Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: May 08, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000807
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(48) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Beach Road Villas Inc.
Subject: Conditions of approval of draft plan of subdivision
Description: To permit the extension of the approved draft plan of subdivision deadline
Reference Number: S2006-06 (Muskoka Ridge)
Property Address: Part of Lot 21, Concession 6
Municipality: Town of Gravenhurst
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000807
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000807
OLT Case Name: Beach Road Villas Inc. v. Gravenhurst (Town)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 10(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6
Request by: The District Municipality of Muskoka
Request for: Request for Directions
Heard: March 13, 2025, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Beach Road Villas Inc.
Alex Ciccone
District Municipality of Muskoka (“District”)
Edward B. Veldboom
Town of Gravenhurst (“Town”)
Edward B. Veldboom
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION DELIVERED BY D. CHIPMAN ON MARCH 13, 2025, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1The Tribunal convened a Motion Hearing (“Motion”) in respect of the appeal filed by Beach Road Villas Inc. (“Appellant”) with the Tribunal regarding the status of the Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”) for the land known as Part of Lot 21, Concession 6 in the Town (“Subject Property”), under section 51(48) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the “Act”).
2Mr. Veldboom, counsel for the District and the Town, explained that he had not responded to the filing of this appeal as it was his opinion that the DPS appeal was an invalid appeal. It was his view that the lapsing condition had expired, resulting in a denied extension of the DPS, which he stated is not amenable to an appeal.
MOTION
3The Motion is for:
An Order declaring that the letter dated April 15, 2024, submitted on May 15, 2024, by Alex Ciccone, on behalf of the Appellant (hereinafter referenced as the “May 15th Letter”) does not disclose a valid appeal under subsection 51(33) or 51(48) of the Act;
An Order declaring that an approval authority’s failure or its determination not to exercise its authority under subsection 51(33) to extend the lapsing date is not subject to a statutory right of appeal;
An Order declaring that a DPS Approval lapsing date is not appealable after the lapsing date has passed;
An Order declaring that a lapsing date is not suspended during any appeal under section 51 of the Act unless expressly stated to be suspended; and
An Order confirming that the DPS bearing the District file no. S2006-6 (Muskoka Ridge Subdivision), Town lapsed on April 26, 2024.
4The grounds for the Motion are:
The Appellant is the proponent of a Plan of Subdivision that was first given Draft Plan Approval (“DPA”) on September 2, 2008, by Zoning By-law No. 2008-09-02. Among other things, the conditions included a lapsing date of August 14, 2013.
The Appellant requested the extension of the lapsing date on five (5) separate occasions. The District, on each occasion, issued