Court of Appeal overturns Gilmor v. NVCA decision - confirms discretionary powers of Conservation Authorities

The Ontario Court of Appeal has now released its decision in the Gilmor v. Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority case, which was on appeal from the Divisional Court.  This decision is an important one in defining the power of Conservation Authorities in Ontario to decide when landowners may or may not develop properties that fall within the geographic jurisdictions of the Authorities.  In this particular case, a husband and wife wanted to build a house on a property at the edge of a floodplain and were denied permission by the NVSA (and, on appeal, by the Commissioner), even though there was already a garage on the property and houses built on neighbouring properties.

The main reason stated by the Commissioner for denying permission was that the driveway that would have led to the house might not be safe (in certain possible severe flood conditions, although there was already a existing driveway on the property).  The Commissioner's view was that safety was part of the regulatory authority to control flooding under the Conservation Authorities Act, and that her discretion to approve the development proposal in this case should not be exercised because of safety concerns.

The Divisional Court had disagreed with the Commissioner on both fronts.  The Divisional Court was of the opinion that safety could not be an overriding factor in the decision to approve or deny permission to develop where there were no concerns about flood control (and the landowners' proposal in this case would not have an effect on flooding).  Furthermore, the Divisional Court disagreed with the Commissioner that there was any sufficient reason for concern about safety in connection with the proposed development.  I reported on the Divisional Court's decision in an earlier blog post: Divisional Court Decision.

In its rejection of the Commissioner's decision, the Divisional Court also put forward its own interpretation of the development permission provisions in the Conservation Authorities Act legislation and regulations.  Importantly for landowners, the Divisional Court confirmed that there is not necessarily an absolute prohibition on development within areas regulated by Conservation Authorities.  The prohibitions in the legislation and regulation are generally subject to the possibility of obtaining permission from the Conservation Authorities.  For instance, the regulation in this case provided:

2. (1) Subject to section 3, no person shall undertake development or permit another person to undertake development in or on the areas within the jurisdiction of the Authority …

3. (1) The Authority may grant permission for development in or on the areas described in subsection 2 (1) if, in its opinion, the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches, pollution or the conservation of land will not be affected by the development.

In the opinion of the Divisional Court, it was in fact a prerequisite of the prohibition on development stated in Subsection 2(1) that the Conservation Authority be of the opinion that the development would affect the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches, pollution or the conservation of land.  In this particular case, since those potential effects were not present, the Conservation Authority (and, on appeal, the Commissioner) had no authority to prohibit development.  Again, safety concerns alone could not justify the prohibition.

The Court of Appeal has now overturned the decision of the Divisional Court and restored the Commissioner's original decision.  Writing for the Court, Justice Huscroft makes the following points:

• the Divisional Court's reading of Subsection 3(1) of the Regulation as being a prerequisite to the prohibition on development in Subsection 2(1) is wrong; the starting point is that development within certain regulated areas is prohibited; but a person wishing to develop may apply to the Conservation Authority for permission to develop and the Conservation Authority must exercise its DISCRETION to approve or deny a development REASONABLY;
• the listing of specific relevant factors (effect on control of flooding, etc.) in Subsection 3(1) does not mean that related factors such as safety for persons and property (which is related to and is a reason for flood control measures) cannot be the basis for the exercise of the discretion;
• the standard of review on appeal from the Commissioner is a standard of "reasonableness", not "correctness" as was applied by the Divisional Court, and the Commissioner's findings on safety in relation to the property and the development were entitled to deference;
• The Divisional Court's task in conducting the reasonableness review was "not to weigh the evidence, reach its own judgment, and then use that judgment as a benchmark for assessing the reasonableness of the Commissioner's decision";
• "It may be that, as the Divisional Court noted, a Timmins storm is unlikely to occur, but it cannot be said that the Commissioner's concerns about access to and egress from the site in the event of such a storm were unreasonable."

Where does that leave landowners?  Conservation Authorities will no doubt be emboldened by this reaffirmation by the Court of Appeal of the discretionary authority to approve or deny development permits.  The exercise of discretion must be reasonable, but the Court of Appeal has likely signaled that the range of possible reasons for denying a development permit is broader rather than narrower.  The reasons cited for denying permission may go beyond the factors named specifically in the regulations (i.e. control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches, pollution or the conservation of land); the question will be what level of relatedness there will have to be between those enumerated factors and the factors considered by a Conservation Authority for a decision to be "reasonable".

The Court of Appeal's decision also signals that it may be very difficult in the future to bring a successful appeal against a decision of the Commissioner.  In most situations, the standard of review that can be applied by the Divisional Court on such an appeal will be the "reasonableness" standard.  It won't be a question of whether the Commissioner got the decision right; it will simply be a question of whether it was a decision that could have reasonably been made in the circumstances.  Not necessarily the right decision; just a reasonable decision.

Read the Court of Appeal's decision at: Gilmor v. Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority.

Conservation Authority planning to appeal Divisional Court decision

This relates my previous post on the Gilmor v. Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority decision of the Divisional Court.  It appears that the NVCA plans to appeal the decision and is seeking leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal.  This is indicated in a ruling in a related Human Rights Tribunal matter (see AG v. NVCA) commenced by one of the landowners involved.

UPDATE:  Leave to appeal was granted to NVCA on February 19, 2016 by the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

Ontario Divisional Court rules conservation authority was wrong to apply general prohibition on development

The Gs purchased land in 2008 with a view to building a home.  Their lot, along with neighbouring 10 acre lots on which homes had already been constructed, was originally subdivided in the 1960s.  Although there was a shed, a garden and a driveway on their lot, no house had yet been built on the Gs' lot.

Long after the subdivision of the lots in the 1960s, the Gs' land was designated as a part of an environmentally protected area.  The reason for the designation was the small drainage ditch that crossed their land behind the area where they proposed to build a house.  That drainage ditch proceeds through the Gs' neighbour's land (where a house had already been built), through a culvert under a public road, and eventually to a creek that is a branch of the Nottawasaga River, the watershed of which is subject to the jurisdiction of the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (the "NVCA").

The NVCA refused to grant permission to the Gs to build their house on the fringe of a potential floodplain regulated by the NVCA.  The Gs made an application for permission to build in 2009, and provided extensive evidence establishing the lack of any adverse impact of their proposed building on flood control.  Notwithstanding this evidence, the NVCA turned down the Gs' application.  The Gs then appealed to the Deputy Mining and Lands Commissioner (the "Tribunal").  The Tribunal turned down the appeal.  The Gs then appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court found that the CA and the Tribunal had misconstrued the law as providing for a prohibition on development within the CA's area of jurisdiction.  The Court noted: "In the present case, the public interest which the NVCA was authorized to supervise was that of flood control - this limited but important jurisdiction was not intended to be wielded to assert wider jurisdictional authority than the Legislator had conferred and it certainly does not provide a general prohibition against development."

The Divisional Court allowed the Gs appeal and directed the approval of the proposed development without conditions and without a rehearing of the application:

"Subsection 3(1) of Ont. Reg. 172/06 (hereafter the “NVCA Regulation”) required the Tribunal to assess whether the proposed development would affect flood control and several other factors.  Instead, the Tribunal interpreted the law to impose a general policy prohibiting development subject only to an exceptional discretion, and the Tribunal placed a heavy if not impossible onus on the Gs to justify an exceptional departure from the general prohibition.  In so doing, the Tribunal made the same error of law that this court corrected in the case of 3437400 Canada Inc. v. Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, (2012), 354 D.L.R. (4^th) 756 (Ont. Div. Ct.). Properly interpreted, the NVCA Regulation does not prohibit development in designated areas; it only prohibits developments that are found to affect flood control or one of the other listed criteria (none of which were engaged in the immediate case). 

"The Tribunal (and the NVCA) incorporated within its analysis of flood control a concern for safety should there be a flood at the property, but on the evidence, the proposed development will not have any effect on flood control as such, and the evidence revealed only a very low risk to safety, even in the event of a hypothetical extreme flood of rare severity.  The Gs’ application ought to have been approved based on the uncontradicted evidence before the Tribunal, and this court has the appellate jurisdiction to grant an unconditional approval.  The Gs have other regulatory hurdles to cross before they can get final approval to complete their home.  Neither the interests of justice nor efficiency and economy of proceedings would justify requiring them to proceed through a third hearing on this matter six years after they commenced the application process." 

Read the decision at: Gilmor et al. v Nottawasaga Valley and The Township of Amaranth.