Save The Oak Ridges Moraine v. Ontario (Environment, Conservation and Parks), 2025 CanLII 62236

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: June 26, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000246

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 38 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993, S.O. 1993, c. 28, as amended

Applicants: Save The Oak Ridges Moraine, Kingscross Ratepayers Association

Instrument Holder: St. Rita at Marylake Long Term Care Home

Respondent: Director, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks

Subject of leave to appeal: Decision to issue a Permit to Take Water pursuant to section 34.1 of the Ontario Water Resources Act for post-construction foundation drainage

Instrument No.: P-300-9277228428

Property Address: 13760 Keele Street, King City

Municipality/ Upper Tier: Township of King/York Region

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000246

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000246

OLT Case Name: Save The Oak Ridges Moraine v. Ontario (Environment, Conservation and Parks)

Heard: June 11, 2025 in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel

Save the Oak Ridges Moraine David Donnelly

Kingscross Ratepayers Association David Donnelly

Director, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Catalina Karam

St. Rita at Mary Lake Long Term Care Home Alexandra Whyte Quinto M. Annibale Austin Ray

Link to the Order

DECISION DELIVERED BY BITA M. RAJAEE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1Save the Oak Ridges Moraine and Kingcross Ratepayers Association ("Appellants") seeks leave under section 38 of the Environmental Bill of Rights (“Act”) to appeal the decision of the Director (“Director”) of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (“Ministry”) to issue the Permit to Take Water No. P-300-9277228428 (“Permit”) pursuant to section 34.1 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, to St. Rita at Mary Lake Long-Term Care Home (“St. Rita”), for the taking of water from a well located on lands known municipally as 13760 Keele Street, King City, Ontario (“Subject Property”).

2The Permit, issued March 5, 2025, approves water-taking from foundation drainage for a period of 10 years after the construction of St. Rita’s proposed long-term care home is complete.

Decision

3The Tribunal dismisses the application for leave to appeal.

Parties

4The Appellants are a coalition of citizen’s groups and individuals dedicated to preserving the ecologically significant Oak Ridges Moraine.

5St. Rita, the Instrument Holder, is in the process of constructing a long-term care facility on the Subject Property.

6The Director is the determinative body and approval authority on Permit applications, and issued this Permit.

BACKGROUND

7Section 34 of the Ontario Water Resources Act requires almost anyone taking over 50,000 litres of water per day to obtain a Permit from the Ministry. On August 28, 2024, St. Rita, who is building a long-term care facility, applied for a Permit to support foundation drainage during the post-construction phase.

8Simultaneously, on August 28, 2024, St. Rita registered with the Ministry under the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR) for construction-phase dewatering, which is separate from the operational drainage covered by the Permit. This registration applies to the construction phase of dewatering, while the Permit Application submitted was intended to cover operations of the building’s foundation drainage system once construction was complete.

9Initially, the application proposed 51,180 litres/day (Category 3 Permit) and was posted for public comment on the Environmental Registry of Ontario (“ERO”) for 30 days on September 4, 2024. On October 8, 2024, St. Rita updated its application to reflect a higher water-taking amount of 115,000 litres/day, and the Ministry posted a revised ERO notice on November 14, 2024 (for 30 days) for further public comment.

10The Ministry’s hydrogeologist conducted a technical review of the application and recommended approval with conditions to mitigate environmental risks. The Permit was issued on March 5, 2025, and will expire on February 28, 2035.

11The Appellants filed an application for leave to appeal the Director’s decision to issue the Permit on March 28, 2025 (“Leave to Appeal Application”).

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

12The Appellants seek that the Tribunal grant the Leave to Appeal Application. At a future appeal, the Appellants will ask the Tribunal to deny the Permit and “require that [St. Rita] find lands within urban boundaries where Long-Term Care is allowed and municipal services are available.” Their concern is that this Permit has been issued to a long-term care development on the Oak Ridges Moraine, a protected ecological area, and allows for 10 years of water-taking from foundation drainage post-construction. The Appellants argue that the “very large development” being built on the Oak Ridges Moraine is inconsistent with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (“ORMCP”) and lacks proper zoning. The Appellants claim they have met the legal test under section 41 of the Act (“Leave to Appeal Test”) as a reasonable person considering the relevant laws and policies would not have approved the Permit and it could result in significant environmental harm. The basis for this is the sensitivity of the site, scope of water-taking, and technical evidence of potential harm.

13The Director requests that the Tribunal dismiss this Leave to Appeal Application because the Appellants have not met the Leave to Appeal Test. The Appellants have not demonstrated a good reason to believe that no reasonable person, having regard to the relevant law and government policies, could have issued the Permit. The Appellants have also failed to demonstrate that the Permit, with its limited takings and site-specific conditions, could result in significant harm to the environment. St. Rita’s position is similar, seeking that the Tribunal dismiss the Application in its entirety, stating that the Appellants have not met the onus required to pass the Leave to Appeal Test.

THE LEGISLATIVE TEST

14To be granted leave to appeal, the Appellant must meet two tests in the Act.

15The first test is pursuant to section 38 of the Act, which outlines who may seek leave to appeal. The Appellant must be a person resident in Ontario. The proposal must be a Class I or II instrument of which notice is required to be given. The person must have an interest in the decision. Lastly, another person has a right under another Act to appeal from a decision whether or not to implement the proposal.

16The second test is pursuant to section 41 of the Act, and it requires an applicant to establish a prima facie case by satisfying two elements:

a. Unreasonableness of the Decision (s. 41(a) of the Act): The applicant must show that there is good reason to believe that no reasonable person, considering the relevant law and applicable government policies, could have made the decision in question. This is considered a stringent threshold, meaning the decision must be egregiously in error (Lafarge Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Environmental Review Tribunal), 2008 CanLII 30290 (ON SCDC), [2008] O.J. No. 2460 [“Lafarge”]).

b. Potential for Significant Environmental Harm (s. 41(b) of the Act): The applicant must show that the decision being appealed could result in significant harm to the environment.

17The standard of proof at this stage is less than a balance of probabilities. The Appellants need only to present significant evidence of preliminary merit to convince the Tribunal that there is a real foundation for an appeal, sufficient to give the parties the right to pursue the matter through the appeal process (Lafarge). Appeals by third parties are intended to be an exceptional remedy, and there is a general presumption against granting leave, so the case must be exceptionally compelling (Lafarge, and Dawber v. Ontario (Director, Ministry of the Environment), 2008 CanLII 30290 (ON SCDC), 2008 CarswellOnt 3658 [“Dawber”], provided by St. Rita).

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

The Appellants’ Right to Seek Leave to Appeal under section 38 of the Act

18With respect to the test under section 38, there was no dispute amongst the Parties that the Appellants have standing to seek leave to appeal. Based on the materials submitted, the Tribunal agrees and finds that the Appellants meet the criteria for standing under s. 38 of the Act to bring the Leave to Appeal Application.

The Test under section 41 of the Act – Reasonableness (section 41(a))

19With respect to the test under section 41(a) of the Act, the Tribunal must assess whether no reasonable person, considering the relevant law and applicable government policies, could have made the decision in question. The Tribunal must consider the manner in which the Director made the decision, what the Director considered, and the decision itself. Moreover, based on the facts and the applicable laws and policies, the Tribunal must determine whether there is good reason to believe that the decision is outside the range of reasonable decisions possible. If there has been a failure by the Director to consider relevant laws and policies, or the factual or scientific basis for the decision is unreasonable in light of relevant laws or policies, the Tribunal may conclude that there is good reason to believe that no reasonable person could have made the decision in issue (Lafarge, and Marshall v Ontario (MOE) (2008), 38 CELR (3d) 291 provided by the Director).

20In this case, the Tribunal finds the Director’s decision to issue the Permit, and the manner in which it was made, reasonable. The Tribunal agrees with the Director that the decision appears to be based on a thorough review process that complied with applicable laws, policies, and technical guidelines.

21The Appellants’ position is that no reasonable person, considering the relevant law and applicable government policies could have made such a decision. This position is based on the following:

a. Mismatch Between Permit and ERO Posting: The Permit describes the purpose and the activity as construction/dewatering, while the ERO listed the purpose as “accommodation and food services”. The Appellants argue this discrepancy misrepresents the nature of the permit and limits meaningful public consultation.

b. Confusion Between Construction and Post-Construction: The Permit classifies the purpose as “construction” in one section, but also states that it only applies to post-construction foundation drainage, as construction-related dewatering was covered under the EASR registration. This contradiction creates confusion about what water-taking activities are authorized and when.

c. Cumulative and Ecological Impacts: The combined effect of water-taking and discharge could alter hydrology, affect wetland vegetation, and harm aquatic ecosystems. Estimated water volume taken annually is equivalent to 17 Olympic-sized swimming pools.

d. Clarity on EASR versus Permit: The Permit explicitly applies only to post-construction water-taking and requires cancellation of the EASR registration once construction ends. However, the unclear language about timing and scope may affect enforcement and public understanding.

e. Inconsistent Discharge and Treatment Descriptions: The ERO states drainage will be treated in a stormwater pond before entering the environment, while the Permit references discharge to a sewer system, subject to approval from the owner of the system. The Appellants claim no such sewer system exists and view this inconsistency as problematic.

22The Tribunal, however, was persuaded by both the Director and St. Rita’s submissions that the Director’s decision was indeed within the range of a possible reasonable decision. As explained in detail by the Director, the Permit was issued only after a thorough and extensive technical review by the Ministry’s experts, including hydrogeologists. The review considered all applicable laws, including the Ontario Water Resources Act (“OWRA”), Regulation 387/04 (“Water-Taking and Transfer” made under the OWRA), the Permit to Take Water Manual (“PTTW Manual”), the Ministry’s Statement of Environmental Values (“SEV”), and others. The Director also considered comments from the Appellants.

23Based on this review, Ministry experts and the Director were satisfied that the permitted water-taking for post-construction foundation drainage would not harm groundwater or surface water sources. The Permit explicitly prohibits direct discharge into Mary Lake, wetlands, or the natural environment. Instead, drainage must be routed to a stormwater management pond via storm sewers, subject to municipal and environmental approvals. No discharge to the environment or sewer systems is allowed without such approvals. The Tribunal agrees with the Director that the Appellants seem to have conflated stormwater with groundwater, whereas the Permit only addresses foundation groundwater drainage. Additionally, the Permit includes standard and site-specific conditions for monitoring, reporting, and contingency actions to prevent environmental harm, including a specific condition attached to the Permit that bans direct discharge into natural or sewer systems.

24The Director also addressed the Permit’s cumulative impacts and provided a thorough discussion of the Ministry’s SEV. The Tribunal is persuaded that the Ministry and the Director did consider environmental concerns and address them in the Permit by imposing strict conditions prohibiting discharge of untreated water to the environment. Specifically, regarding the Ministry’s SEV:

a. Cumulative Impacts: The Appellants raised concerns that the cumulative impact of water removal could be lower lake and wetland levels, thereby affecting aquatic life and ecosystems. However, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Director considered cumulative impacts in approving the Permit, as required by the Ministry’s SEV and Principle 4 of the PTTW Manual. The Permit includes safeguards to prevent harm, such as monitoring, reporting, and contingency measures. Discharge is expected to infiltrate soil, not reach Mary Lake or nearby wetlands directly. As St. Rita submitted, the drainage system is designed to filter, control, and treat (if needed) water, ensuring compliance with regulatory standards. The Ministry found the water-taking to pose negligible risk due to its low volume and limited area of influence. The Tribunal agrees with this conclusion, noting that the Permit’s conditions prevent overlap with EASR-authorized water takings. For example, Condition 3.3 prohibits water-taking under the Permit during construction activities.

b. Ecosystem Approach: The Director also considered and applied the ecosystem approach in the SEV and the PTTW Manual. Impacts to the local ecosystem are not anticipated from the water-takings authorized in the Permit. All water taken through the authorized taking would be directed to a storm sewer system, which would require the Permit Holder to comply with the criteria for water quality set out by the York Region Sewer Use By-Law before receiving further treatment via a stormwater management pond prior to release to the environment. As stated above, water outletting to Mary Lake or the adjacent wetland complex would be treated and is not anticipated to pose more than a negligible risk to the aquatic environment from a quality perspective.

25The Tribunal is also persuaded that the scope of the Permit is narrower than the scope of the Appellants’ appeal. As St. Rita submitted, the post-construction Permit and the EASR, which governs construction-phase dewatering, are two separate things. The Permit applies only to post-construction foundation drainage, while construction-phase activities were separately approved under the EASR. Therefore, the Appellants’ concerns about pollutants during construction fall outside the Permit’s scope. The Permit’s conditions also prohibit concurrent water-taking under both authorizations (EASR and the Permit). In reviewing the Permit, the Director and Ministry experts assessed only post-construction drainage and its environmental impact. Concerns about salt and phenols (raised by the Appellants) relate to site management and stormwater runoff, which are not regulated by Permits to Take Water.

26Additionally, the Tribunal finds that a number of the Appellants’ concerns go beyond the scope of the Permit, focusing instead on opposing the long-term care facility development as a whole. As cited in paragraph [12] of this Decision, they request the Tribunal to relocate the entire project. The Tribunal agrees with St. Rita that this amounts to a collateral attack on the broader development, not just the water-taking Permit (which is the only thing before the Tribunal here). Even if Leave to Appeal is granted, the Tribunal has no authority to grant such relief as a relocation of the entire facility, as this is outside of its jurisdiction. In this finding, the Tribunal is persuaded by other Tribunal decisions provided by St. Rita (such as Greenspace Alliance of Canada's Capital v. Ontario (Director, Ministry of the Environment), 2009 CarswellOnt 4533 [“Greenspace”]) which state that previously approved developments under planning laws cannot be re-litigated through Permit appeals.

27With respect to the Appellants’ concerns regarding the discrepancies in the Permit process, the Tribunal accepts the Director’s submissions that, despite some language in the final Permit referencing “construction” and “dewatering,” resulting from system limitations (in drop-down menus), the ERO posting clearly indicated the Permit was for post-construction foundation drainage. As St. Rita submitted, Tribunal decisions (like Greenspace) held that such minor discrepancies do not invalidate the public consultation if the “substance of the proposal” did not change and the public had sufficient information to comment meaningfully. The Tribunal is persuaded by the documents provided that the public was not misled and had sufficient opportunity to participate and submit comments. In fact, the Appellants’ own comments in response to the public notice show awareness of the actual scope and purpose of the water-taking. The Tribunal agrees with St. Rita’s statement that “[t]he fact that the Applicant’s comments on this Leave Application were identical to those it made on the PTTW application is evidence that the discrepancy was irrelevant to even the Applicant.” The Tribunal finds that the discrepancy was minor, caused no prejudice (to the Appellants or others), and the Permit aligns with the posted proposal.

28Lastly, the Tribunal agrees with St. Rita that the burden to meet the Leave to Appeal test rests with the Appellants, and that burden has not been met. Citing case law, St. Rita submitted, and the Tribunal is persuaded, that general allegations are insufficient without clear, substantive evidence (Dawber; Greenspace; Quinte West (City) v. Ontario (Director, Ministry of the Environment), 2009 CarswellOnt 5962; Hartley v. Ontario (Director, Ministry of the Environment), 2002 CarswellOnt 4511, 49 C.E.L.R. (N.S.) 157 [“Hartley”]). The Appellants failed to present new or expert evidence beyond their original public comments to show that the Director’s decision was unreasonable. Their concerns had already been considered by the Ministry when the Director arrived at its (reasonable) Decision. The Tribunal agrees with the findings of various cases provided by St. Rita that general concerns or repetition of prior comments are insufficient to grant leave to appeal (Hartley; Residents Against Company Pollution Inc., Re, 1996 CarswellOnt 2716 [“Residents”]; and Goulbourn Wetlands Group v. Ontario (Director, Ministry of the Environment), 2001 CarswellOnt 4941).

29As a result, with respect to this branch of the test, the Tribunal finds that it is not met. In issuing the Permit, the Director followed due process, applied relevant laws and policies, and imposed safeguards by way of conditions. The Appellants’ objections appear to be part of a broader opposition to the long-term care facility rather than substantive issues with the Permit itself. The Appellants have not demonstrated errors or provided sufficient technical, scientific, or expert evidence (as required by cases such as Hartley) to show that the decision falls outside the range of reasonable choices. The Tribunal agrees with the finding in Residents that general statements of concern, such as those presented by the Appellants, are not sufficient to meet the Leave to Appeal Test. Thus, the Tribunal finds that the Appellants have failed to demonstrate that no reasonable person, considering the relevant law and applicable government policies, could have made the decision to issue the Permit.

The Test under section 41 of the Act – Harmfulness (section 41(b))

30With respect to the test under section 41(b) of the Act, where there are competing expert opinions that have not been fully tested, the test is met if there is sufficient information for the Tribunal to conclude that significant harm could result even if it is not clear that it will. Based on the evidence provided, the Tribunal agrees with the Director and St. Rita that the Appellants have not established a prima facie case that issuing the Permit could result in significant environmental harm.

31Since the Appellants did not satisfy the first part of the test (reasonableness of the Director’s decision), the second part (significant environmental harm) does not need to be considered (as found in numerous cases, such as Hartley). Both aspects of section 41 must be satisfied in order to grant Leave to Appeal. However, the Tribunal will address the Appellants’ arguments in this regard as well.

32The Appellants argue that the 10-year Permit poses a significant risk to Mary Lake, a sensitive kettle lake on the Oak Ridges Moraine, and that the permit violates environmental laws and policies, including the ORMCP, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act (“ORMCA”), and the Fisheries Act. Specifically, they stated:

a. Violation of ORMCP and Fisheries Act: A 10-year dewatering Permit amounts to permanent dewatering, which is not allowed under the ORMCP. Section 45(7) of the ORMCP explicitly prohibits discharge into kettle lakes. Section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act prohibits discharge of any harmful substance into fish-bearing waters. Mary Lake supports 10 fish species, as confirmed by aquatic biologist Mark Heaton.

b. Major Development: The Appellants argue that the infrastructure involved in servicing this development constitutes major development. This is not permitted under the ORMCP, as the ORMCP only allows minor site alterations, minor construction activities, and minor infrastructure upgrades.

c. Concerns about Stormwater Management: The only identified stormwater pond is off-site at a school and may lack treatment capability or capacity. If discharge occurs onsite, the sloped terrain could direct contaminants into Mary Lake. No treatment plans were provided for phenols (10x allowable limit) or salt found in groundwater samples.

d. Concerns about Underestimated Dewatering: The Appellants believe that the permit underestimates both short-term (construction) and long-term (post-construction) water removal volumes. Concerns about incorrect excavation depth estimates and potential use of mixed elevation datums suggest inaccurate volume calculations.

e. Minimum Vegetation Protection Zone (MVPZ) Violations: St. Rita’s activities will encroach on the 30 metre MVPZ around Mary Lake without adequate erosion, contaminant, or sediment control. Proposed stormwater discharge methods, such as a level spreader, are functionally equivalent to direct discharge into the lake.

f. Architectural and Construction Issues: Architectural drawings show that the west side of the long-term care home requires a retaining wall to hold up that side of the building since the basement floor is exposed above ground level. Construction plans for this retaining wall will require substantial groundwater removal, possibly not covered under the existing permit.

33To meet the second branch of the test in s. 41(b) of the EBR, the Appellants must provide a substantial information base that establishes the potential for significant harm to the environment as a result of the issuance of the Permit. The Tribunal is persuaded by the Director and St. Rita that the Appellants failed to present a prima facie case showing the Permit could cause significant environmental harm. The Tribunal finds that the Permit is not expected to result in significant environmental harm, and that the Appellants’ concerns about harm or legal violations are unfounded or outside the regulatory scope of the Permit. In general, the Appellants’ claims are speculative and unsupported by evidence.

34With respect to the ORMCP, the ORMCA, and the Fisheries Act, the Tribunal is persuaded that they are not considered “relevant law” in Permit decisions, and do not apply to the Permit in question. As St. Rita submitted, while section 7 of the ORMCA requires conformity with the ORMCP, it clarifies that it only applies to decisions made under the Planning Act or Condominium Act. Thus, it does not apply to water-taking Permits such as this one. Moreover, section 7(2) clarifies that it applies to a municipal or planning authority. The Ministry is neither of those, so section 7 of the ORMCA does not apply. St. Rita provided the case of McGovern v. Ontario (Environment, Conservation and Parks), 2021 CarswellOnt 17886, which indicates that planning considerations are outside the scope of a Permit decision. The Tribunal finds this persuasive and agrees with this finding.

35The Applicant raised the concern that ten-year dewatering constitutes permanent dewatering, which is prohibited by the ORMCP. However, the Tribunal agrees with the Director and St. Rita that the Appellants have not provided evidence or support for this assertion, such as a legal definition of prohibition or “permanent dewatering” under the ORMCP. In order words, relevant legislation or case law was not provided to equate ten-year dewatering with permanent dewatering, nor was permanent dewatering shown to be a defined term under any relevant legislation presented to the Tribunal.

36Similarly, the Tribunal was persuaded by St. Rita that the Fisheries Act is not considered relevant law in evaluating the Permit for the purposes of an environmental appeal. Moreover, the expert cited by the Appellants only confirmed fish presence in Mary Lake, which is not disputed, but did not show that the Permit would cause harm. Of note, as pointed out by St. Rita in its Responding Materials, the Appellant’s ecologist, Mark Heaton, did not sign or commission his Affidavit, nor did he swear an Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty. This makes it difficult for the Tribunal to treat his statements as expert opinion evidence. Moreover, his comments were already before the Director when the decision was made in the first place. In short, the Tribunal finds that the Permit is not in contravention of the Fisheries Act. Moreover, as explained in detail above, no discharge of any harmful substance into fish-bearing waters is expected to result from the Permit.

37The Appellants cited section 45(7) of the ORMCP, which prohibits stormwater disposal into kettle lakes, but the Tribunal agreed with the Director and St. Rita that this is not applicable. The Permit involves groundwater taking, not stormwater discharge, and prohibits any direct discharge to Mary Lake or the environment. Discharge requires separate approvals outside the scope of the Permit. Case law provided by St. Rita indicates that Permits regulate only water-taking, not discharge or water quality impacts, and are not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction for Permit appeals unless tied directly to the water-taking itself (e.g., Federation of Tiny Township Shoreline Associations v. Ontario (Environment, Conservation and Parks), 2022 CarswellOnt 1752 [“Federation”]). That is not the case here. Thus, the Tribunal finds that environmental risk is minimized and the Appellants’ concerns are unfounded.

38With respect to the Appellants’ concerns regarding Mary Lake and wetlands, the Tribunal was persuaded that no anticipated impacts to either result from this Permit. Dewatering discharge will be treated and infiltrated overland, not released directly to surface waters. Mary Lake and wetlands are at lower elevations than the groundwater drawdown area, so no hydrological or ecological impacts are expected. Foundation drainage is minimal and will not intercept or alter shallow groundwater systems.

39With respect to the retaining wall, St. Rita submitted that dewatering is not expected for the retaining wall, which is situated above seasonal high groundwater levels. Water-taking volumes permitted are likely overestimated and conservative, based on high groundwater levels outside the excavation area. As St. Rita further explained, engineered fill placement for the long-term care facility also did not require significant dewatering. The Tribunal agrees with these submissions.

40Overall, the Tribunal finds that the Appellants’ concerns regarding environmental harm appear to relate more to the long-term care home development than on the Permit itself. As mentioned, the development (termed a “major development” by the Appellants) is beyond the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Land use planning issues, such as whether the development qualifies as “major,” are not relevant to this Permit appeal. Moreover, while the Appellants suggest that the ORMCP prohibits this scale of development (and, as stated in their Appeal form, only “minor site alterations, minor constructions activities and minor infrastructure upgrades” are permitted), the Tribunal agreed with St. Rita that the ORMCP does allow for major development, including new infrastructure, subject to certain conditions (such as in sections 24, 30, 41(1.2), 43, and 45). Therefore, the Tribunal finds that, contrary to the Appellants’ arguments, the Permit does not support a development that violates the ORMCP.

41In summary regarding this issue, the Tribunal finds that the Appellants’ concerns are speculative and not supported by evidence. The Appellants assume non-compliance, whereas the Director based the decision on regulatory standards and evidence. The Permit includes conditions to mitigate potential impacts, and no significant effects on water quantity or quality are expected. As such, the Tribunal finds that the Permit, as issued, is lawful, conservative in scope, and not expected to cause harm to Mary Lake or surrounding features.

Conclusion

42In conclusion, the Tribunal finds that the Appellants have not met the legal threshold under section 41 of the Act to justify Leave to Appeal the Permit issued to St. Rita. The Appellants have not shown that no reasonable person could have issued the permit under the relevant laws and policies. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the Permit could cause significant environmental harm.

43The Tribunal further finds that the Appellants’ legal and environmental concerns are either outside the scope of the Permit, not grounded in relevant law or policy, or contradicted by evidence and persuasive case law. In so far as this Leave to Appeal Application is a challenge to broader development approvals, and the long-term care home facility development in general, it falls outside the Tribunal’s authority and jurisdiction. The Permit is valid, and the Leave to Appeal Application lacks sufficient legal or evidentiary basis to proceed.

ORDER

44The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

“Bita M. Rajaee”

Bita m. RAJaEE

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.