong objections from the constituents to a commercial re-zoning in a residential area; (iii) there are plenty of short-term accommodations and a need for long term accommodations which the Application does not fulfill; (iv) five other short-term and eco-tourism establishments currently exist which are struggling; and (v) the impact on the value of existing properties and businesses needs to be considered.

9On November 27, 2023, the Applicants filed the present Appeal to this Tribunal. The Township initially passed a resolution to retain Counsel to defend its decision as well as support the request from individuals who would be seeking Party Status in opposition to the Subject ZBA Application. At the request of the two Statutory Parties, the matter appears to have been scheduled to proceed straight to a Merit Hearing. On or about May 6, 2024, the Statutory Parties entered into Minutes of Settlement which resolved the Appeal in its entirety as between them. The individuals seeking status maintained their request to oppose the settlement, as set out further below.

PARTY STATUS REQUESTS

10While there was some initial confusion as to the process and requirements for the seeking of status in these proceedings with Tribunal Staff, the Tribunal ultimately received three Party Status requests in advance of the present Hearing from the following individuals: (i) the Dumonts, by Party Status Request Form initially dated January 27, 2024 and additional written reasons by way of email on various dates thereafter; (ii) Mr. Warkentin, by Party Status Request Form dated June 2, 2024 and additional written reasons by way of email on various dates thereafter, and (iii) Mr. Rainville, by Party Status Request Form dated June 6, 2024 (collectively, the “Three Status Seekers”).

11The written and oral submissions of each of the Three Status Seekers setting out the grounds for their Party Status requests largely overlapped and can be summarized as follows:

i. The Dumonts are adjacent property owners who have recently subdivided their property for up to five new homes and have concerns regarding the detrimental impact the proposed ZBA may have on the value to their property; Mr. Dumont is also of Full Status Indigenous heritage whose involvement brings a unique perspective and which status compels a duty to be consulted on land matters;

ii. Mr. Warkentin is a land-owner in the Township with firsthand knowledge of the area and the community;

iii. Mr. Rainville and his family are long-time residents of the Township with firsthand knowledge of the area and can provide valuable insights into its unique characteristics and needs; he is also of Full Status Indigenous heritage whose involvement brings a crucial perspective on the cultural and historical significance of Lake Champlain;

iv. The Lack of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) has not been respected as the decision to settle the Subject ZBL was made without adequate consultation despite direct impacts to neighboring properties also thereby impugning the Rights of Equality (s.15), Security of the Person (s.7), Aboriginal and Treat Rights (s.25 and s.35) under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

v. Policy 1.2.2 of the PPS requires Planning Authorities to engage with Indigenous communities and coordinate on land use planning matters;

vi. The Three Status Seekers wish to present evidence highlighting the negative impact the Subject ZBA would have on the quality of life, property values, and peaceful coexistence of residents;

vii. The Three Status Seekers wish to present evidence emphasizing the importance of maintaining the integrity of existing zoning regulations for long-term stability and sustainability;

viii. The settlement reached occurred in closed-door meetings without transparency and lacked proper public consultation and consideration of the citizens and of the significant environmental impacts;

ix. Lake Champlain is a relatively small body of water supporting a high level of existing recreational and public access by way of (i) Champlain Provincial Park consisting of approximately 200 campsites, the Canadian Ecology Centre (“CEC”) with 5 cottage rentals, and (ii) the Mattawa River Resort consisting of 15 existing cottages rentals, an RV Park, and restaurant and beach waterfront access; given this existing touristic and recreational infrastructure the Subject ZBA serves to add unnecessary commercial and environmental pressure;

x. Lake Champlain, holds deep historical and cultural value and forms a vital part of the Indigenous traditions and heritage intrinsically linked to the culture and practices and an ecological balance; under s.35 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms it is essential that the development or rezoning proposals consider those rights and the impact on Indigenous communities;

xi. The Subject ZBA is alleged to be contrary to general East Nipissing Official Plan policies which direct the maintenance of rural character, environmental stewardship, community health and safety and resource management;

xii. The Subject ZBA raises concerns related to water pollution, erosion and sedimentation, disturbance to plant and wildlife, an introduction of invasive species, and the required protection of a water system designated Canadian Heritage River, all as set out in their written comments submitted in the public Township Council Meetings and as summarized above at paragraph four [4]; and,

xiii. The Tribunal’s mandate to ensure fairness and equity require that Party Status be granted so that all parties have an equal opportunity to present their case, which level of participation is essential for a comprehensive examination of all relevant issues.

12In addition to their individual status requests, the Three Status Seekers also requested an adjournment of the Merit Hearing, without a formal Motion, on the following additional bases:

i. They are individuals unrepresented by Legal Counsel who do not fully understand the Tribunal practices, formalities, processes and what was required of them for the purposes of their request at the present Hearing;

ii. They did not believe they were under any obligation to respond to the request by Counsel for the Applicants regarding the basis for their status requests and a list of proposed issues that they wished to have advanced and addressed at the Merit Hearing;

iii. A request for information and documentation under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“FOI”) had been submitted and the Three Status Seekers await the outcome and production of documents arising from that request which they require prior to the Hearing and for the purposes of building their case;

iv. They have had a lack of appropriate time to adequately prepare for the Hearing since learning about the settlement which they allege was done without proper consultation or transparency;

v. They have been unable to secure a lawyer due in part, to being located in a rural setting, and various lawyers consulted indicated an inability to accept a retainer due to conflicts of interest. There was one potential lawyer who responded that morning who they reported they may be successful in retaining if granted status and an adjournment, but who was not yet formally retained, nor in attendance at the Hearing to make submissions;

vi. They required legal representation due to the complexities of the case; One of the Status seekers, indicated that a Chief, unnamed, was contacted and the Three Status Seekers were awaiting a formal response as the Chief was unable to attend the present Hearing event due to personal reasons;

vii. They required more time to adequately prepare their case; and,

viii. Proceeding without an adjournment would prejudice the Three Status Seekers in their ability to adequately prepare and present their case with proper legal assistance.

13Before turning to the Applicants’ opposition to the status requests, a brief mention regarding some confusion surrounding the CEC is worth noting. Mr. Warkentin attached a letter from the CEC, undated, to his Status Request Form advising Tribunal Staff that he wished to cite the letter for the purposes of the Hearing. In other correspondence to Tribunal Staff, the same CEC undated letter was included with a Participant Statement in Mr. Warkentin’s name (that he later withdrew, ultimately seeking Party Status) with a cover letter advising that the request was intended to have the CEC considerations be made public during the OLT meeting and that his personal status request simply aligned with that of the CEC letter. At the Hearing, Mr. Warkentin submitted that the CEC was not properly notified on account of the Township’s negligence, that they were not in attendance at the present Hearing on account of this failure, and that had they been notified at the appropriate time they would have had adequate opportunity to prepare and to participate. Mr. Warkentin also suggested that if not as a Participant or added Party, then his intention was to potentially retain the CEC as an expert witness for the purposes of the Merit Hearing. On further inquiry by the Panel, Mr. Warkentin advised that the undated letter from the CEC was drafted in and around May 2024, when Township Counsel would have first received it.

14The Applicants’ Counsel, Marc Kemerer, opposed the request for Party Status from all Three Status Seekers on the same or similar grounds which may be summarized as follows:

i. The guiding factor arising from Rule 8 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure is whether the presence of the proposed party is necessary to enable the Tribunal to adjudicate effectively and completely on the issues in the proceeding, and there is a requirement for more than unsubstantiated allegations which is what the grounds submitted by the Three Status Seekers amount to;

ii. Three separate requests have been made of the Dumonts for further information regarding their request for status and an issues list by way of emails dated May 7, 13, and 21, 2024, which were not responded to; in addition, it does not appear they are represented by Legal Counsel nor proposing to produce any expert evidence nor adduce substantial evidence in support of their allegations;

iii. Issues related to the impact on property values is not a proper consideration before this Tribunal on a ZBA Application under the Planning Act;

iv. Issues related to cultural and historical significance and environmental and heritage protection have been raised without any basis for the concerns; there has been no evidence put forward by anyone properly qualified in ecology, natural heritage, cultural heritage, planning, or like disciplines to support the allegations;

v. The allegations related to a duty to consult and the constitutional implications of the proposal on Indigenous and Aboriginal rights, while important, are not reflective of a duty owed under the Planning Act which governs the present Appeal;

vi. The Three Status Seekers were properly notified of the initial Application and afforded multiple opportunities to participate by way of, not one, but three Township Council Meetings open to the public for participation and consultation; they have been consulted extensively on their views through the public process and have had every right afforded to them at law;

vii. It is the first time that the allegations related to a duty to consult and the constitutional implications of the proposal on Indigenous and Aboriginal rights has been raised and was not raised by any of the Three Status Seekers at the public Township Council meetings evidencing that the nature of the request is to delay the proceeding;

viii. The granting of Party Status now, given these new bases raised at this late hour, causes prejudice on the Applicants as it is unfounded in law and would not advance the understanding of the Tribunal at the Hearing;

ix. Recent decisions of this Tribunal have concluded that Party Status requests by members of the Indigenous community for their voices to be heard, while important, could be achieved through Participant Status (Miller Paving Limited et al. v. Township of Muskoka Lakes, 2024 CanLII 43231 (ONLT) at para. 35);

x. The granting of Party Status would not advance the public interest as the allegations of issues raised are all unsubstantiated, further evidenced by the Three Status Seekers’ own submissions admitting to requiring further time to “build their case”; additionally, the Township has a duty to advance the public interest;

xi. The granting of Party Status would serve to only delay the proceedings resulting in significant prejudice to the Applicants who have made several concessions throughout the application process and have expended considerable time and resources in coming to the ultimate settlement reached;

xii. Further prejudice would result in the Applicant expending further time and resources responding to unsubstantiated allegations, particularly when Mr. McArthur (summoned as a planning witness) was in attendance and ready to give oral evidence at the present Hearing;

xiii. The Application is supported by two separate Planning Reports by the Planners retained by the Township who have expressly addressed the concerns raised by the Three Status Seekers;

xiv. As set out in the Planning Reports, the Subject ZBA is site specific, applying only to the portion of the Subject Property about 260 metres from Old Highway 16 and comprising approximately 4.9 hectares and will not impact the wetlands. The remainder of the property located between the proposed CR zone and the Mattawa River will remain zoned RU, thereby providing a natural buffer protecting perceived impacts;

xv. The North Bay-Mattawa Conservation Authority has also undertaken an extensive review of the application and concluded that the portion of the property to be developed (rezoned) is outside of the regulated area, that the conservation authority had no concerns with the Application, and that a development permit is not required;

xvi. The proposal will help economic activity, is ideal for business start-ups and supports the Municipal tax base; and,

xvii. The Applicant has confirmed that ATVs and power-boats will not be offered to guests thereby eliminating if not substantially addressing and mitigating concerns related to watercraft and recreational activities causing alleged nuisance, disturbance and pollution.

15With respect to the request for adjournment, Mr. Kemerer raised the following additional significant points:

i. There was no evidence put before the Panel regarding the alleged attempts at securing Legal Counsel in time or at all;

ii. There was no evidence put before the Panel regarding any real attempt at retaining experts other than a general undated letter from the CEC which letter appears to contain uninformed speculation with no reasonable explanation as to why they could not be retained between May 2024 and the present Hearing date;

iii. The Three Status Seekers predominantly raised the same issues as were raised during the public Township Council Meetings and have had sufficient time to prepare their case since then; the settlement reached has not impacted the Subject ZBA sought and the development proposal remains the same;

iv. The FOI request bears no relevance to the requirement for preparedness for the present Hearing since the time Notice was adequately and properly served, particularly in light that the request for adjournment was not made sooner;

v. The delay tactics are further evidenced from the Three Status Seekers’ own submissions wherein it was admitted that further time was required for them to “build their case”; and,

vi. The delay causes more prejudice to the Applicant than any prejudice that would result to the unsubstantiated allegations made by the Three Status Seekers.

16Briefly, with respect to the confusion surrounding the CEC and Mr. Warkentin’s submission that it was not given proper notice, Mr. Kemerer submitted that Notice of both the initial Application and of the present Appeal was properly served, and the CEC had apparently known of the Subject ZBA in May 2024 when it drafted its letter appended to Mr. Warkentin’s Status Request Form. Accordingly, Mr. Kemerer submitted the CEC should not be granted status, nor should its letter be admitted or considered given the uninformed speculation on the nature of the Application leading to its unsubstantiated allegations which would not assist the Tribunal in its understanding of this matter.

17The Township took no position on the requests for Party Status nor the request for adjournment.

FINDINGS

18The present Appeal was made pursuant to s.34(11) for refusal to grant the Subject ZBA application, and ss.34(24.1) and 34(24.2) provide the authority and related criteria for adding Parties to the present Appeal. That criteria includes: (i) that the individual seeking status as an added Party has made oral or written submissions at the public Council Meeting, or (ii) that the Tribunal is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to add the person as a Party.

19The Tribunal has further discretion pursuant to Rule 8 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Tribunal Rules”) regarding the adding of Parties. Specifically, Rule 8.2 sets out the power of the Tribunal to add Parties when a person satisfies any applicable legislative tests necessary to be a Party (being that set out in ss.34(24.1) and 34(24.2) of the Planning Act noted above), and their presence is necessary to enable the Tribunal to adjudicate effectively and completely on the issues in the proceeding.

20Under the discretion afforded pursuant to Rule 8.2 of the Tribunal Rules, the Tribunal may turn to whether reasonable grounds exist to add a person as a Party to a proceeding, which determination rests on multiple factors. There are six common factors arising from the Ontario Municipal Board decision in Oakville (Town) Re., 2010 CarswellOnt 7078, which have come to be referred to as the Oakville Factors. They may be summarized as follows:

i. Whether a prior Appeal exists;

ii. Whether the public interest is advanced;

iii. Whether prejudice would result to any other party;

iv. Whether there is a direct interest;

v. Whether a multiplicity of proceedings might result or be avoided; and,

vi. The involvement in or context of the historical background.

21These factors are only but common factors and not an exhaustive list of the considerations to be made, nor is one factor alone solely determinative of the issue as they must be balanced and weighed against each other and all interests at play.

22Ultimately, the Panel was not persuaded that Party Status should be granted to the Three Status Seekers for the following key reasons.

The Oakville Factors

23Addressing the Oakville factors out of order, at the outset it can be stated that factors one and five regarding prior appeals and multiplicity of proceedings are not relevant.

24With respect to factor six, regarding involvement in the historical background, the Dumonts and Mr. Warkentin made both oral and written submissions at the Township Council Meetings. While Mr. Rainville made no direct submissions of his own, the Panel acknowledges that he was involved in the history of the application process as a signatory to Mr. Warkentin’s written submissions. This alone is not a determinative factor that adding the proposed parties will assist the Tribunal to adjudicate effectively and completely on the issues in the proceeding.

25Regarding factor four, the present Appeal is a site-specific ZBA that does not directly change the Zoning By-laws or Official Plan policies applicable to neighbouring lands. Additionally, the concerns regarding the impact on property values of neighbouring lands is not a proper planning consideration that may be considered by this Tribunal on the present Appeal or in the analysis for the granting of Party Status.

26Respecting factor two and whether the public interest is advanced, the Panel agrees that the Township does have a duty to advance such interests. This does not preclude the adding of Parties where other public interests may also be advanced. However, the Panel finds that there are no such interests advanced in this case. The argument regarding the duty to consult the Indigenous community, as a matter of public interest in the granting of status, is further addressed below at paragraph twenty-eight [28] of this Decision.

27Finally, factor three considers the prejudice that would result to the Parties. On one hand, the Three Status Seekers argue the prejudice in not allowing participation as added Parties outweighs the prejudice to the Applicants in the added delay and resources necessitated by their request. The opposite argument is advanced by the Applicants. Ultimately, in balancing all interests and for the fulsome reasons set out in this Decision, and in particular the findings on the request for adjournment set out below, the Panel finds that the prejudicial scale tips in favour of the Applicants.

Other Factors

28The Panel finds that community engagement and communications were appropriately adhered to under policy 1.2.2 of the PPS, as Notice of the initial Application at Township level, as well as the Notice of the present Appeal, were appropriately served and the requirements under the regulations in that regard were met. The Mattawa/ North Bay Algonquin First Nations and Antoine Algonquin First Nation were included and appropriately notified of the application as noted in the Municipal records. The entire community, including Indigenous Peoples, were invited to and were indeed involved in the meetings held as early as October 10, 2023, and subsequently thereafter on October 24, 2023 and November 2, 2023. These Meetings offered ongoing consultation and the opportunity for public participation. Public submissions were made, including by the Three Status Seekers and, moreover, their concerns were highlighted by the Township and directly responded to by both the Applicants and Township Planners.

29Respecting the adjournment request, the Panel notes that only a Party may seek or be granted an adjournment. Notwithstanding, the Panel addresses the request made; and while it finds the Three Status Seekers credible in their submission that they have contacted numerous lawyers and been unable to secure legal counsel, it is ultimately the unfortunate situation that they have known about the Subject ZBA since as early as October 2023 which has not changed in form, nor has the proposed development changed by way of the settlement reached. They have also been aware of the present Hearing since service of the Notice of Hearing carried out on March 27, 2024, and have had ample time to secure legal counsel, to retain expert or other witnesses, to secure the evidence they wished to rely on, and to ready themselves for the Hearing which has been longstanding.

30In addition, there is no requirement or duty for Township Counsel to have public consultations regarding their Meetings to discuss potential settlements which are privileged in their nature. The Panel finds no underhandedness or lack of transparency in the manner in which Council has conducted itself. The Three Status Seekers, and any member of the public, have had access to the Minutes of Settlement signed on May 3, 2024 and May 6, 2024, respectively, as filed within the Document Book of the Applicant in support of the present Hearing. Any individual or entity seeking status, including the Three Status Seekers in this case, were under an obligation to familiarize themselves with the governing legislation, regulations and rules of practice and procedure. Those seeking to participate are required to be ready, irrespective of whether they are represented by Counsel, whether the Township intended to advance its own case, or ultimately, as was the case here, enter into settlement. In other words, had the Township not settled and been prepared to proceed to a contested hearing, the Three Status Seekers would still have been required to face the same challenges in successfully establishing the same criteria as grounds for the granting of their status requests.

31Finally, the FOI requests have no bearing on the present Appeal which cannot be held in abeyance pending the outcome of such requests.

32Respecting the query by Mr. Warkentin as to whether the CEC might also be granted status, such a request was not supported by the Panel as a valid request since Mr. Warkentin was not a representative of the CEC nor had an ability to bind said organization. It is unknown whether the organization is incorporated, and a status request form was not directly submitted by the CEC nor did they participate in the public process. Additionally, no one on behalf of the organization appeared to speak to the matter at the present Hearing.

33To conclude, the Panel found that adding the Three Status Seekers as Parties to the Appeal would not contribute further to the Tribunal’s understanding of the live issues and is not necessary to enable the Tribunal to adjudicate effectively and completely for the foregoing reasons.

34The Panel instead granted the Three Status Seekers Participant Status. Out of an abundance of fairness, and to allow further time for the Three Status Seekers to consult to prepare their Participant Statements, combined with time restraints due to the lateness in the day, the Tribunal directed that the Merit Hearing would be adjourned to Thursday, July 25, 2024, as set out in further detail below.

35Should the Three Status Seekers wish to avail themselves of the option of participating by way of Participant Statement, the Panel directed that they may submit their respective Participants Statements setting out their precise concerns with the Subject ZBA application in detail, with the aid of legal counsel should that be their desire, on or before Wednesday, July 24, 2024.

36The Panel further directed that Counsel for the Applicants are to prepare, circulate and file an Affidavit in support of the settlement reached and to provide a copy to each of the Three Status Seekers on or before Monday, July 15, 2024.

MERIT HEARING DETAILS

37A one (1) day Merit Hearing has been scheduled to commence on Thursday, July 25, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. by Video Hearing.

38Parties and Participants are asked to log into the Video Hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:

GoToMeeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/442599157

Access Code: 442-599-157

39Parties and Participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

40Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: (Toll-Free) 1-888-455-1389 or +1 (647) 497-9391. The access code is as indicated above.

41Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the Hearing by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

ORDER

42THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. Peter Dumont and Theresa Parise, Marty Warkentin, and Nathan Rainville are granted Participant Status in these proceedings and shall file their respective Participant Statements on or before Wednesday, July 24, 2024;

2. The Applicants shall prepare, circulate, and file, with a copy to the individuals granted Participant Status above at paragraph [42]1. to this Order, an Affidavit in support of the settlement reached with the Township of Papineau-Cameron on or before Monday, July 15, 2024; and,

3. The one (1) day Merit Hearing is adjourned to Thursday, July 25, 2024, as set out above at paragraph [37] of this Decision.

43The Panel is not seized, and no further Notice is required.

“G. Ross”

G. Ross

membeR

“N. Eisazadeh”

N. EISAZADEH

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.