Balogh v. Ontario (Niagara Escarpment Commission), 2026 CanLII 41005

Ontario Land Tribunal

ISSUE DATE: April 29, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000917

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 25(5.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.2, as amended

Appellant: See Appendix 1 - Appellant list

Applicant: Alexis Brenner and Andrew Duncan

Respondent: Niagara Escarpment Commission

Subject of appeal: Approval of a Development Permit Application to permit the expansion of the existing retreat use on the property known as Bubblegrove

Reference No.: APP-2024-00102

Property Address/Description: 576799 Concession 9

Municipality/Upper Tier: Chatsworth/Grey

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000917

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000917

OLT Case Name: Balogh v. Ontario (Niagara Escarpment Commission)

Heard: in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Angela and Brad Torrie Beatrice and Veronica Balogh Linda Hyder Shirley Torrie Susan Reeve and Donald Brough Armand and Barbara Labute Robert and Jane DeJong Alex Torrie	Self-represented
Alexis Brenner and Andrew Duncan	Self-represented

DECISION DELIVERED BY HUGH S. WILKINS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1Angela and Brad Torrie, Beatrice and Veronica Balogh, Linda Hyder, Shirley Torrie, Susan Reeve and Donald Brough, Armand and Barbara Labute, Robert and Jane DeJong, and Alex Torrie (“Appellants”) have appealed an approval by the Niagara Escarpment Commission of a development permit application affecting the lands located at 576799 Concession 9 (“subject property”), in the Township of Chatsworth. Alexis Brenner and Andrew Duncan (“Applicants”), who own the subject property, have brought a motion to dismiss the appeals. The subject property is located in Grey County.

2This Tribunal Member acts in the role of Hearing Officer under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act (“NEPDA”) for the purposes of the motion.

BACKGROUND

3The part of the subject property in question is designated under the Niagara Escarpment Plan (“NEP”) as Escarpment Protection Area. It presently includes apple orchards, a vineyard, a farmhouse, a barn, ponds, fields, woodlands, and a bubble dome suite. The surrounding area is rural with active agricultural operations.

4In February 2023, the Applicants applied for a NEPDA development permit to recognize group retreats, camping, events, and commercial outdoor activities as permitted uses on the subject property, and to expand the permitted uses to allow additional camping and associated facilities.

5In July 2023, the NEC refused the Applicants’ development permit application for the following reasons:

• the previously established religious retreat function on the property fails to meet the NEP definition of an Existing Use;
• notwithstanding the failure of previously established uses to meet the definition of an Existing Use, the proposed development cannot meet the development criteria associated with the change or expansion of an Existing Use in Part 2.3 of the NEP;
• On-Farm Diversified Uses and Agriculture-Related Uses are not permitted in the Escarpment Protection Area unless they are in a Prime Agricultural Area;
• un-serviced camping is only permitted on public and institutional lands in the Escarpment Protection Area;
• the intent of the County of Grey Official Plan is to not allow camping as an On-Farm Diversified Use; and,
• there is significant opposition to the proposal due to concerns about the intensity of the proposed development and land use compatibility.

6In September 2023, the Applicants filed a new development permit application with the NEC to recognize group retreats, camping, events, and commercial outdoor activities as permitted uses on the subject property. Unlike the February 2023 application, which was abandoned, the new application did not seek to expand permitted uses to include additional camping and associated facilities.

7In November 2023, the NEC conditionally approved the September 2023 application. In Development Permit DP-2025-00078, the NEC described the proposed development in the following manner:

To recognize the Existing Use of Ridgewood Springs Organic Farm and Retreat Centre (renamed Bubble Grove) that historically included the following activities:

• Hosting group retreats and providing short-term accommodations.
• Events:
  • Workshops and classes (farming & spiritual classes)
  • Tours (farm tours, wagon rides apple picking, etc.)
  • Celebrations (honeymoons, weddings, family reunions)
  • Camps (youth groups)
  • Retreats (multi day and week-long retreats for groups)
• On-site sales (apples, produce, honey, books & spiritual items)
• Offering recreational, fitness, and educational experiences including trail hikes, swimming, volleyball and cross-country skiing on the property

8In December 2023, Susan Reeve and Donald Brough, Paul Dreossi, Armand and Barbara Labute, Shirley Torrie, Beatrice and Veronica Balogh, Linda Hyder, and Ange and Brad Torrie appealed the decision. The matter went to a hearing in October 2024 in OLT Case No. OLT-23-001262 at which the Hearing Officer deemed the NEC’s decision to be confirmed, thereby recognizing the uses set out in the NEC’s decision. See Brough v. Ontario (Niagara Escarpment Commission), 2024 CanLII 126555 (ON LT), found at https://canlii.ca/t/k8h64.

9In April 2024, the Applicants filed a further development permit application seeking:

To permit the expansion of the existing retreat use on the property known as Bubblegrove, approved by NEC Development Permit DP-2025-00078 (which includes group retreats, short-term accommodations and events including workshops and classes, farm tours, celebrations, camps and group retreats). The proposed expansion includes the following structures and uses:

1. The placement or erection of the following decks:

   • 7 accommodation dome decks with a maximum area of 92 square metres (“m²”) (988 square feet (“ft²”)) each;
   • 1 orchard dome deck up to 270 m² (2904 ft²);
   • 1 sky camp lounge dome deck up to 74 m² (795 ft²);
   • 1 sky camp workshop dome deck up to 95 m² (1024 ft²); and
   • 1 deck as an extension to the farmhouse/lodge up to 186 m² (2000 ft²).

2. The placement of the following structures on the above noted decks:

   • 7 accommodation domes (one per accommodation dome deck) up to 39 m² (415 ft²) each;
   • 7 washroom pods (composting/incinerating toilets) (one per accommodation dome deck) up to 6.7 m² (72 ft²) each;
   • 7 woodsheds (one per accommodation dome deck) up to 3.3 m² (36 ft²);
   • 7 pavilions (one per accommodation dome deck) for covered seating up to 20 m² (216 ft²);
   • 1 orchard gathering dome up to 129 m² (1385 ft²);
   • 1 sky camp lounge dome up to 39 m² (415 ft²);
   • 1 sky camp workshop dome up to 66 m² (707 ft²);
   • 1 washroom pod on lounge dome deck at Sky Camp up to 2.8 m² (30 ft²); and,
   • 1 roof for covered seating on lounge dome deck at Sky Camp up to 7.4 m² (80 ft²).

3. The placement of the following structures

   • 2 washroom pods (one at Sky Camp, one in the orchard) up to 11.1 m² (120 ft²) each;
   • 4 saunas with a maximum size of 4.6 m² (48 ft²);
   • 1 group sauna with a maximum size of 11.1 m² (120 ft²);
   • 1 change room at Sky Camp up to 11.1 m² (120 ft²); and,
   • 1 woodshed at Sky Camp adjacent to the lounge dome deck up to 4.6 m² (48 ft²).

4. Additional overnight accommodation in tents (erected directly on the ground at Sky Camp) for group retreats to accommodate up to an additional 30 overnight guests for no more than one weekend a month, and a maximum of three night per occasion.

10On November 5, 2025, the NEC approved the Applicants’ April 2024 development permit application.

11In November 2025, the Appellants appealed the NEC’s decision.

12On February 5, 2026, the Applicants filed the within motion to dismiss on the basis that the appeals have no merit. They submit that the appeals:

• lack genuine, legitimate and authentic planning issues;
• do not recognise the established existing use framework;
• constitute an abuse of process and re-litigate previously resolved issues;
• do not raise planning concerns, are vexatious, and advocate people-zoning; and,
• have a low prospect of success.

13In terms of relief, the Applicants request that the Hearing Officer:

• dismiss the appeals; or, alternatively,
• require the Appellants to provide detailed particulars, evidence, and expert support within a defined timeframe, failing which dismissal occurs; or, alternatively,
• narrow the issues to matters directly relevant to the expansion of the existing use and focused only on new and evidenced impacts and direct policy discrepancies.

14The Appellants filed responding submissions on February 16, 2026, and the Applicants filed reply submissions on February 19, 2026.

SUBMISSIONS

The Applicants’ Submissions

15The Applicants submit that the Notices of Appeal lack genuine, legitimate, and authentic planning issues. They argue that the Appellants’ issues lists are deficient in that they contain broad, speculative questions regarding whether the proposed development complies with the NEP, the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”), and the County of Grey Official Plan. They submit that the issues lists fail to identify any deficiency in the application of policy, fail to demonstrate any land-use impact, and fail to identify an error in the NEC’s decision, or propose a remedy. They submit that the issues lists pose generalized questions on compliance with provincial and local planning instruments. They submit that the evidence needs to be available at the time that an appeal is filed and must be put forward in response to a dismissal motion, which, they allege, the Appellants have failed to do.

16The Applicants submit that there is an established existing use on the subject property, which permits camping. They submit that the development permit application is to expand this existing use by allowing alternative outside accommodations. They submit that the proposed development should be assessed as an expansion of a lawfully recognized existing use and should be evaluated against impact-based criteria, rather than under policies applicable to new land uses. They submit that the Appellants must demonstrate substantiated impacts supported by evidence to warrant a hearing. The Applicants assert that there is undisputed evidence that camping is a longstanding existing use on the subject property. They argue that existing uses are not frozen and may change or expand, provided that the objectives and requirements set out in NEP policy 2.3 are satisfied. They submit that the expansion of an existing use is contemplated within the planning framework, subject to compatibility and consistency with NEP objectives. Further, they submit that mitigation measures will be undertaken to prevent adverse impacts. Finally, they submit that the Appellants have failed to put forward evidence establishing incompatibility, unacceptable impacts, or policy misapplication. They argue that there is no policy or evidentiary basis upon which a Hearing Officer could allow the appeals.

17The Applicants submit that the appeals constitute an abuse of process and the re-litigation of settled matters. They submit that the Appellants were aware of the proposed future expansion of the existing uses at the time of the proceedings in OLT Case No. OLT-23-001262 in October 2024 and should have raised their concerns at that time. The Applicants submit that re-litigation of issues already determined by a Hearing Officer constitutes an abuse of process and imposes an unnecessary strain on public resources. They submit that the Appellants are raising the same policy questions that were addressed in the previous proceedings without presenting new evidence or demonstrating planning impacts. The Applicants submit that the current appeals fail to put forward new or distinct planning issues and merely revisit the matters that were previously adjudicated. The Applicants submit that the previous proceedings were the appropriate forum for the Appellants to be heard.

18The Applicants submit that the Appellants raise non-planning concerns, the appeals are vexatious, and the Appellants advocate people zoning. The Applicants submit that the Appellants were aware of the uses on the subject property and supported those uses when they were undertaken by previous owners. They submit that the permissible use of land cannot be based on who owns the land. They submit that the Appellants’ motivation for launching the appeals is based on personal animosity and, as such, the proceedings constitute an abuse of process. They submit that the previous owners undertook the same uses, and on a larger scale, but these were never opposed. The Applicants further argue that the way that the Appellants treated the use of the subject property under different ownership demonstrates bias. They submit that appeals based on personal preference, bias, or strategic objection, rather than on planning grounds, constitute frivolous or vexatious proceedings, and an abuse of process.

19The Applicants further submit that the appeals have a low prospect of success. They submit that the Appellants have failed to provide planning analyses demonstrating a misinterpretation of policy, evidence to counter the Applicants’ submissions, or evidence of adverse impacts from the proposed development.

The Appellants’ Submissions

20In response, the Appellants submit that their Notices of Appeal set out reasons for appeal that constitute legitimate planning questions and that the appeals have a reasonable prospect of success. They submit that the appeals are neither frivolous nor vexatious, they raise legitimate planning questions, they are made in good faith, and they were not commenced for the purpose of delay. They submit that it is in the public interest that the appeals be heard on the merits.

21The Appellants submit that the grounds in the Notices of Appeal raise issues regarding whether the expansion of the Applicants’ existing retreat use is permitted in accordance with the NEP and, if a development permit is permissible, whether additional conditions of approval are required to make it conform with the NEP. They submit that the Hearing Officer will need to consider at a hearing on the merits whether the proposed expansion of the existing use is compatible with the site and the surrounding landscape under NEP policy 2.3 and whether the objectives of the Escarpment Protection Area designation are met. They submit that these are legitimate planning issues, and their proposed issues list identifies specific issues arising from NEP policies. They submit that their evidence will address those issues, and their appeals have a reasonable prospect of success.

22The Appellants submit that the issues under appeal have not been previously determined and are not an abuse of process. They submit that the issue of the proposed expansion of the existing use was not addressed in the previous appeals, and they are not challenging the previous decision or ruling that there is an existing use. They submit that the previously approved development permit states that any structures for accommodations outside of the existing farmhouse would require a new development permit, which is the subject matter of the present proceedings. The Appellants submit that the Applicants applied for a new development permit for the expansion of the existing use and the Appellants have rightfully appealed that decision. They submit that the issues in the present proceedings are not the same as those that were before the Hearing Officer in OLT Case No. OLT-23-001262. The Appellants argue that the prior Hearing Officer’s decision found that the existing use did not include un-serviced camping. They reiterate that the Applicants do not have a right to expand their existing use through new accommodation structures or un-serviced camping without a new development permit. They submit that these are not issues that could have been raised in the previous appeal as the development permit in those proceedings did not include a proposed expansion of an existing use.

23The Appellants submit that the Applicants’ allegations that the Appellants are biased and the appeals are vexatious and seek to people zone are unfounded. They submit that the appeals raise focused, legitimate planning questions regarding the proposed expansion of existing uses on the subject property. They reiterate that the Applicants’ prior Hearing Officer-approved development permit confirmed an existing use on the subject property, but the Hearing Officer’s decision specifically stated that the Applicants would be required to obtain a new permit for any additional accommodations on the property. They submit that the present appeals thereby do not constitute the re-litigation of previously adjudicated issues.

24The Appellants also submit that there is no evidence or basis on which to find that the proceedings have been brought for the purpose of delay.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

25NEPDA s. 25(8.1) sets out the circumstances in which a Hearing Officer may refuse to conduct a hearing. NEPDA s. 25(8.1)(a) states

(8.1) Despite subsections (8) and (10), an officer appointed under subsection (8) may refuse to conduct or to continue a hearing if,

(a) in the opinion of the officer, the appeal does not disclose a planning justification for the appeal, is not in the public interest, is without merit, is frivolous or vexatious, or is made only for the purpose of delay;

26The threshold for granting the dismissal of a proceeding is high. To succeed, the moving party must demonstrate that the grounds in the notice of appeal do not have a nexus to the NEP. An appeal under NEPDA s. 25 must be supportable by evidence capable of demonstrating an error in policy interpretation, inconsistency with the PPS, or non-conformity with the NEP. In response to a NEPDA s. 25(8.1) motion to dismiss, appellants must show that there is planning justification for the appeal. While this does not necessitate the filing of evidence, appellants must demonstrate the likelihood that supporting evidence will be produced at the hearing on the merits that justifies the appeal.

27In Dodds v. Niagara Escarpment Commission, 2005 CarswellOnt 7834 (“Dodds”), the Hearing Officer stated that, on a motion to dismiss, the Hearing Officer must consider the application of the NEP’s planning framework to the facts of the case to determine whether the appeal has merit in terms of being justified in light of the NEP, NEPDA, and other relevant planning policies. Hearing Officer DeMarco stated at paragraph 24:

In sum, the NEP provides the framework for considering applications for development permits. Hearings under s. 25 are to consider the application of that framework to the facts of a particular proposed development. Development permit decisions must be made in accordance with the NEP. The focus of a review into the merits of an appeal under the "planning justification" factor contained in ss. 25(8.1)(a) should be on whether there is a planning justification that relates to the NEP, the NEPDA, and relevant policies.

28In Dodds, the Hearing Officer provided examples where there is a planning justification, such as situations where grounds are raised in relation to how the NEP was applied or interpreted. In such cases, the matter should proceed to a hearing on the merits. Hearing Officer DeMarco stated at paragraph 26 of Dodds:

… an appeal that is based on an argument that an application for a proposed development is in accord with the NEP, but that the NEP was wrongly construed or applied by the NEC or that certain conditions of approval are needed to meet the intent of the NEP, should proceed to a full hearing where evidence and argument can be heard on the differing views of the parties.

29In the present case, the Hearing Officer agrees with the Appellants that the focus of the appeals is whether the proposed expansion is in accordance with the NEP and, if the development permit is to be upheld, whether additional conditions of approval are required. NEP policy 2.3 specifically sets out the factors to be addressed where the expansion of an existing use is proposed. The factors are whether the proposed expansion is compatible with the site and the surrounding landscape, and whether the objectives of the Escarpment Protection Area designation are met. The grounds in the present Notices of Appeal raise questions in relation to how the NEP was applied and interpreted by the NEC, which should be addressed at a hearing on the merits where evidence can be adduced and submissions can be made to address these questions. The Tribunal finds that there is a policy basis upon which a Hearing Officer could allow the appeals.

30The Hearing Officer agrees with the Appellants that a significant part of the Applicants’ submissions reflect argument that would be more appropriate at the hearing on the merits. Much of it requires the weighing of evidence that has yet to be properly put before a Hearing Officer. The Applicants are in essence setting out their arguments and evidence and stating that it is so strong that the Appellants have no reasonable chance of success. A motion to dismiss is not a hearing on the merits. The focus of the Hearing Officer on a motion to dismiss is not to weigh evidence or to identify issues, but to determine whether the notice(s) of appeal in question contain grounds that can give rise to issues that have merit and are justified in light of the NEP, NEPDA, and other planning policies.

31In terms of whether the appeals will result in the raising of issues that were previously adjudicated in another proceeding, the Hearing Officer agrees with the Appellants that the questions of whether un-serviced camping is an existing use and whether the existing uses on the subject property may be expanded were not addressed in the prior proceeding. Based on the terms of the NEC decision that was under appeal in OLT Case No. OLT-23-001262, these are not issues that could have been properly raised in those proceedings. Raising them now does not constitute an abuse of process. The Hearing Officer finds that the Notices of Appeal contain grounds that give rise to new issues that may have merit and that the grounds in the Notices of Appeal are justified in light of the policies in the NEP and the statutory provisions of the NEPDA. It finds that these circumstances do not give rise to issue estoppel, res judicata, or the re-ligation of issues.

32The Hearing Officer also finds that the appeals are neither frivolous nor vexatious. The Applicants presented arguments that there is animosity between Parties, but this does not necessarily mean that the appeals are frivolous or vexatious. “Frivolous” means “characterized by a lack of seriousness” and “vexatious” means “instituted for the purpose of causing trouble or annoyance to another party”. Based on the submissions before him, the Hearing Officer finds that the Appellants are serious and have based their appeals on grounds that are justified in light of the policies in the NEP and the statutory provisions of the NEPDA. The Applicants have not demonstrated that the appeals will give rise to planning issues that are not genuine, legitimate, or authentic. Although there appears to be animosity between Parties, the Hearing Officer finds that this does not mean there is bias resulting in vexatious proceedings or an abuse of process. Nor does the apparent animosity lead the Hearing Officer to the conclusion that the Appellants’ intent is to restrict the use of the subject based on its ownership or create “people zoning”.

33Regarding whether the appeals are in the public interest or were commenced for the purpose of delay, as stated at paragraph 19 of Dodds, the onus is on the moving party to establish these factors based on the grounds set out in the Notices of Appeal. The Applicants have failed to establish either of these factors. Their arguments on the public interest were contingent on the success of their arguments on the merits and planning justification of the appeals, and no compelling arguments were presented that the Appellants commenced the appeals for the purpose of delay.

34Regarding whether the Applicants have satisfied the test under s. 19(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act that the appeals have no reasonable prospect of success, given the Hearing Officer’s conclusions that the grounds set out in the Notices of Appeal may give rise to issues that have merit and that the grounds in the Notices of Appeal are justified in light of the policies in the NEP and the statutory provisions of the NEPDA, and the Appellants’ stated intention to call evidence in support of their policy arguments, the Hearing Officer finds that the Applicants have failed to demonstrate that the appeals have no reasonable prospect of success.

CONCLUSIONS

35The Hearing Officer finds that the appeals disclose a planning justification, they are not contrary to the public interest, they appear that they may have merit, they are not frivolous or vexatious, they do not constitute an abuse of process or re-litigation of issues, and they were not commenced for the purpose of delay.

36The Hearing Officer finds that this is not an appropriate stage in the proceedings for consideration of a request for costs. Such requests, if necessary, may be entertained at the conclusion of the proceedings.

37The Hearing Officer directs the Parties to finalize and file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List by no later than May 15, 2026. The Tribunal’s Case Coordinator will contact the Parties regarding the scheduling of a further Case Management Conference at which the scheduling of the hearing on the merits and other procedural matters may be addressed.

ORDER

38THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT Alexis Brenner and Andrew Duncan’s motion to dismiss the appeals is denied.

“Hugh S. Wilkins”

HUGH S. WILKINS

HEARING OFFICER

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.

Appendix 1

Appellant List

Party Name	Representative
Beatrice and Veronica Balogh	Self-represented
Alex Torrie	Self-represented
Angela and Brad Torrie	Self-represented
Armand and Barbara Labute	Self-represented
Susan Reeve and Donald Brough	Self-represented
Robert and Jane DeJong	Self-represented
Linda Hyder	Self-represented
Shirley Torrie	Self-represented