Bowron v. Ontario (Niagara Escarpment Commission), 2026 CanLII 7217

Ontario Land Tribunal / Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: January 26, 2026 CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000460

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

Appellant: Azra Bowron Applicant: Andreas Houlios Respondent: Niagara Escarpment Commission

Subject of appeal: Approval of a Development Permit Application to construct an accessory structure for personal storage and recognition of gravel and shipping containers to support the accessory structure, on a lot with an existing single-family dwelling with attached garage, pool, and shed

Reference Number: APP-2024-00121 Property Address/Description: 4347 Sideroad 4 Municipality/UT: Burlington/Halton OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000460 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000460 OLT Case Name: Bowron v. Ontario (Niagara Escarpment Commission)

Heard: October 21, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Azra Bowron	Self-Represented
Lisa Farraway	Self-Represented
Niagara Escarpment Commission	Did Not Attend

REPORT DELIVERED BY BITA M. RAJAEE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1Tribunal Members constitute Hearing Officers and the Ontario Land Tribunal functions as the Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office for appeals under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, as amended (“NEPDA”).

2This Report arises from the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) in respect of an appeal brought pursuant to s. 25(5.1) of the NEPDA by Azra Bowron (“Appellant”) against a decision of the Niagara Escarpment Commission (“NEC”) to conditionally approve development permit application APP-2024-00121 (“Development Permit”) in relation to the property at 4347 Sideroad 4 (“Subject Property”) in the City of Burlington (“City”).

3Lisa Farraway (“Owner”) owns the Subject Property, which is designated Escarpment Natural Area and Escarpment Protection Area in the Niagara Escarpment Plan (“NEP”). She applied to the NEC for the Development Permit to facilitate the:

a. construction of a one-storey 237.2 square metre (2553 square feet), ±7 metre high (±23 feet) accessory structure for personal storage off the south side of the existing driveway; and

b. recognition of gravel and three shipping containers already installed on the Subject Property to support the accessory structure.

4The NEC approved the Development Permit on May 14, 2025, subject to a list of conditions (“Conditions of Approval”), including a requirement that the proposed accessory structure be used for personal storage only and not for commercial purposes. Specifically, Condition 1 of the Conditions of Approval states:

1. Prior to the issuance of a Development Permit by the Niagara Escarpment Commission, the landowner shall enter into an Agreement under Section 24(2.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, in a form acceptable to the Niagara Escarpment Commission. The agreement shall be registered on title of 4347 No. 4 Sideroad CON 5 NS PT Lot 3 City of Burlington, Region of Halton at the Landowner’s expense. The agreement shall contain a term acknowledging that the accessory structure shall be used for personal storage only and in particular will not be used for the storage of commercial vehicles. The landowner shall provide proof satisfactory to the Niagara Escarpment Commission that the agreement has been registered against the lands (i.e., copy of the parcel registry extract and a letter from the landowner’s solicitor that the registration is complete), and that the landowner under this Development Permit is the landowner of the lands at the time of registration. The agreement shall not preclude the owner, or subsequent landowners, from applying for further development permits in future in accordance with the NEP as amended from time to time.

[Emphasis in original.]

5The Appellant owns a neighbouring property and is concerned that the Owner is not going to use this accessory structure for personal use. This second CMC was scheduled to allow the Parties to prepare a Procedural Order and Issues List. However, in advance of the CMC, the Owner served a motion to dismiss (“Motion to Dismiss” / “Motion”) the Appeal. The Tribunal provided direction on service of further materials and instructed that the Motion would take place orally by video conference on the same day as the second CMC.

6The Tribunal did not receive any requests for status prior to or at the CMC. A first CMC took place on August 21, 2025 (“First CMC”), wherein the Appellant advised that a neighbouring property owner wished to seek Party status and might do so at this second CMC. The Tribunal did not receive any status requests prior to this second CMC. The neighbouring property owner, Ms. Emily Harper-Mohamed, did attend the CMC but acted as a witness for the Appellant, as discussed in detail below. However, she indicated that she did not wish to seek status in this matter.

MOTION FOR DISMISSAL

Preliminary Matters

7The Appellant, when serving the Responding Motion Record, did not provide an Affidavit of Service as required by Rule 10.7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. However, at the Hearing of the Motion, she was sworn, and orally certified that she had served the Responding Motion Record on the Owner. Furthermore, the Owner had served a Reply to the Responding Motion Record, clearly indicating that she had received the materials. As a result, in accordance with Rule 10.7, the Tribunal accepted the oral Affidavit of Service at the hearing of the Motion.

8The Owner served a Motion Record containing a Notice of Motion, Affidavit, and an Affidavit of Service. The Notice of Motion was signed by the Owner, and the Affidavit was sworn by the Owner as well. The Rules of Civil Procedure require that the Affidavit cannot be sworn by the person representing a Party at a Motion hearing. However, in this case, the Owner was self-represented (as was the Appellant). The Tribunal considered this matter carefully and followed the ruling of the Court of Appeal in Grand River Conservation Authority v. Ramdas, 2021 ONCA 815 (“Grand River”), wherein the Court provides information and examples of how lay witness evidence can be dealt with. Specifically, the Court states at paragraph 20:

[20] Second, self-represented individuals often do not fully understand the difference between evidence and submissions, even when it is well explained by the trial judge. Such a party might inadvertently give evidence in the course of making submissions. This is not admissible evidence on which the judge can rely unless it is given under oath. One option for the judge would be to swear in the party and allow submissions to be made from the witness box, and to permit cross-examination on the evidentiary parts: see Johansson v. Janssen, 2021 BCCA 190, 50 B.C.L.R. (6th) 122, at para. 33. Doing this would permit the judge to make findings on the evidence where appropriate. This is a tool judges might wish to use in applications or in ordinary motions on a motions day (where such evidence is necessary and otherwise admissible). […]

[Emphasis added by the Tribunal.]

9In the present case, in which self-represented Parties (the Owner and the Appellant) wished to both provide lay witness evidence and represent themselves (namely, conduct cross-examination and make submissions), the Tribunal allowed this in accordance with the findings in Grand River. This practice is in line with the findings of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”). Specifically, the Court’s obligations to self-represented litigants are outlined in the Canadian Judicial Council’s 2006 Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (“Statement”), which was endorsed by the SCC in Pintea v. Johns, 2017 SCC 23, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 470, at paragraph 4. The Statement allows self-represented parties to both provide evidence and conduct cross-examinations as an important part of their allowed procedural fairness. Additionally, Tribunal proceedings are generally less formal than court proceedings. Both the Ontario Land Tribunal’s Act (such as at section 12(2)) and the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (such as Rule 1.6) allow a Hearing Officer to adopt any practices and procedures that offer the best opportunity for a fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the merits of the proceedings.

10In short, in order to ensure a fair hearing for all Parties involved, the Tribunal allowed the Owner to continue despite having sworn the Affidavit herself, and allowed the Appellant to provide testimony while also representing herself. Both Parties provided submissions, gave testimony, and were cross-examined. Of note, the Hearing Officer explained the implications of this to the Parties, both at the First CMC (over which this same Hearing Officer presided) and at the Motion. At the First CMC especially, the Hearing Officer clarified the process for both self-represented Parties, and explained that, if they should choose to represent themselves, they will be required to conduct all parts of the proceeding themselves. Both Parties indicated that they preferred to proceed by representing themselves. At the Motion, neither raised a concern with nor opposed the other Party representing themselves while simultaneously providing evidence. Thus, the Tribunal proceeded as indicated above.

Position of the Parties

The Owner

11By way of the Motion, the Owner asked the Tribunal to dismiss the Appeal and confirm that the Development Permit is valid. The Owner argued that the Appeal raises issues that are outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and have nothing to do with land use planning. The Appeal is based on an unrelated compliance investigation, a personal peace bond issued by the court against her husband, and a private easement dispute, none of which are matters the Tribunal or the NEC can decide. Even if these claims were found to be true, the Owner opined, they would not justify changing or cancelling the approved Development Permit.

12The Owner also submitted that the Appeal raises no real planning concerns. The NEC approved the Development Permit after a full review under the NEPDA, the NEP, the Provincial Planning Statement (2024), and applicable regional and municipal official plans. In reviewing the proposal, NEC staff consulted with the Region of Halton, the City, and Conservation Halton, and none of these agencies objected. Allowing the Appeal to continue, the Owner stated, would cause unnecessary delay and costs.

The Appellant

13In her response to the Motion to Dismiss, the Appellant argued that the Appeal raised serious and ongoing land use, environmental, zoning, and public safety concerns that fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the NEC and should be heard. The Appellant stated that the Appeal is not frivolous and should not be dismissed without a full hearing. She claims that there has been a long history of problems at the Subject Property, including the commercial use of a residential site through the operation and parking of large water trucks, past violations involving a commercial diesel fueling station that was removed only following enforcement action, repeated breaches of a court-ordered peace bond, and damage to a shared driveway easement caused by heavy (commercial) vehicles. She maintained that these concerns were supported by police reports, regulatory records, and court proceedings, and that they directly affect her use and enjoyment of her property.

14The Appellant further argued that the proposed garage is not harmless, and that, based on past behaviour, she believed that it could be used to store, repair, or service commercial vehicles, even if those vehicles were registered as “personal.” She said that existing permit conditions have not been respected in the past and that the new building could allow further commercial activity unless the Conditions of Approval are reworded to be made stronger and clearer.

15In addition, the Appellant raised environmental and zoning concerns. She claimed that the proposed garage would be too close to a woodland area and within lands protected as part of the Regional Natural Heritage System, which she says should require a full Environmental Impact Assessment (in accordance with the Halton Region and Latornell guidelines). She also argued that the proposed structure would not meet required setback distances under the City and NEC regulations, and would be too close to her property line, increasing environmental impacts and neighbour conflicts.

16Finally, the Appellant stated that fairness requires a full hearing so that these issues can be properly examined. She argued that dismissing the Appeal now would reward the Owner’s ongoing non-compliance and reduce public trust in planning and enforcement. The Appellant asked the Tribunal to deny the Motion to Dismiss, allow the Appeal to proceed, and require the NEC to release the results of its investigation findings into commercial use at the Subject Property. She said that she would like an approval, if any, of this Development Permit to include stronger and clearer Conditions that expressly prohibit all forms of commercial use, storage, or repair of commercial vehicles, even if registered in the Owner’s personal name, while also ensuring full compliance with environmental and zoning requirements.

Exhibits and Witness

17The materials before the Tribunal on the Motion to Dismiss were:

a. Exhibit 1: The Motion Record of the Owner, dated September 12, 2025, containing a Notice of Motion; and an Affidavit by the Owner sworn on September 9, 2025, with accompanying exhibits;

b. Exhibit 2: The Appellant’s Response to the Motion Record, dated October 8, 2025, with accompanying exhibits;

c. Exhibit 3: Reply by the Owner to the Appellant’s Response, dated October 16, 2025;

d. Exhibit 4: Letter from City of Burlington to the NEC, dated October 21, 2024;

e. Exhibit 5: Letter from Conservation Halton to the NEC, dated August 22, 2024;

f. Exhibit 6: Emails of various dates from the Region of Halton to the NEC;

g. Exhibit 7: NEC’s Notice of Decision, dated May 14, 2025;

h. Exhibit 8: Additional Documents Regarding zoning from the Appellant, dated October 24, 2025; and

i. Exhibit 9: Reply by Owner to Appellant’s Additional Documents, dated October 24, 2025.

18Along with the Owner and the Appellant, who both testified at the Motion, Emily Harper-Mohammed, a neighbouring landowner, testified in support of the Appellant’s position.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

19Section 25(8.1) of the NEPDA states:

25 (8.1) … an officer appointed under subsection (8) may refuse to conduct or to continue a hearing if,

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

[Emphasis added by the Tribunal.]

20If this matter were to proceed to a Hearing, the Tribunal would make a finding based on the following issues:

a. whether or not the NEC’s decision was correct and should not be changed (s. 25(12) of the Act); and

b. whether the development permit application meets the requirements of the NEPDA, regulations, and NEP, as well as applicable provisions from the Planning Act and the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”).

21Thus, in making a decision on this Motion to Dismiss, the Tribunal must assess whether the Appeal raises planning issues or has merit by asking questions that fall within those two broad issues (identified at paragraph [20] of this Decision).

22The Tribunal is persuaded by the Owner that the Appeal does not raise issues that would: (a) bring the correctness of the NEC’s decision into question, or (b) bring planning matters into question. Thus, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the Appeal is without merit and should be dismissed.

23The Appellant’s main concern with the Development Permit is that the structure will be used for commercial purposes and not personal use. The Appellant referenced a long history of problems with commercial use at the Subject Property and provided supporting documentary evidence. However, the Tribunal was persuaded by the Owner’s submissions and confirmation that the accessory structure is intended for personal storage only. The Owner explained that the structure is to be used for her own cars that need to go into storage for the winter. It is unserviced and secondary to the home. The Tribunal is persuaded that the Appellant’s claims that it will be used for commercial purposes are based on speculation and are contradicted by the NEC’s findings and enforceable permit Conditions. The Appellant’s statement about commercial truck use relates to a separate and unrelated compliance matter and not to the approved accessory structure. Allegations about past fuel storage or commercial use are not relevant to the NEC matter. Moreover, the Tribunal was persuaded by the Owner’s submission that all fuelling equipment had been removed prior to NEC approval, which the NEC confirmed through compliance follow-up before issuing the Director’s decision.

24Most importantly, the Tribunal agrees with the Owner that the structure was approved strictly for personal storage use, and the Owner is required to enter into a legally binding agreement registered on the Subject Property’s title that clearly prohibits any commercial use. In fact, Condition 1 of the Development Permit, quoted at paragraph [4] of this Decision, specifically emphasizes that the structure is to be used solely for personal usage and that this agreement is to be registered on title. Thus, at a future hearing, any argument regarding commercial use of this structure would be speculation on the part of the Appellant and not supported by the approved Development Permit. In other words, in assessing the correctness of the NEC’s decision, no information regarding potential commercial usage would be relevant, because the NEC has specifically highlighted that it is to be used for personal usage only. The Appellant argued that this was not clear enough in the wording of the Condition and that a hearing should take place to amend Condition 1 in order to make it very clear that the structure should not be used for commercial purposes. However, the Tribunal does not agree that this would merit a full Hearing. The Condition, as currently worded, makes it abundantly clear that the structure “shall be used for personal storage only and, in particular, will not be used for the storage of commercial vehicles.”

25With respect to the peace bond and the easement issues that the Appellant raised, the Tribunal agrees with the Owner that references to a peace bond or police involvement concern private matters that are outside of the Tribunal’s role and authority, and disputes about a shared driveway or easement are civil matters already before another court and unrelated to the structure. The Appellant indicated that the structure is to be built closer to her property than the distance of 25 metres required by the peace bond. However, the peace bond was issued against the Owner’s husband, not the Owner, and the Development Permit is granted to the Owner. Thus, it cannot speak to the correctness of the NEC’s decision. Moreover, even if the peace bond could be considered in these proceedings (which the Tribunal finds it cannot), the peace bond is time-limited and expires by March 31, 2026, at which point it will no longer be a factor to consider. Similarly, with respect to the easement, it is not impacted by nor related to the accessory structure. Thus, it cannot speak to the correctness of the NEC’s decision. Moreover, the dispute regarding the easement lies outside of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and regardless, is already before another court.

26With respect to the Appellant’s environmental, zoning, and procedural claims, the Owner submitted that a joint NEC and Halton Region site visit on September 23, 2024 confirmed that the structure is located outside significant woodland and hydrologic features, will not affect watercourses or wetlands, and does not require a full Environmental Impact Assessment (and that this waiver was properly applied). This was confirmed in the City’s letter, namely Exhibit 4 to this Motion. The Tribunal was persuaded by this evidence. According to the documents provided to the Tribunal at this Motion, NEC Staff and various agencies have determined that all relevant NEP and PPS 2024 criteria were met. The Tribunal is also convinced by the Owner’s submission that, in accordance with NEC and Halton Region policies, minor accessory structures such as the proposed garage may proceed using standard tree protection measures, which are typically imposed as a Condition of Approval.

27The Appellant raised concerns that the setback of the structure did not comply with the requirements of the City’s Zoning By-law 2020 (“ZBL”). The Owner submitted that this claim was incorrect based on approved site plans that show that the setback does comply with the NEC and City zoning requirements. This is confirmed by the fact that the City and the Region reviewed this (as demonstrated by Exhibits 4 and 6 respectively) and did not raise any objections. The Owner submitted that the structure location was chosen specifically to maintain required setbacks and to avoid the Escarpment Natural Area portions of the lot. Moreover, the Owner explained that the Subject Property is within NEC jurisdiction and outside the City’s urban boundary, so the City’s standards do not apply. The Tribunal is persuaded by this, as well as by the detailed six-page letter from the City (Exhibit 4 to this Motion), which raised no concerns with the setback and did not mention any non-compliance issues with the ZBL. In fact, the City raised no objections to the Development Proposal.

28Lastly, with respect to the Appellant’s concern regarding proper procedure and an ongoing investigation by the NEC, the Tribunal was persuaded by the Owner’s arguments that the application process was fair and followed all required procedures. The Tribunal finds that there is no indication that proper procedure was not followed, which would be sufficient to require a full hearing. The NEC appears to have properly reviewed the proposal and issued its Decision under delegated authority. The Appellant referenced an ongoing investigation regarding commercial activity on the Subject Property and required disclosure of the NEC’s records in that regard. However, as mentioned above, this is not relevant to the Development Permit at hand, as the approved structure is only for personal use and not commercial activity. The Tribunal finds that this concern does not sufficiently bring into question the correctness of the NEC’s decision such that a hearing would be required.

Conclusion

29In conclusion, after careful consideration of the materials presented by the Parties and each of their submissions, the Tribunal finds that the Appellant in this case has not raised valid planning, environmental, or policy issues upon which the Appeal could be granted. The Tribunal agrees with the Owner that the NEC’s decision was based on a thorough, multi-agency review and found to be consistent with the NEP, the PPS 2024, and local planning policies. Moreover, many of the concerns raised by the Appellant are outside of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Thus, the Appeal does not disclose a planning justification, is not in the public interest, and is without merit.

30The Tribunal notes that the threshold to grant a Motion to Dismiss is high, and that dismissal of this type should not be granted lightly. However, for the reasons set out above, the Tribunal finds that the Owner has met the burden of establishing that the Appeal should not proceed and is an appropriate case for dismissal pursuant to section 25(8.1)(a) of the NEPDA. The accessory structure is for personal use only, such that the approved Development Permit already contains strict and enforceable Conditions preventing any commercial activity. A full hearing is unnecessary.

31Section 25(8.3) of the NEPDA states that “[i]f an officer refuses under subsection (8.1) to conduct or to continue a hearing, the decision of the delegate shall be deemed to be confirmed.” Thus, by operation of section 25(8.3) of the NEPDA, the NEC’s decision to issue the Development Permit is deemed confirmed.

32Section 25(8.2) of the NEPDA requires that “[b]efore refusing under subsection (8.1) to conduct or to continue a hearing, the officer shall notify the person who appealed the decision and give the person an opportunity to make representations thereon.” In this case, this Motion to Dismiss was brought on notice, and the Appellant was advised of it as of September 10, 2025. The Appellant was given the opportunity to respond and did so both in writing (as evidenced by Exhibit 2), and orally at the hearing of the Motion. Moreover, she was provided with the opportunity to submit additional materials subsequent to the hearing of the Motion and did so (as evidenced by Exhibit 8). Thus. In dismissing this Appeal, the Hearing Officer has complied with section 25(8.2) of the NEPDA.

ORDER

33THE HEARING OFFICE ORDERS that the motion by Lisa Farraway is granted, and the Appeal pursuant to s. 25(5.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, as amended (“NEPDA”), by Azra Bowron is dismissed. For further clarity, pursuant to section 25(8.1)(a) of the NEPDA, the Hearing Officer refuses to conduct or to continue to a hearing as it is Officer’s opinion that the Appeal does not disclose a planning justification, is not in the public interest, and is without merit.

34Pursuant to section 25(8.3) of the NEPDA, the Niagara Escarpment Commission’s decision to conditionally approve Development Permit APP-2024-00121 is deemed to be confirmed and remains in force and effect.

“Bita M. Rajaee”

BITA M. RAJAEE HEARING OFFICER

Ontario Land Tribunal Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.