Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

May 15, 2026

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-25-000493

OLT-26-000010

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

Appellant:

Cawaja Property Owners Association

Appellant:

Francis E. Dunnigan

Appellant:

Grandolph Inc. & Grandolph Court Ltd. and others

Subject:

By-law No. 25-039

Description:

ZBL Amendment to further establish the Township’s policies for managing site alteration, shoreline retaining walls, and fences near Georgian Bay

Reference Number:

ZBL 25-039

Property Address:

Township of Tiny

Municipality/UT:

Tiny / Simcoe

OLT Case No.:

OLT-25-000493

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-25-000493

OLT Case Name:

Cawaja Property Owners Association et al., v. Tiny (Township)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant:

Cawaja Property Owners Association

Appellant:

Francis E. Dunnigan

Appellant:

Grandolph Inc. & Grandolph Court Ltd. and others

Subject:

Official Plan Amendment

Description:

Appealing the passing of OPA No. 5

Reference Number:

Official Plan Amendment No. 5

Property Address:

Township of Tiny

Municipality/UT:

Tiny / Simcoe

OLT Case No.:

OLT-26-000010

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-25-000493

Heard:

March 17, 2026 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative*

Township of Tiny

Sarah Hahn

County of Simcoe

Alex Freeman-Carter

Grandolph Inc.

Leo Longo

Grandolph Court Ltd.

Leo Longo

Mauro and Sandra Tonietto

Leo Longo

Marcantonio Mancini

Anna Lu

Jasmine Fraser (in absentia)

Maggie Bassani (in absentia)

Marcantonio Mancini and

Sofia Franca Mancini

Anna Lu

Jasmine Fraser (in absentia)

Maggie Bassani (in absentia)

The Nottawaga Beach Association

Denise Baker

Rowntree Beach Association

Denise Baker

THREDD Corp.

Robert Howe

Yanof Holdings Inc.

Robert Howe

Kelly Whittaker

Denise Baker (acting as agent)

Sylvain Rouleau (in absentia)

Rodney Skelton

Denise Baker (acting as agent)

Sylvain Rouleau (in absentia)

Marc Mullie

Denise Baker (acting as agent)

Sylvain Rouleau (in absentia)

Francis Dunnigan

Denise Baker (acting as agent)

Sylvain Rouleau (in absentia)

Stephanie De Francesca

Denise Baker (acting as agent)

Sylvain Rouleau (in absentia)

Nicholas Leblovic

Denise Baker (acting as agent)

Sylvain Rouleau (in absentia)

Cawaja Property Owners Association

Janet Marks*

Federation of Tiny Township Shoreline Associations

Denise Baker (acting as agent)

Sylvain Rouleau (in absentia)

CBC Country Ltd.,

Black Marlin Management Ltd., and Calsper Development Inc.

Daniel Angelucci

Jason Park (in absentia)

Tara Marshall

Denise Baker (acting as agent)

Sylvain Rouleau (in absentia)

Refer to Attachment 1 for Party and Participant status

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY c.i. molinari ON march 17, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1The Tribunal convened a second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) in respect of appeals filed pursuant to s. 34(19) of the Planning Act (“Act”) against the approval by the Township of Tiny (“Township”) of Township-initiated Zoning By-law (“ZBL”) No. 25-039 (“ZBL 039”), being an amendment to the Township’s comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 22-075. ZBL 039 introduces a ‘Shoreline Development Area’, applying to all land within 45 metres (“m”) of the 178 m Geodetic Survey of Canada elevation adjacent to Georgian Bay, including ‘Dynamic Beach Hazard’ lands.

2The Tribunal also convened a first CMC with respect to appeals filed pursuant to s. 17(24) of the Act against the approval by the County of Simcoe (“County”) of Township-initiated Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) No. 5.

APPEALS TO BE HEARD TOGETHER

3The Parties agreed that, to avoid complications related to status across the two sets of appeals, the ZBL appeals and the OPA appeals should be heard together rather than consolidated. With no objection from any Party, the Tribunal was satisfied that this approach is reasonable and appropriate and directed that the appeals be heard together in accordance with Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. As per Rule 16.3, the statutory requirements for each proceeding apply only to that particular proceeding and not to the other, parties to the hearing are parties to their individual proceedings only and not parties to the other proceeding, and unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal, evidence in the hearing is evidence in each proceeding to which it could apply.

STATUS REQUESTS

4The Tribunal received four requests for Party status as follows:

1. The County, a statutory Party to the OPA appeals, requested Party status to the ZBL appeals;

2. The Federation of Tiny Township Shoreline Associations (“FOTTSA”), a non-appellant party to the ZBL appeals, requested Party status to the OPA appeals;

3. Kelly Whittaker, an appellant to the ZBL appeals, requested Party status to the OPA appeals; and

4. Tara Marshall, not a party to the ZBL appeals, requested Party status to the OPA appeals.

5During the CMC, Counsel for the Township also requested Party status to the OPA appeals and undertook to send a Party Status Request Form (“Form”) to the Case Coordinator following the CMC. With no objections raised, the Township was granted non-appellant Party status to the OPA appeals, subject to receiving the Form. The Tribunal has since received the Form, and the Township’s status request is confirmed.

6With no objections raised, the County was granted non-appellant Party status to the ZBL appeal pursuant to ss. 34(24.1) and (24.2) of the Act. On its request form, the County noted that it does not intend to raise any new issues or call any evidence with respect to the issues related to the ZBL appeal.

7With no objections raised, FOTTSA, Ms. Whittaker, and Ms. Marshall were granted non-appellant Party status to the OPA appeal, also in accordance with Rule 8.3 of the Rules.

8There were no additional requests for Party or Participant status at the CMC.

WITHDRAWN APPEALS

9Counsel for the Township advised the Tribunal that Ms. Lloyd-Pinnington had advised the Township by email that she wished to be removed as an appellant to the ZBL appeals. The Tribunal has since received the email from Ms. Lloyd-Pinnington, and her withdrawal as an appellant is confirmed.

10Further, Counsel for the Township advised that Kristi Herold had not responded to the Township’s emails, and that the Township would make further contact with her to confirm her status in the ZBL appeals. Since the CMC, the Tribunal has received confirmation that Ms. Herold withdrew her appeal.

PROCEDURAL ORDER

11The Tribunal was in receipt of a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) with a partial Issues List (“IL”).

12The Parties agreed that the Township would circulate the draft PO to all Parties by Tuesday, April 7, 2026, and the non‑appellant Parties would identify the issues they intend to shelter under by Monday, April 13, 2026.

13The Parties further agreed, and Counsel for the Township undertook, to submit the final draft PO including a complete IL, to the Tribunal by Thursday, April 16, 2026.

14The Tribunal granted an extension to Tuesday, May 12, 2026, for submission of the final draft PO.

15The Tribunal has since received, reviewed, and approved the PO as set out in Attachment 2.

MEDIATION / SETTLEMENT

16The Tribunal advised the Parties of the options for Tribunal-led mediation, and for a written hearing in the case of a settlement, and to contact the Case Coordinator to determine next steps if the need arises.

17The Parties are advised to ensure their witnesses address the concerns of the Participant and s. 2 of the Act in their evidence at the merit hearing.

MERIT HEARING

18A 19-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, April 6, 2027, through to Friday, April 30, 2027, by video hearing.

19Parties 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/914098901

Access code: 914-098-901

20Parties 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

21Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to it by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: +1-647-497-9373 or (toll-free) +1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 914-098-901.

22Individuals 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.

23As 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.

UPDATE / FURTHER CMC HEARING

24Since the CMC, the Tribunal has become aware of a potential notice deficiency in respect of case no. OLT‑26-000010. To ensure compliance with statutory obligations, the Tribunal will issue a new notice of CMC for OLT-26-000010 and convene a further CMC for both OLT-26-000010 and OLT-25-000493.

25The further CMC is scheduled to proceed by video on Wednesday, July 29, 2026, at 10 a.m.

26Parties 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/638422541

Access code: 638-422-541

27Parties 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 at: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

28Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to it by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: +1-647-497-9373 or (toll-free) +1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 638-422-541.

29Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of those 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.

30As 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

31THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeals under Tribunal File Nos. OLT-24-000493 and OLT-26-000010 shall be heard together;

2. The County of Simcoe is granted non-appellant Party status to the appeals under Tribunal file number OLT-25-000493;

3. The Township of Tiny, the Federation of Tiny Township Shoreline Associations, Kelly Whittaker, and Tara Marshall are granted non-appellant Party status to the appeals under Tribunal file number OLT-26-000010;

4. The Procedural Order, appended as Attachment 2 to this Decision, is approved and shall govern the proceedings;

5. A merit hearing will be held by video hearing as scheduled above; and

6. A further Case Management Conference will be held by video hearing as scheduled above.

32No further notice is required.

33The Member is not seized of these matters.

“C. I. Molinari”

C. I. MOLINARI

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.

ATTACHMENT 1

PARTIES

STATUS

OLT-25-000493

OLT-26-000010

Township of Tiny

Statutory Party

Non-appellant Party

County of Simcoe

Non-appellant Party

Statutory Party

Grandolph Inc.

Appellant

Appellant

Grandolph Court Ltd.

Appellant

Appellant

Mauro and Sandra Tonietto

Appellant

Appellant

Marcantonio Mancini

Appellant

Appellant

Marcantonio Mancini and

Sofia Franca Mancini

Appellant

Appellant

The Nottawaga Beach Association

Appellant

Appellant

Rowntree Beach Association

Appellant

Appellant

THREDD Corp.

Appellant

Appellant

Yanof Holdings Inc.

Appellant

Appellant

Kelly Whittaker

Appellant

Non-appellant Party

Rodney Skelton

Appellant

Appellant

Marc Mullie

Appellant

Appellant

Francis Dunnigan

Appellant

Appellant

Stephanie De Francesca

Appellant

Appellant

Nicholas Leblovic

Appellant

Appellant

Cawaja Property Owners Association

Appellant

Appellant

Federation of Tiny Township Shoreline Associations

Non-appellant Party

Non-appellant Party

CBC Country Ltd.,

Black Marlin Management Ltd., and Calsper Development Inc.

Non-appellant Party

Appellant

Tara Marshall

Non-appellant Party

PARTICIPANTS

Paul Fahey

Participant

Therese Hudson-Fahey

Participant

Karen Zulynik

Participant

Elizabeth Sawyer

Participant

Virginia Barber

Participant

Irene Vistoli

Participant

Kingswood Acres Beach Association

Participant

Caroline Murphy

Participant

Cedar Point Cottager’s Association

Participant

ATTACHMENT 2

Ontario Land Tribunal

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

Appellant:

Appellant:

Appellant:

Cawaja Property Owners Association

Francis E. Dunnigan

Grandolph Inc. & Grandolph Court Ltd. and others

Subject:

Description:

By-law No. 25-039

ZBL Amendment to further establish the Township’s policies for managing site alteration, shoreline retaining walls, and fences near Georgian Bay

Reference Number:

ZBA 25-039

Property Address:

Township of Tiny

Municipality/UT:

Tiny / Simcoe

OLT Case No.:

OLT-25-000493

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-25-000493

OLT Case Name:

Cawaja Property Owners Association et al. v. Tiny (Township)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.

Appellant: Appellant:

Appellant:

Cawaja Property Owners Association

Francis E. Dunnigan

Grandolph Inc. & Grandolph Court Ltd. and others

Subject:

Description:

Official Plan Amendment

Appealing the passing of OPA 5

Reference Number:

Official Plan Amendment No. 5

Property Address:

Township of Tiny

Municipality/UT:

Tiny / Simcoe

OLT Case No.:

OLT-26-000010

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-25-000493

PROCEDURAL ORDER    

1. The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own motion.

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will begin on Tuesday, April 6, 2027 at 10:00 A.M. by Video Conference and is scheduled until Friday, April 30, 2027. No further notice shall be required.

3. The length of the hearing will be approximately 19 days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible.

4. The parties and participants identified at the Case Management Conference are listed in Attachment “1” to this Order. (See Attachment “4” for the meaning of these terms.)

5. The issues for the hearing are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment “2” to this Order. There will be no changes to this List unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it, except if the Issues List is modified on consent of the parties, through mediation or pursuant to a settlement between the parties.

6. The order of evidence for the hearing is listed in Attachment “3” to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

7. Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.

8. Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel, and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.

9. A party, participant, or witness who intends to submit document(s) to the Tribunal must include a declaration within each submitted document if generative AI was used to create or generate content. A declaration is not required if AI was used to merely suggest changes, provide recommendations, or critique content already created by a human who then considered and manually implemented the changes.

Requirements Before the Hearing

10. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they are intended to be called. This list must be delivered on or before Friday, December 18, 2026, and in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area(s) of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified.

11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Friday, January 8, 2027, to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting, a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues shall be filed with the OLT case coordinator on or before Friday, January 22, 2027.

12. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, and any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 14. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.

13. Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s anticipated evidence as in paragraph 14. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 14 below.

14. On or before Friday, January 29, 2027, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case coordinator and in accordance with paragraph 24 below.

15. On or before Friday, January 29, 2027, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties and the OLT case coordinator in accordance with paragraph 24 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

16. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case coordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before, Friday, February 12, 2027, and in accordance with paragraph 24 below.

17. On or before Friday, February 19, 2027, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

18. On or before Friday, February 26, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties and the OLT case coordinator in accordance with paragraph 24 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

19. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case coordinator on or before Friday, March 5, 2027.

20. Any documents which may be used by a party in cross-examination of an opposing party’s witness shall be password protected and only be accessible to the Tribunal and the other parties if it is introduced as evidence at the hearing, pursuant to the directions provided by the OLT case coordinator. The parties may also introduce documents to be used during cross-examination at the hearing.

21. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

22. A party who provides a witness’s written evidence or expert witness statement to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days prior to the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

23. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Friday, March 19, 2027 with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

24. All filings shall be electronic and, if requested by the Tribunal, also in hard copy. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by Rule 7.

25. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

So Orders the Tribunal.

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE

EVENT

Friday, December 18, 2026

Parties to exchange lists of witnesses (names, disciplines, CVs and intended order to be called)

Friday, January 8, 2027

Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting

Friday, January 22, 2027

Parties to file Statements of Agreed Facts and Issues

Friday, January 29, 2027

Witness Statements and Participant Statements to be exchanged

Friday, February 12, 2027

Reply Witness Statements to be exchanged

Friday, February 19, 2027

Parties to advise OLT if all scheduled hearing days are required

Friday, February 26, 2027

Parties to exchange copies of visual evidence

Friday, March 5, 2027

Joint document book to be filed

Friday, March 19, 2027

Parties to file hearing plan

Tuesday, April 6, 2027

Hearing commences

Attachment 1 LIST OF PARTIES / PARTICIPANTS

Parties

1. Appellant: Grandolph Inc.

C/O Leo Longo

llongo@airdberlis.com

2. Appellant: Grandolph Court Ltd.

C/O Leo Longo

llongo@airdberlis.com

3. Appellant: Mauro & Sandra Tonietto

C/O Leo Longo

llongo@airdberlis.com

4. Appellant: Marcantonio Mancini

C/O Maggie Bassani and Jasmine Fraser

mbassani@airdberlis.com and jcmfraser@airdberlis.com

5. Appellants: Marcantonio Mancini and Sofia Franca Mancini

C/O Maggie Bassani and Jasmine Fraser mbassani@airdberlis.com and jcmfraser@airdberlis.com

6. Appellant: Stephanie De Francesca

C/O Sylvain Rouleau

srouleau@weirfoulds.com

7. Appellant: Rodney Skelton

C/O Sylvain Rouleau

srouleau@weirfoulds.com

8. Appellant: Marc Mullie

C/O Sylvain Rouleau

srouleau@weirfoulds.com

9. Appellant: Francis E Dunnigan

C/O Sylvain Rouleau

srouleau@weirfoulds.com

10. Appellant: Nicholas Leblovic

C/O Sylvain Rouleau

srouleau@weirfoulds.com

11. Appellant: The Nottawaga Beach Association

C/O Denise Baker

dbaker@weirfoulds.com

12. Appellant: Rowntree Beach Association

C/O Denise Baker

dbaker@weirfoulds.com

13. Appellant: THREDD Corp.

C/O Robert Howe

rhowe@goodmans.ca

14. Appellant: Yanof Holdings Inc.

C/O Robert Howe

rhowe@goodmans.ca

15. Appellant: Cawaja Property Owners Association

C/O Janet Marks

jlmarks@rogers.com

16. Appellant to ZBA Appeal & Non-Appellant Party Status for OPA Appeal:

Kelly Whittaker

C/O Sylvain Rouleau

srouleau@weirfoulds.com

17. Non-Appellant Party to ZBA Appeal & Appellant to OPA Appeal:

CBC Country Ltd., Black Marlin Management Ltd. and Calsper Development Inc.

C/O Daniel Angelucci & Jason Park

dangelucci@ksllp.ca and jpark@ksllp.ca

18. Non-Appellant Party to Both Appeals:

Federation of Tiny Township Shoreline Associations

C/O Sylvain Rouleau

srouleau@weirfoulds.com

19. Non-Appellant Party Status for OPA Appeal:

Tara Marshall

C/O Sylvain Rouleau

srouleau@weirfoulds.com

20. Municipality/Statutory Party for ZBL Appeal & Non-Appellant Party Status for OPA Appeal:

Township of Tiny

C/O Sarah Hahn

shahn@barristonlaw.com

21. Municipality/Statutory Party for OPA Appeal & Non-Appellant Party Status for ZBL Appeal:

County of Simcoe

C/O Alex Freeman-Carter

Alex.freeman-carter@simcoe.ca

Participants

1. Caroline Murphy Email: ccmurphy@sympatico.

2. Irene Vistoli

Email: renevistoli@gmail.com

3. Therese Hudson-Fahey Email: sthudson5@gmail.com

4. Virginia Barber Email: virginia.m.barber@icloud.com

5. Karen Zulynik Email: karenzulynik@gmail.com

6. Paul Fahey Email: pefahey53@gmail.com

7. Elizabeth Sawyer Email: esawyer1958@gmail.com

8. Kingswood Acres Beach Association

Email: contactus@kabatiny.ca

9. Cedar Point Cottager’s Association Email: duff@conacher.com / info@cedarpointcottagersassociation.ca

Attachment 2

ISSUES LIST

The identification of an issue on this list does not mean that all parties agree that the issue, or the manner in which it is expressed, is appropriate for or relevant to the proper determination of the appeals. The extent of the appropriateness and/or relevance of the issue may be a matter of evidence and/or argument at the hearing.

Issues of Grandolph Inc. and Grandolph Court Ltd.

1. Has appropriate justification for defining the entire Tiny shoreline as a dynamic beach subject to dynamic beach hazards been sufficiently established?

2. Should completing an assessment and determination of the dynamic beach locations along the Tiny shoreline be a precondition to finalizing By-law 25-039 and OPA 5?

3. Is it lawful and appropriate for OPA 5 to adopt by reference and incorporate required compliance with Tiny’s Shoreline By-Law which was passed pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001?

4. Are OPA 5 and By-law 25-039 premature?

5. Are the proposed definitions of “Shoreline Development Area” in By-law 25-039 and OPA 5 appropriate?

6. Is the proposed definition of “Landscaping” in By-law 25-039 appropriate?

7. Is a 45-metre minimum setback from the 178 metre G.S.C in By-law 25-039 and OPA 5 necessary, reasonable, appropriate or required to protect the Shoreline Development Area on all properties?

8. Are the prohibitions, requirements, and/or considerations in By-law 25-039 and OPA 5 related to development (including expansion of existing buildings or structures and the erection of bunkies), site alteration, retaining walls and fences within the Shoreline Development Area appropriate?

9. Do By-law 25-039 and OPA 5 adequately recognize existing buildings and structures including, but not limited to, retaining walls and fences for properties subject to the By-law?

10. Do By-law 25-039 and OPA 5 have regard for matters of provincial interest in Section 2 of the Planning Act, specifically subsections (a), (h), (n), (o), and (p)?

11. Are By-law 25-039 and OPA 5 consistent with the PPS 2024, specifically policies 5.2 (natural hazard) and 6.2 (coordination)?

12. Do By-law 25-039 and OPA 5 conform with the Simcoe County Official Plan, specifically sections 3.3 and 4.5?

13. Do By-law 25-039 and OPA 5 conform with the Tiny Township Official Plan, specifically sections B.4, C.2 C.4, E.4, and E.5?

14. Do By-law 25-039 and OPA 5 represent good planning?

15. Do By-law 25-039 and OPA 5 include an appropriate transition provision? Does s. 2.18.1 of the Township’s parent Zoning By-law provide for an appropriate transition for legally existing buildings or structures within the dynamic beach shoreline?

16. Does the Zoning By-law adequately recognize existing zoning permissions including, but not limited to, for undeveloped vacant lots of record which fall within the 45 metre setback from the 178 metre G.S.C. flood elevation adjacent to Georgian Bay?

Issues of Marcantonio Mancini and Marcantonio Mancini & Sofia Franca Mancini

17. Are OPA 5 and By-law 25-039 premature?

18. Are the proposed definitions of “Shoreline Development Area” in By-law 25-039 and OPA 5 appropriate?

19. Is a 45-metre minimum setback from the 178 metre G.S.C in By-law 25-039 and OPA 5 required to protect the Shoreline Development Area on all properties?

20. Are the prohibitions, requirements, and/or considerations in By-law 25-039 and OPA 5 related to development (including expansion of existing buildings or structures and the erection of bunkies), site alteration, retaining walls and fences within the Shoreline Development Area appropriate?

21. Do By-law 25-039 and OPA 5 have regard for matters of provincial interest in Section 2 of the Planning Act, specifically subsections (a), (h), (n), (o), and (p)?

22. Are By-law 25-039 and OPA 5 consistent with the PPS 2024, specifically policies 5.2 (natural hazard) and 6.2 (coordination)?

23. Do By-law 25-039 and OPA 5 conform with the Simcoe County Official Plan, specifically sections 3.3 and 4.5?

24. Do By-law 25-039 and OPA 5 conform with the Tiny Township Official Plan, specifically sections B.4, C.2 C.4, E.4, and E.5?

25. Do By-law 25-039 and OPA 5 represent good planning?

26. Do By-law 25-039 and OPA 5 include an appropriate transition provision? Does s. 2.18.1 of the Township’s parent Zoning By-law provide for an appropriate transition for legally existing buildings or structures within the dynamic beach shoreline?

27. Is it appropriate for OPA 5 to include reference to the Shoreline By-Law (By-law 25-040)?

28. Is the proposed definition of “Landscaping” in By-law 25-039 appropriate?

Issues of Francis Dunnigan, Stephanie De Francesca, Marc Mullie, Rodney Skelton, Nicholas Leblovic, and Kelly Whittaker

29. Does by-law 25-039 (the “ZBA”) and Official Plan Amendment 5 (“OPA 5”) have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in section 2 of the Planning Act, including but not limited to subsections h, n, and p?

30. Is OPA 5 and the ZBA consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, including but not limited to policies 5.2 and 6.2?

31. Does OPA 5 and the ZBA conform to the County of Simcoe Official Plan including but not limited to sections 4.5.4, 4.5.9, 4.5.10, 4.5.14, 4.5.15, 4.5.28, and 4.5.32?

32. Does OPA 5 and the ZBA conform to the Town’s Official Plan including but not limited to sections C.2, C.4, E.4, and E.5?

33. Is OPA 5 appropriately flexible to allow for reasonable implementation via future Zoning By-law, Zoning By-law Amendment or minor variances?

34. Does the OPA 5 and the ZBA appropriately delineate and define the Shoreline Development Area?

35. Is 45 metres from the 178 metre G.S.C appropriate to protect the shoreline development area?

36. Is it appropriate to apply the 45 metre setback to all properties in the shoreline development area?

37. Does OPA 5 and the ZBA contain appropriate policies/provisions concerning existing development within the newly designated Shoreline Development Area? Specifically, does the ZBA adequately recognize existing footprint, buildings and structures including, but not limited to, dwellings, storage buildings, bunkies, retaining walls and fences for properties subject to the ZBA?

38. Does OPA 5 and the ZBA contain appropriate policies/provisions to recognize existing zoning permissions for undeveloped vacant lots of record which fall within the 45 metre setback from the 178 metre G.S.C flood elevation adjacent to Georgian Bay?

39. Does OPA 5 and the ZBA contain appropriate policies/provisions based on the actual shoreline classifications in the Township, and have the local shoreline classifications and geomorphic characteristics been properly identified and considered by the Township?

40. Are the restrictions provided appropriate for the relevant shoreline classifications?

41. Has the Town adequately considered the geomorphic characteristics of the shoreline? Are the local conditions considered in OPA 5 and ZBA?

42. Does OPA 5 and the ZBA adequately recognize how the lands in the Shoreline Development Area and Dynamic Beaches play a key role in the management of hazards and the importance of Dynamic Beach Areas including from an ecological perspective and social perspective?

43. Does OPA 5 and the ZBA represent good planning and are they in the public interest?

Issues of Mauro & Sandra Tonietto

44. Is it appropriate for the for OPA 5 and By-Law 25-039 to require a 45-metre shoreline setback for an approved development that has not reached building permit stage?

45. Is it appropriate for the Zoning By-law to impact the ability to make revisions to previously approved development located within the 45-metre setback?

46. Is it appropriate for OPA 5 and By-Law 25-039 to impact the ability to make revisions to active (open) building permits and/or permit applications?

47. Should a site-specific exception be created for 96 & 98 Centre Beach Road West to recognize existing planning approvals?

48. Does the 45-metres setback create an inconsistent and incompatible pattern of development between existing and future development along the shoreline?

49. Does the 45-metre setback inappropriately/unreasonably limit the development of waterfront properties that are already separated by roads, fences, retaining walls, other infrastructure and existing development located within the buffer zone?

50. Does the 45-metre setback restrict standard maintenance of waterfront properties through its policies?

51. Do OPA 5 and By-law 25-039 inappropriately/unreasonably restrict the use of private property by removing current site-specific land use entitlements approved through prior site-specific planning applications?

52. Removed / combined with issue 51

53. Are OPA 5 and By-Law 25-039 premature?

54. Do OPA 5 and By-Law 25-039 represent good planning?

55. Do OPA 5 and By-Law 25-039 have appropriate transition provisions?

56. Are OPA 5 policies written in a manner that is inappropriately/unreasonably restrictive and/or rigid which might necessitate an amendment for a development proposal that otherwise conforms and aligns with broader planning policy goals? As an example, should the Official Plan set out operational policies that are either overly specific or invite broad interpretation rather than general policy goals and objectives; e.g. B.4.14.3 and C.4.2.9?

57. Is the definition of “Dynamic Beach Hazards” on OPA 5 appropriate? Are the stated specific requirements appropriate and justified? Should qualifications be added to the definition?

58. Is it appropriate for a replacement building or structure be required to comply with the 45-metre setback?

Issues of Cawaja Property Owners Association

59. We believe that the restrictions created through OPA 5 and Zoning By-law 25-039 could undermine and destabilize the shoreline by-law itself. These measures significantly restrict what property owners can do with their land along the shoreline.

60. Our concern is whether; in creating these restrictions, the Township considered the Province’s key planning priorities under the Planning Act (Ontario)—particularly the need to balance environmental protection, responsible management of natural resources, and the health and safety of residents.

61. Should the existing Co-Ownership Agreement between the CPOA and the Township, established by Municipal By-law 23-007 and renewed by successive Councils, be considered when determining how OPA 5 and Zoning By-law 225-039 apply to the management and maintenance of the co-owned shoreline lands?

62. Are the rules in OPA 5 about restricting changes to land, fences, and signs in the “Shoreline Protection Area” unclear, vague, or open to interpretation?

63. Did the Township properly map the parts of the shoreline that are actually at risk from shifting beach conditions before restricting development in those areas?

64. Does the Shoreline Protection Area really match the parts of the beach that are at risk, and if not, is there a good planning reason for how the Township drew the boundary?

65. Are the development restrictions created by OPA 5 and By-law 225-039 really needed to protect people and property from risks related to dynamic beach hazards?

66. If the beach is not fully dynamic, why are these development restrictions needed to protect people and property?

67. Do the rules in OPA 5 and By-law 225-039 unfairly limit property owners from managing their land and taking reasonable steps—such as removing invasive species, managing vegetation to protect their property and shoreline?

Issues of The Nottawaga Beach Association and The Rowntree Beach Association

68. Does by-law 25-039 (the “ZBA”) and Official Plan Amendment 5 (“OPA 5”) have appropriate regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in section 2 of the Planning Act, including but not limited to subsections a, h, l, m, n, o, p, and r?

69. Is OPA 5 and the ZBA and consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, including but not limited to policies 4.1, 5.2,6.1, and 6.2?

70. Does OPA 5 and the ZBA conform to the County of Simcoe’s Official Plan including but not limited to sections 3.3.15, 4.5.4, 4.5.9, 4.5.10, 4.5.25, 4.5.28, and 4.5.3.2?

71. Does OPA 5 and the ZBA conform to the Town’s Official Plan including but not limited to sections B.4, C.2, C.4, E.2, E.4, E.5, and E.10?

72. Does OPA 5 provide sufficient policy direction and flexibility to assess future zoning variances?

73. Is the definition of Shoreline Development Area appropriate?

74. Does the ZBA provide sufficient support for the delineation of the Shoreline Development Area?

75. Does OPA 5 and the ZBA provide sufficient evidence on how or what hazards would extend from the shoreline up to 45 metres into the lands designated the Shoreline Development Area?

76. Does OPA 5 and the ZBA provide sufficient evidence on how the lands in the Shoreline Development Area and Dynamic Beaches play a key role in the management of hazards and the importance of Dynamic Beach Areas including from an ecological perspective and social perspective?

77. Does OPA 5 and the ZBA have appropriate provisions concerning existing development within the lands in the newly designated Shoreline Development Area? Specifically, does the ZBA adequately recognize existing buildings and structures including, but not limited to, retaining walls and fences for properties subject to the ZBA?

78. Is the purpose or effect of the provisions of OPA 5, including but not limited to the policies authorizing a shoreline protection by-law, and By-law 25-039 to allow public access over private property?

79. Does the ZBA adequately recognize existing zoning permissions including, but not limited to, for undeveloped vacant lots of record which fall within the 45 metre setback from the 178 metre G.S.C flood elevation adjacent to Georgian Bay?

80. Does OPA 5 and the ZBA represent good planning and are they in the public interest?

Issues of Yanof Holdings Inc. and THREDD Corp.

81. Do the restrictions on the development of properties imposed by OPA 5, including but not limited to the policies authorizing a shoreline protection by-law, and By-law 225-039 have regard for matters of provincial interest under section 2 of the Planning Act, and in particular those matters referenced in clauses 2(h), 2(n) and 2(p).

82. a) Are the restrictions on the development of properties imposed by OPA 5, including but not limited to the policies authorizing a shoreline protection by-law, and By-law 225-039 consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 and specifically sections 4.1, 5.2,6.1, and 6.2?

83. b) Does OPA 5 and the ZBA conform to the County of Simcoe’s Official Plan including but not limited to sections 3.3.15, 4.5.4, 4.5.9, 4.5.10, 4.5.25, 4.5.28, and 4.5.3.2?

84. c) Does OPA 5 and the ZBA conform to the Town’s Official Plan including but not limited to sections B.4, C.2, C.4, E.2, E.4, E.5, and E.10?

85. Do the restrictions on the development of properties imposed by OPA 5, including but not limited to the policies authorizing a shoreline protection by-law, and By-law 225-039 represent good land use planning and have a valid public purpose?

86. Has the Township appropriately delineated the dynamic beach hazard in accordance with provincial standards, as required by the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, as the basis for restrictions on development imposed by OPA 5 and By-law 225-039?

87. Do OPA 5 and By-law 225-039 impose restrictions on development outside of the dynamic beach standard? If so, is there a provincial policy justification or valid public purpose?

88. Does the “Shoreline Protection Area” defined by OPA 5 and By-law 225-039 reflect the dynamic beach hazard, or areas affected by dynamic beaches? Is there a valid planning or public interest basis for the definition of the “Shoreline Protection Area”?

89. Are the restrictions on the development of properties imposed by OPA 5, including but not limited to the policies authorizing a shoreline protection by-law, and By-law 225-039 appropriate to protect persons and property against dynamic beach hazards?

90. Do the provisions of OPA 5, including but not limited to the policies authorizing a shoreline protection by-law, and By-law 225-039 inappropriately restrict the rights of landowners to use their properties, and secure and prevent trespass within their properties?

91. Is the purpose or effect of the provisions of OPA 5, including but not limited to the policies authorizing a shoreline protection by-law, and By-law 225-039 to allow public access over private property?

92. Does OPA 5, including but not limited to the policies authorizing a shoreline protection by-law, provide appropriate criteria for determining whether site alteration, fences and signage will be restricted within the “Shoreline Protection Area”?

Issues of Tara Marshall

Sheltering under issues 29-43.

Issues of CBC Country Ltd., Black Marlin Management Ltd. and Calsper Development Inc.

As a non-appellant party to the appeal of ZBA 25-039, CBC Country Ltd., Black Marlin Management Ltd., and Calsper Development Inc. are sheltering under the following issues: 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 28, 29, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 44, 48, 49, 52, 54, 56, 57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 80, 81, 83, 85, and 89.

Appeal of OPA 5 – OLT-26-000010:

91. Does Official Plan Amendment No. 5 (“OPA 5”) have regard to the matters of provincial interest identified under section 2 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 (the “Planning Act”), including but not limited to subsections 2(a), (h), (j), (l), (n), (o), (p), and (r)?

92. Is OPA 5 consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”), including but not limited to Policies 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 4.1, 5.2, 6.1, and 6.2?

93. Does OPA 5 conform with the County of Simcoe Official Plan (the “County Official Plan”), including but not limited to Policies 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.7, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.12?

94. Does OPA 5 conform to the vision, goals, general policies, and land use designations of the Township of Tiny Official Plan (the “Township Official Plan”), including but not limited to Policies A.3, B.4, C.2, C.4, E.2, E.4, and E.5?

95. Is the definition and delineation of “Shoreline Development Area” in OPA 5 appropriate and related to shoreline management?

96. Does OPA 5 unreasonably restrict land use, development, and site alteration on lands (including but not limited to undeveloped vacant lots of record which fall within the 45 metre setback from the 178 metre G.S.C. flood elevation adjacent to Georgian Bay)?

97. Do the restrictions introduced by OPA 5 have the effect of unreasonably down-designating lands (including but not limited to undeveloped vacant lots of record which fall within the 45 metre setback from the 178 metre G.S.C. flood elevation adjacent to Georgian Bay)?

98. Does OPA 5 unreasonably impair upon the ability of legal non-conforming buildings and structures (including but not limited to retaining walls and fences) to continue to exist or be enlarged, extended, or expanded in accordance with subsections 24(1), 34(9), and 45(2) of the Planning Act?

99. Does OPA 5 represent good planning, and is it in the public interest?

100. What modifications, if any, are required to OPA 5 so that it would have regard to section 2 of the Planning Act, be consistent with the PPS 2024, and conform with the County Official Plan and Township Official Plan?

CBC Country Ltd., Black Marlin Management Ltd., and Calsper Development Inc. reserve the right to adopt issues advanced by other parties.

Issues of Federation of Tiny Township Shoreline Associations

Sheltering under issues 29-43.

Attachment 3 ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Tiny Township

2. Appellants & Non-Appellant Parties

3. Reply of Tiny Township, if necessary

Attachment 4

Meaning of terms used in the Procedural Order:

A party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. An unincorporated group cannot be a party and it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorization from the party.

NOTE that a person who wishes to become a party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

A participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.

A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.

Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

A witness statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which he or she will discuss; and a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons supporting their opinions and conclusions and (5) a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the participant’s position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submissions of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports or materials, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.

Additional Information

A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.

The order of examination of witnesses is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:

• direct examination by the party presenting the witness;

• direct examination by any party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;

• cross-examination by parties of opposite interest;

• re-examination by the party presenting the witness; or

• another order of examination mutually agreed among the parties or directed by the Tribunal.