McIvor v. North Almaguin (Planning Board), 2025 CanLII 127712

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 3, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000011

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

Applicant and Appellant: James McIvor

Subject: Consent

Description: To permit the severance of a property with two cottages into separate parcels with an easement for driveway access.

Reference Number: B26/McConkey/2023

Property Address: 94B Caribou Lake Road, Loring ON, Unorganized Township of McConkey, Parry Sound District

Municipality/UT: McConkey/Parry Sound District

Approval Authority: North Almaguin Planning Board

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000011

OLT Parent Case No.: OLT-24-000011

OLT Case Name: McIvor v. North Almaguin (Planning Board)

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

Applicant and Appellant: James McIvor

Subject: Consent

Description: To permit the severance of a property with two cottages into separate parcels with an easement for driveway access.

Reference Number: B27/McConkey/2023

Property Address: 94B Caribou Lake Road, Loring ON, Unorganized Township of McConkey, Parry Sound District

Municipality/UT: McConkey/Parry Sound District

Approval Authority: North Almaguin Planning Board

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000012

OLT Parent Case No.: OLT-24-000011

OLT Case Name: McIvor v. North Almaguin (Planning Board)

Heard: November 21, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

James McIvor

Stephen Watt

North Almaguin Planning Board

Edward Veldboom

DECISION DELIVERED BY HUGH S. WILKINS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1This Decision addresses the appeals brought by James McIvor (“Appellant”) arising from the refusal by the North Almaguin Planning Board (“Planning Board”) of applications for Provisional Consents in relation to the property located at 94B Caribou Lake Road (“subject property”). The subject property is located in an unorganized territory in the District of Parry Sound.

2The subject property consists of a small lot located at the tip of a peninsula jutting into Caribou Lake. There are two existing cottages on the lot and the lot is jointly owned by two families. They filed applications with the Planning Board seeking to have the subject property severed into two so that each cottage is on a separate lot. They seek two Provisional Consents. The first is to divide the subject property into two lots. The second is to create an easement over the severed lot to the retained lot to facilitate access to the retained lot. The proposed easement would follow the existing driveway that is already there.

3On November 29, 2023, the Planning Board refused the proposed Provisional Consents.

4The Appellant appealed the Planning Board’s decision. The Parties engaged in settlement discussions and, in September 2025, they informed the Tribunal that a proposed settlement had been reached. The Tribunal scheduled a hearing to consider the proposed settlement, which was held on November 21, 2025.

ISSUES

5In making a decision on a Provisional Consent appeal, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act. The Tribunal’s decision must be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024) (“PPS”) and it must conform with any applicable provincial plans under s. 3(5) of the Planning Act. The Tribunal must have regard to the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act when making its decision and the Tribunal must consider whether proposed conditions are reasonable as required under s. 51(25) of the Planning Act.

EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS

6The Planning Board consents to the proposed Consent with the conditions that were agreed to by the Parties through their settlement discussions. At the hearing, the Tribunal heard evidence solely from the Appellant, who called Wayne Simpson to provide opinion evidence on his behalf. The Tribunal qualified Mr. Simpson to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.

7Mr. Simpson described the proposed Provisional Consents as set out in the sketch found in Attachment 2 to this Order and Decision.

8Mr. Simpson stated that the local conservation authority (the North Bay Mattawa Conservation Authority) had concerns that the existing septic systems on the subject property are too close to the lake. He said each cottage has its own separate septic system. After the Planning Board refused the Appellant’s applications, Mr. Simpson said the Appellant engaged an engineer who examined the existing septic systems and, in consultation with the Conservation Authority, made recommendations on replacing both of the existing septic systems using newer alternative technologies. He said the Appellant agrees with these recommendations. As agreed to by the Parties, new private sanitary sewage systems must be installed, each utilizing one of the enumerated technologies as set out in the first condition in Attachment 1 to this Order and Decision.

9To accommodate the new sewage systems, Mr. Simpson stated that the alignment of the driveway permitting access to the retained lot may need to be altered. Due to this, he said that a new reference plan will need to be prepared and submitted to the Planning Board once the final plans for the new sewage systems are in place. The requirement for the submission of a reference plan is set out as the second condition in Attachment 1 to this Order and Decision.

10Mr. Simpson opined that the proposed Provisional Consents are consistent with the PPS. He stated that they are consistent with PPS policy 2.7.1 in that the cottages on the subject property are recreational dwellings not intended as permanent residences. He also said that they are consistent with PPS policy 2.7.2 in that there is existing infrastructure servicing the subject property, including road access and hydro. He said they are consistent with PPS policy 3.6.4 in that the proposed new septic systems will not have any negative impacts as result of the proposed Provisional Consents.

11Mr. Simpson stated that the proposed Provisional Consents do not conflict with the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario

12Regarding the criteria in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act, Mr. Simpson opined that the proposed Provisional Consents have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act and they are not premature. He said the subject property is suitable for subdividing, there are no road access or flooding concerns, and the subject property has existing servicing. He noted that as the subject property is located in an unorganized territory, there is no Official Plan that applies to it.

13Mr. Simpson reviewed of the proposed Conditions and opined that they are reasonable as required under s. 51(25) of the Planning Act.

14Mr. Simpson opined that the proposed Provisional Consents represent good planning.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

15Based on Mr. Simpson’s opinion evidence, the Tribunal finds that the proposed Provisional Consents are consistent with the PPS and are appropriate having regard to the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act, including the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act. The Tribunal finds that the proposed conditions are reasonable and it finds that the proposed Provisional Consents should be given subject to the conditions agreed to by the Parties.

ORDER

16THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeals are allowed, in part, and the Provisional Consents are to be given subject to the conditions set out in Attachment 1 attached to this Order and Decision and in general conformity with the sketch attached as Attachment 2 to this Order and Decision.

“Hugh S. Wilkins”

HUGH S. WILKINS

VICE-CHAIR

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

Attachment 1

Conditions

1. Prior to final approval, the applicant shall install/construct in accordance with the Building Code Act, 1992 and the regulations thereto and under authority of a building permit issued by the North Bay Mattawa Conservation Authority, a private sanitary sewage disposal system utilizing one of the following technologies, on each of the proposed severed and retained lands:

2. System “O” - https://www.makeway.ca/products/system-o-septic-systems/

3. Waterloo Biofilter Flat Bed - https://waterloo-biofilter.com/products/residential/flat-bed-biofilters/

4. Ecoflo Linear Biofilter- https://shop.premiertechaqua.com/en/products/ecoflo-linear-biofilter

5. Eljen Septic Systems - https://www.eljen.com/eljen-gsf/

6. Shallow Buried Trench bed - https://www.oowa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Shallow-Buried-Trench-Best-Practices-FINAL-March2019.pdf

This condition shall be deemed to be satisfied upon issuance of the issuance of a conditional notice of completion by the North Bay Mattawa Conservation Authority.

2. Prior to final approval, delivery of the following to the North Almaguin Planning Board:

   1. a Reference Plan prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor providing for the description of the severed lot, the retained lot and the land to be subject to the Right of Way;
   2. copies of the draft transfers of the severed and retained lands and the Right of Way;
   3. the then applicable fee for each severance certificate.

Attachment 2