Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

June 02, 2025

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-25-000188

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER 25(8.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.2, as amended

Request by:

JCS Investments Inc.

Request for:

Request for Dismissal Without a Hearing

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 25(5.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.2, as amended

Appellant:

Chuansu Zhang

Applicant:

JCS Investments Inc.

Respondent:

Niagara Escarpment Commission

Subject of appeal:

Approval of a Development Permit Application to install a septic tank, pump chamber, tile bed, to service an agricultural-related use building on an existing lot that supports an agricultural operation and agricultural-use structures

Reference No.:

APP2024-00270

Property Address/Description:

7234 Tremaine Road

Municipality/Upper Tier:

Milton/Halton

OLT Case No.:

OLT-25-000188

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-25-000188

OLT Case Name:

Zhang v. Ontario (Niagara Escarpment Commission)

Heard:

May 26, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Chuansu Zhang

Self-represented

JCS Investments Inc.

Melanie Zetusian Doug Bourassa (in absentia)

REPORT DELIVERED BY F. LAVOIE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1Tribunal Members constitute Hearing Officers and the Tribunal functions as the Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office (“Hearing Office”) for appeals under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O 1990, c. N. 2, as amended (“NEPDA”).

2The matter before the Hearing Office concerns a motion to dismiss by the Applicant, JCS Investments Inc., and first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) for an appeal commenced by Chuansu Zhang (“Appellant”) pursuant to 25(5.1) of the NEPDA, regarding the Niagara Escarpment Commission’s (“NEC”) decision which conditionally approved a development permit to install a septic tank, pump chamber, and tile bed to service an agricultural-related use building on an existing 59 hectare lot municipally known as 7234 Tremaine Road, in Milton, Ontario (“Subject Property”).

3The Appellant’s reasons for appeal are brief and set out in section 4 of the appeal form as follows: “Not good for environment”. The Appellant attended the CMC with the assistance of another neighbor to assist her with oral submissions to the Hearing Office , as the neighbor explained that she had some difficulty expressing herself in English. The Town of Milton and the NEC both advised the Hearing Office that they would not be participating in the CMC.

THE APPLICANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

4The Applicant’s motion is for:

a. An Order dismissing the appeal and upholding the Decision of the NEC dated February 18, 2025;

b. Costs of this motion; and

c. Such further and other Relief as to this Tribunal may seem just.

5The Applicant submits that the appeal is frivolous, vexatious, and without merit. Further, they submit that the Appellant was required to specify reasons for the appeal, had the onus to challenge the NEC’s decision, which they failed to do so, and did not provide any specific planning, environmental, or any other reason in support of their allegation the proposed development was “not good for environment”. Lastly, the Applicant submit that the appeal has no reasonable prospect of success.

6Following the Hearing, the Applicant advised the Hearing Office by email that they were no longer seeking costs. Accordingly, the Hearing Office will only decide the issue of whether the appeal ought to be dismissed without a hearing on the merits.

7The Appellant did not submit a written response to the Applicant’s motion.

APPELLANT’S SUBMISSIONS

8The Appellant, through her interpreter, asked questions as to the nature of the development and whether there would be noise and smell. When asked to provide her submissions in response to the motion raised by the Applicant, the Appellant explained she did not have much time to reply and that there was no two-way communication. She concluded by saying she did not reject the process and knew small businesses were needed. Much of the time spent on her submissions was in opposition to the costs originally sought by the Applicant, which need not to be detailed given the Appellant is no longer seeking this relief.

9The Hearing Office allowed and the Applicant’s contractors volunteered to answer some of the Appellant’s questions about the development permit, clarifying there would not be any noise or smell concerns. The Appellant explained they had misunderstood the 120 meters distance from the lot line for notices under the NEPDA as signifying the development would be 120 meters from her property. More importantly, the Appellant did not seem to understand that she had commenced an appeal by filing the appeal form, as she repeatedly referred to herself as a neighbor who simply wanted to ask questions and understand the proposal.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

10While the Applicant raised a number of distinct reasons why the appeal should be dismissed, a single reason is sufficient to dispose of this motion. Accordingly, the Tribunal will only deal with the Applicant’s argument that the appeal is without merit, and that the Hearing Officer therefore ought to refuse to conduct or to continue the hearing, pursuant to s. 25(8.1)(a) of the NEPDA.

11At face value, the reasons provided for the appeal as “not good for environment” are already deficient. It is not possible, from the notice of appeal, to ascertain what aspect of the proposal is “not good for [the] environment”, and how. In addition, the Appellant did not respond to the motion to dismiss and did not respond to the Hearing Office’s correspondence requesting confirmation of whether she would attend the Hearing. Her submissions at the Hearing did not show an intention to pursue the appeal, either. Considering all of the above factors, in this Hearing Officer’s opinion, the appeal is without merit and it is appropriate in these circumstances to refuse to conduct or continue the hearing.

12With respect to s. 25(8.2) NEPDA, the Hearing Office finds the Appellant was notified of the request to dismiss without a hearing through the Tribunal’s direction letter dated May 6, 2025. The Appellant was also given the opportunity to make representations in writing by May 20, 2025, and at the May 26, 2025 Hearing.

13As the Hearing Officer has refused to conduct or to continue the hearing, the decision of the delegate shall be deemed to be confirmed, pursuant to s. 25(8.3) NEPDA.

ORDER

14THE HEARING OFFICER REFUSES TO CONDUCT OR TO CONTINUE THE HEARING as it is the opinion of the officer that the appeal is without merit, pursuant to s. 25(8.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act (“NEPDA”).

15Pursuant to s. 25(8.3) of the NEPDA, the Niagara Escarpment Commission’s decision to conditionally issue Development Permit APP-2024-00270 shall be deemed to be confirmed.

16Pursuant to Rule 24.3 of the Ontario Land Tribunal’s Rules and Procedures, this Order is effective as of May 26, 2025.

“F. Lavoie”

F. LAVOIE

HEARING OFFICER

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.