To Enforce or Not to Enforce: Court Upholds Conservation Authority’s Discretion

A neighbouring landowner sought to compel the Long Point Region Conservation Authority to enforce compliance with a permit after the permit holders built contrary to the approved grading plan. Although the authority confirmed the deviation, it determined the completed work complied with the legislation and declined to take enforcement action. The Court held that the enforcement powers under the statute were discretionary and found the decision reasonable and entitled to deference, dismissing the application.

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Conservation Authority – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Discretion of delegated authority – Statutory powers; Municipalities – Building permits.

Husack v. Long Point Conservation, [2026] O.J. No. 7, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, January 5, 2026, A.D. Hilliard J.

This application concerned a dispute between neighbouring property owners in Norfolk County concerning development within a flood hazard zone along Lake Erie regulated by the Long Point Region Conservation Authority (LPRCA). The LPRCA is a conservation authority duly constituted pursuant to the provisions of the Conservation Authorities Act.

The applicant, Mr. Husack, owns property adjacent to property owned by Ms. and Mr. Ritchie. The Ritchies obtained a permit from the LPRCA to construct a dwelling based on a grading plan that included a swale for stormwater management. However, the municipal building permit later approved a revised grading plan that replaced the swale with a retaining wall. The LPRCA was not notified of this change.

After construction was completed, Mr. Husack complained to the LPRCA that the Ritchies had deviated from the approved grading plan. The LPRCA investigated and confirmed the deviation from the original permit. The Ritchies subsequently submitted an updated site plan and an engineer’s letter indicating that the revised grading complied with municipal standards. After reviewing the material, the LPRCA concluded that the completed work conformed with the Conservation Authorities Act and its regulations and decided not to take enforcement action.

Mr. Husack sought a court order compelling the LPRCA to enforce its permit. The Court identified two primary issues: 1) whether the LPRCA has authority to order compliance with its permit; and 2) what role the Court plays in reviewing the LPRCA’s decision not to take enforcement action.

The Court held that while the LPRCA has enforcement tools under the statue, such as stop work orders and the ability to lay charges, those powers are discretionary, not mandatory. As construction was completed, a stop order would have been moot. Although the Ritchies’ deviation from the approved grading plan technically constituted a breach of the permit conditions, nothing in the in the legislation required the LPRCA to prosecute the breach.

Turning to the second issue, the Court applied the reasonableness standard from Vavilov. The Court rejected the applicant’s characterization of the decision as an error of law and found that the LPRCA’s choice not to enforce was an exercise of statutory discretion. The Court found that the LPRCA provided adequate reasons for its decision not to enforce.

The decision was therefore reasonable and entitled to deference. The application was dismissed. This case was digested by Morgan Barber.  If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact her directly at [email protected].