Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 18, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000119

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellants: Sherry Colbourne and Robert Williams

Subject: By-law No. 06-2025

Description: To rezone the subject lands to permit the operation an event space located within a converted barn secondary to the existing residential use

Reference Number: Z14-23

Property Address: 3038 County Rd 3

Municipality: Prince Edward County

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000119

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000119

OLT Case Name: Colbourne and Williams v. Prince Edward (County)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6

Request by: Salvatore & Lia-Marie Grosso

Motion for: Directions

Heard: October 8, 2025 in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Sherry Colbourne and Robert Williams (“Appellants”)	Pitman Patterson Lee English
Prince Edward County (“PEC”)	Jennifer Savini Lisa Scheulderman
Salvatore and Lia-Marie Grosso (“Applicants”)	Mark Pederson

DECISION DELIVERED BY W. DANIEL BEST AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision and Order arises from a motion related to an appeal filed by the Appellants for the approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) to permit the operation of an event venue at 3038 County Road 3, Ward of Ameliasburgh (“Grosso Lands”).

2At the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”), the Applicants raised the issue of the validity of the appeal as in their view the Appellants do not satisfy the requirements of s. 34(19)2.2 of the Planning Act (“Act”), R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), as the Appellants are not the registered owner of the Grosso Lands.

On January 14, 2025, PEC passed Zoning By-law Amendment PEC supports the position of the Applicants. The ZBA enacted by PEC identifies the following:

1. THAT By-Law No. 1816-2006, as amended, shall apply to the defined lands described as Part Lot 97 Concession 1, Ameliasburgh Part 1 of Plan 47R741; Prince Edward, Together With Easement over Part 97 Concession 1 Ameliasburgh, Part 1 of Plan 47R8006 As in EC2113; Ward 4 (Ameliasburgh), County of Prince Edward.

2. THAT Schedule "A4-West" for the Ward of Ameliasburgh of By-Law Number 1816-2006, as amended, shall be and the same is hereby amended by rezoning lands described as Part Lot 97 Concession 1, Ameliasburgh Part 1 of Plan 47R741; Prince Edward, Together With Easement Over Part 97 Concession 1 Ameliasburgh, Part 1 of Plan 47R8006 As In EC2113; Ward 4 (Ameliasburgh), County of Prince Edward, from "Rural I (RU1) Zone “to a site specific "Rural 1(RU1-284) Zone" with special provisions, as shown on the zoning map attached hereto as Appendix A hereto and by this reference, forming part of this By-law.

3. THAT Section 7, Subsection 5 of By-Law Number 1816-2006, as amended, shall be and the same is hereby amended by adding a new Subsection (284) immediately following Subsection (283) as follows:

3The Appellants argue that they are registered owners of any lands to which the ZBA applies by virtue of an existing easement for the benefit of the Grosso Lands registered on their adjacent property at 216 Old Orchard Road (“Colbourne Lands”) and accordingly hold appeal rights under s. 34(19) 2.2 of the Act.

4The easement is for a right-of-way in perpetuity for the repair, maintenance and replacement of a water line and well in, over and upon the Colbourne Lands.

5At the CMC, the Tribunal determined that matter of s. 34(19) 2.2 of the Act required determination before proceeding further. The Tribunal further determined to ensure procedural fairness for all Parties, in accordance with Rule 21.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedural (“Rules”), a written hearing event was the most appropriate and efficient manner to address the matter.

ISSUES

6The Tribunal must address the following issues in this matter:

• Are the Appellants the registered owner of any lands to which the by-law would apply.
• Did the Appellants make oral submissions at a public meeting or written submissions to the council.

7The following materials were identified as Exhibits in respect of this Motion

• Exhibit 1 – Affidavit of Service by the Appellants
• Exhibit 2 – Factum of the Applicants
• Exhibit 3 – Motion Record of the Applicants
• Exhibit 4 – Book of Authorities of the Applicants
• Exhibit 5 - Factum of the Appellants
• Exhibit 6 – Responding Motion Record of the Appellants
• Exhibit 7 – Book of Authorities of the Appellants
• Exhibit 8 – Responding Motion Record of Prince Edward County

DECISION

8The Appellants do not have standing to initiate an appeal in accordance with the statutory requirement under s. 34(19) 2.2 of the Act.

MOTION

The Position of the Appellants

9The position of the Appellants was provided by Counsel and incorporated in the Appellant’s Factum submitted to the Tribunal. The following provides an overview of arguments put forth.

10The Appellants acknowledged the ZBA does not rezone their property to permit an event space.

11The Appellants stated they are the registered owners of lands in which they have a registered property interest to which the ZBA applies. The registered property interest is in the nature of a Fee Simple Interest, subject to an easement. They continued that the ZBA applies to the easement lands, thus the Appellants are registered owners of lands to which the ZBA applies.

12The Appellants contended that having a fee simple interest in lands means one has the most absolute form of ownership in terms of the rights which it confers. It permits the owner to exercise every act of ownership, subject to regulations or encumbrances.

13The Appellants identified that the Act does not restrict the definition of registered ownership to the holder of a fee of simple interest in land. They continued the Act does not restrict “any lands” to a class of ownership or tenure; it is sufficient that the prospective appellant have (i) a registered interest, (ii) in lands that can be identified (and to which the by-law would apply). The Appellants are the registered owners of the servient tenement lands described in the easement.

14The Appellants asserted the ZBA applies to the easement due to its reference within the ZBA which states that it applies to the Grosso Lands due to the inclusion of “together with an easement over” the easement Lands.

15The Appellants contended that one need not have a fee simple interest in lands in order to be a registered owner of any land to which the by-law would apply. They continued that the Act does not restrict the definition of registered ownership to the holder of a fee simple interest in lands, nor does the Act restrict “any lands” to a class of ownership or tenure. The Appellants summarized it is sufficient that an appellant have (i) a registered interest, (ii) in lands that can be identified and to which the by-law would apply.

16The Appellants submitted that the reference to the easement allows them to seek standing in this appeal as the water supplied to the Applicants via the easement, are essential to the use that would be permitted in the ZBA, being the operation of a proposed event venue on the Grosso Lands.

17The Appellants identified the motion before the Tribunal is to satisfy the criteria under s. 34(19) 2.2 which states the following:

(19) Not later than 20 days after the day that the giving of notice as required by subsection (18) is completed, any of the following may appeal to the Tribunal by filing with the clerk of the municipality a notice of appeal setting out the objection to the by-law and the reasons in support of the objection, accompanied by the fee charged by the Tribunal:

2.2 The registered owner of any land to which the by-law would apply, if, before the by-law was passed, the owner made oral submissions at a public meeting or written submissions to the council.

18The Appellants attest the motion before the Tribunal is not a motion to dismiss the appeal under s. 34(25) of the Act, but whether the appeal has been commenced in accordance with the statutory requirements. The Appellants further attest there is no question that the Ontario Land Tribunal has statutory authority to determine this standing dispute.

19The Appellants state the Schedule 1 of the ZBA delineates the lands that are rezoned as illustrated by the cross-hatching, but not the lands to which the ZBA applies.

20The Appellants argue the proposed new use on the Grosso Lands depends on the use of the Easement to draw water from the shore well located on the Appellants’ Lands.

21The Appellants contend that statutory interpretation is based on the modern approach, under which the words of a provision must be interpreted “in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament". The Appellants continue that the interpretation of registered owner as including the Appellants in this matter aligns with the modern approach to statutory interpretation, as well as the rule of liberal interpretation set out in the Legislation Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 21, Sched. F (“Legislation Act”).

22The Appellants state that the if the Legislature intended to limit appeal rights only to fee simple owners of rezoned lands, the language would reflect that in The Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024, S.O. 2024, c. 16 (“Bill 185”). They continue that Bill 185 narrowed appeal rights; it did not extinguish them.

23The Appellants assert Bill 185 maintained a right of appeal for registered owners of any lands to which zoning by-law amendments apply, which includes the Appellants within this definition. They further assert the purpose of Bill 185 was to restrict third-party appeals to those with a property interest in lands to which by-law would apply. In this matter, the ZBA applies to the Appellants’ Lands in that it expressly states it applies to the Easement, which encumbers the Applicants’ Lands.

24To support their position, the Appellants reference other legislation to interpret the Act through in pari materia. Citing the Act does not define registered owner, the Appellants cite the definition under the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, as amended (“Expropriations Act”), arguing it and the Act relate to similar subject matters, especially land use, regulation, acquisition and the determination of property value. The Expropriation Act defines registered owner as follows:

“registered owner” means an owner of land whose interest in the land is defined and whose name is specified in an instrument in the proper land registry or sheriff’s office, and includes a person shown as a tenant of land on the last revised assessment roll;

The Position of the Applicants

25The position of the Applicants was provided by Counsel and incorporated in the Applicants’ Factum submitted to the Tribunal. The following provides an overview of arguments put forth.

26The Applicants stated the Motion before the Tribunal was initiated by the Applicants to determine if the appeal is valid. The Applicants’ position is the appeal is invalid as the Appellants are not the registered owners of lands to which the By-law applies and therefore should be dismissed.

27The view of the Applicants is where an easement exists, there are distinct proprietary interests. The Appellants cite Anger and Honsberger Law of Real Property. Volume 2 and highlight that an easement involves two owners - there is the owner of the dominant tenement (being the owner with "together with" in the legal description, benefiting from the easement), and the owner of the servient tenement (being the owner with "subject to" in the legal description, bearing the burden of the easement).

28Based on the concept that two owners are necessary to bring about and maintain an easement, the Applicants conclude that it is clear that for an easement to exist, there must be two proprietary interests, one held by the dominant tenement owner and the other held by the servient tenement owner.

29The Applicants submit that given there are two distinct proprietary interests that coexist due to an easement, an assessment of what the two proprietary interests entail is required to determine the validity of the Appeal.

30It is the Applicants’ position that the Colbourne Lands are owned by the Appellants in the nature of a fee simple interest, subject to an easement. The Applicants’ interest in the Colbourne Lands is not ownership, but their interest is a conferred right in perpetuity to repair, maintain and replace a water line and well on the described part. The Applicants stated that that the right conferred by the easement is appurtenant to the lands owned by the Transferees' lands, which means the grant of easement does not transfer lands to the Applicants.

31The Applicants submit that within the interpretation of a statute, the following applies:

"the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.”

32The Applicants identify that the relevant words in the s. 34(19) 2.2 of the Act is “the registered owner of any land to which the by-law would apply”. They conclude that the Legislature intended to confer a right of appeal only on those persons subject to a by-law and under s. 34(19) 2.2 specifically to the registered owner of lands to which the by-law would apply.

33The Applicants submit the Appellants are not the registered owners to which the By-law would apply, being the Grosso Lands. They further submit the Appellants are the registered owners of the adjacent Colbourne Lands and the Applicants could not and did not apply for a rezoning of the Colbourne Lands and PEC did not approve any rezoning of the Colbourne Lands.

The Position of PEC

34PEC supports the position of the Applicants and seeks an Order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal in its entirety on the basis that the Appellants lack standing to bring the appeal pursuant to the appeal rights afforded by Section 34(19) of the Act.

35PEC confirmed that the ZBA only rezones the Grosso Lands and does not rezone the Colbourne Lands.

36PEC stated that Section 34(19) is to be interpreted restrictively and the Appellant must fall within the ambit of the standing provisions of the Act in order to have the right to appeal the ZBA. PEC further stated that Bill 185 which reflected an effort by the Legislature to restrict appeal rights in proceedings under the Act by restricting “third party appeal rights”.

37The position of PEC is the easement does not bring the Appellants within the meaning of Section 34(19) 2.2 as they are not registered owners of lands to which the by-law applies despite their position the ZBA will impact the Colbourne Lands. PEC continued that the reference to the Colbourne Lands in the ZBA is solely based on citing the legal description of the Grosso Lands, which includes reference to the easement and is confirmed by the zoning schedule, which clearly only applies to the Grosso Lands.

FINDINGS

The Appellants Do Not Meet The Requirements of s. 34(19) 2.2 of the Act

38There is no dispute by the Parties that the Appellants made submissions to Council. The balance of this decision will address if the Appellants are the registered owner of any lands to which the by-law would apply.

39The Tribunal has carefully considered the evidence before it, as well as the submissions of counsel. The Tribunal prefers the evidence of the Applicants and PEC.

40The Appellants stated that by virtue of their registered ownership of the Easement Lands, and the fact the ZBA expressly applies to the Easement Lands, the Appellants are registered owners of land to which the ZBA applies.

41The Appellants stated the reference to the easement in the ZBA is more than a simple ‘hook’ for the Appellants to seek standing to appeal under s. 34(19)2.2. The easement, and the water supplied to the Applicants via the easement, are essential to the use that would be permitted in the ZBA, being the operation of a proposed event venue on the Grosso Lands.

42PEC clearly identified that the ZBA only rezones the Grosso Lands and does not rezone the Colbourne Lands. PEC identifies under s. 5 of the ZBA recitals “that Schedule ‘1’ attached hereto forms part of this by-law’. Schedule ‘1’ only references the Grosso Lands as being subject to the rezoning.

43All the Parties acknowledge that the permitted uses on the Colbourne Lands remain unchanged prior and after the rezoning in issue is passed.

44An easement is a legal right that allows a dominant tenement to use another person’s land (servient tenement) for a specific purpose. In this matter, the Applicants hold an easement and right-of-way in perpetuity for the repair, maintenance and replacement of a water line and well in, over, along and upon Part 1 of the Colbourne Lands.

45The Tribunal agrees with the Applicants and PEC that even though the easement confers an interest as identified in para [44], there was no conferral of ownership.

46The Applicants identified that the interpretation of a statute is to be undertaken as follows:

"the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament".

47This reference is attributed to Yarco Developments Inc. v. Home Construction Regulatory Authority (Registrar), 2024 ONSC 93 (“Yarco”) at paragraph 35. The Tribunal finds this citation helpful in its task in statutory interpretation and discerning the Legislature’s intention in order to give it effect. To do so, The Tribunal must attend to the text, context and purpose of s. 34(19) in the context of Bill 185.

48In the Tribunal’s view, the clear purpose of Bill 185 was to accelerate housing construction and among other things reduce third-party appeals. This is in line with the Appellants’ position that Bill 185 narrowed appeal rights but did not extinguish them.

49Prior to Bill 185 changes, s. 34(19) of the Act read as follows:

(19) Not later than 20 days after the day that the giving of notice as required by subsection (18) is completed, any of the following may appeal to the Tribunal by filing with the clerk of the municipality a notice of appeal setting out the objection to the by-law and the reasons in support of the objection, accompanied by the fee charged by the Tribunal:

1. The applicant.

2. A person or public body who, before the by-law was passed, made oral submissions at a public meeting or written submissions to the council.

3. The Minister.

50The Tribunal turned to Theia Partners Inc. (Re), 2025 CanLII 41127 (OLT) (“Theia”) at para 31, where a common sense reading of the amendments to Bill 185 requires the Appellants to squarely fall within the definition of s. 34(19) of the Act.

51In the Tribunal’s view by applying the modern principles of statutory interpretation and looking to the plain and ordinary construction of the language in s. 34(19) of the Act, the Tribunal finds that the Appellants have not demonstrated that they are the owners of lands to which the ZBA applies.

52Although the Appellants argued that the term ‘together with’ in the legal description referencing the easement on their lands results in the applicability of the ZBA to their lands, there was no compelling evidence to persuade the Tribunal that such a conclusion could be drawn.

53Of note to the Tribunal was the confirmation provided in the affidavit of Cristal Laanstra, Director of Development Services at PEC that the ZBA does not rezone any portion of the Colbourne Lands and they are excluded in Schedule 1 of the ZBA. The Appellants also acknowledged that the ZBA does not rezone their property to permit an event space.

54As previously identified, the easement is solely to repair, maintain and replace a water line and well on the described part of the Colbourne Lands.

55The Appellants position that the nature of the easement grants standing to them in this appeal as the water supplied to the Applicants via the easement, is essential to the proposed operation of an event venue that would be permitted use on the Grosso Lands if the ZBA was approved. This is not an issue to be addressed in this matter before the Tribunal, but does note page 180 of Exhibit 8 which provides the following:

“Servicing for the proposed development is to be provided by a private, on-site water and wastewater system. The proposed system would draw from an onsite well and a Bay of Quinte water supply and be treated on site. The submitted and peer reviewed hydrogeological study has shown that the site is capable of providing sufficient potable water and a suitable septic system location to support the proposed commercial activity. However, this servicing strategy requires the approval of the Ministry of Environment and/or the Public Health Unit.”

56The Tribunal finds that easement rights do not transfer possessory or fee simple interests, and that ownership of the servient tenement does not make the dominant owner a “registered owner” of that burdened portion, at least in this instance with this specific easement.

57The Tribunal finds that Colbourne Lands are not subject to the ZBA and the Appellants are adjacent property owners to the Grosso Lands, the only lands to which the ZBA applies. The easement is not subject to the ZBA, and to interpret in any other way in this instance would be a conflation of property interests with ownership rights.

58The Tribunal does not accept the Appellants’ assertion that the definition of ‘registered owner’ under the Expropriation Act would be in pari materia to interpret s. 34(19) 2.2 of the Act. The Tribunal did not find a compelling argument that such an interpretation did not create a contrary intention or was consistent with the intent, object or context of the Act.

59The Tribunal finds that the Appellants have not demonstrated that they are the owners of lands to which the ZBA applies.

60It is the Tribunal’s responsibility to determine whether an appeal has been commenced in compliance with the any statutory requirements and must now turn its attention to determine if the current appeal before it is valid.

61The rights of the Appellants here to maintain their appeal is governed by the provisions of ss.19(1) (d) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6 (“OLTA”) and Rule 15.4 (d. iii) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Rules (“Rules”).

62It is the Tribunal’s determination that the appeal did not meet the statutory requirements to be brought forward as the Appellants did not meet the requirements of s. 34(19) 2.2 of the Act.

SUMMARY

63For the reasons expressed above, the Appellants do not have standing to initiate an appeal in accordance with the statutory requirement under s. 34(19) 2.2 of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

ORDER

64THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Motion brought forth by Salvatore and Lia-Marie Grosso is granted, and the appeal by Sherry Colbourne and Robert Williams is hereby dismissed.

“W. Daniel Best”

W. DANIEL BEST

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.