Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 30, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000161

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

Applicant/Appellant: Anthony Staffieri

Subject: Application to amend the Community Planning Permit System By-law – Refusal of application

Description: To permit the development of a two-storey in-water boathouse and attached dock

Reference Number: SL-2024-010 970 Shoreview

Property Address: 970 Shoreview Drive L9S 5A7

Municipality/UT: Innisfil

OLT Case No: OLT-25-000161

OLT Case Name: Staffieri v. Innisfil (Town)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 12(2), O. Reg.173/16 – Refusal of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Anthony Staffieri

Subject: Class I Development Permit

Description: To permit the development of a two-storey in-water boathouse and attached dock

Reference Number: SL-2024-010 970 Shoreview

Property Address: 970 Shoreview Drive L9S 5A7

Municipality/UT: Innisfil/Simcoe

OLT Case No: OLT-25-000539

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000161

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6

Request by: Luke Leibel

Motion for: Directions

Heard: October 3, 2025, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel

Anthony Staffieri ("Applicant/Appellant") Mark Flowers Grace O’Brien

Town of Innisfil ("Town") Sarah Hahn Kameron Faridani

Luke Leibel Leo Longo

DECISION DELIVERED BY D. CHIPMAN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision and Order arises from the second Case Management Conference ("CMC") and hearing of a Motion regarding the appeals filed by the Applicant pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, on the refusal of the Town of Innisfil Council to amend the Town’s Community Planning Permit System Our Shore By-law No. 062-17 ("CPPS By-law") (the "CPPS Amendment Application") and issue a Class 1 Development Permit, s. 12(2), O. Reg.173/16 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

2The Subject Property municipally known as 970 Shoreview Drive has a lot area of approximately 1.42 hectares, a lot frontage of approximately 80 metres ("m") along Shoreview Drive and a water frontage of approximately 80 m along Lake Simcoe.

3The Application seeks relief to permit the development of a two-storey in-water boathouse with an attached dock on the Subject Property. To facilitate the proposed development, the application seeks:

a. An amendment to s. 6.7 of the Town’s CPPS By-law to create a new site-specific exception for the Subject Property, which would apply the following standards:

i. Increased maximum lot coverage of detached accessory structures (collectively) from 160 square metres ("m²") to 458 m²

ii. Increased maximum in-water boathouse height from 5.4 m to 9.5 m

iii. Increased maximum in-water boathouse width from 13.5 m to 17.37 m

iv. Increased maximum in-water boathouse projection from 15 m to 18.48 m

b. A Class 1 Permit to authorize:

i. Increased maximum in-water boathouse length to 14.38 m where a Class 1 permit authorizes an increase of up to 15 m

ii. Increased maximum cumulative dock area to 96.5 m² where a Class 1 permit authorizes an increase up to 115 m²

4As a result of the comments from the Town and the members of the public, the Applicant filed a resubmission of the CPPS Amendment Application on December 13, 2024, which increased the interior east side yard setback of the boathouse to comply with the requirements of the CPPS By-law ("Revised Applications").

PARTICIPANT STATUS

5It was noted that Ruth Ruch had been omitted from the first CMC Decision. Having received a combined Participant Status request from both Terry and Ruth Ruch and having conveyed Terry Ruch Participant Status, the Tribunal confers Participant Status to Ruth Ruch at this second CMC. The contents of their written statement will be weighed accordingly by the Tribunal at the Hearing of the Merits.

EXHIBITS

6The following Exhibits were marked at the Motion Hearing:

1. Exhibit #1: Draft Procedural Order and Issues List

2. Exhibit #2: Motion Record of Luke Leibel

3. Exhibit #3: Responding Motion of Anthony Staffieri

4. Exhibit #4: NRSI – Private and With Prejudice email from L. Longo to M. Flowers, June 20, 2025

ISSUES LIST DISCUSSION

7To date, the Parties have not finalized an Issues List. In part, it is the Appellant’s position that an Issues List cannot be agreed upon until such time as the Tribunal has had the opportunity to review the issues with the Parties.

8Counsel for Mr. Leibel indicated that it was not the appropriate time to strike out issues as the issues raised will be defined and resolved by the Expert Witnesses through their Witness Statements, their reply Witness Statements, and through the Agreed Statement of Fact.

9Counsel for the Appellant suggested that this is the forum for the scoping and removal of issues.

10At this CMC, the Tribunal heard submission from the Parties on the relevance, content, and the need for clarity on the issues posed.

Draft Issues List of The Corporation of the Town of Innisfil

Issue 1. Has the Applicant shown that it meets the criteria for variations from the standards set out in section 1.10 of the CPPS By-law?

11The Town was agreeable to the removal of Issue 1, as it is duplicative of Issue 7.

12Direction: The Tribunal directs the Town to remove Issue 1 to relieve duplication of issues.

Issue 2. Has the Applicant shown that it is appropriate, collectively or individually, to amend the Town’s CPPS By-law to accommodate the proposed variances and amendment to the by-law?

13The Town agreed that the wording "to amend the Town’s CPPS" will be removed to provide clarity on the question.

14Direction: The Tribunal directs the removal of the clause.

Issue 3. Does the Application conform to the Town Official Plan, including s. 19 Objectives 2,4,5,6 & 8; 10.1.10; 10.1.39; 15.5.1 iii); 15.7.1; 15.7.2; 15.7.3; 19.1.6; 19.2.6; 19.2.10 & 22.7.1?

15The Appellant identified that there are 56 sub policies included in s. 19 of the Town Official Plan ("OP") and requested the Town specify which of the policies were to be considered. The Town identified s. 19 (10.1.10 & 10.1.39) as being the key areas of interest.

16Direction: The Tribunal directs that the Town scope Issue 3 to reflect s. 19 (10.1.10 & 10.1.39) as being the key areas to be addressed.

Issue 4. Does the Application meet the CPPS Amendment tests noted in OP Policies 19.3.2, 19.3.3, & 22.17.6, and ultimately achieving the Goals and Objectives set out in s. 19.3?

17The Appellant requested clarification on the sub-sections to Policy 19.3.2 that the Town is relying on. The Town identified that all six sub-sections to Policy 19.3.2 are relevant and will be identified on the revised Issues List.

18Direction: The Tribunal directs the Town to amend Issue 4 to ensure that all six sub-sections to 19.3.2 are noted on the Issues List.

19With regard to Policy 19.3.3 the Town specified that the four goals and seven objectives be included on the Issues List.

20Direction: The Tribunal directs the Town to amend Issue 4 to reflect that the seven objectives of Policy 19.3.3 are included on the Issues List.

Issue 5. Has the Applicant proposed appropriate conditions of approval in conformity with the Town OP Policies 22.17.8, 22.17.9, 22.17.10 & 22.17.11?

21The Appellant submitted that Conditions of Approval are normally initiated by the Town. Sarah Hahn, counsel for the Town, replied that the onus was on the Appellant to propose conditions of approval.

22Direction: The Tribunal directs the Town to clarify what, if any, conditions of approval are necessary to be contained in the Zoning By-law Amendment ("ZBA"), so that the Appellant’s Expert Witnesses may address each of the conditions at the Merit Hearing. The Appellant is directed to provide, in conjunction with the Town, a draft ZBA containing any conditions set out by the Town for the Tribunal to consider at the Merit Hearing.

Issue 7. Does the Application meet the requirements for a variance and By-law Amendment as outlined in the CPPS By-law, and specifically s. 1.10?

23The Appellant questioned the reference to s. 1.10 of the CPPS By-law.

24Town counsel indicated s. 1.10 of the CPPS By-law was an error and agreed to change s. 1.10 to s. 1.9 in the revised Issues List.

25Direction: The Tribunal directs the Town to correct Issue 7 to reflect the appropriate section of the new By-law, namely s. 1.9.

Issue 8. Will the proposed development dominate the natural shoreline?

Issue 9. Will the proposed development result in adverse impacts?

26The Appellant stated that the wording "proposed development" rather than "proposed boathouse" will leave open the opportunity to discuss the bridge and slope.

27Direction: The Tribunal disagrees with the Appellant. "Proposed development" is a common term use to describe the intentions of the development. To change the Issue to reflect "proposed boathouse" is unwarranted as the appeal is self explanatory as to what is before the Tribunal. The Tribunal directs that the Parties retain the question as posed in the revised Issues List.

Issue 11. Is the proposed boathouse consistent with the character of the shoreline residential area?

28The Appellant indicated that the word "consistent" is incorrect. The Town was agreeable that the word "compatible" is more in keeping with the intent of the question.

29Direction: The Town is directed to replace the word "consistent" with the word "compatible".

Issue 13. Has the Applicant accurately calculated the lot coverage for accessory structures?

30The Appellant indicated that Town staff, through their planning vetting process, calculated the lot coverage for accessory structures. Counsel for the Town stated the Application was deemed complete by Staff.

31Direction: The Tribunal is satisfied that the calculation of lot coverage for an accessory structure was vetted through the Town’s planning process. Having heard there was no indication of a discrepancy on the calculation of the lot coverage for an accessory structure by the Town prior to this CMC, the Tribunal finds the inclusion of Issue 13 moot. The Tribunal directs the Town to remove Issue 13 from the Issues List.

Draft Issues List of Luke Leibel

32Counsel to Mr. Leibel emphasized that this CMC was not the appropriate time to strike Issues from any Party’s Issues List. He relied on the following clause contained in the Procedural Order to identify the need to allow the process to take its course and allow the appropriateness and/or relevance of the issue to be heard at the Hearing.

The identification of an issue on this list does not mean that all Parties agree that the issue, or the manner in which it is expressed, is appropriate for or relevant to the proper determination of the appeals. The extent of the appropriateness and/or relevance of the issue may be a matter of evidence and/or argument at the Hearing.

33He submitted it would be premature for the Tribunal to curtail the introduction of issues and specified that to do so would be a "gatekeeping measure". He suggested that through the Expert Witness Statements, Reply Witness Statement, and the Agreed Statement of Facts the relevance of the issues will be determined.

34Counsel to Mr. Leibel requested that the Tribunal not just look at the in-water boathouse in segregation to the waterfront, but to consider the context in which the boathouse will exist on the Subject Property. This, he stated, would encompass an examination of vegetation, slope and access route.

35Counsel for the Appellant focused on the relevancy of the issues presented by Mr. Leibel and the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to adjudicate them.

36Counsel for the Appellant stated that there were a number of issues raised that simply do not apply to the matter before the Tribunal. To be specific, counsel indicated that although the Staff report refers to the access route, the actual appeal before the Tribunal speaks to two variances for the Class 1 permit and four amendments to the Zoning By-law, which are related only to the boathouse structure.

37Mark Flowers, counsel for the Appellant, took the Tribunal through an extensive examination of each of the Issues on Mr. Leibel’s Issues List.

Issue 2. Does the Application conform to the Town OP, including:

i. s. 15.1 (Objectives 1 & 3), 15.1.1-15.1.6, 15.5.1 ii) & iii), 15.7.1-15.7.3?

ii. S. 17 (Objectives 1-4), 17.1.1-17.1.5, 17.1.8, 17.1.10, 17.1.13-17.1.15, 17.1.18, 17.1.21, 17.1.23-17.1.24, 19.1.29-17.1.33, 17.1.35-17.1.36?

iii. s. 19 (Objectives 2 & 4-8),19.1.2-19.1.3, 19.1.6, 19.1.8, 19.1.10-19.1.13, 19.1.16, 19.2.1, 19.2.2, 19.2.9 vii, 19.3 (goals and objectives), 19.3.1, 19.3.2 ii, 19.3.3 i-iv?

iv. s. 20 (Objectives), 20.7?

v. s. 22.9.1-22.9.4?

vi. s. 23.1.6, 23.1.18 iv-v?

38Mr. Flowers requested that Mr. Leibel provide more specificity for a clearer understanding of why the boathouse does not meet the objectives set out in the above noted sections of the OP to ensure that the expert witnesses focus on what view Mr. Leibel is undertaking.

39Direction: For the sake of a fair and expeditious resolution to this matter, the Tribunal directs Mr. Leibel to scope and provide more specificity to Issues 2 & 3, and to identify what the crux of these issues are to allow the Appellant to provide a fulsome response to each issue.

Issue 7. Does the Application and proposed boathouse comply with the original subdivision and site plan approvals and existing registered agreements?

40The Appellant drew the Tribunal’s attention to whether this issue is appropriate for the Issues List based on whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to adjudicate original subdivision and existing registered agreements, and site plan approvals signed 20 years ago between the landowners and the Town.

41Direction: The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate agreements that have been penned privately between landowners and the Town more than 20 years ago. Therefore, Issue 7 is moot and the Party is directed to remove Issue 7 from the Issues List.

Issue 9. Has a detailed tree inventory of the subject site’s shoreline slope been prepared? Has an appropriate tree compensation plan been provided which addresses the proposed boathouse access route?

42Counsel to the Appellant indicated that all Town-required supporting materials have been filed through the Application process and outlined that the access route mention in Issue 9 is under a separate Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority ("LSRCA") permitting process and not before the Tribunal. He submitted that the only reason this issue has been introduced is to broaden the appeal to bring the access route (bridge) into discussions.

43Direction: The Tribunal recognizes the purpose of the application is to permit an in-water boathouse and associated dock area through a Class 1 Permit and CPPS By-law Amendment. Additional supporting materials, namely a Tree Preservation Plan and Compensation and Planting Plan, were submitted and accepted by the Town as part of a complete Application process. The Tribunal directs Mr. Leibel to remove Issue 9 as any further discussion of the shoreline slope and tree compensation will be vetted through the LSRCA permitting process, a process that is not under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

MOTION RECORD BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL

Moving Party Submissions (Mr. Leibel)

THE MOTION IS FOR:

1. An abridgement of time for service of this Motion;

2. An Order directing the delivery of requested documents and the requested inspection of the Appellant’s property; and

3. Such further and other relief as counsel may advise, and the Tribunal may deem appropriate.

THE GROUNDS TO BE RELIED ON FOR THE MOTION ARE:

44Mr. Leibel relies on Rule 9.1 of the Ontario Land Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, which states as follows:

9.1 Order for Discovery The Tribunal may make an order for discovery for a party to obtain necessary information from another party. Such an order will be made only on motion and only if the party has requested information and it has been refused or no answer has been received. The notice of motion shall be accompanied by an affidavit, which sets out the efforts made to obtain the desired information and the reasons that demonstrate that the information sought is both necessary and relevant to the disposition of the issues in the proceeding. The Tribunal may order:

a. any person to provide an affidavit containing a list of relevant documents in the possession of the person;

b. the delivery of relevant documents;

c. an examination or cross-examination of any person or party;

d. an examination for discovery by written questions;

e. the inspection and testing of property;

f. the examination of a witness before the commencement of a proceeding (under the Rules of Civil Procedure);

g. any other form of discovery; and

h. that conditions be imposed concerning the timing and scope of discovery.

45The test in Rule 9.1 to obtain the desired information is that "the information sought is both necessary and relevant to the disposition of the issues in the proceeding".

46Section 12(2) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states:

The Tribunal shall, in respect of each proceeding, adopt any practices and procedures provided in the rules or that are otherwise available to the Tribunal that, in its opinion, offer the best opportunity for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the proceeding.

47Mr. Leibel owns the property (950 Shoreview Drive) that abuts the Appellant’s property and has been conferred Party status. Mr. Leibel has participated in both the Municipality’s public process in relation to the Appellant’s application and a mediation which was attended by himself, the Appellant, and the Municipality, and their respective consultants.

48Mr. Leibel has retained consultants to provide their professional advice respecting the Appellant’s property and his appeal. Mr. Leibel’s consultants have identified the need for the requested the documentation (including a Geotechnical report; Slope stability assessment; Natural Heritage Evaluation/Environmental Impact Study; Topographic survey; and LSRCA comments) and site visit, in order for them to prepare for the Merit Hearing.

49Prior written requests were made by emails from Leo Longo to Mark Flowers requesting the delivery of documents and the inspection of the Subject Property. No requested documentation has been provided nor has permission been granted to access the Appellant’s property.

RESPONSE TO THE MOTION

Requested Relief:

1. The Applicant seeks the following relief on this Motion:

a. An Order dismissing the Motion in its entirety; and

b. Such other and further relief as counsel may request, and the Tribunal will allow.

THE GROUNDS TO BE RELIED UPON IN RESPONSE TO THE MOTION ARE:

Background

50The Subject Property is currently occupied by a single detached dwelling and a detached pool-related accessory structure (the "pool house"), portions of which are currently under construction and nearing completion (collectively, the "approved development").

51The approved development was approved by both the Town and the LSRCA in 2021 (the single detached dwelling) and 2023 (the pool house).

52As is evident from the already-obtained approvals and construction, the approved development is not before the Tribunal in this appeal.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

53This Motion was brought by Mr. Leibel to obtain the above noted documents (paragraph [49]) to formulate expert Witness Statements for the purposes of the upcoming Merit Hearing. Counsel is seeking an order that the consultants hired by Mr. Leibel be granted access to a property to conduct an investigation into the slope, erosion, and associated vegetation.

54Mr. Longo advised that a one-time visit to the Subject Property to complete a review allows the experts the opportunity to study and determine the extent of the slope erosion, inventory vegetation, and in-water boathouse placement for their Witness Statements. Mr. Longo submitted the reason for the requested information and site inspection by shoreline engineers will determine if the boathouse will be situated in the best possible location.

55Counsel for the Appellant responded that if a Party has requested information and access to the Subject Property, the Affidavit evidence must demonstrate that the information sought is both necessary and relevant to the disposition of the issues in the Merit Hearing; only then can this Tribunal order an inspection of the Subject Property.

56Mr. Flowers submitted that Staff, in their second report when identifying a revised location for the in-water boathouse, confirmed that minimum vegetation will be removed. He further submitted that it is at the LSRCA permit stage (being a separate process), following the Hearing of the ZBA and Class 1 permitting for the boathouse, that will look to access and consider approvals that related to access to the in-water boathouse.

57He noted that the Applications before the Tribunal are specific to the proposed structure (height and massing) of the in-water boathouse and are planning related. Any discussion surrounding the slope and vegetation is out of place as it falls under the LSRCA auspices.

FINDINGS ON THE MOTION

58The Tribunal is of the view that none of the information sought by Mr. Leibel in his Motion can reasonably be seen as being of critical importance to his preparation for the upcoming Hearing on the two-storey in-water boathouse.

59To construct the proposed boathouse, which is within the LSRCA’s regulated area, as identified by the Town, the Applicant is required to obtain a permit from the LSRCA under sub-s. 28.1(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act for permission to conduct activities within the LSRCA’s regulated area. Thus, any slope, vegetation, and erosion matters will be examined by the LSRCA and not for decision-making purposes by the Tribunal.

60While it is clear that Mr. Leibel has requested permission to access the Subject Property and that request has been refused by the Appellant, the Tribunal is not satisfied that such access is relevant and necessary to the disposition of the appeal before the Tribunal which relates only to the relief sought pertaining to the in-water boathouse structure. The Tribunal notes that it is wholly unreasonable to introduce matters that fall under the jurisdiction of the LSRCA at the Hearing as no resolve can occur and the introduction of matters would not be in the interest of a just, fair, and expeditious resolve to the relief being sought through the appeal.

61Based on the written submissions, both the Appellant and the Town reviewed and accepted comprehensive studies of the Subject Property with respect to the placement of the in-water boathouse; the Tribunal finds that the request for site access by the Appellant is inappropriate.

62This leads the Tribunal to the conclusion that prejudice to the Appellant outweighs any prejudice to Mr. Leibel in not being granted access to the Subject Property for the purposes of the Hearing in February 2026. Allowing Experts Ms. Katharina Richter and Mr. Rob Gethin access to the Subject Property to carry out an inspection of the slope, vegetation, and erosion would be much too wide-ranging and highly intrusive under the circumstances.

63The Tribunal concludes that the access requested is not relevant and necessary to the disposition of the issues in this proceeding and that the Motion should be rejected.

64This matter will proceed to the Merit Hearing for the Tribunal to adjudicate based on the appeal submitted, an amendment to the Town’s CPPS By-law to create a new site-specific exception at s. 6.7 for the Subject Property, and to decide on the issuance of a Class 1 Permit.

ORDER

65THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT Ruth Ruch is conferred Participant Status.

66THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the directions set out in relation to the Issues List be implemented.

67THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Motion be dismissed in its entirety.

"D. Chipman"

D. CHIPMAN

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: 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.