There are some very upset residents in the Township of Lake of Bays.
Last month, the municipality enacted a bylaw with zero consultation or warning, noting that all residents who use an unopened road allowance to access their property or make improvements on the same will have to enter into a costly Roads License Agreement with the municipality.
A closer look at the agreement on the Township’s website indicates that residents using an unopened road allowance must pay for the survey of the road, which could cost several thousands of dollars. It also requires that they pay an application fee of $350.00 for simple applications (under 30m with minimal impact) or a complex application fee of $650.00 (over 30m and/or significant impacts). Other requirements include an insurance policy with liability coverage of not less than $5,000,000.00 “with respect to liability to any persons using the road for the duration of the agreement,” and an annual fee of $250.00.
Lake of Bays resident Brigitte Lavoie owns property on Pine Lane in Dorset. She said she is one of about ten residents who share an unopened road allowance to access their property.
“They require upgrading the road to standards that are unachievable—an 8 per cent grade, for instance. We have a hill that’s at a 12.5 per cent grade. In order to achieve an 8 per cent grade it would require blasting… and that’s just one of the issues. There are all kinds of requirements like putting in drainage and putting in culverts,” said Lavoie, noting that the costs would be exorbitant. “We estimate that for us, it would be a minimum of about $100,000 worth of work. There’s nobody here that has the deep pockets to be able to manage that.”
She argued that not only would the residents not own the road, but they would have to upgrade to the standards dictated by the municipality, which she said are not stipulated in the agreement. “They are written on the Lake of Bays website in their frequently asked questions series and have changed over time. So they expect you to sign a contract, but the terms are variable and unclear. For the most part, they haven’t visited the roads, and they’re coming up with one-size-fits-all standards.”
Lavoie alleged residents have been threatened and told that they could lose access to their properties and bulldozers could be brought in if they don’t sign. “They’ve threatened…and made good on denial of short-term rental applications if they don’t sign this agreement.” She accused the municipality of applying the bylaw on a prejudicial basis because it is being triggered by applications such as short-term rental licenses. She believes there are approximately 69 roads that fall under the new bylaw. “They have contacted only a handful of people. So they’re rolling this out really slowly, and what we need to do, and what we are doing, is reaching out to all those other residents,” she said. “What the municipality has really missed is that if they force us into this agreement, at extortionist costs, more people are going to have to rent out their homes in order to be able to afford to pay it,” she added.
Peter Ham owns property on Billie Bear Road in Lake of Bays. He travels about 66 feet on a laneway he shares with four other property owners to get to the entrance of his property. He maintains that the Township should be proving ownership of the land and get it surveyed, particularly if they claim it belongs to the Township, and they will force him and his neighbors to sign a road license agreement to use it. He also said the municipality does not have a mechanism in place to sell an unopened road allowance to more than one property owner.
The other issue, said Ham, is that if a resident enters into a road agreement, the municipality will not allow them to restrict access, which means they are taking on liability not just for their own use but for everyone else’s use, including ATVers and campers.
“They want me to insure property I don’t own… what if these campers start a fire and burn down the whole forest? I’m legally responsible now.” He said there are many who are currently afraid to contact their insurance provider for fear that their premiums will automatically go up. He said he’s heard of people being quoted up to $10,000 annually. “I mean, what homeowner could afford these types of premiums? I mean, if the Township were willing to transfer the property to me and allow us to restrict access, we’d probably be finished with all of this, but there are other people who are more than affected by this with things like having to bring their roads up to standards,” said Ham who said he has been living on his property for 26 years.
“If they can retroactively restate any bylaw to affect each and every individual who ever purchased property in this Township… this is just the tip of the iceberg… It’s open season on the attacks of individuals. Who is next?” He also said none of those ratepayers affected will be able to sell their properties until the issue is resolved.
The municipality maintains that its insurance premiums have gone up significantly and that if something were to occur on unopened road allowances, the entire township would be impacted.
“The Township requires residents to sign Roads License Agreements (RLA) to reduce potential risk and liability for the Township and, by extension, all municipal taxpayers. Currently, if a claim occurs on these roads, the Township is liable for a road it did not assume, creating significant liability for the Township and ratepayers.
“This initiative is a direct response to skyrocketing insurance premiums across Ontario due to multi-million dollar liability-related court cases. The Township now pays over half a million dollars in insurance premiums every year, which is four times higher than in 2015. To minimize the assessed risk of liability by insurance providers and keep premiums as low as possible, staff report on measures taken by the Township to mitigate the risk of potential claims. These license agreements are among the measures the Township has implemented in recent years to protect taxpayers against potential claims and the associated rising insurance costs,” according to Lake of Bays Mayor Terry Glover in email correspondence.
But Ham questioned why the municipality does not put up signs stating ‘use at own risk’ to limit liability rather than creating hardship for its ratepayers.
When asked whether the issue should have been considered when building permits were issued, the Mayor stated: “For new development on vacant land accessed via an unopened road allowance, a Roads License Agreement is required before a building permit can be issued. License agreements have been around for decades under the previous name “unassumed road improvement agreements” and they were primarily focused on new construction and/or new uses not existing development.”
Doppler asked the Mayor whether residents impacted could purchase the unopened road allowance. He said, “Currently, staff are in the process of creating a policy to purchase certain types of unassumed road allowances. Until this occurs a RLA is required to protect the municipality and the ratepayer.”
Glover was also asked how fair it is to expect residents to enter into an agreement with the Township for the use of unopened road allowances when they don’t really know what the road standards required will be.
“Our recent webpage on Roads License Agreements provides direction and information on road standards. Property owners are not required to maintain the road to full municipal standards but must keep it in a safe manner, free from hazards that could cause injury or damage. The standards listed revolve around common-sense concerns to ensure user safety and allow emergency services to access properties when needed. Township staff will review the unopened road allowances and if there are concerns/issues noted then the holder of the License will be notified. Examples of issues that Township staff may deem as safety concerns may include potholes, fallen trees, rocks, or debris blocking passage, collapsed culverts or drainage crossings in poor repair. For more details, view the webpage’s section called ‘What standards must the road meet, and who determines if those standards are being upheld?’
“As to blasting: Every road will come with its own unique situation. Major changes like blasting are rarely required to meet basic road safety standards and ensure access for emergency services. Staff are available to help property owners understand what is required for their particular situation, and site visits are available, provided the survey work has been completed to ensure staff are reviewing only the sections that pertain to the RLA. Please see the next answer for more details.”
The Mayor added that “throughout this process, staff have been available for a site visit if and when required. Typically, this cannot happen until after the application has been submitted and the field survey work is completed to ensure staff are reviewing only the sections that pertain to the RLA. It’s important to note that applying for an RLA is not the same as signing the final agreement. Property owners, through the process of applying and acquiring a survey, will have the ability to understand the extent of potential work required to ensure the road is safe before entering into a legal agreement with the Township.”
Residents say have been accessing their properties for years without any issues. When asked about the existing historical use of these unopened road allowances to access their property, Glover responded: “The only legally allowed historical use of these road allowances is if a legally granted right-of-way or easement over the Township unopened road allowance was identified on the private property owner’s title. If this is the case, the property owner will be required to provide proof to the Township that a right-of-way or easement is part of the title to their private property. Private property owners cannot claim prescriptive rights over public land owned by the Township.”
Asked if the municipality planned to assume the road allowances if they were brought up to standards by private property owners, he said: “No, the Township does not intend to assume these private roads. Aside from Council approval being required for the assumption of any roads, the standards for Township-maintained roads are significantly higher than those set for private roads under the RLA, making them unsuitable for municipal assumption.”
In terms of the hardship the bylaw is creating for property owners in the municipality, Glover said: “We understand the concerns and effect this has on residents in Lake of Bays who do not live on Township-maintained roads, however, It’s important to understand that the implementation of Roads License Agreements is primarily for the protection of all taxpayers in the Township. The municipality has taken steps to communicate and work with residents on this issue. Ample time has been and is provided between the identification of roads and the requirement to enter into an RLA. The creation of a comprehensive FAQ resulted directly from listening to and engaging with affected residents.”
However, property owners maintain the bylaw is causing grave financial hardship. They said the municipality has a responsibility to protect all of its residents and have vowed to seek legal advice and make this an election issue if it is not resolved.
Ham warned that although not all residents affected by the bylaw have yet been contacted, they will be affected at some point.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox three times per week!
Click here to support local news
This Township overreach and cash grab must be stopped. There is no reason for the Road License Agreements (no documented case of actual liability), save another tax without showing tax increases.
Do not forget this (and the many other issues) with the mayor and council in the next election, 2026. These are elected representatives that are supposed to be working for the public and their constituents.
A reminder that all people in the Township of Lake of Bays can vote in the municipal election, seasonal residents as well. If not already done so, register to vote in the upcoming municipal election, make your voice be heard.
Please also email, call, write the mayor and your councilor, letting them clearly know that this is wrong.
This absurd Road License Agreement needs to be removed, if this unreasonable cash grab is allowed, where will it end…
I’m no lawyer but definitely would get one
#1 …if owner at some point was given permission to use rd allowance (they were cuz they were given building permits) is there not a “grandfather “ clause or at least owner needs to be granted access somewhere on property cuz they had one previously .
#2…township should be responsible for THEIR portion at least .Any issues arising from their portion ,flooding ,accident ,lawsuit should be theirs to deal with .
#3 …township should not be able to just decide You can not travel over allowance anymore without fixing our property at your expense .
IMO these issues were all dealt with at planning/severance/permit stage and trying to get out of any Liability by township now is or should be Not Allowed
Suddenly charging people hundreds and thousands of dollars for nothing sounds like something the District would do.
Those on Santa’s Village Road not only had a lot of trees cut down along the road, their view of the river blocked with giant metal guardrails (instead of see-through cables), gigantic bollards at the ends of the guardrails but then the District has the audacity to suddenly charge them hundreds and thousands of dollars more for “waterfront” when they are on the other side of the road.
“No consultation or warning.” Annual Insurance fees of $10,000 . Blasting. Huge annual fees. Major construction costs. Residents forced out of their homes. Enough of this heavy handedness!
Are we living in a democracy? Or a feudal state? This is the kind of punitive bylaw that even extremist councils in thr GTA wouldn’t impose. King Glover and his feudal council should be shown the door at the next election and a new CAO installed.