Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 1, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000396 OLT-25-000594

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

Applicant/Appellant: William and Cindy Reynolds Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit severance into 3 lots & development of a residential dwelling on each new lot Reference Number: Z24-17 Property Address: 206 Wild Rice Trail Municipality/UT: Georgian Bay (Township) OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000396 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000396 OLT Case Name: Reynolds v. Georgian Bay (Township)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: William and Cindy Reynolds Subject: Consent Description: To permit severance into 3 lots & development of a residential dwelling on each new lot Reference Number: B24-08 Property Address: 206 Wild Rice Trail Municipality/UT: Georgian Bay (Township) OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000601 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000396

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant /Appellant: William Reynolds Subject: Consent - refused by Approval Authority Description: Applications propose to sever the Subject Property by creating two new lots Reference Number: B24-07 Property Address: 206 Wild Rice Trail L0K 1S0 Municipality/UT: Georgian Bay OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000594 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000594 OLT Case Name: Reynolds v. Georgian Bay (Township)

Heard: November 3, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel/Representative

William and Cindy Reynolds (“Appellant”) Isaac Tang Brett Davis

Township of Georgian Bay Alex Ciccone Colin Léger (in absentia)

Ken Otto Aaron Platt Katrina Vergis-Mayo

DECISION DELIVERED BY a. sauve AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision arises from a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) brought before the Tribunal regarding two appeals by the Appellant. The first is a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) appeal and the second is a Consent appeal. Both proceedings concern with the subject land that is municipal known as 206 Wild Rice Trail (“subject land”). The applications propose to sever the subject land into three lots and build a residential dwelling on each new lot.

2Prior to this CMC the Tribunal received one Party Status request and one Participant Status request.

3The Party Status request was from Ken Otto whose property is located across a waterway from the subject land. Mr. Otto hired counsel to represent himself and intends to call expert opinion evidence. The other Parties had no objection and the Tribunal Ordered that Mr. Otto to be granted Party Status.

4The Participant Status request was from Brenda Pritchard who is a neighbour to the subject land. The other Parties had no objection and the Tribunal Ordered that Ms. Pritchard to be granted Participant Status.

5The Parties were informed of the availability of Tribunal-led mediation and will discuss that option amongst themselves. If Parties wishes to purse Tribunal-led mediation, they can contact the Case Coordinator who have carriage of this case for more information.

CONSOLIDATION OF FILES

6The Parties jointly requested that the files be consolidated.

7Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rule”) provides that the Tribunal may order that two or more proceedings be consolidated, heard at the same time, or heard one after the other, subject to any applicable statutory or regulatory restrictions. In the event that proceedings are consolidated, Rule 16.2 provides that each Party to the original separate proceedings shall become a Party to the consolidated proceedings and evidence presented in the separate proceedings shall become evidence in the consolidated proceeding.

8In addressing whether to consolidate or hear two or more appeals together, the Tribunal may consider whether they contain common facts, common issues and/or common elements of law, as well as considerations as to the efficiency and fairness of the proceedings, any prejudice that may result, and the possibility that a decision in one matter may predetermine a subsequent matter or result in the possibility of contradictory decisions. It must also consider the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to deal with all of the issues comprehensively.

9In the present case, both applications contain common facts and subject land. The Tribunal finds that it would be most efficient for the appeals to be heard together.

NEXT STEPS

10Attached as Schedule 1 is the draft Procedural Order and Issues List that will govern the Hearing of these matters.

11The Parties indicated that they each intent to call 2 witnesses and asked the Tribunal to schedule a five day Hearing. The Tribunal finds the requested five days for the hearing of the appeals is reasonable, as the Parties believe the Issues to be determined are narrow.

12The hearing is scheduled to proceed by video on Monday, March 9, 2026 to Friday, March 13, 2026, at 10 a.m.

13Parties 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:

GoTo Meeting: https://meet.goto.com/558205565

Access code: 558-205-565

14Parties and Participants are asked to set up the video hearing application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoTo Meeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html.

15Persons 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) 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The Access Code is as indicated above.

16Individuals 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 Hearing Office’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

ORDER

17THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the request is granted and Tribunal File No. OLT-25-000396 and Tribunal File No. OLT-25-000594 are consolidated, in accordance with Rule 16.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

18THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT Ken Otto is granted Party Status to this appeal.

19THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT Brenda Pritchard is granted Participant Status to this appeal.

20THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Procedural Order attached as Schedule 1 of this Order shall govern the proceedings leading up to and including the Hearing of the Merits.

21THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT a Hearing of the Merits will be held from Monday, March 9, 2026 to Friday, March 13, 2026, for a total of 5 days, commencing at 10 a.m. by video.

22There will be no further notice.

23This Member is not seized.

“A. Sauve”

A. SAUVE

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.

Schedule 1

ISSUE DATE: CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000396 / OLT-25-000594

ONTARIO LAND TRIBUNAL

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

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own motion.

Organization of the Hearing

The video hearing will begin on March 9, 2026 at 10 a.m.. The video conference access information is:

GoTo Meeting: ●

Access Code: ●

The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is five (5) days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible. The procedural order deadlines are generally found in Attachment 1.
The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 2.
The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.
The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 4 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.
The purpose of this Procedural Order and the meaning of the terms used in this Procedural Order are set out in Attachment 5.
Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.
Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.

Requirements Before the Hearing

A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which the witnesses will be called. This list must be delivered on or before November 28, 2025 (date – at least 102 days prior to the start of the hearing) and in accordance with paragraph 23 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae, a cope of their Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty form and the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified.
Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before December 10, 2025 (date – at least 91 days prior to the start of the hearing) and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before December 19, 2025 (date – at least 80 days prior to the start of the hearing).
An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 14 below. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.
Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence as in paragraph 14 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 14 below.
On or before January 9, 2026 (date – at least 59 days prior to the start of the hearing), the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.
On or before December 19, 2025 (date – at least 80 days prior to the start of the hearing), a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties and the Tribunal in accordance with paragraph 23 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.
On or before February 6, 2026 (date – at least 31 days prior to the start of the hearing) the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.
On or before February 17, 2026 (date - at least 20 days prior to the start of the hearing), the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.
Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before January 30, 2026 (date - at least 38 days prior to the start of the hearing) and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.
The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before February 23, 2026 (date – at least 14 days prior to the start of the hearing).
A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal.
A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal at least 31 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.
The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before February 13, 2026 (date – at least 31 days prior to the start of the hearing) with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing. On or before March 2, 2026 (date – at least 7 days prior to the start of the hearing) the parties shall file a finalized hearing plan with the Tribunal.
All filings shall be submitted electronically unless otherwise directed. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Rule 7.
No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

This Member is [not] seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE:

Name of Member:

Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

Attachment 1

Summary of Key Dates

DATE EVENT

November 28, 2025 Exchange of Witness Lists

December 10, 2025 Experts to meet before this date

December 19, 2025 File Agreed Statement of Facts

December 19, 2025 Exchange Participant Statements

January 9, 2026 Exchange Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, and Experts Reports

January 30, 2026 Exchange Reply Witness Statements

February 6, 2026 Last day to provide notice written evidence is not part of record, if applicable

February 6, 2026 Advise Tribunal if hearing dates can be released.

February 13, 2026 File Preliminary Hearing Plan

February 17, 2026 Exchange Visual Evidence

February 23, 2026 File Joint Document Book

March 2, 2026 File Final Hearing Plan

March 9, 2026 Hearing

Attachment 2

Parties and Participants

Status Name Counsel / Representative

Party (Applicant/Appellant) Cindy Reynolds and William Reynolds Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Isaac Tang itang@blg.com 416-367-6109 Brett Davis bdavis@blg.com 416-367-6632

Party Township of Georgian Bay Garrod Pickfield LLP Colin Léger cleger@garrodpickfield.ca 519.837.0500

Party Mr. Ken Otto Loopstra Nixon LLP Aaron Platt aplatt@LN.Law 289.904.2370 Katryna Vergis-Mayo kvergismayo@LN.Law 416.769.1264

Participant Ms. Brenda Pritchard Brenda Pritchard Brenda.lpritchard@gmail.com 416.231.9093

Attachment 3

Issues List

The identification of an issue does not mean that all parties agree that such issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed and/or stated, is appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing.

Joint Issues List of the Township of Georgian Bay and Ken Otto

Provincial Legislation

Does the Zoning By-Law Amendment and Consent Applications (collectively, the “Applications”) have appropriate regard to matters of provincial interest as required by section 2 of the Planning Act including subsection (o), the protection of public health and safety?
Does the consent application meet the criteria under subsection 53(12) of the Planning Act, which references 51(24) of the Planning Act, including, without limitation, the preamble to subsection 51(24), and the following subsections (a), (b), (c), (f), (g), and (m)?

Official Plan of the Muskoka Planning Area

Do the Applications conform to the District of Muskoka Official Plan, including, without limitation, the following:
1. B1 (Vision)
2. B2 f); (Guiding Principals)
3. J4.2 b); (Waterfront Area, Objectives)
4. J4.3 f), g), h), i), and m); (Waterfront Area, General Policies)
5. J4.4.2 c) and g); (Forms of Residential Development)

Township of Georgian Bay Approved Official Plan

Do the Applications conform to the Goals and Objectives of the Georgian Bay Official Plan, including, without limitation, the following:
1. B.2.3.6
Do the Applications conform to the Framework for Growth Policies of the Georgian Bay Official Plan, including, without limitation, the following:
1. C.1.3 (Character)
Do the Applications conform to the Natural Heritage Policies of the Georgian Bay Official Plan, including, without limitation, the following:
1. D.1.2 General Policies, specifically: i. D.1.2.4
Do the Applications conform to the Water Resources Policies of the Georgian Bay Official Plan, including, without limitation, the following:
1. D.2.2 Recreational Water Quality, specifically: i. D.2.2.4.4
2. D.2.3 Narrow Waterbodies i. D.2.3.1 ii. D.2.3.2 iii. D.2.3.3 iv. D.2.3.4 v. D.2.3.5
Do the Applications conform to the Waterfront Policies of the Georgian Bay Official Plan, including, without limitation, the following:
1. F.1 Waterfront Designation i. F.1.3 Character
2. F.2 General Policy, specifically: i. F.2.5 Private docks
3. F.3 Land Use Policy, specifically: i. F.3.2.1 Site Regulations
  1. F.3.2.1.5;
  2. F.3.2.1.9
4. F.5 Waterfront Communities i. F.5.6 Development Policies, specifically:
  1. F.5.6.4 Lot Division a. F.5.6.4.1; b. F.5.6.4.2; c. F.5.6.4.3; d. F.5.6.4.4; e. F.5.6.4.5.
5. F.5.9 Six Mile Lake Waterfront Community Policies, specifically: i. F.5.9.3.4; ii. F.5.9.5; Lot Requirements – New Lot Creation
  1. F.5.9.5.2;
  2. F.5.9.5.3;
  3. F.5.9.5.4; iii. F.5.9.8; Shoreline Structures
  4. F.5.9.8.2;
  5. F.5.9.8.4; iv. F.5.9.10; Setbacks
  6. F.5.9.10.1; and
  7. F.5.9.10.2.
Do the Applications conform to the Transportation Policies Georgian Bay Official Plan, including, without limitation, the following:
1. H.1.1 General, specifically: i. H.1.1.2 ii. H.1.1.3
Do the Applications conform to the Technical Reports and Plans of Survey Policies of the Georgian Bay Official Plan, including, without limitation, the following:
1. I.2.3 Site Evaluation Report, specifically, i. I.2.3.1
Do the Applications conform to the Division of Land Policies of the Georgian Bay Official Plan, including, without limitation, the following:
1. I.4.2 Consent, specifically i. I.4.2.1

Land Use Compatibility and Neighbourhood Character

Are the Applications compatible with the planned character of the area within the established policy framework?
Would the introduction of two new dwellings and docks reduce privacy, increase noise or otherwise alter the planned character of the surrounding area?
Do the Applications provide adequate area for building envelopes, shoreline buffers, and docking facilities, in an area identified as Narrow Waterbody in the Georgian Bay Official Plan and in a manner consistent with the Official Plan’s intent to limit subdivision of the property?
Are the proposed setbacks and lot configurations consistent with policies encouraging the preservation of vegetative buffers and the natural shoreline?

Safety Concerns

Do the Applications adequately consider existing navigational constraints and recreational use patterns?
Would the addition of additional docks and use thereof, along with the associated watercrafts restrict navigable space and create potential safety hazards or conflicts between boaters?
Would the combined effect of additional docks, boats, and shoreline activity exacerbate congestion or conflicts between users and contribute to unsafe conditions?

Overall Good Planning and Public Interest

Is it good planning to approve the proposed zoning by-law amendment and give the requested consent when they ignore the rationale for the underlying Plan of Subdivision which specifically was designed to limit the number of lots on this specific frontage?
In the event the Tribunal is prepared to give a provisional consent, what are the appropriate conditions for the approval of the consents?
Do the Applications represent the public interest, including protecting against impacts that may arise from congestion in an area identified as a Narrow Waterbody in the Georgian Bay Official Plan?
Would approval of the Applications undermine the approved planning policies and objectives to protect against impacts resulting from congestion in narrow waterbodies? Would such an approval undermine the public interest?
Do the Applications represent good planning?

Attachment 4

Order of Evidence

Cindy Reynolds and William Reynolds
Township of Georgian Bay
Parties aligned with the Township of Georgian Bay, including, Mr. Ken Otto
Cindy Reynolds and William Reynolds, in reply

Attachment 5

Meaning of Terms in Procedural Order

A party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. An unincorporated group cannot be a party and it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorisation from the party.

NOTE that a person who wishes to become a party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

A participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.

A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.

Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

A witness statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which he or she will discuss ; and a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons supporting their opinions and conclusions and (5) a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the participant’s position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submissions of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports or materials, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.

Additional Information

A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.

The order of examination of witnesses is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:

direct examination by the party presenting the witness;
direct examination by any party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;
cross-examination by parties of opposite interest;
re-examination by the party presenting the witness; or
another order of examination mutually agreed among the parties or directed by the Tribunal.

Reynolds v. Georgian Bay (Township), 2025 CanLII 127701

Case Summary

INTRODUCTION

CONSOLIDATION OF FILES

NEXT STEPS

ORDER

Schedule 1

Organization of the Hearing

Requirements Before the Hearing

Attachment 1

Attachment 2

Attachment 3

Attachment 4

Attachment 5