Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
January 21, 2025
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-24-000035
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant:
Township of Muskoka Lakes
Appellants:
Miller Paving Limited, Our Muskoka Stakeholders Association, Elizabeth & Anthony Lippa, and Leslie Carr
Subject:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Description:
OPA - Ensure the Official Plan Conforms to Provincial and District Policy
Reference Number:
2022-171/PLN-7-14/09/23
Property Address:
Town Wide
Municipality/UT:
Muskoka Lakes/Muskoka
OLT Case No.:
OLT-24-000035
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-24-000035
OLT Case Name:
Miller Paving Limited et al. v. Muskoka (District)
Heard:
January 13, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Miller Paving Limited, Our Muskoka Stakeholders Association, and Leslie Carr
Marc Kemerer
Elizabeth Lippa
John Ewart
Township of Muskoka Lakes
Edward Veldboom Chris Barnett
District Municipality of Muskoka
Jennifer Savini Daniel Querques (Articling Student)
Friends of Muskoka, Leonard Lake Stakeholders Association, and Muskoka Lakes Association
Lee English Allison Lalla (Articling Student) Piper Morley (in absentia)
Skeleton Lake Cottagers Organization Inc.
David Donnelly
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY David Brown ON JANuaRY 13, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The Tribunal convened a third Case Management Conference (“CMC”) with respect to Appeals filed by Miller Paving Limited, Our Muskoka Stakeholders Association, Leslie Carr, and Elizabeth Lippa (together the “Appellants”) pursuant to s. 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”) against the District Municipality of Muskoka’s (“District”) approval, as modified, of the new Township of Muskoka Lakes’ (“Township”) Official Plan (“TMLOP”).
2The TMLOP was approved by the Township on October 30, 2022. The District reviewed and approved the TMLOP, with modification, on November 20, 2023. The TMLOP provides a framework to manage growth and physical change within the Township by establishing updated goals, objectives, and policies to guide decision-making in the Township affecting land use planning through to the year 2046.
3The CMC was convened for the purpose of finalizing a Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List (“IL”), addressing a proposal to bifurcate or phase the hearing to consider the Mineral Aggregate Resource Policies separate from the balance of the matters identified in the Appeals, and setting hearing dates for the Merit Hearing.
ISSUES LIST
4As directed by the Tribunal, the Appellants provided a draft IL to the Tribunal which expanded on the originally filed IL providing a more focussed scope of the matters at issue.
5A concern with the issues set out on the IL was raised by the Skeleton Lake Cottagers Organization Inc., Friends of Muskoka, Leonard Lake Stakeholders Association, and Muskoka Lakes Association (together the “Non-Appellant Parties”), the Township, and the District, citing that the issues raised with respect to consistency with the Provincial Planning Statement and conformity with the District Official Plan were not set out in the respective Notices of Appeal filed by the Appellants as required by s. 17(37.1) of the Act. The Non-Appellant Parties, the Township and the District suggested that the matter may require that a Motion be filed with the Tribunal to determine whether the issues set out on the IL are valid in light of s. 17(37.1) of the Act.
6Mr. Kemerer stated that the originally filed Notices of Appeal, filed on behalf of his clients and the previously filed IL, identified the consistency with the Provincial Planning Statement and conformity with the District Official Plan as issues and he contends that it complies with the statutory requirements. He submitted that the Parties raising this matter at this advanced stage in the proceedings is prejudicial to his clients and could be considered an abuse of process. Mr. Kemerer contends that the Non-Appellant Parties, the Township, or the District should have raised their concerns prior to the previous CMC and if they wished to file a Motion, it could have been filed with the previous Motion considered by the Tribunal.
7It was noted that the Tribunal had directed the Parties to provide a more detailed description of the issues for adjudication and the Appellant has provided such a list. Should the further refinement of those issues be required to respond to the matters raised by the Non-Appellant Parties, the Township, and the District, the Tribunal notes that this is one of the purposes of a CMC.
8The Parties expressed a willingness to participate in Tribunal-led Mediation to resolve the IL. The Tribunal encouraged the Parties to pursue mediation, however, it was noted that mediation typically involves negotiations based on established issues.
9The Tribunal directs the Parties to engage in further discussions to address the matters raised and refine the issues to a form that finds general consensus amongst the Parties. There was some reservation that the statutory compliance issue may not be resolved, and the Tribunal encouraged the experienced Counsel involved in this matter to find a resolution of this matter and bring it back to the Tribunal at the next CMC.
10Further, the Tribunal directs the Parties, should all Parties consent, to contact the Tribunal to request an assessment of the matter to determine if this matter is an appropriate matter for mediation.
11The Tribunal, noting that all Parties have expressed a willingness to continue dialogue on the matter, scheduled a further CMC to finalize the IL with the Parties. Should there be any outstanding matters surrounding the IL, the Tribunal is prepared to resolve those matters at the CMC. Should the Parties be unable to come to a resolution of the statutory compliance issue surrounding s. 17(37.1) of the Act, the Tribunal will consider a request to schedule a Motion, if necessary, at that time.
12The CMC has been scheduled such that there will be sufficient time to explore the viability of Tribunal-led Mediation and, if it is determined that this matter is an appropriate candidate for mediation, the Tribunal acknowledges that an adjournment of the CMC may be required to accommodate those negotiations.
HEARING DETAILS
13The Tribunal scheduled a further CMC to be held on Friday, March 28, 2025, at 10 a.m. by video conference.
14Parties and/or Participants and/or Observers are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before it begins to test their video and audio connections:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/638422541
Access code: 638-422-541
15Parties and/or Participants are asked to access and set up the 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
16Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to it by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (toll free) 1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 638-422-541.
17Individuals 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 event to ensure that they are properly connected at the correct time. Questions prior to the event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator.
18The Tribunal directs that the Parties are to provide an IL to the Tribunal by Friday, March 21, 2025.
BIFURCATION OF THE HEARING
19The Parties were in agreement that bifurcating or phasing the hearing to consider the Appeals pertaining to the Mineral Aggregate Resource Policies separate from the other Appeals as they are distinct matters and do not impact the adjudication of the balance of the matters identified in the Appeals.
20In light of the concerns raised as it relates to the IL, the Tribunal reiterates that the bifurcation of the Hearing would be an appropriate consideration once the IL is finalized and the length of the Hearing has been determined. This matter can be considered by the Tribunal at a future CMC once the IL has been finalized.
ORDER
21THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS the directions set out in this Decision.
22The Member is not seized, however, will remain available for case management subject to the Tribunal’s calendar.
23There will be no further notice provided.
“David Brown”
DAVID BROWN
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.