- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy and Insurance industries
In Husack v. Long Point Region Conservation Authority ("Husack"), the Ontario Superior Court on January 5, 2026 issued a decision with significant implications for landowners, developers, and municipalities dealing with Conservation Authorities. The Court upheld the position of the Long Point Region Conservation Authority ("LPRCA") that, even when a permit holder disregards the terms of a Conservation Authority permit, the Authority is generally not legally required to enforce compliance.1
The Court confirmed that the enforcement powers under the Conservation Authorities Act (the "CAA") are discretionary rather than mandatory.2 When an Authority chooses not to act, affected parties may have no statutory appeal route under the CAA and must rely on the courts as their sole avenue of recourse.3
Background: Permit Non-Compliance and a Neighbour's Complaint
In this case, the LPRCA issued a development permit to landowners (the "Ritchies") for residential construction in Norfolk County within a flood hazard area.4 The permit relied on a grading plan that managed stormwater through a historical swale along the property boundary. The swale diverted water from the neighbouring property over the Ritchies property.
After obtaining the LPRCA permit, the Ritchies obtained a building permit and proceeded to build their house using a different grading plan, one that replaced the swale with a retaining wall. They did not notify the LPRCA of the change to the grading plan or seek an amended Conservation Authority permit.5
The retaining wall altered the existing drainage patterns to the detriment of the neighbouring property owner, Donald Husack (the "Applicant"). The Applicant complained to the LPRCA, which investigated and confirmed that the Ritchies' constructed works did not match the approved grading plan.6 After reviewing an updated plan and engineering materials, the LPRCA concluded that the as-built works complied with the intent of the CAA and its Regulation and declined to take enforcement action to require compliance with the permit as issued.7 The LPCRA did require that the Ritchies file an application for an amended permit based on the new grading plan but did not enforce this requirement either and as such the Ritchies did not comply.
The Applicant then applied to the Court for an order compelling the LPRCA to require the Ritchies to comply with their permit.
The Court's Decision: Enforcement Powers Exist, But Their Use Is Discretionary
The Application was dismissed providing the following key conclusions:
1. Conservation authorities are not required to enforce permit breaches.
The Court accepted that the LPRCA has enforcement mechanisms under the CAA, including stop orders and the ability to prosecute offences arising from permit contraventions.8 However, the statute uses permissive language: an officer may issue a stop order when reasonable grounds indicate a contravention is occurring.9 The CAA does not require a Conservation Authority to lay charges or take any enforcement action against a permit holder.10
2. The requested enforcement remedy was unavailable.
Although the Court found that the Ritchies failed to comply with their permit conditions, it held that no legal basis allowed the Court to compel the LPRCA to take enforcement action against a permit holder.11
3. Courts review non-enforcement decisions on a reasonableness standard.
The Court characterized the LPRCA's decision as an exercise of administrative discretion, not an error of law.12 The Court found the LPRCA's reasoning and decision not to enforce the permit to be reasonable and warranted deference.13
4. Private-law remedies remain open.
The Court noted that, despite the outcome of the application in Husack, the Applicant may still pursue civil claims against the Ritchies for any damages arising from the constructed works.14
Costs Endorsement: "His Only Resort Was to the Courts"
Despite the LRPCA's success in the outcome of the application, the court declined to award costs concluding that neither party acted unreasonably and the application raised a novel public-interest issue concerning the scope of a Conservation Authority's enforcement discretion.15
Most importantly, the Court decision on costs underscored the statutory reality of the Applicant in the circumstances. As the CAA provides no appeal route from the LPRCA's decision, the Applicant's only recourse was the courts.16 Challenges to governmental non-enforcement decisions engage an important public-interest dimension.
The court also noted that the LPRCA never clearly framed its decision not to enforce as an exercise of statutory discretion, an omission that contributed to the need for judicial review in Husack.17
Why This Matters for Stakeholders
1. Regulatory approval does not guarantee regulatory enforcement.
The decision confirms that a Conservation Authority permit functions as an approvals instrument, not as a guaranteed compliance mechanism. When an Authority declines to enforce its own permit, the permit's practical value may be limited, especially once construction is complete and stop-work powers are no longer meaningful.
2. Neighbours may face an accountability gap.
Unlike permit applicants, affected third parties have no statutory appeal right when a Conservation Authority declines to enforce its own legislation. This is significant as the CAA tasks Conservation Authorities with ensuring that development does not result in harm to human health or property, which would include impacts on adjacent properties. The costs endorsement in Husack confirms that judicial review may be their only avenue to challenge a non-enforcement decision.
3. Private civil litigation may become the primary remedy.
Where non-compliant works cause drainage, nuisance, or similar impacts, affected landowners may need to rely on private-law claims (e.g., nuisance, negligence, trespass, injunctive relief), even if the dispute began as a regulatory compliance concern.
4. Costs risk may be reduced in genuinely novel accountability cases.
The no-costs outcome in Husack suggests that when an application reasonably raises a novel statutory interpretation question and tests regulatory accountability, courts may decline to award costs against an unsuccessful applicant, particularly when both parties litigate appropriately. However, the findings in the Husack case may reduce the novelty element in similar future cases as a gap in the jurisprudence has now been filled.
Key Takeaways
- Conservation Authorities are generally not required to enforce compliance with their permits under the CAA.
- Enforcement powers under the CAA are discretionary and reviewed on a reasonableness standard.
- Potentially impacted neighbours have no statutory appeal route under the CAA where a permit holder does not comply with their permit, leaving the courts as the only recourse.
- When enforcement is declined, practical remedies may shift to private civil claims against the party who performed the work.
- The Court treated the accountability issue as novel and awarded no costs.
Footnotes
1. Husack v Long Point Conservation, 2026 ONSC 60 (CanLII) at paras 4, 26 [Husack].
2. Conservation Authorities Act, RSO 1990, c C.27 [CAA].
3. Husack, supra note 1 at para 26.
4. Ibid at paras 5-6.
5. Ibid at para 8.
6. Ibid at para 10.
7. Ibid at paras 12-13.
8. Ibid at paras 18, 25, 26.
9. Ibid at para 20; CAA, supra note 2, s 30.4.
10. Husack, supra note 1 at paras 23, 41.
11. Husack, supra note 1 at para 17.
12. Ibid at para 32.
13. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 SCR 653; Husack, supra note 1 at paras 32, 44.
14. Husack, Ibid at para 25.
15. Husack v Long Point Region Conservation Authority (Costs Endorsement), CV-25-00000079 (13 February 2026) (Hilliard J) [Husack Costs] at para 5.
16. Husack, supra note 1 at para 9.
17. Ibid at para 10.
The foregoing provides only an overview and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal advice should be obtained.
© McMillan LLP 2025
