Roselli v. Ontario (Niagara Escarpment Commission), 2026 CanLII 9723

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 5, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000444

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

Appellant: See Schedule 1 - Appellant list

Applicant: Carol Shelby Gill

Subject of appeal: Approval of a Development Permit application to undertake a lot severance resulting in a new lot, and a retained lot, from an existing lot that supports a single dwelling and municipal servicing

Reference No.: APP-2024-00207

Property Address/Description: 58 Tremont Drive

Municipality/Upper Tier: St. Catharines/Niagara

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000444

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000444

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

Heard: January 20, 2026 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Carol Shelby Gill

Raivo Uukkivi

Jennifer Evola

REPORT DELIVERED BY A. SNOWDON AND ORDER/RECOMMENDATION OF THE TRIBUNAL

1This Decision arises from a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) convened regarding the appeal brought by the Appellants listed in Schedule 1 (together, “Appellants”) arising from a decision made by the Niagara Escarpment Commission (“NEC”) granting approval of a development permit, to Carol Shelby Gill (“Applicant”), relating to the lands located at 58 Tremont Drive, in the City of St. Catherines (“Subject Lands”).

2The Tribunal acts in the role as the Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office (“Hearing Office”) for appeals under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O 1990, c. N. 2, as amended (“Act”). The task of a Hearing Officer on a development permit appeal under s. 25(5.1) of the Act is to determine whether the decision of the NEC is correct and should not be changed. In determining whether the NEC’s decision is correct and should not be changed, the Hearing Officer will consider whether the relevant laws and policies were applied, including the Niagara Escarpment Plan (“NEP”) and the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024.

3At the first CMC, on August 21, 2025, which was attended by only five of the Appellants, Hearing Officer Wilkins requested that the Appellants, jointly or separately, prepare Issue List(s) (“IL”) to be provided to the Applicant and the NEC by Thursday, October 23, 2025. The Hearing Office further requested that following a review of the IL(s), the Parties were to file a final Procedural Order (“PO”) with the Tribunal by Thursday, October 28, 2025. None of these actions happened.

4At the second CMC, on October 30, 2025, which was attended by only four of the Appellants, Hearing Officer Wilkins directed the Appellants, jointly or separately, to prepare IL(s) to be provided to the Applicant and filed with the Tribunal by Monday, December 1, 2025. If the Appellants failed to file IL(s) by that date, or if the Applicant believes that the IL(s) are inadequate, the Applicant may bring a motion to dismiss the proceeding in accordance with the Act and the Tribunal’s Rules for Practice and Procedure (“Rules”). Only one Appellant submitted an IL by December 1, 2025.

5This is the third CMC. None of the 12 Appellants attended this CMC. In accordance with Rule 3.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules, the Hearing Officer stood down for 15 minutes, during which time the Case Coordinator was unable to reach the Appellants. The Case Coordinator also confirmed that the correct email addresses were used to inform the Appellants of the CMC. The Hearing Officer resumed the CMC at 10:20 a.m.

STATUS REQUESTS

6The Hearing Office received no requests for Party or Participant status prior to or during the CMC.

MOTION

7The Applicant filed a 138-page Motion Record to dismiss the proceeding without a Merit Hearing on January 5, 2026. No Reply’s to the Motion Record were received by the Hearing Office.

8The Applicant introduced s. 25(8.1) of the Act which states:

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

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

(b) the notice of appeal did not specify the reasons for the appeal; or

(c) the person who appealed the decision has not responded to a request by the officer for further information within the time specified by the officer. 1999, c. 12, Sched. N, s. 4 (14).

9The Applicant introduced s. 19 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act which states:

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

(a) if the party who brought the proceeding has not paid any fee required to be paid under this Act;

(b) if the party who brought the proceeding has not responded to a request by the Tribunal for further information within the time specified by the Tribunal;

(b.1) if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the party who brought the proceeding has contributed to undue delay of the proceeding;

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

(d) in any circumstance listed in subsection 4.6 (1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act; or

(e) in any circumstance provided for under any other Act.

10The Applicant introduced s. 4.6(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act which states:

4.6 (1) Subject to subsections (5) and (6), a tribunal may dismiss a proceeding without a hearing if,

(a) the proceeding is frivolous, vexatious or is commenced in bad faith;

(b) the proceeding relates to matters that are outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal; or

(c) some aspect of the statutory requirements for bringing the proceeding has not been met.

11The Applicant stated that the motion for dismissing all appeals without a merit hearing is based on the following reasons:

a. The appeals do not disclose a planning justification for the appeal;

b. The appeals are not in the public interest;

c. The appeals are without merit;

d. The appeals are frivolous or vexatious;

e. The Appellants (except Anthony Alpe) have ignored not one, but two Orders dated August 28, 2025 and November 4, 2025, made by Hearing Officer Wilkins;

f. The issues raised are outside the jurisdiction of the OLT; and

g. The appeals have no reasonable prospect of success.

Appeals do not disclose a planning justification

12The Applicant stated that only one Appellant submitted an IL to the Tribunal. That IL, quoted as received, is as follows:

The following reasons for my Objection to this severance is the following reasons.

1. What is the actual size of this lot with full measurements from each existing lot and from the original home. ( All measurements not just some)

2. What size of home is to be erected if this reverence is passed (My understandingt that a minimum size of home not less than 2000 sq. FT.)

3.This small lot will have. A large impact on the Resale Value

4. Small lot creates a reduction in taxes.

5. This lot would not conforms with Escarpments Ideals.

Here are some more serious issues that we are very concerned.

1. New home BLASTING

2. Fault lines.

3. Safety (more traffic )

4. Envioment integrity.

5. Blind spots being on a curve ( vehicles parked on the road creates other vehicles to go around creating accident hanzard because of the curve).

6 Sight lines because of the curves will create severe accident.

7. Additional drive way merging to this already congested road.

8. Drainage will be effected.

9. Community impact to the Tremont Dr.residents Character and Aesthetic

10. Established environmental impact.

11. Forestry ( large tree on said lot)

12. The original owner of this private secluded subdivision had a vision that this area would be one of a kind area close to the Bruce Trail, different species of large trees and large beautiful lots. People of St. Catherines don’t even know that this subdivision exist.

13The Applicant stated that the submissions of the Appellants need to be evaluated to ensure there is a planning justification before the Hearing Office. They referred to Toronto (City) v. East Beach Community Assn., 1996 CarswellOnt 5740 [1996] O.M.B.D. No. 1890, 42 O.M.B.R 505 at paragraph 18:

The Board is entitled to examine the reasons stated to see whether they constitute genuine, legitimate, and authentic planning reasons … 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.

14The Applicant stated that an Appellant must raise issues that approval of the development permit would be contrary to applicable policies in the Act and NEP. They referred to Dodds v. Niagara Escarpment Commission, 2005 CarswellOnt 7834 [2005] O.E.R.T.D. No. 55 18 M.P.L.R. (4th) 313 at paragraphs 23-26:

It shows that a relevant “planning justification” must have some relation to the planning matters to be considered under the NEPDA and the NEP, including other relevant policies such as those issued under s. 3 of the Planning Act … There must be some nexus between the planning issue raised and the matters to be considered in a s. 25 hearing … “because most appeal letters contain some plausible planning grounds, the Board must look at the entire dynamics of the case to give purposive effects to the legislation.”

… The focus of a review into the merits of an appeal under the “planning justification” factor contained in ss. 25(8.1)(a) should be on whether there is a planning justification that relates to the NEP, the NEPDA, and relevant policies.

If an appeal is based on a reason for an appeal that is clearly incompatible with the NEP, and hence fails to disclose a relevant planning justification, the Hearing Officer should give serious consideration to refusing to conduct a hearing.

15The Hearing Office finds that the issues provided do not provide a planning justification that would warrant the need for a merit hearing. The majority of the issues on the received IL are not planning matters under the NEP or the Act. Of the ones that may be legitimate issues, the issues are lacking context or reference to relevant policies of the NEP and the Act.

Appeals are without merit and are frivolous or vexatious

16The Applicant stated that the appeal is vexatious as it raises no substantive planning issues worthy of an adjudicative process. They assert that this also makes it ‘without merit’.

17The Hearing Office finds that the appeals are vexatious and without merit.

Appellants have ignored not one, but two Orders

18Rule 8.1 of the Rules states:

8.1 Role and Obligations of a Party Subject to Rule 8.2 below, a person conferred party status to a proceeding before the Tribunal shall participate fully in the proceeding, and by way of example may:

a. Identify issues arising from a notice(s) of appeal for the approval of the Tribunal;

b. Bring or respond to any motion in the proceeding;

19The Applicant highlighted that:

a. the majority of the Appellants have failed to appear at any of the previous CMCs,

b. none of the Appellants attended this CMC,

c. the Appellants have not responded to correspondence from the Hearing Office,

d. all but one Appellant failed to provide an IL, and

e. the one IL received drafted them in manner that does not identify which NEP policies are referenced.

20The Applicant stated that the failure of the majority of the Appellants to substantiate their appeals is a failure to participate fully and creates prejudice to the Applicant.

21The Applicant stated that the one IL received does not frame any question for adjudication and does not comply with the Orders of Hearing Officer Wilkins at the previous CMCs:

“Each issue on an Issues List should be short, concise, and to the point. It should precisely set out what the issue is and provide a reference to the specific law or policy that is being relied on. An Issues List should not set out a Party’s position or submissions on an issue. It should solely identify the issue to be adjudicated and provide a precise reference to the specific law or policy that applies.”

22The Applicant introduced case law to show that prior cases have been dismissed due to Appellants lack of participation. They referred to Bachiu v. Niagara Escarpment Commission, 2011 CarswellOnt 13319 [2011] O.E.R.T.D. No. 44 at paragraph 37-38 which states:

The record is clear that the remaining group of 18 Appellants failed to respond by August 12, 2011, or at any time since then, to the written request circulated by the Case Coordinator for further information about their appeals. No explanation has been provided to account for this failure, or for their absence at the two PHC sessions which were held … I indicated … that their continuing failure to respond justified the City’s request that I refuse to proceed with a hearing …

23The Hearing Office finds that the Appellants have not fully participated in the proceeding as described in Rules 8.1.

Issues raised are outside the jurisdiction of the Hearing Office

24The Applicants explained that this is an appeal regarding lot creation under the policies of the NEP, not an application under the Planning Act. The Applicants state that many of the concerns raised in the appeal application and in the IL are not issues that the Hearing Office is empowered to consider. These concerns include:

a. built form (e.g., building height, house size, yard size);

b. engineering matters (e.g., traffic safety, traffic congestion, parking, servicing capacity);

c. how NEC conducted consultation;

d. impact to property values or neighbourhood crowding;

e. reviewing maintenance of a drainage ditch;

f. methods of construction including blasting;

g. fault lines;

h. prevention of basement cracks;

i. intent of first owner of the Subject Lands;

j. impact of lot size on taxes; and

k. precedent for future severances.

25The Hearing Office finds these are beyond the jurisdiction of the Hearing Office in a s. 25 appeal of the Act for lot creation.

Appeals have no reasonable prospect of success

26The Applicants said that the appeals have no reasonable prospect of success on their appeals without issues. They argued that the onus is on the Appellants to show why the approval of the development permit is wrong or should be changed.

27The Hearing Office finds that the majority of the Appellants have not responded to the Orders of the Hearing Office to provide ILs and have not provided an explanation to account for this failure or for their absences from this or the previous CMCs.

Appeals are not in the public interest

28The Applicant stated that the ‘public interest’, in a motion to dismiss appeals under s. 25(8.1)(a) of the Act, must consider whether the appeal is in accordance with the purpose of the Act. They stated that this consideration is closely related to the “no planning justification” analysis.

29The Applicants referred to Wahl Estate v. Niagara Escarpment Commission, 2009 CarswellOnt 1929 43 C.E.L.R. (3d) 75 at paragraph 30:

There are other aspects of the public interest that could be considered in a Motion to dismiss. For example, it would be not in the public interest to use significant public resources to conduct a hearing over an appeal that has no chance of success. However, it is evident that such concerns also fall within the ambit of some of the other aspects of section 25(8.1)(a) relied upon by Craigleith (e.g., without merit, no planning justification, frivolous). It may also be the case that the use of an appeal process for some ulterior motive would not be in the public interest.

30The Hearing Office finds that the appeals have not demonstrated planning justification, are frivolous, and without merit. Therefore, they are not in the public interest.

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION

31UPON APPEALS to this Hearing Office by the Appellants listed in Schedule 1 arising from a decision made by the Niagara Escarpment Commission granting approval of a development permit;

32AND UPON MOTION to this Hearing Office by Carol Shelby Gill for an Order dismissing the appeals under subsection 25(8.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, subsection 19(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act and subsection 4.6(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act, and after hearing the motion;

33THE HEARING OFFICER ORDERS THAT the motion is granted and the appeals are dismissed.

34THE HEARING OFFICER CONCLUDES THAT the Niagara Escarpment Commission decision to issue the Development Permit is correct and should not be changed. The Niagara Escarpment Commission’s decision is deemed to be confirmed, pursuant to s. 25(12) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.

“A. Snowdon”

A. SNOWDON

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.

Schedule 1

List of Appellants

1. Jane and Adrian Barnet

2. Pam and Wayne Gilroy

3. Ralph Roselli

4. Anthony and Doreen Alpe

5. Yu (Bel) Chen

6. Frank and Joanne DiPalma

7. Eva Jiani Huan

8. Wenbin Jiang and Yahua Wang

9. Anne-Marie McLatchie

10. Min Ji

11. Jiri and Vlastimila Soukop

12. Rick Corbett