Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 21, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000831
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: 1000501983 Ontario Ltd.
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Description: To permit the development of 26 waterfront residential lots
Reference Number: 47T24001
Property Address: 322 Lower Spruce Hedge Road
Municipality/UT: Greater Madawaska/Renfrew County
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000831
OLT Case Name: 1000501983 Ontario Ltd. v. County of Renfrew
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: 1000501983 Ontario Ltd.
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Description: To permit the development of 26 waterfront residential lots
Reference Number: 47CD24002
Property Address: 322 Lower Spruce Hedge Road
Municipality/UT: Greater Madawaska/Renfrew County
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000872
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000831
OLT Case Name: 1000501983 Ontario Ltd. v. County of Renfrew
Heard: July 14 to 17, 2025, by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
1000501983 Ontario Ltd.
County of Renfrew
E. Bratton
C. Dans (student-at-law)
D. Bellinger (in absentia)
G. Meeds
Township of Greater Madawaska
S. Putnam
Township of McNabb/Braeside
E. Blanchard
DECISION DELIVERED BY S. deboer AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal was the appeal by 1000501983 Ontario Ltd. (“River Lane Estates” or “Appellant”) pursuant to s. 51(34) of the Planning Act (“Act”), due to the County of Renfrew’s (“County”) failure to make a decision within the statutory timelines on the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”) application, for the property municipally known as 322 Lower Spruce Hedge Road in the County of Renfrew (“Subject Lands”).
SUBJECT LANDS AND SURROUNDING LAND USES
2The Subject Lands are located in Part of Lots 16 and 17, Concessions 1 and 2, in the geographic Township of Bagot, which is within the Township of Greater Madawaska (“Madawaska”) and located approximately 1.4 kilometres southwest of the Hamlet of Burnstown. The Subject Lands are approximately 19.85 hectares (“ha”) in area and have an approximate shoreline frontage of 1,657 metres (“m”) on the south side of the Madawaska River. The Subject Lands are accessible by a private road (“Pasco Road”) and currently has access to the 2-way municipal gravel road known as Lower Spruce Hedge Road (“LSH”). The Subject Lands have rolling topography with a significant slope from LSH to the Madawaska River. The Subject Lands are mostly tree-covered except for an existing private roadway that generally runs along the south lot line. There is an existing dwelling in the northeast corner of the Subject Lands. The east end of the Subject Lands abuts an unopened road allowance – on which Pasco Road exists – and this unopened road allowance is located on the boundaries of Madawaska and the Township of McNab/Braeside (“Braeside”).
3The surrounding lands can generally be described as consisting mostly of large rural properties with a mix of farm fields and natural brush. There are some rural residential lots located along Lower Spruce Hedge Road. There are long-existing waterfront residential lots along the north shore of the Madawaska River.
APPLICATION HISTORY
4The Appellant had submitted a DPS in July 2023, consisting of 26 lots with frontage on the Madawaska River of approximately 45 m for each of the residential lots and road frontages ranging from 20.0 m to 179.5 m. The proposed lot areas range from 0.291 to 4.003 ha. Single detached dwellings, wells, and septic systems are proposed on each lot, except for Lot 1, which already contains an existing dwelling, well, and septic system. Two Blocks (Blocks 27 and 28) would remain as common condominium elements. Block 27 includes a private access road for the subdivision lots and Block 28 includes common greenspace. The existing Pasco Road is proposed to be included as apart of the common condominium elements.
5On February 7, 2024, the County circulated the application to the Townships for comment. Braeside had concerns relating to the adequacy of the roads – specifically the proposed upgrades to Pasco Road and the adequacy of the municipal roads that would link to Pasco Road. The County has similar concerns to the adequacy of the proposed Pasco Road. It must be noted that Madawaska did not share the same concerns as the County or Braeside, as the proposed Pasco Road would be built to Madawaska’s “Private Road” specifications.
6In July 2024, the Appellant filed an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal due to the County’s failure to make a decision on the application.
MERITS HEARING
7During the hearing event, the Tribunal marked 16 items as Exhibits. These Exhibits can be referred to in Attachment 1 to this Decision.
8There were three issues that were before the Tribunal:
Is the proposed subdivision premature or in the public interest?
Are the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the highway system in the vicinity adequate (specifically the unopened road allowance/Pasco Road and the section of Lower Spruce Hedge Road from Pasco Road/the unopened road allowance to its intersection with Burnstown Road)?
To what standard should highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the highway system in the vicinity be improved or maintained (specifically the unopened road allowance/Pasco Road and the section of Lower Spruce Hedge Road from Pasco Road/the unopened road allowance to its intersection with Burnstown Road)?
9The witnesses that were presented before the Tribunal were the following.
10Anthony Hommik (for the Appellant), Bruce Howarth (for the County), Kent Randall (for Madawaska), and Miles Weekes (for Braeside) were all qualified by the Tribunal to give expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning. Bradley Byvelds (for the Appellant) and Ryan Frew (for Braeside) were qualified to give expert opinion evidence in the area of Transportation Engineering. Reg Riopelle – the landowner and Appellant to the matter – was approved to give lay testimony to the history of the application and to the history of Pasco Road.
Pasco Road Agreement
11During the hearing event the Tribunal requested that the Parties provide more information or evidence pertaining to a document that was provided as Tabs 1 and 2 of the Joint Document Book. This document was an agreement that was made between the original owner of the Subject Lands (Donald Pasco) and the old Townships of Bagot and McNab pertaining to a private road that was created – initially without permission – by Mr. Pasco. Pasco Road was created on the road allowance shared between both Townships and connected the Subject Lands with LSH.
12Mr. Riopelle presented lay evidence that he received a photograph of a photocopy of the agreement from Mr. Pasco’s wife. He received these documents from Mrs. Pasco after buying the lands from a Party other than the Pasco’s.
13Mr. Riopelle stated that the history of the agreement goes back to 1974. It was Mr. Riopelle’s understanding that Mr. Pasco has started to build this road to attach the Subject Lands to LSH. Mr. Riopelle confirmed as stated above, that during the construction of the road, the Townships issued an injunction to stop the construction of the private road. The Parties then came to an agreement allowing Mr. Pasco to continue to build the road to the Subject Lands. The agreement stipulated that inter alia, the road would be constructed and maintained by Mr. Pasco and the Parties agreed that this road would be public in nature and not for the exclusive use of Mr. Pasco. Mr. Pasco would have to meet with the representatives of the Townships to determine the exact location of the road. As apart of the agreement, Mr. Pasco had a land surveyor mark out the road allowance between the two Townships for a total of 66 feet, 33 feet of which would be a road allowance from each Township. Mr. Riopelle stated that this agreement between Mr. Paco and the Townships was equally binding of the respective heirs, executors, administrators, and successors to this agreement.
14The Tribunal notes that the copy of the agreement in the Joint Document Book is a photograph a photocopy of said agreement. Mr. Riopelle does not have in his possession an actual written copy of the agreement. After further discussion between the Parties, Madawaska did confirm that they have a copy of the agreement in their files. However, their copy of the agreement is the same from what is listed in Tab 1 of the Joint Document Book. The copy on file with Madawaska only has the signature of Mr. Pasco and does not contain the signatures of the Township of Bagot and the Township of McNab. Braeside confirmed with the Tribunal that it does not have a copy of the agreement in its possession. The Tribunal notes that a signed photocopy of a photograph of the agreement shows all the signatures of the Parties, as seen in Tab 2 of the Joint Document Book.
15The Tribunal asked counsel of the Appellant if they had inquired with the original solicitors if they still had a copy of the agreement in their possession. Counsel stated that they had made those inquiries and correspondence that they have received from the original solicitors was that the original solicitors do not have a copy of this agreement in their possession.
16The Tribunal notes that it was Madawaska’s argument that Madawaska used their copy of the Pasco Agreement as a basis to come to a resolution with the Appellant as to the upgrading of Pasco Road, and the Appellant and Madawaska agreed to upgrade the road to Madawaska’s private road standards. Madawaska acknowledged that it did not have a complete signed copy of the agreement.
17Braeside argued that without a complete agreement available, the agreement should not be taken into consideration by the Tribunal. It was the argument of Braeside that this agreement cannot override the approval of any improvements to Pasco Road without consent of Braeside. Counsel for Braeside argued that proposed upgrades to the existing private road will require the approval of both Townships since it exists on the boundary of both Townships, and it is up to the Townships to agree on what standard Pasco Road must be upgraded to.
Analysis and Findings
18The Tribunal has reviewed the evidence presented concerning the Pasco Road Agreement. The Tribunal finds that a full and complete agreement including an attached complete copy of the reference plan to which this agreement pertains to, was not presented to the Tribunal. As such, the Tribunal finds that the Pasco Road Agreement does not give the Appellant the right to unilaterally make any changes or improvements to Pasco Road without the consent of both Townships as Pasco Road exists on the road allowance of both Townships.
Issues
19It was the opinion of Mr. Hommik that the subdivision is not premature as it is located on lands that are designated as rural in the County’s Official Plan (“COP”) and the COP allows the division of land by a subdivision. The Tribunal notes that Madawaska and Braeside use the COP as their local official plans.
20Mr. Hommik continued with his opinion that as per policy 5.3 of the COP, the application meets the requirements of a range of lot sizes and includes access to recreational uses by the water frontage of each lot and that each lot will have direct access to LSH by a publicly traversable unopened road allowance.
21Mr. Hommik opined that s. 13.1 of the COP states that access to the development must be linked to a public road such as LSH. Mr. Hommik continued that a private road as a common element of a plan of condominium can be contemplated as per s. 13.3(4) of the COP.
22Concerning s.13.2 of the COP, it was Mr. Hommik’s opinion that the proposed development will have appropriate access for its intended use and the amount of projected traffic from the development will not inhibit traffic flow on any public road systems, including LSH.
23It was Mr. Hommik’s opinion that the DPS satisfies all the criteria and conditions that are required to be met in the COP. The DPS conforms with all the relevant COP policies and the DPS is not premature. The proposed DPS is in the public interest as it will provide for more housing options in a form that will complement the surrounding area.
24Mr. Randall gave opinion that the DPS is not located within a settlement area but is located within the rural area of Madawaska. The COP allows for the DPS within the rural area. The lots proposed are of similar size and shape to other residential lots within Madawaska.
25Mr. Randall agreed with Mr. Hommik’s opinion that the DPS conforms with the COP, specifically s. 5.1, 5.2, 13.3(c) of the COP. Specifically, Mr. Randall opined that the DPS will not negatively impact the safety or efficient use of the existing road network. Pasco Road will be constructed to Madawaska’s private road standard.
26Mr. Randall continued with his opinion that no improvements to LSH are required to accommodate the traffic that will be generated by the proposal. Mr. Randall continued with his opinion that the DPS meets the criteria of s. 51(24) of the Act and the DPS is not premature. Mr. Randall opined that the DPS will not require the expansion of infrastructure or require any major road improvements.
27It was Mr. Randall’s opinion that Madawaska’s approval of their portion of Pasco Road was due to the Madawaska’s possession of the Pasco Agreement. Mr. Randall continued with his opinion that Madawaska’s Road standard of Pasco Road being a “private road” was the appropriate standard to be used for the proposed upgrades to Pasco Road.
28Mr. Weekes gave opinion that the DPS is premature as the DPS does not properly address the Pasco Road issue and the evaluation of LSH. Specifically, Mr. Weekes opined that s. 51(24)(e) of the Act has not been satisfied. The criteria of s. 51(24) of the Act are:
In considering a draft plan of subdivision, regard shall be had, among other matters, to the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality and to,
(a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2;
(b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;
(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any;
(d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;
(d.1) if any affordable housing units are being proposed, the suitability of the proposed units for affordable housing;
(e) the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy of them, and the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the adequacy of them;
(f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots;
(g) the restrictions or proposed restrictions, if any, on the land proposed to be subdivided or the buildings and structures proposed to be erected on it and the restrictions, if any, on adjoining land;
(h) conservation of natural resources and flood control;
(i) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;
(j) the adequacy of school sites;
(k) the area of land, if any, within the proposed subdivision that, exclusive of highways, is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes;
(l) the extent to which the plan’s design optimizes the available supply, means of supplying, efficient use and conservation of energy; and
(m) the interrelationship between the design of the proposed plan of subdivision and site plan control matters relating to any development on the land, if the land is also located within a site plan control area designated under subsection 41 (2) of this Act or subsection 114 (2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. 1994, c. 23, s. 30; 2001, c. 32, s. 31 (2); 2006, c. 23, s. 22 (3, 4); 2016, c. 25, Sched. 4, s. 8 (2).
29Mr. Weekes continued with his opinion that the Appellant has not come to an agreement with both Townships regarding Pasco Road and to which standard this road should be upgraded to. Mr. Weekes continued that even though Madawaska agrees with its private road standard being the appropriate standard or Pasco Road, Braeside does not agree that this should be the agreed upon standard of Pasco Road.
30Mr. Weekes opined that not only has the application not satisfied s. 51(24)(e), but the application has also not satisfied subsection (a), as the DPS has not met the requirements of provincial interest, has not satisfied subsection (b) as the DPS is premature and subsection (h) as the DPS has not satisfied the issue of conservation of natural resources and flood control.
31Mr. Weekes continued to opine that since the DPS has not satisfied these sections of the Act, then the application has not met the relevant matters of provincial interest as per s. 2 of the Act, specifically:
(a) the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions;
(f) the adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems;
(h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities;
(m) the co-ordination of planning activities of public bodies;
(n) the resolution of planning conflicts involving public and private interests;
(o) the protection of public health and safety;
(p) the appropriate location of growth and development;
32Mr. Weekes opined that subsection (n) is the subsection to which the application has the greatest dispute as there has not been a resolution to the planning conflicts between the Townships pertaining to the Pasco Road and the LSH issue. Mr. Weekes continued that since subsection (n) has not been satisfied, then the DPS has not demonstrated to be of provincial interest and the appeal should be denied.
33It was Mr. Weekes’ opinion that LSH does not have the infrastructure in place to accommodate the projected increased number of vehicles and vehicle trips created by the DPS, let alone the type of heavy traffic that would be required to construct the road improvements to Pasco Road or the DPS itself. LSH would require major upgrades to accommodate this type of traffic. Without an agreed proposal to upgrade on the Braeside portion of LSH, the DPS application is premature and should not approved by the Tribunal.
34Mr. Weekes did confirm that the deficiencies that exist with the LSH would remain whether the proposal is approved or not. Mr. Weekes also confirmed that the appellant has proposed to upgrade Pasco Road at his own expense and there would not be any financial burden to the Townships concerning the proposed upgrades or ongoing maintenance. Mr. Weekes did clarify that there are two public access routes to Pasco Road, one from each direction from each Township. However, due to the distance that needs to be travelled to the closest town or major road, it is his opinion that the majority of the traffic volume would occur on Braeside’s portion of LSH. Mr. Weekes opined that this portion of LSH is the portion that is in need of a major upgrade in order to have vehicles safely traverse it in the near future. Mr. Weekes continued to opine that traffic can still traverse LSH through Madawaska’s portion of LSH, however, this direction is much longer to get to a major road.
35Mr. Howarth gave opinion that approval of the DPS is premature until LSH can be improved to accommodate the projected increase in traffic, and a road agreement has been completed between the two Townships and the Appellant concerning Pasco Road.
36Mr. Howarth opined that the County does not have the power to enforce a road agreement between the two Townships as the existing road allowance is a local municipal issue.
37Mr. Howarth reiterated that the DPS is premature, and that the application should be sent back to the County in order for the Parties to continue to work on the issues concerning Pasco Road and LSH. Mr. Howarth continued with his opinion that without an agreement between the Townships and the Appellant concerning Pasco Road and LSH, the application should not be approved by the Tribunal.
38Mr. Byvelds opined that a traffic count camera was set up on LSH from April 15 to 17, 2025, providing 48 hours of traffic data. Based on the data collected, 106 vehicles were counted over a 24-hour period on April 16, 2025. Assuming that 90% of the traffic generated by the DPS would be over the Braeside portion of the LSH, the total additional trips per day would average 263 vehicles, which would put a potential total traffic on LSH at 369 vehicles per day. It was his opinion that this projected traffic count would remain within the acceptable thresholds for a low volume Special Road.
39Mr. Byvelds continued with his opinion that Pasco Road should be designed to the Chapter 11 – Special Roads Criteria of the TAC Geometric Design Guidelines and not to the Madawaska private road guidelines. The Chapter 11 Guidelines are a higher standard of road with higher safety criteria such as maximum gradient and minimum road width requirements.
40It was Mr. Frew’s opinion that the LSH cannot accommodate an approximate 300 extra vehicle trips per day as based on the data provided by Mr. Byvelds. Mr. Frew continued with his opinion that Pasco Road should be upgraded with a maximum gradient of 8% and not to the maximum gradient of 10% as proposed by Mr. Byvelds or the 12% maximum gradient as proposed by Madawaska.
41Mr. Frew continued with his opinion that if the Tribunal approves the DPS, major upgrades would be needed to the Braeside portion of the LSH, which have not been contemplated, nor discussed between the Appellant and Braeside. Upgrades to Braeside’s portion of LSH is not apart of Braeside’s long-term plans. Maintenance to LSH is completed on an annual basis, but this keeps Braeside’s portion of LSH operational at a minimum safety level.
42It was Mr. Frew’s opinion that the DPS is premature due to the lack of a road agreement pertaining to Pasco Road that is satisfactory to Braeside. He continued with his opinion that without discussion pertaining to any possible upgrades to the Braeside portion of LSH, the DPS is once again, premature.
Analysis and Findings
43Having reviewed the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the DPS does not satisfy all the requirements under s. 51(24) of the Act. Specifically, the DPS has not satisfied the requirements of ss. 51(24)(e) as both Townships do not agree with the proposed upgrades to Pasco Road. Without an agreed upon standard to which the road should be upgraded to, Pasco Road will not fulfill this section of the Act. In this circumstance, this agreement is necessary since Pasco Road does exist on the road allowance of both Townships.
44The Tribunal finds that since subsection 51(24)(e) of the Act has not been met, then the DPS is premature due to the matters of provincial interest not being satisfied, specifically under subsection 2(n) of the Act as there are still planning conflicts between public and private interests pertaining to Pasco Road and indirectly with LSH.
45The Tribunal finds that the DPS may be in the public interest from a housing perspective, however, the overarching lack of an agreement as to the construction of the only access point from the DPS to a public roadway makes the DPS premature.
46The Tribunal finds that there is an opportunity for the Parties to come to a resolution concerning the DPS, however, due to the prematurity of the DPS itself, the Tribunal cannot be the instrument to enforce a resolution at this time.
47It would be the suggestion of the Tribunal for the Parties to begin to work together to come to an agreement about Pasco Road and possible upgrades to LSH. The Tribunal suggests that the Parties use the conditions that were listed in the County’s Land Division Planning Report of December 18, 2024, as the starting point to collaborate and work on resolving these issues.
48Since the DPS has not met the requirements of the prematurity issue, the Tribunal does not warrant any further examination of the other issues concerning this appeal.
ORDER
49THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is dismissed, and the draft plan of subdivision is not approved.
“S. deBoer”
S. deBOER
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.