Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: January 22, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000181
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 28.1(22) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27.
Applicant/Appellant: Stephen Ksiazek
Respondent: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Subject: Appeal of decision
Description: Appeal of Application for Development Permit
Property Address: 32 Plateau Crescent
Municipality/UT: City of Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000181
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000181
OLT Case Name: Ksiazek v. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Heard: January 14, 2026 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Stephen Ksiazek
C. Harris
Toronto Region Conservation Authority
T. Duncan
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BRAUN ON JANUARY 14, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link To Order
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1This was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held for the purpose of organizing an appeal by Stephen Ksiazek (“Applicant”/ “Appellant”) against the failure of the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”) to make a decision on an application for a development permit for the property located at 32 Plateau Crescent in the City of Toronto (“Subject Property”). No issues were raised with the Tribunal-issued notice for this hearing event and, as such, no further notice is required.
2In 2021, the Appellant and his former spouse (now deceased) obtained a building permit from the City of Toronto for renovations to the Subject Property, which was their matrimonial home. Renovations were underway when the City revoked the building permit in September 2022. The City’s reason for the revocation is that the Subject Property is located in an area regulated by the TRCA, from which a development permit was required in order to authorize the renovations. Following the Appellant’s submission of various studies and reports and subsequent unsuccessful attempts to resolve the issue, he applied for a development permit from the TRCA on October 21, 2024.
3In written comments dated February 1, 2025, TRCA staff recommended refusal of the application. However, the TRCA failed to decide on the application within the statutory timeline, leading to the appeal presently before the Tribunal.
4Counsel for the Appellant drew the Tribunal’s attention to the fact that the appeal form mistakenly references the wrong subsection of the Conservation Authorities Act (“CAA”) under which the appeal was commenced. On consent, the Appellant requested the Title of Proceedings be modified to reflect that the appeal is pursuant to s. 28.1(22) of the CAA, which states:
If an application for a permit is made to the authority and the application complies with subsection (3), and if the authority fails to give the applicant notice of a decision with respect to the application within 90 days after the application is made, the applicant may appeal the application directly to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
5The Tribunal granted the request, noting that although the appeal form references an incorrect section of the CAA, the letter appended to the form does reference and discuss the correct section quoted above in paragraph [4]. While the appeal letter indicates that the February 1, 2025 TRCA Staff recommendation amounts to a deemed refusal of the application, counsel for the Appellant acknowledged that there is no provision in the CAA which contemplates a deemed refusal, and he clarified that the present appeal relates only to the TRCA’s failure to provide a decision on the application within the statutory timeline.
STATUS REQUEST
6The Tribunal received one written request for Party Status from Dr. Hugh Kendall, Executor and Estate Trustee of the Estate of Audrey Kathryn Kendall (estranged spouse of Mr. Ksiazek, who passed away on December 13, 2025). Dr. Kendall sought status in the proceedings in his capacity as Estate Trustee. The request raised concerns in relation to the ownership of the Subject Property, whether the appeal before the Tribunal is valid and, if so, whether Mr. Ksiazek is a valid appellant.
7A proposed issues list provided by Dr. Kendall in support of his request indicates that the Appellant and Ms. Kendall separated on July 12, 2022 and lived apart until her death in December 2025. It was his submission that the TRCA permit application was signed without Ms. Kendall’s knowledge or consent. Dr. Kendall takes the position that the Appellant knowingly misrepresented himself as an owner of the Subject Property on the application with intent to deceive and, on that basis, the application and subsequent appeal should be declared null and void. In the alternative, it is his position that, if the appeal is valid, it cannot be continued without the support of the Estate, given Ms. Kendall’s sole ownership of the Subject Property at the time the application and appeal were submitted. For the record, Dr. Kendall indicated that the Estate does not support the continuation of the appeal.
8With reference to terms of a December 5, 2025 Separation and Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”), Dr. Kendall explained that although Mr. Ksiazek is now the sole owner of the property, Ms. Kendall (now her Estate) retains a residual benefit interest in the proceeds of the sale of the Subject Property in the amount of $1,000,000.00, which has been registered on title. It was submitted that, by virtue of this financial interest in the Subject Property, Dr. Kendall, in his capacity as Estate Trustee, should be granted Party status to represent the interests of the Estate in this appeal.
9While counsel for TRCA took no position on the request, counsel for the Appellant opposed same. He submitted that nothing in the request for status and proposed list of issues for adjudication speaks to the narrow issue for determination in the present appeal, which is whether the legislative tests have been met for a permit under the CAA. Instead, the issues raised relate to disputes with respect to ownership of the Subject Property, the Appellant’s entitlement to pursue an application/appeal and the Estate’s financial interest in the property following a future sale, none of which are relevant or within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
10With reference to applicable sections of the CAA, counsel for the Appellant submitted there is no requirement that permit applications to be brought by an owner/someone whose name is on title. Subsection 28.1(1) states that an authority may issue a permit to a person to engage in any activity specified in the permit that would otherwise be prohibited by s. 28. Subsection 28.1(2) states that a person who wishes to engage in an activity that is prohibited under section 28 in an area situated in the jurisdiction of an authority may apply to the authority for a permit under this section. Counsel for the Appellant noted that section 1 (definitions) does not include a definition of “person”.
11Counsel for the Appellant relied on a number of previous decisions of this Tribunal and its predecessor, including Yolanda Flanders Developments Inc. v. Toronto (City), [2013] CarswellOnt 3068, [2013] O.M.B.D. No 221 (“Yolanda”), which dealt with a motion to dismiss appeals against an approval authority’s neglect or refusal to enact proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments. At paragraph 15 of Yolanda, it is noted that it is not uncommon for the Board to consider applications of this nature for lands which are not owned by the Applicant and at paragraph 28, it is noted that there is no provision in the [Planning] Act which prevents a person from applying for an Official Plan or Zoning By-law amendment for lands to which they do not have title. The Board went on to reference several other Ontario Municipal Board cases which considered this same issue, including but not limited to Oakwood Retirement Communities Inc. v. Toronto (City) (2001), 43 O.M.B.R. 102 (O.M.B.), wherein the Board stated:
…the terms applicant and application (reference to the 1970 Planning Act) are not defined or limited in any way such as to infer that the right is limited to one having some legal title to the subject lands.
12In addition to the foregoing, the Appellant submitted that the more recent decision of Dunn v. the Blue Mountains (Town), 2025 CanLII 34633 (ONLT) (“Dunn”), is factually similar to the request presently before the Tribunal. In Dunn, an individual who sought Party Status claimed ownership of 50% of the property at issue, arguing that Mr. Dunn submitted planning applications for the property without his knowledge or approval and that Mr. Dunn was without authority to speak for or make commitments on behalf of entities co-owned by himself and Mr. Milborne. The Tribunal denied the request, noting it did not raise legitimate planning issues but rather, issues outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, such as private land ownership disputes and contractual issues. The Tribunal was also persuaded by the authorities relied upon by Mr. Dunn, and quoted the following passage from Yolanda:
…anyone, not just a landowner can bring an application…[and] if underlying ownership issues exist, those applications are at the risk of the applicant…
13With respect to the issues raised by Dr. Kendall relating to ownership and permission (or lack thereof) to apply for a TRCA permit, counsel for the Appellant submitted that the jurisprudence is well-settled and he urged the Tribunal to follow cases such as Yolanda and Dunn. He acknowledged that the cases relied upon relate to applications under the Planning Act, but submitted they are nevertheless instructive given that the CAA similarly does not require a permit to be applied for by an owner but rather only by a person.
14While some argument ensued with respect to ownership and the treatment of the matrimonial home under the Family Law Act, as well as spousal versus financial interests in a property, the Tribunal finds such arguments irrelevant. The CAA does not require an application for a permit to be commenced by an owner or someone whose name is on title to the property which is the subject of the application.
15With respect to the request for Party Status, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the presence of Dr. Kendall, in his capacity as Estate Trustee, is necessary to assist in the adjudication of the issues in the present appeal. Moreover, the list of issues Dr. Kendall proposes to raise at a hearing are not within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Should there be legitimate disputes with respect to ownership of the Subject Property and/or contractual matters between the Appellant and the Estate, a Tribunal hearing is not the correct forum in which to seek a resolution of same.
16Notwithstanding the foregoing, in recognition of the previously referenced financial interest in the form of a residual benefit on the eventual sale of the Subject Property, the Tribunal directed that Dr. Kendall be added to the mailing list for this appeal in order to ensure he is aware of future hearing events and is copied on Tribunal correspondence with the Parties including, but not limited to, any future decisions and orders.
17Out of an abundance of caution, Mr. Ksiazek had served materials for a motion, returnable at today’s CMC, seeking an Order of the Tribunal under Rules 1.4 and 8.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure and Rules 5.04(2), 11.01 and 11.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure substituting and/or transferring the interest of Ms. Ksiazek (a.k.a. Ms. Kathryn Kendall) in this appeal to Mr. Ksiazek. In light of the Tribunal’s ruling on the request for Party Status, Mr. Harris withdrew the motion with no objection from the TRCA and the Tribunal proceeded to address the remaining procedural matters before it.
DISPUTE REGARDING ISSUES LIST
18Each party submitted a draft issues list prior to the CMC and TRCA objected to the inclusion of the following issues advanced by the Appellant:
a) Is the Subject Property, or any part of it, within an area falling within the jurisdiction of the Respondent?
b) Is the proposed development, or any part of it, within “hazardous lands” as defined by the Conservation Authorities Act, RSO 1990, c C-27 and the regulations promulgated thereunder?
i) If so, would the proposed development have a negative impact on such lands?
c) Is the proposed development within a river or stream valley, as defined within the Conservation Authorities Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder?
i) If so, would the proposed development have a negative impact on the river or stream valley?
19Counsel for TRCA submitted that the proposed issues outlined above challenge the regulatory jurisdiction of the TRCA. He noted that the appeal is commenced under s. 28.1(22) of the CAA, and the powers of the Tribunal on the appeal are only as provided in s. 28.1(26) of the CAA, which provides:
The Ontario Land Tribunal has authority to take evidence, to refuse the permit or to order the authority to issue the permit, with or without conditions.
In light of s. 28.1(26), it is the position of TRCA that the Tribunal is without jurisdiction to hear a challenge to TRCA’s regulatory jurisdiction with respect to the property or the proposed development activities.
20The Parties submitted that the question of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the impugned issues should be dealt with as a preliminary motion in advance of a merit hearing. On consent, counsel for TRCA requested a one-day motion, which has been scheduled proceed by video hearing commencing on Wednesday February 18, 2026 at 10:00 am, unless the Parties, on consent, request a change in format to a written motion through the assigned case coordinator.
21Parties are asked to log into the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/765631861;
Access Code: 765-631-861
22Parties 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 GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html.
23Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: +1-647-497-9391 or (Toll Free) 1-888-455-1389. The Access Code is as indicated above.
24Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the hearing by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.
25In the interest of efficiency, should a hearing of the merits be required following the disposition on the motion, the Parties are directed to submit to the case coordinator a list of issues for adjudication and request hearing dates be scheduled no later than 30 days following issuance of the motion decision. No later than 10 days following the scheduling of the hearing, the Parties are directed to provide the assigned case coordinator with a timetable for the following deliverables, as follows:
Exchange of Witness Lists – date to be agreed upon by the Parties
Exchange of Witness Statements – date to be agreed upon by the Parties
Exchange of Reply Statements (if any) – date to be agreed upon by the Parties
Advise the Tribunal if all hearing days are still required – no less than 30 days prior to hearing
Submission of Joint document book – no less than 10 days prior to hearing
Submission of detailed draft hearing plan – no less than 10 days prior to hearing
26The Parties advised that, although previous discussions aimed at resolving or narrowing the issues under appeal have not been successful, they remain open to the possibility of re-engaging in such discussions. The Parties were reminded of the availability of Tribunal-assisted mediation, which can be requested through the assigned case coordinator.
ORDER
27The Title of Proceedings shall be changed to: Proceeding commenced under subsection s. 28.1(22) of the Conservation Authorities Act.
28All other case management directives above are so ordered.
29There will be no further notice and this Member is not seized, but may be available for additional case management should the Tribunal’s schedule permit.
“S. Braun”
S. Braun
VICE-CHAIR
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: 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.