Stephen Barclay v. Georgian Bluffs (Township), 2026 CanLII 46871

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: May 13, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-001007

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Steve Barclay

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: Amend the Zoning By-law to permit the construction of a single detached dwelling (cottage) and ancillary uses.

Reference Number: Z07/24

Property Address: Grey Road 1, Big Bay Estates Part Lot 43, Colpoy’s Range, RP 16R70 Part 12 Roll No. 420362000835612

Municipality/UT: Georgian Bluffs/Grey

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-001007

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-001007

OLT Case Name: Stephen Barclay v. Georgian Bluffs (Township)

Heard: April 30, 2026 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative*

Township of Georgian Bluffs

Laura Dean

Stephen Barclay

Self-represented*

DECISION DELIVERED BY d.s. colbourne and jackie denyes ON april 30, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1By way of Affidavit evidence and submissions, the Township of Georgian Bluffs (“Township”) brought a Motion seeking that the appeal filed by Stephen Barclay (“Appellant”), for approval of a rezoning to allow a dwelling and up to three residential units as-of-right, be dismissed in its entirety without the need to hold a full hearing. In the alternative, the Township seeks directions from the Tribunal to determine whether the information and materials required for the Application have, in fact, been provided pursuant to subclause 34(25) 1.i. of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13 (“Act”) and clause s. 19(1)(c) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, R.S.O. 2021, S.O. 2021 c.4, Schedule 6 (“OLTA”). Further, in the alternative, the Township requests an order of the Tribunal pursuant to clause 34(10.5)(a) of the Act directing that the information and materials required under subsection 34(10.1) and (10.2) have not been provided.

2The Subject Property (“SP”) is zoned Planned Development (“PD”) and Environmental Protection (“EP”) in the Township’s Zoning By-law (“ZBL”). Section 18.1 of the ZBL provides that the PD zone permits uses that legally existed on the date of the passing of the ZBL, being January 22, 2020, thus recognizing that an amendment to the ZBL would be required to permit the development of the SP.

3Mr. Barclay provided a brief Response to the Motion in an email dated April 15, 2026, seeking that the motion be denied; that his appeal raises legitimate planning and procedural issues with a reasonable prospect of success and should proceed to a full hearing.

4Mr. Barclay had filed an appeal for non-decision under s. 34(11) of the Act asserting as follows:

• The Township failed to make a decision within 90 days;
• The Township refused to accept a revised application and refused to bring a recommendation to Council for over a year;
• Grey County refused the entrance permit without justification (“the Township’s own feasibility report (DEV2025 069) confirms the lot is buildable”);
• The application is consistent with PPS 2024, Growth Plan, Grey County Official Plan (“OP”), and Georgian Bluffs OP;
• The Township and County conduct amounts to unreasonable delay and the Appellant reserves the right to seek costs under OLT Rule 23.01.

BACKGROUND

5A public planning meeting was held November 13, 2024, at which time Staff Report DEV2024 058 was received for information only with no recommendation as concerns arose regarding the following:

• the requirement for an Archaeological Assessment – that the Applicant must contact Saugeen Ojibway Nation (“SON”);
• Grey County Planning noted on November 4, 2024, that it does not support the rezoning with key concerns of Hazard Lands thus requiring confirmation of a safe building envelope;
• Grey County Conservation Authority (“GCCA”) input is required;
• recommendation for a scoped servicing study (well and septic viability); comprehensive Stormwater (“SWM”) review for entire Big Bay Estates or, at minimum, a scoped SWM report;
• the private road access is unclear and may require a Plan of Condominium or municipal assumption;
• Natural Heritage Environmental Impact Study is required; and,
• precedent concerns relating to piece-meal development of historic lots without comprehensive planning.
• No municipal decision issued within the statutory time frame.

6The Township never deemed the Application complete as the Appellant did not provide the above-noted information required by staff in order to evaluate the Application and make a recommendation of any sort.

SUBJECT PROPERTY

Context of Subject Property

7The SP is a single lot contained within what is locally referred to as Big Bay Estates which is a collection of approximately 85 lots located in the northern part of the former Keppel Township within Colpoy’s Range. All of the lots remain undeveloped and have significant natural features such as woodlands and hazard lands.

8The lots are accessed via a privately-owned laneway that becomes impassable as one travels south along its route. The Responding Party/Appellant enjoys a right-of-way over this private laneway. Township and County Staff have concerns over the ability of the right-of-way to provide safe passage of emergency and service vehicles to the SP.

9The SP is one of three abutting lots owned by the Responding Party/Appellant personally or, through his numbered company, located in the northern portion of Big Bay Estates that encompasses approximately 1.89 hectares.

LEGISLATIVE REGIME

10The Legislative Regime is clearly enunciated and set out in OLT Decision #23-000555 Whyte v. Drummond/North Elmsley (Township) 2024 CanLII 30626 (ON LT)

as follows:

Section 34(25) of the Act provides the following:

Dismissal without a hearing

Despite the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and subsection (24), the Tribunal may, on its own initiative or on the motion of any party, dismiss all or part of an appeal without holding a hearing if any of the following apply:

1. The Tribunal is of the opinion that,

i) The reasons set out in the notice of appeal do not disclose any apparent land use planning ground upon which the Tribunal could allow all of part of the appeal

2. The Appellant has not provided written reasons for the appeal;

3. The Appellant intends to argue a matter mentioned in subsection (19.0.1) but has not provided the explanations required by that subsection.

Section 34(19.0.1) of the Act provides:

If the Appellant intends to argue that the by-law is consistent with a policy statement issued under subsection 3(1), fails to conform with or conflicts with a provincial plan or fails to conform with an applicable official plan, the notice of appeal must also explain how the decision is inconsistent with, fails to conform with or conflicts with the other document. Section 19(1) of the OLTA states:

Subject to Subsection (4), the Tribunal may, on the motion of any party or on its own initiative, dismiss a proceeding without a hearing,

(c) if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the proceeding has no reasonable prospect of success.

The grounds for dismissing an appeal are disjunctive. In other words, only one of the several grounds set out in the Act and the OLTA must be satisfied to warrant dismissing an appeal.

MOTION HEARING

11The materials before the Tribunal on the Motion to Dismiss were:

Exhibit One – Affidavit of Service filed April 14, 2026, by the Appellant pursuant to the Case Management Conference instructions;

Exhibit Two – Motion Record of the Moving Party dated April 15, 2026, which contained a Notice of Motion outlining the chronological of events in 22 Tabs including the Affidavit of Michael G. Benner, MCIP, RPP and his Curriculum Vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert Duty Form sworn April 15, 2026;

Exhibit Three – Response to the Motion dated April 15, 2026, and filed by Mr. Barclay (2-page email).

Chronology of Events – Pre-consultation

12The Tribunal was directed by Counsel through the Affidavit of Michael G. Benner, MCIP, RPP who set out a detailed history of events with corresponding exhibits as follows:

June 2021 - Appellant inquired about building a cottage on the SP. The Township Planner at the time advised the SP would require a ZBLA supported by an Environmental Impact Study (“EIS”) and approval from the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority (“GSCA”). The Appellant was also advised of the necessity to provide documentation regarding access over the private laneway accessing the rear of the lot would be required.

July 2023 - Township’s Director of Development and Infrastructure attended the SP to review the Appellant’s proposal. The Director advised the Appellant that a ZBLA would be required, and he would need to connect with other Township staff to gather additional information regarding access and additional study requirements

December 2023 and July 2024 – The Appellant contacted Grey County Planning Staff to discuss the proposal. County Staff reached out to Township Staff in order to provide a coordinated response that captured an updated GSCA, Township and County review.

May 24, 2024 – The Appellant was provided a comprehensive planning review of the proposal which noted additional matters to be considered in a formal application and identified studies required to support a ZBLA. The Planning Review also noted it may be beneficial for the Appellant to retain a qualified land use planning firm to assist him in the ZBLA process.

The Application

June 19, 2024 – wherein the Appellant was asked in Section 8 of the Application Form to briefly describe the nature and extent of relief from the ZBL for the proposed amendment; he stated, “I would like a building permit for a cottage on Lot 12”, Section 19 of the Application Form states: “A complete application may be required to include one or more of the following…” and then lists 14 studies that the Township may require and specifically notes that a “Planning Justification Report (“PJR”) is required for all applications.” The Appellant submitted his Application Form and two site plan drawings.

The Application did not include the material required under subsection 34(10.1) of the Act as prescribed by O. Reg. 545/06 wherein it fails to explain how the application is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”) as required by paragraph 29 of Schedule 1 and does not include a sworn affidavit as required by paragraph 32 of O. Reg 545/06.

July 4, 2024 – Email sent by the Township’s Director of Development and Infrastructure to Appellant noting he would circulate the Application to commenting bodies for initial review.

July 10, 2024 – Email to Township’s Director of Development and Infrastructure from Becky Hillyer, Senior Planner with Grey County expressing concerns with the Application regarding natural heritage impacts and the ability for emergency vehicles to access the area;

From November 2024 through May 2025 - Staff moved forward with a formal public meeting despite the lack of supporting studies which prevented the Township from deeming the Application to be complete, to afford the Appellant the opportunity to present to Council and receive formal comments from inter alia Grey County, the GSCA and the Saugeen Ojibway Nation. Comments received from Grey County requested additional comments be received from GCSC regarding development adjacent to the Hazard Lands on site; that a scoped servicing study be provided ensuring the site can accommodate a well land private septic system, a scoped stormwater management report be prepared, further clarity regarding ownership, access rights and condition of the private access route, a scoped Environmental Impact Study be completed and requested further comments from the Saugeen Ojibway Nation regarding the need for an archaeological review of the location. The County noted the studies should be undertaken by qualified professionals, including registered engineers, ecologists, and planners. The County could not support the Application as submitted. Throughout this time the Appellant dialogued with staff and through this correspondence, the Township County and GSCA reiterated the need for additional studies in support of the Application.

On May 5, 2025, the Township Director of Development emailed the Appellant providing a summary of the comments received. The Respondent responded indicating that the studies were either not required or that the relevant commenting bodies should fund the studies August 27, 2025 – The Township received updated comments from GSCA recommending that the Township require a comprehensive stormwater management report that addresses quantity concerns as a result of potential cumulative impact of development associated with Big Bay Estates and/or individual lot level controls implemented on a site-by-site basis. However, no stormwater management plan or additional information regarding servicing of the Subject Site was provided by the Appellant. October 8, 2025 – The Township’s Director of Development and Infrastructure prepared an information report for Council’s information that because the creation of Big Bay Estates lots did not benefit from earlier studies, any new development would, at a minimum, require an archaeological assessment, an environmental impact study, a functional servicing study, a slope stability study, a stormwater management report and a demonstrated legal and traversable access to the property along the existing laneway.

It was further noted that although development of the SP may be feasible, staff at the County and Township levels had concerns over the precedent of approval for piecemeal development, the potential impacts for human safety, ecological preservation and other matters of public interest should these lots start to develop without the benefit of a more comprehensive review through the requested studies.

November 21, 2025 – the Township received a “Final Demand” email from the Appellant.

December 30, 2025 – The Township received the Notice of Appeal.

TOWNSHIP OFFICIAL PLAN

13The Affidavit evidence of Mr. Benner provides that the TOP contains policies regarding complete application requirements as follows:

Policy 5.3 - “…provide other information and materials that are necessary to support the application and that are specified in this Plan”

Policy 5.4 – “is clear that required studies may include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:

1. A Planning Report
2. Servicing Feasibility Study
3. Groundwater assessment study
4. Sewage Disposal Suitability Report
5. Stormwater Management Report
6. Karst Topography Assessment Report
7. Environmental impact Study; and
8. Transportation Impact Study.”

14Mr. Benner indicated the Township repeatedly identified to the Appellant other information and materials that are necessary to support the Application and the Appellant repeatedly declined to provide the requested information.

15Due to the Township’s position that additional studies are required in order to assess the Application against the relevant tests in the Act, the Township never deemed the Application to be complete in accordance with subsection 34(3.6) of the Act.

Incomplete Application

16The Township asserts that the Application was never deemed complete by the Township because it did not include the information and material required under section 34 (10.1), (10.2), and (10.3) of the Act which states:

Prescribed Information

(10.1) A person or public body that applies for an amendment to a by-law passed under this section or a predecessor of this section shall provide the prescribed information and material to the council; and

Other Information

(10.2) Subject to the regulations, a council may require that a person or public body that applies for an amendment to a by-law passed under this section or a predecessor of this section provide any other information or material that the council considers it may need but only if the official plan contains provisions relating to requirements under this subsection. Refusal and timing

(10.3) Until the council has received the information and material required under subsections (10.1) and (10.2), if any, and any fee under section 69, the counsel may refuse to accept or further consider the application for an amendment to the by-law; and the time period referred to in subsection (11) or (11.0.0.0.1), as the case may be, does not begin.

17Therefore, pursuant to clause 23(10.3)(b) of the Act, the 90-day time period after which the Appellant would have been entitled to appeal Council’s failure to make a decision, never began to run. As such the Appellant was not entitled to appeal the Application to the Tribunal for a non-decision and the Appeal is invalid by operation of the Act.

18As set out in his report, Mr. Benner referenced Committee of Adjustment (“CoA”) Report regarding Big Bay Estates dated July 14, 2008 which highlighted issues related to Strategic Plan and Provincial Policy initiatives for intensification, environmental protection, servicing and long term economic prosperity, maintenance of roads, bridges culverts…parkland dedication, environmental protection areas, hazard lands and natural areas as a condition of planning approval to preserve and protect the environmental integrity of these areas; also issues of access and servicing arose; land suitability. He indicated “there is no information to indicate whether the lands can accommodate development as the slope is identified as Environmental Protection….”

19It is the opinion of Mr. Benner that in the absence of the requested studies, the Appeal has no reasonable prospect of success and discloses no land use planning grounds upon which the Tribunal could allow all or part of the appeal. In particular, he notes the Appeal fails to provide any evidence to demonstrate that it:

Has appropriate regard to matters of provincial interest in section 2 of the Planning Act including inter alia as follows:

(a), the protection of ecological systems including natural areas, features, and functions;

(d) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological, or scientific interest;

(e) the supply, efficient use and conservation of energy and water;

(f) the adequate provision and efficient us of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems;

(h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities;

(o) the protection of public health and safety; and

(p) the appropriate location of growth and development;

Is consistent with the PPS including policies for rural areas, sewage, water and stormwater, natural heritage, cultural heritage and archaeology and natural hazards;

Conforms to the Township’s Official Plan including policy 5.3 related to complete application requirements;

Conforms to the County’s Official Plan including Policy 3.7 related to properties designated Inland Lakes and Shoreline Settlement Area which provides in part:

1. The extensive shorelines within the County have historically attracted significant seasonal residential and related tourism development. More recently, shoreline areas have attracted a greater amount of permanent residential development and/ or the conversion of seasonal residences into year-round housing…Ecologically, shorelines perform and contain a variety of natural functions and features including supporting water quality. The ecological sensitivity and importance of shorelines together with the implications of extensive permanent residential development on the ecological functions of shorelines and the growth management strategies of municipalities needs to be further assessed. The County will work with local municipalities, conservation authorities, and other affected stakeholders to determine the most appropriate management approach for new development within these areas.

20In contrast, Mr. Barclay’s Response to the Motion and submissions indicated:

1. “The Respondent’s (Township) motion to dismiss should be denied. The appeal raises legitimate planning and procedural issues with a reasonable prospect of success and should proceed to a full hearing on the merits.”
2. Mr. Barclay asserts the Township never asked him for additional requirements and never said his application was incomplete.
3. It is Mr. Barclay’s position that the Township has been trying to frustrate development of Big Bay Estates since 1972.
4. Mr. Barclay took issue that Mr. Benner was not called to give viva voce testimony and that Mr. Benner needed to confirm his sworn Affidavit filed during this motion thereby he did not have the opportunity for rebuttal as he indicated that Ms. Dean was inaccurate “in half the stuff she said”.
5. Mr. Barclay’s position is set out in the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The key issues are:

• “Whether the proposed ZBLA for the subject lot conforms with the PPS 2024, the County of Grey OP, the Township of Georgian Bluffs OP and the Township Zoning By-law.”
• “Whether the Township’s handling of the application was procedurally fair?” Mr. Barclay relied on Michael Benner, who was new to the Township, and based on his onsite observations, he told the Appellant “It shouldn’t take more than a few weeks to obtain a building permit.”
• Mr. Barclay indicated during his submissions, that he was not aware that Mr. Benner was not the decision-maker. The Tribunal clarified that Mr. Benner reports to Council.
• “After Council held a public meeting on the first application and indicated they required more information, Mr. Benner prepared an updated application and suggested it would be okay to submit any additional reports after the Zone change. However, the Interim CAO refused to allow it to be presented. In an email August 19/20, 2025, Michael Benner directly told the Appellant to appeal the resulting non-decision to the OLT.”
• “Whether the existing private road and entrance with a fire number provide adequate and safe access under the 1972 entrance agreement…”
• The subject lot has existed for over 50 years and denying the ZBLA would leave the property without reasonable use, contrary to the PPS 2024.
• “The Township is now arguing the very appeal they directed him to file it has no reasonable prospect of success. He suggests the internal contradiction raises serious procedural fairness concerns.”

CASE LAW

21The Tribunal considered the following case law provided by the Moving Party:

City of Toronto v. East Beach Community Association 1996 CarswellOnt 5740 O.M.B.D. No. 1656 (42 O.M.B.R. 505) Ontario Municipal Board wherein the Board granted the motion to dispense with the hearing after considering:

“This is not to say that the Board should take away the rights of appeal whimsically, readily and without serious consideration of the circumstances of each case….What these particular provisions allow the Board to do is seek out whether there is authenticity in the reasons stated whether there are issues that should affect a decision in a hearing and whether the issues are worthy of the adjudicative process.”

OLT PL200490 Davidson v. McKellar (Township) June 29, 2021, 2021 CanLII 58456 (ON LT), decision of Margot Ballagh:

“It is incumbent upon persons launching an appeal to be prepared to have genuine, legitimate, and authentic planning reasons and to have the evidence to support those reasons. The responsibility falls on the shoulders of the Appellant to demonstrate through his conduct in pursuing the Appeal including his gathering of evidence to make his case that the issues raised in his Notice of Appeal justify a hearing. As discussed, the Appellant has expressed a personal interest in the outcome of the Appeal, such that his impartiality as a potential expert witness is lacking.”

OLT-22-0002390 Earls Road Developments Limited v. Muskoka (District Municipality), 2022 CanLII 60862 (ON LT) decision of R.G.M. Makuch:

“The Ontario Land Tribunal Act (“OLTA”) and the PA set out limited grounds upon which the Tribunal may grant the exceptional relief of dismissing an appeal without a hearing and the jurisprudence on this subject suggests that the Tribunal should not take away the rights of appeal whimsically, readily and without serious consideration of the circumstances of each case.

It is clear to the Tribunal that none of the statutory grounds for a pre-emptive dismissal are applicable in this case, as the reasons set out in the Notices of Appeal disclose apparent land use planning grounds upon which the Tribunal could approve the Applications, given that the appeals emphasize the Proposed Development’s consistency with the PPS 2020 and conformity with the Municipalities Official Plans….It is also clear to the Tribunal that the appeals have reasonable prospect of success as the Appellant has retained a number of experts and intends to rely upon expert opinion evidence from two land use planners, a civil engineer, a transportation engineer, an ecologist, a certified arborist, a hydrogeologist an archeologist, a landscape architect and an urban designer…”

OLT-23-000555 Whyte v. Drummond North Elmsley (Township) 2024 CanLII 30626 (ON LT) Appeal April 5, 2024, wherein Section 34(25) of the Act grants the Tribunal the authority to dismiss an appeal without holding a Hearing if any of the enumerated grounds apply, including:

“The reasons set out in the notice of appeal do not disclose any apparent land use planning ground upon which the Tribunal could allow all or part of the appeal.”

Further,

"While the Tribunal is sympathetic to the plight of self-represented litigants and may grant them some degree of accommodation for their circumstances, they cannot be excused from compliance with the law and statutory requirements set out in the Act…Statutory requirements and rules must be consistently applied and adhered to in order to ensure the appeal process is fair and just.”

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

22The Tribunal finds that the relief sought in this Motion to Dismiss should be granted.

23As submitted by the Moving Party, the Appellant would be required to present expert evidence regarding the issues the Township has raised throughout the processing of the Application in order for the Tribunal to make a decision in accordance with the Act. The Appellant has not indicated he has retained any experts in relation to the issues raised.

24The appeal provides insufficient supporting materials and rationale that would allow the Tribunal to determine whether the Appeal meets the statutory regime and represents good planning. It is not possible to conclude the Application addresses the policies and requirements contained in the PPS, the Grey County Official Plan, the Township’s Official Plan and ZBL without reviewing the required studies that would address potential ecological, environmental, cultural and community impacts.

25It is Mr. Benner’s opinion that the Township never deemed the Application to be complete because the Appellant did not provide sufficient information for Planning Staff to evaluate the Application and make a recommendation. There is no explanation as to how or why his appeal conforms with the legislative regimes.

26Mr. Barclay suggests his application raises genuine planning and procedural issues that deserve adjudication on the merits with appropriate disclosure and timetable.

27On November 21, 2025, the Appellant sent a “Final Demand” letter with an Option “A” and Option “B” to Grey County with a deadline to comply by November 28, 2025, or an OLT appeal will be filed seeking costs of $3,200,000+ (joint and several) under the Tribunal’s Rule 23.01 for unreasonable conduct. Grey County responded that the Township is the approval authority for the Zoning By-law Amendment and encouraged the Appellant to continue working directly with the Township to address the outstanding requirements.

CONCLUSION

28The Tribunal finds the Appeal has no reasonable prospect of success as there is insufficient information or justification to support development of these lots despite the numerous requests for specific reports and studies.

29The Tribunal notes that the threshold to grant a Motion to Dismiss is high and that dismissal of this type should not be granted lightly (see East Beach case).

ORDER

30The Tribunal Orders that the Motion to Dismiss is granted and the Appeal by Stephen Barclay is dismissed.

“D.S. Colbourne”

D.S. COLBOURNE

VICE-CHAIR

“Jackie Denyes”

JACKIE DENYES

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.