Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 18, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000406
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: We The Shermans Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To Permit the Demolition of an Existing Cottage and Garage and Replaced with a Year-round Dwelling
Reference Number: ZA25-01
Property Address: 750 and 761 Christie Lake Lane 32D
Municipality/UT: Tay Valley/Lanark
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000406
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000406
OLT Case Name: We The Shermans Inc. v. Tay Valley (Township)
Heard: August 8, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| We The Shermans Inc. | Michael Polowin Crystal McConkey |
| Township of Tay Valley | Laura Robinson |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL decision DELIVERED BY YASNA FAGHANI on August 8, 2025 and order of the tribunal
INTRODUCTION
1This is the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) for the above-noted matter. We The Shermans Inc. (“Applicant”) filed an appeal against the Township of Tay Valley’s (“Township”) decision to refuse an application pursuant s. 34(11) of the Planning Act. The application relates to the property municipally known as 750 and 761 Christie Lake Lane 32D in the Township (“Subject Property”).
2The matter concerns the demolition of an existing cottage and garage and its replacement with a year-round dwelling.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
3The Tribunal received the Affidavit of Service sworn by Melinda Torrance, dated June 26, 2025, and marked as Exhibit 1. There were no issues with the service of the Notice for the CMC, and as such, no further notice is required.
PARTICIPANT/PARTY REQUESTS
4The Tribunal did not receive any Party status requests in advance of the CMC, nor did anyone appear requesting same. The Tribunal received a Participant status request from Penny Nault, who is the owner of 767 Christie Lake Lane 32D. She expressed a number of concerns, including the height of the development and loss of privacy. Upon consent of the Parties, with no concerns raised regarding the granting of Participant status, the Tribunal granted Participant status to Penny Nault as her concerns will enable the Tribunal to adjudicate the appeal effectively and completely.
STATUS UPDATE
5Counsel for the Applicant provided submissions regarding scheduling a two-day hearing. He advised that the Applicant would be calling its own planner and summoning the Township’s planner. He advised that this matter is straightforward and did not want further delays for his client, noting that the Notice of Refusal of the Township was April 30, 2025.
6Counsel for the Township requested a second CMC eight weeks from the date of the first CMC in order for the Township to identify which witness it intends to call. She explained that, given the summer months and scheduling conflicts, it has been a challenge identifying which planner the Township intends to call and obtaining the planner’s availability for a hearing. She further submitted that scheduling a hearing at this juncture, without knowing a witness’ availability, would not be wise in case there is a need to adjourn the potential hearing date. Furthermore, she advised three days may be warranted because there would be a total of three witnesses. If three days were to be scheduled, it is easier to request to abandon one day versus trying to schedule another day if necessary.
7In response to the request for a second CMC eight weeks away, counsel for the Applicant raised prejudice concerns, noting that waiting to finalize hearing dates at the second CMC would have financial implications due to the delay of construction of the project. He again reiterated his position about securing dates at this CMC and the Township could finalize their witness at a later point.
8Having heard submissions from both Parties, the Tribunal decided to schedule a second CMC roughly four weeks from the date of the first CMC. Four weeks would allow the Township to secure a witness. The Tribunal acknowledges the fact that the Township has most likely started the process of securing a planner and therefore there needs to be a balance regarding the Applicant’s request to move the matter along. The Tribunal noted that, even if it was to schedule a hearing at this CMC for an October or November date, it would be quite ambitious to meet the timelines for exchanging witness lists, statements, and documents, as per the draft Procedural Order (“PO”). Given that a witness for the Township has yet to be identified, and their schedule being unknown at this time, it is not appropriate to schedule a hearing at this juncture.
PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST
9Counsel for the Applicant submitted a draft PO, including an Issues List (“IL”), prior to the CMC. He noted that the draft PO and IL were sent to counsel for the Township and that she had provided her comments and concerns. Counsel for the Township acknowledged her review of the draft PO and IL. She advised that there was general agreement regarding the PO but that there was disagreement regarding some of the issues on the IL.
10The disagreement related to two issues. Counsel for the Applicant made brief submissions and requested that the issues be finalized prior to the second CMC. Counsel for the Township requested that the IL be finalized at the second CMC, and if there remained disputes regarding the IL, a determination would be granted at the second CMC. With that said, she advised she was prepared to made substantive submissions regarding the disputes on the IL.
11The Tribunal directed the Parties to have further discussions regarding the IL, noting that a witness would most likely be secured by the second CMC and having input from said witness about the IL may help to resolve any issues. If there were still concerns regarding the IL at the second CMC, counsels could make fulsome submissions and an order regarding the IL and PO could be given.
SECOND CMC
12After considering the schedules of both Parties, and noting that the second CMC would be scheduled in and around four weeks from the first CMC, a second CMC was scheduled for Tuesday, September 9, 2025.
13The second CMC is scheduled to proceed by video on Tuesday, September 9, 2025 at 9 a.m.
14Parties and Participants 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/692665589
Access code: 692-665-589
15Parties and 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 the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: +1-647-497-9373 or (toll-free) +1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 692-665-589.
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.
ORDER
18The Tribunal Orders that:
a. A second Case Management Conference is to be held Tuesday, September 9, 2025 at 9 a.m.
b. The Tribunal may be spoken to in the event of any issue arising from this Order.
19There is no further notice, and the Member is not seized.
“Yasna Faghani”
Yasna Faghani
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.