Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 20, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000487
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 28(15) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27
Applicant/Appellant: Janoah Young
Respondent: Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority
Subject: Appeal of the refusal of permission
Description: To permit an existing single detached dwelling.
Property Address: 230 Maggie Street
Municipality/UT: Arran-Elderslie/Bruce
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000487
OLT Case Name: Young v. Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority
Heard: October 16, 2025 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Janoah Young
S. O’Melia (in absentia) A. Cvijanovic (student-at-law)
Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority
A. Loucks
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C. HARDY ON OCTOBER 16, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This is the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) respecting an appeal by Janoah Young (“Appellant”) pursuant to s. 28.1(20) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27 against the refusal by the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority (“SVCA”) to approve the Appellant’s Application to Alter a Regulated Area (“application”).
2The Appellant owns the property municipally known as 230 Maggie Street, Arran-Elderslie (“subject property”), which is improved with an existing single detached dwelling, which is the subject of the appeal. The Appellant received a building permit relating to the construction of the dwelling from the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie (“Municipality”) on May 16, 2019. The Municipality issued the building permit without confirming that the SVCA had approved the dwelling and associated site alteration. As such, the Appellant sought approval from the SVCA following the construction of the dwelling. On March 20, 2025, the SVCA refused the Appellant’s application, citing the failure to floodproof the dwelling.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SETTLEMENT / MEDIATION
3Counsel for the SVCA advised that the Parties had not had an opportunity to fully discuss the possibility of mediation and it was the SVCA’s position that it was unlikely mediation would be of assistance given the concern that mediation would delay the proceedings. The Tribunal was advised that the substantive issue in the appeal concerns flood risks, and it would be problematic to delay the appeal until after the next high risk flood season occurs. The Tribunal explained that the setting of hearing dates does not preclude the Parties from requesting a mediation assessment through the Case Coordinator if mediation could be of assistance.
4Counsel for the Appellant was unable to attend the CMC and Ms. Cvijanovic appeared as agent of the Appellant. In that regard, the Appellant agreed with the SVCA that mediation had not yet been fully explored and advised that the Appellant is not opposed to pursuing mediation.
NEXT STEPS
5The Parties advised that they had not had an opportunity to prepare a Procedural Order (“PO”) in advance of the CMC. It also appeared that the Parties were not in agreement regarding how many hearing dates would be required or when the hearing should proceed.
6Counsel for the SVCA explained the difficulty encountered in determining the number of required hearing days in the absence of a witness list or layout of how the Appellant intends to bring its case forward. It was further noted that additional discussions would assist in clarifying the number of days required. The SVCA requested that the Tribunal set hearing dates as early as possible due to the ongoing flood risk referred to in paragraph [2] above.
7The Tribunal declined to set hearing dates given the uncertainty of the number of hearing days required, and in the absence of a PO. On or before Monday, October 27, 2025, the Tribunal directed the Parties as follows:
File a draft PO for the Tribunal’s review and approval; and
All Parties are required to advise the Tribunal of the number of hearing days required and the availability of counsel and experts, if any.
8The Tribunal noted that, if the Parties are unable to agree on the number of hearing days or the timing of the hearing, a request can be made through the Case Coordinator for a Telephone Conference Call or a further CMC. The Tribunal would note that if a further appearance is requested, the Parties are expected to have had fulsome discussions in advance and be prepared to set hearing dates.
ORDER
9The case management directives above are so ordered.
10There will be no further notice and this Member is not seized, however, will remain available for case management, subject to the Tribunal’s calendar.
“C. Hardy”
c. hardy
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.