Langlois-Rheault v. St.-Charles (Municipality), 2025 CanLII 130894

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 09, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000488

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Lizette Langlois-Rheault and Paul Rheault

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit a dock with reduced setbacks of 1.02 metres and 0.12 metres

Reference Number: A/04/25/SC

Property Address: 268A Lake Road

Municipality/UT: St.-Charles/Sudbury

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000488

OLT Case No: OLT-25-000488

OLT Case Name: Langlois-Rheault v. St.-Charles (Municipality)

Heard: November 10, 2025 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Lizette Langlois-Rheault and Paul Rheault

Denise Baker

Municipality of St.-Charles

Spencer Putnam

DECISION DELIVERED BY MATHIEU E. QUESNEL AND FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal filed by Lizette Langlois-Rheault and Paul Rheault (“Applicant”) under section 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), against a decision of the Municipality of St.-Charles (“Municipality”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) in which an Application for Minor Variance (“Application”) was refused. The Application affects the land known as 268A Lake Road in St-Charles (“Subject Property”).

2The Applicant is seeking relief from section 6.4c) of the Municipality Zoning By-Law 2014-26 (“ZBL”) which requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres (“m”) for water-based structures such as docks. The Applicant have constructed a new permanent dock structure, and the dock is encroaching into the required 1.5 m side yard setback. The Applicant is requesting relief to permit reduced setbacks of 0.12 m.

3The Applicant is appealing the COA decision to refuse his Application.

4Notice of Hearing was sent by email by the Tribunal on September 12, 2025, and was marked as Exhibit 1.

SITE AND CONTEXT

5The Subject Property is a residential lot located on Lake Road and is approximately 0.28 hectares (“ha”) in area with 32 m of frontage. It is legally described as Part of Lot 11, Concession 6 in the geographic Township of Haddo in the District of Sudbury and now in the Municipality of St.-Charles being Part 2 on Reference Plan SR-2736.

6The Subject Property is zoned Waterfront Residential (WR).

7The Subject Property have historically included a single dock off a shoreline platform with a boat lift. There was also a small storage shed located on the dock for marine items.

8A second slip was necessary to accommodate the Applicant’s watercraft. The new dock is a crib dock with a wooden deck. The fingers are 1.6 m wide along the westerly finger and 1.75 m for the two easterly fingers. The dock is 15.6 m in length.

9The Subject Property had undertaken several shoreline improvements to include erosion control and protection measures. All the work was authorized by both the federal department of Oceans and Fisheries and the provincial Ministry of Natural Resources.

10Many of the surrounding lots have modified and developed shorelines along this part of the lake.

11No building permits are required for a dock, but the ZBL regulates the placement of docks.

12The Applicant replaced the dock within the extension of their side lot lines and it was only after a precise re-survey of the Subject Property that it became clear that the dock location was encroaching on the side yard setback.

LEGISLATIVE TESTS

13The Tribunal’s authority to grant variances is given under section 45(1) of the Act, which sets out the four tests that must be satisfied by an Applicant when making an application for the authorization of variances. It must be noted that the hearing before the Tribunal is a hearing de novo and the onus of satisfying the Tribunal that the application meets these tests remains on the Applicant. The legislative tests require that the variances:

a. Maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;

b. Maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law;

c. Be desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; and,

d. Be minor in nature.

PARTIES AND EVIDENCE

14The Township was represented by counsel Spencer Putnam but didn’t present any evidence and did not contest the evidence presented by the Applicant’s counsel.

15The Applicant was represented by counsel Denise Baker and called one expert witness. The witness was John Jackson, a planning consultant from Parry Sound. Mr. Jackson is Member of the Canadian Institute of Planers and a Registered Professional Planner. Mr. Jackson was called as an expert witness to give expert evidence in the areas of land use planning. After reviewing Mr. Jackson qualification, professional experience and Acknowledgement of Expert Duties, the Tribunal qualified him as an expert in land use planning and he was affirmed to provide expert opinion evidence.

16The Affidavit of John Jackson affirmed on November 5, 2025, was file as Exhibit 2.

17Before the start of the hearing the parties advise that they came to an agreement and wanted to file the Minutes of Settlements as Exhibit 3. The Tribunal advised the parties that a hearing for a Minor Variance is a hearing de novo and that the tribunal cannot simply agrees with the terms of their settlement. The evidence needs to be presented, and the Tribunal will have to decide on the evidence presented at the hearing. In the proposed settlement, there was three conditions that all parties agreed that if the Tribunal was to accept the MV, these three conditions should be added to the decision.

PLANNING EVIDENCE

Matters of Provincial Interest

18Section 2 of the Act sets out a number of provincial interests and land use planning decisions are required to have regard to those relevant matters of provincial interest.

19Mr. Jackson reviewed section 2 and opined that the MV with the conditions of the proposed settlement have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in the Act.

Provincial Planning Statement 2024

20When considering an application for minor variance, the decision of the Tribunal shall be consistent with the direction of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”).

21Mr. Jackson testified that the Application for a dock does not engage the PPS, however he offered his opinion and illustrate to the Tribunal that there is no conflict with these policies.

22Mr. Jackson testified that the proposed replacement dock has received approvals from the Ministry of Natural Resources, which demonstrate consistency with the natural heritage policies of the PPS.

23Mr. Jackson opined that the MV is consistent with the PPS.

24The Tribunal accordingly finds that the requested variance is consistent with the PPS.

Growth Plan for Northern Ontario

25The Subject Property is subject to the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario (“GPNO”).

26The GPNO is a high-level plan focusing to endorse new growth and development that contribute to the local economy, so long as there are no adverse impacts on the local economy or local culture.

27Mr. Jackson provided extracts of the GPNO in his affidavit.

28Mr. Jackson is of the opinion that the MV with the conditions of the proposed settlement does not have any adverse impact on the local economy or local culture and does not conflict with the GPNO.

29The Tribunal accordingly finds that the requested variance with the conditions does not have any adverse impact on the local economy or local culture and does not conflict with the GPNO.

THE FOUR TESTS

1. Does the variance meet the general Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan?

30In accordance with the Sudbury East Planning Board Official Plan (“OP”) the Subject Property is designated Waterfront. Subsection 2.2.9.1.9 applies to shoreline abutting any lake or waterbody. This section gives details of the placement of a dock and other shoreline structures.

31Subsection 2.2.9.1.9 reads as follows:

9. The policies of this Section shall apply to shoreline structures abutting any lake or waterbody:

a) With the exception of docks and (wet) boathouses, all shoreline structures shall be constructed within the confines of the property boundaries of a lot.

b) Shoreline structures including single storey boathouses, boat ports and float plane hangars shall be limited to a maximum width as regulated by the zoning By-Law.

c) Construction of a second storey addition for any shoreline structure shall not be permitted.

d) The type of docks shall generally be limited to floating, cantilevered or post dock construction. Other types of docks may be permitted where it is demonstrated that they will not have a negative impact on fish habitat. Docks shall be built of non toxic building materials. The size of docks may be regulated by the zoning By-Law and in no case shall limit or restrict safe navigation. The shoreline below the high water mark shall not be permanently altered through the construction of shoreline structures except to accommodate the use of docks as approved by the authority having jurisdiction.

e) No shoreline structure which will adversely impact fish habitat shall be permitted.

f) Other shoreline structures may include a gazebo, pumphouse, utility or storage shed, stairs, deck or viewing area subject to the standards set out above.

32Mr. Jackson testified that the relevant policies in the OP are found in 2.2.9.1.9(a) and that the OP permits a dock to be constructed outside of the limits of a property, but he also recognizes that in 2.2.9.1.9(d) it is indicated that the docks may be regulated by the zoning by-law and in no case shall limit or restrict safe navigation.

33He testified that the dock length shall not impact line of sight and use of the waterbody. Mr. Jackson is of the opinion that the general intent and purpose of the OP has been achieved as the dock will be constructed within the limits of the Subject Property and will not limit or restrict safe navigation.

34The Tribunal accordingly finds that the requested variance meets the intend and purpose of the OP.

2. Does the variance meet the Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-Law?

35The only regulation governing the placement of docks is found in section 6.4 of the ZBL. This section applies to Boathouses. The boathouse provisions include a reference to a required side yard of 1.5 m for boathouses, decks, docks or other similar uses.

36Mr. Jackson testified that in the staff report, also part of his affidavit, states that the required 1.5 m setback is intended to protect access, views and eliminate overdevelopment and to maintain functional aesthetic and social character of the waterfront. He opined that the proposed variances achieve all of these objectives.

37Mr. Jackson also add that when considered against the existing development on the surrounding properties, the proposed dock, with its low profile does not in any way impact views nor does it represent an over development of the shoreline.

38Mr. Jackson opined that the MV meets the general intend and purpose of the ZBL.

39The Tribunal accordingly finds that the requested variance meets the intend and purpose of the ZBL

3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure?

40Mr. Jackson testified that the test of desirability of the development relates to the context of the application. These include matters relate to physical conditions, matters peculiar to the property as well as adjacent land, constraints related to the property and whether the restriction is unreasonable for the property.

41Mr. Jackson mentioned that the question of desirability is how the proposal responds to the conditions that exist on the Subject Property. The location of the dock has been placed to respond to a shallow foreshore to be able to obtain sufficient dept for mooring watercraft. While the whole of the shoreline has depth constraints, the attempt has been made to optimize water depth.

42He also testified that the frontages for these shoreline lots dictate the placement of waterfront structures including docks. He further testified that placing the dock on one of the extremities of the lot will benefit to preserving of the natural state of the shoreline.

43Mr. Jackson also testified that the neighboring property has significantly greater built from having a boathouse located in the front yard in contrast to the Subject Property where the docks structures are low profile and do not impair visibility over the lake form adjoining properties.

44Mr. Jackson opined that the MV requested is desirable for the appropriate development of the Subject Property and that the Applicant has entered into an agreement with the Municipality that can be registered on title to ensure that there can be no mooring of a boat on the western side of the dock. That condition would result in an improved condition over what they would even be permitted to do as of right.

45The Tribunal agrees that the requested variance is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure.

4. Is the variance considered Minor in nature?

46Mr. Jackson testified that the determination of whether a variance is minor in nature is not a strict question of the quantum of the variance being requested, but rather if the variance results in unacceptable adverse impacts.

47The evidence provided by Mr. Jackson was that the requested variance is minor, will not have an impact on lands beyond the Subject Property and will not pose harm to the character of the area or the continued use of the adjacent properties for their current or future purposes.

48Mr. Jackson opined that the relief that is proposed will almost be imperceptible in terms of the impact on the adjacent properties. The testified that the existing dock(s) and boathouse of the neighboring property have a greater visual impact on the neighbours.

49He testified that the general density of shoreline development along this neighbourhood of the lake includes extensive shoreline structures and improvements similar to the current proposal. He further added that the variance requested is minor in this context.

50Mr. Jackson opined that the variance requested in minor in nature.

51The Tribunal is satisfied that the requested variance is minor in nature.

FINDINGS

52The Tribunal accepts the uncontested evidence of Mr. Jackson that the requested variance for the Subject Property will have a minimal impact on the neighbouring and surrounding properties.

53The Tribunal accordingly comes to the same conclusion as Mr. Jackson and finds that the requested variance has regard for the provincial interests expressed in the Act, is consistent with the PPS, the GPNO, the OP and the ZBL, and satisfy all four elements set out in the Act.

ORDER

54THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the variance is authorized with the following three conditions:

a) The Minor Variance shall apply only to the existing dock currently located at 268A Lake Road.

b) No portion of the westernmost side of the dock may be used for the mooring of watercraft, and no cleats or similar fixtures shall be installed along the westernmost side of the dock.

c) The Owners shall enter into an agreement with the Municipality pursuant to section 45(9.1) of the Planning Act in substantially the same form as Schedule “B” contain in Exhibit 3 (the “Agreement”), and the Agreement shall be registered on title to the property pursuant to section 45(9.2) of the Planning Act.

“Mathieu E. Quesnel”

MATHIEU E. QUESNEL

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.