High Costs:  The application, plus legal and license fees alone already amount to a 50% increase in property tax for some residents, but the thousands of dollars in survey fees, insurance costs and tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in Township-dictated road upgrades are potentially ruinous for residents, who would see no return on an investment for a road they do not own. In contrast, the Township benefits from a free survey of its property, free insurance that specifically indemnifies it, plus free road upgrades that benefit the entire township through improved access to waterways, parklands and public utilities, and yet reserves the right to prevent residents (aka Licensees) from using Township lands for any reason whatsoever with only 60 days notice and without any compensation for the work performed.

Requirements unachievable (+ costs out of all proportion to benefits): The generic township-dictated road improvement standards found on their FAQ section fail to take into account the variable topography of the land (hills are a problem), the state of the road (single track dirt versus paved double lane, seasonal vs year round), average vehicular use, road speeds, etc and would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, out of all proportion to the benefit for a small number of residents travelling on seasonal at low speeds, and the need to provide security/letters of credit to the Township to cover these large costs only adds to the difficulties of carrying out the agreement.

The $5 million/incidence liability insurance required is simply not available for individuals to purchase as we have no risk in a road we do not own—a company or incorporated Road Association could purchase this insurance, but the legal challenges and costs associated with forming a corporation are excessive and particularly onerous for a small number of residents on lesser travelled rural roads.

Prejudicial application:  It is unreasonable and prejudicial for the Township of LOB to pass on the rising costs of municipal insurance to a selected subset of citizens (taxpayers on unassumed roads with short term rentals as neighbors versus those on unassumed roads without an STR application).  On its website, the Township of LOB estimated that sharing the costs for rising municipal insurance would raise property taxes for everyone by over 6%, yet the RLA alone (before insurance and road upgrade costs are factored in) raises property taxes for a subset of residents by over 50% instead.  How is it reasonable for government to scapegoat some property owners over others?  If the issue truly arises from the risks of unassumed roads (note that the OMA identifies increased cyber attacks and climate related disasters as other causes of increased municipal insurance rates), why not systematically include all property owners on these roads—why only those where one person has applied for a short term rental license (STR)?  Would it not make more sense to engage all citizens and work to address the true underlying issues—(1) the dearth of non-profit insurance providers for municipalities and (2) Ontario’s joint and several liability system. AMO: Issue at a Glance – Municipal Insurance

Incomprehensible document:  The roll out of the LOB RLA has been particularly unfortunate.  The document itself is unclear (it starts out “whereas the licensee has applied to the Township for permission to improve, repair, maintain … and requires a license to carry out upgrades detailed in Schedule C ”, yet the residents who are being targeted by the Township have made no such application.  Instead, we are being coerced into upgrading a road allowance to Township-dictated standards (that in many cases are inappropriate for the terrain)—irrespective of the cost, the topography of the land, the average vehicular traffic etc—and where the cost is out of all proportion to the benefit.

In addition to the lack of clarity and the excessive legalese for a document that in other Townships is quite straightforward, the tone in both written and verbal communications from the Township has exacerbated the frustrations of taxpayers.  Township employees have threatened residents with bulldozers or trespassing charges if they don’t sign the agreements, and are withholding short term rental (STR) licenses.  Most recently the Township had indicated it will leverage fines of $1000 under the Encumbering and fouling municipal highways bylaw for using a road regularly without having a license.  

Long term implications :  The necessity of registering the road agreement to title (clause 24) such that it “runs with the lands” (clause 4) is unclear when the agreement is non-transferrable “without written consent of the Township and such consent may be withheld at the sole and absolute discretion of the township” (clause 5).  The implication is that the Township, by controlling who can and cannot acquire a road agreement determines who can access the property, and therefore determines who your property can be sold to.  This seems rife for abuse.

Legal implications:  In clause 9, the licensee agrees to “at no time acquire an easement over the access and egress across Township lands” (aka the road allowance) and in #15, agrees to never legally call into question the right of the Township to enter into this Agreement and to enforce each and every term, convenant and condition.  Thus the licensee may never challenge the terms of the agreement, even if they are unreasonable or illegal.  This seems particularly unwise when we are also asked to agree “to pay all taxes, rates and assessments relating to the Township lands if they are ever levied by the Township” (clause 22).

Road License Agreements are a poor solution to the wrong problem:  Municipal Insurance rates have increased dramatically over the past decade.  The Township of LOB maintains that unassumed roads are the primary cause of increased insurance premiums due to liability claims (yet has provided no evidence for this) and has unfairly targeted a single class of taxpayer (residents on unassumed roads where an STR application has been made) to pay a disproportionate share of its rising costs.  This is not sound governance.

In contrast, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) identifies liability risks as only one among many factors underlying increased municipal insurance premiums including the dearth of providers for non-profit municipal insurance providers, Ontario’s joint and several liability system, as well as increases in cyber attacks and climate related disasters.  In 2019, the Premier promised to “fix what needs fixing”.  As Municipalities govern most aspects of our daily lives, municipal liability laws and insurance costs rank among the most pressing issues of the day and reform would better the lives of every single Ontarian.  It’s time to fix this.