Resident ordered to pay nearly $50,000 in development charges

ERIN  – A mistake by the Town of Erin could end up costing a landowner nearly $50,000 in development charges, though the matter will likely be decided by the Ontario Land Tribunal. 

Christina Woodley purchased a lot at 8765 Sideroad 17 in 2021. At the time, the land was vacant, as a previous dwelling was removed  sometime before December 2014. 

Woodley planned to construct two buildings on the property: a single family dwelling and a barn with an upstairs apartment.

She was billed for both building permits as well as $26,608 in development charges for the house. The barn invoice did not include any development charges.

Since the lot had been previously developed, Woodley asked a town staff member whether development charges would still apply. She was then given a  new invoice that did not include development charges for either structure.

According to Woodley’s lawyer, Alain Grenier of Duncan, Linton LLP, Woodley paid the invoices in full.

Construction on the property began in December 2021, but due to financial constraints during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as a personal injury, Woodley proceeded with construction of the barn only.

“It was easier, it was cheaper to do, it was during COVID times so I had a budget I was given by a builder and everything went sky high with all the materials,” Woodley told council.

Construction of the barn, which has been serving as Woodley’s primary residence, was completed in 2024.

On March 12, 2025, the town told Woodley  further inspection was required to close her building permit.

However, according to Grenier, “a town building inspector refused to carry out the scheduled inspections, instead advising that [the barn] was ‘illegal’ because the accessory dwelling unit required the single family dwelling to be constructed as the ‘principal residence.’

During a meeting with town staff on June 27, 2025, Woodley was told she  “could request a change-of-use permit to make the accessory dwelling unit a principal residence,” stated Grenier’s submission to council.

Woodley applied for the permit and received an invoice for $48,667 in development charges, which she was told she had to pay in order to receive the permit. 

Woodley appealed the development charges to council on Dec. 3 but on Jan. 19 she was issued an order to comply by a town building inspector.

The Ontario Land Tribunal “has held that it’s the responsibility of the municipalities to clearly communicate their development process to developers,” Grenier told council.

“The land tribunal has further held that in cases where municipalities make mistakes ... they can’t subsequently issue additional invoices to try and correct their mistake.” 

Brendan Ruddick of Loopstra Nixon LLP, representing Erin, confirmed the town did in fact “erroneously rescinded the requirement to pay development charges.”

According to Ruddick, the town contacted Woodley in June to advise that because the house was not constructed, both the house  and barn permits were to be revoked.

“Without the completion of the single-detached dwelling, the barn instead operated as a primary residential dwelling unit, contrary to the [permits] ... and in violation of the town’s zoning bylaw.”

The current invoice of $48,667 includes $33,221 in town development charges, $11,435 for the county,  $2,822 for the public school board and $1,199 for the Catholic board.

Councillor John Brennan asked why development charges on the original invoice where never collected. Ruddick was unable to answer the question and no other staff members offered an answer. 

“If development charges are assessed and collected at the time of the issuance of a building permit ... it was a mistake on the town’s part not to collect development charges at that point, was it not?” asked Brennan.

“I think that was a mistake,” said Ruddick. “But the important thing to note is that what the town is doing now ... is not trying to correct that mistake because factually and legally it’s a different development.”

Councillor Cathy Aylard noted town staff conducted site visits and inspections  “during the three or four years that this construction was well underway.”

She asked if, at any time, there were discussions about the barn “becoming a primary residence because there was no breaking of ground or foundation going on in the primary residence.”

Ruddick told council records show first contact was made in March of 2025.

“I’m not aware there was contact before then,” he said. 

Mayor Michael Dehn asked whether the barn would be able to be used as a barn if it was deemed a primary residence. 

Councillor Jamie Cheyne said he knows others who have a primary residence above a barn or a shed. 

“I knew of one person who lived above the horses, but again it was legal,” said Cheyne. 

Councillor Bridget Ryan asked if Woodley was aware that in order to have an accessory dwelling unit the property required a primary residence.

Grenier told council Woodley was not aware. 

“When was the town notified that the primary residence was not going to be built?” Dehn asked. 

Grenier told council the town was not notified because the original plan was to build the primary residence.

After a lengthy closed session, council returned with additional questions. 

Council asked for an overview of how the $48,000 development charge was calculated as well as an estimate of how much the development charge would be if the barn was considered the primary residence.

Ruddick told council the barn would be assessed a total of $50,556 in development charges. 

After another closed session, council returned with a decision.

“It is moved that council dismisses the development charges complaint by Christina Woodley,” said Brennan, reading the decision. 

Dehn offered his sympathy to Woodley and asked  town staff to devise a payment plan for her.

Woodley exclaimed to her lawyer that she would be taking the matter to the Ontario Land Tribunal.