Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
March 30, 2026
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-25-000447
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 14 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27
Appellant:
Camping in Ontario
Description:
Determination of the development charges
Reference Number:
DC - 2025-026
Property Address:
Township-wide
Municipality/UT:
Selwyn/Peterborough
OLT Case No.:
OLT-25-000447
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-25-000447
OLT Case Name:
Camping in Ontario v. Selwyn (Township)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 14 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27
Appellant:
Camping in Ontario
Description:
Determination of the development charges
Reference Number:
DC - 2025-027
Property Address:
Township-wide
Municipality/UT:
Selwyn/Peterborough
OLT Case No.:
OLT-25-000448
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-25-000447
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 14 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27
Appellant:
Camping in Ontario
Description:
Determination of the development charges
Reference Number:
DC - 2025-028
Property Address:
Township-wide
Municipality/UT:
Selwyn/Peterborough
OLT Case No.:
OLT-25-000449
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-25-000447
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 14 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27
Appellant:
Camping in Ontario
Description:
Determination of the development charges
Reference Number:
DC - 2025-029
Property Address:
Township-wide
Municipality/UT:
Selwyn/Peterborough
OLT Case No.:
OLT-25-000450
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-25-000447
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 14 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27
Appellant:
Camping in Ontario
Description:
Determination of the development charges
Reference Number:
DC - 2025-030
Property Address:
Township-wide
Municipality/UT:
Selwyn/Peterborough
OLT Case No.:
OLT-25-000451
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-25-000447
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 14 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27
Appellant:
Camping in Ontario
Description:
Determination of the development charges
Reference Number:
DC - 2025-031
Property Address:
Township-wide
Municipality/UT:
Selwyn/Peterborough
OLT Case No.:
OLT-25-000452
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-25-000447
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 14 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27
Appellant:
Camping in Ontario
Description:
Determination of the development charges
Reference Number:
DC - 2025-032
Property Address:
Township-wide
Municipality/UT:
Selwyn/Peterborough
OLT Case No.:
OLT-25-000453
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-25-000447
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 14 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27
Appellant:
Camping in Ontario
Description:
Determination of the development charges
Reference Number:
DC - 2025-033
Property Address:
Township-wide
Municipality/UT:
Selwyn/Peterborough
OLT Case No.:
OLT-25-000454
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-25-000447
Heard:
March 3, 2026, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Camping in Ontario ("Appellant")
Laura Gurr Benjamin Charlebois
Township of Selwyn ("Township")
Patrick Harrington
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY K.R. ANDREWS ON March 3, 2026, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The By-law under appeal is an amending development charges By-law (the "amending DC By-law"). It amends the Township's 2023 development charges By-law (the "2023 DC By-law").
2The Appellant is a member-based association representing Ontario campgrounds. While the Appellant itself has not been subjected to development charges of the Township, some of its members have. It is understood that the Appellant's interest in this matter is on behalf of its members.
3A four-day Merit Hearing was scheduled to begin on this day, Tuesday, March 3, 2026. On Friday, February 27, 2026, the Tribunal was informed that the Township is seeking an adjournment, contested by the Appellant. The reason for the adjournment is that the Township has decided to voluntarily rescind the amending DC By-law, thus presumptively rendering the remedy sought by the Appellant moot. The Township assured the Tribunal that rescission of the amending DC By-law would take place within a week.
4The Appellant contests the requested adjournment, claiming that it would be prejudiced on account of wasted legal costs, due to late notice, plus it claims that its members who had paid development charges in accordance with the impugned amending DC By-law would be denied a refund pursuant to s. 18 of the Development Charges Act. This, the Appellant submits, is because a refund is only available upon a Tribunal Order to repeal the impugned By-law, not upon a voluntary rescission by the Township without an Order.
5Whether the Appellant's Members would be entitled to a refund if the Tribunal Ordered a repeal of the amending DC By-law was a contested point. The Township argues that those members who have paid the development charges are not entitled to a refund pursuant to s. 18 of the Development Charges Act because a higher development charges rate under the un-amended 2023 DC By-law would apply upon repeal of the impugned amending By-law.
6Regarding legal costs, the Tribunal finds that this is not a basis to deny an adjournment because a costs-remedy may be sought later through a motion. Additionally, denying an otherwise meritorious adjournment will generally drive-up costs unnecessarily. The Tribunal will therefore only consider non-costs prejudice suffered by the Appellant as a basis to deny the adjournment request.
7For the following reasons, the Tribunal grants the adjournment.
amending DC By-law
8Only the amending DC By-law is subject to this appeal, not the underlying 2023 DC By-law. Consequently, any unamended development charges provisions of the 2023 DC By-law still apply, regardless of the outcome of this appeal.
9The appealed provisions of the amending DC By-law essentially do three things: (1) adds a definition of "park model trailer"; (2) assigns the "Apartment – Bachelor and 1 Bedroom" development charge rate to park model trailers; and (3) revises the credit provisions to address the replacement of park model trailers.
operation of s. 18 of the Development Charges Act
10S. 18 of the Development Charges Act states as follows:
18 (1) If the Ontario Land Tribunal repeals or amends a development charge by-law or orders the council of a municipality to repeal or amend a development charge by-law, the municipality shall refund,
(a) in the case of a repeal, any development charge paid under the by-law;
(b) in the case of an amendment, the difference between any development charge paid under the by-law and the development charge that would have been payable under the by-law as amended.
11Given that the appeal concerns an amendment, subsection (b) applies.
12It is through the operation of this subsection that the parties differ in their submissions regarding the potential outcome of a Tribunal decision on the merits of the appeal. The Appellant takes the position that its members would not be subject to development charges at all if the amending DC By-law is repealed, and therefore a successful appeal will trigger full refunds through s. 18 of the Development Charges Act. Meanwhile, the Township takes the position that the same persons who paid development charges under the amending provisions would be subject to even higher development charges under the un-amended 2023 DC By-law, so there would be no positive difference between the development charge paid under the 2023 DC By-law and the amending DC By-law.
13Importantly, the operation of s. 18 of the Development Charge Act is automatic upon a Tribunal's decision, and therefore no separate order is required to trigger the statutory refund. This is why the Appellant seeks a Tribunal decision, as opposed to accepting a voluntary repeal, because it submits that its members would be entitled to a refund despite not being a Party to these proceedings.
14The Tribunal finds that this is a real and present prejudice that the Appellant could suffer (albeit vicariously through its members), depending on whether its members would actually be entitled to a refund. The Tribunal finds that this could be a reason to deny the adjournment; however, before the Tribunal considers denying the request on this basis, it must determine if it makes any practical difference.
Mootness of a decision on the merits
15If the amending DC By-law is voluntarily repealed by the Township, the Tribunal finds that the remedy being sought by the Appellant (to repeal the By-law) will be rendered moot. This is not disputed by the Parties. Further, assuming that the By-law is rescinded within a week as promised, this means that it will occur before the Tribunal is capable of issuing a decision. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that it makes no difference whether the Tribunal grants the adjournment, the remedy being sought will still be rendered moot by the Township's actions if it rescinds the By-law.
16Further, it is well accepted that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to provide pure declaratory relief. This means that, apart from functionally repealing the amending DC By-law, the Tribunal retains no power to make a stand-alone declaratory finding. In other words, once the By-law is repealed by the Township, the Tribunal has no residual jurisdiction to deliver a remedy of any kind.
conclusion
17The Tribunal considered the potential prejudice that would be suffered by the Appellant's members as a reason to deny the adjournment. However, the Tribunal finds that granting an adjournment will make no practical difference to that prospect. Having reached this finding, the Tribunal declines to consider whether s. 18 of the Development Charges Act could potentially deliver a refund to the Appellant's members.
18Further, while it might seem unfair that the Township is enabled to rescind the impugned By-law and possibly avoid repaying previously paid development charges, it is permitted to do so under the legislation. The Tribunal further notes that, as pointed out by the Township, the Appellant's members could have protected their rights to seek repayment of the development charges that they paid if they had each followed the available process available under sections 20 to 22 of the Development Charges Act, which allows them to pay under protest and then later challenge the validity of those charges.
19As a precaution against the possibility that the Township declines to rescind the amending DC By-law, the Tribunal elects to re-schedule the Merit Hearing rather than assume that it will never take place. Further, because the Appellant has already indicated that they will seek costs associated with the late notice of the adjournment request and the change to the Township's position, the first date of the re-scheduled hearing may be converted to a written costs motion at the discretion of the Appellant.
rescheduled HEARING
20The Tribunal reschedules the merit hearing to commence by video on Tuesday, April 21, 2026, at 10 a.m. No further Notice is required.
21Parties and/or Participants and/or Observers 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/719383509
Access code: 719-383-509
22Parties and/or 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
23Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting 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: 719-383-509.
24Individuals 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.
25As of March 30, 2026, all hearing events are governed by the Tribunal's Artificial Intelligence Practice Direction. This Practice Direction requires a party, participant, or witness to include a declaration within each submitted document if generative AI was used to create or generate content.
ORDER
26THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:
The date and particulars of the rescheduled hearing are set out above; and
If a hearing is not required because the amending development charges By-law is repealed by the Township, the above date can be converted to a return date for a written motion for costs.
27The Member is seized for the purpose of either the rescheduled hearing and/or an application for costs.
"K.R. Andrews"
K.R. ANDREWS
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.