Issues
Disclaimer
HC Voices has been following this issue because we believe it has the potential to be voted in as a by-law here. Lake of Bays and Algonquin Highlands share a boundary and therefore many roads within their geography. It has been confirmed to us that Algonquin Highlands council has unofficially reviewed the Road Access Agreement by-law that the Lake of Bays group is currently fighting. This group has shared a letter from the Lake of Bays municipal lawyer claiming this by-law is required for liability reasons, which has now become a common theme as you read through these issues. The afore-mentioned lawyer is the same lawyer that represents Algonquin Highlands, so we have to believe that the same letter has been sent to Algonquin Highlands and the other municipalities in Haliburton County. We believe they are waiting to see how it is implemented in Lake of Bays before passing it here.
Don’t make the mistake of assuming that this type of legislation will not affect us in our municipalities. WE have no insight or representation during the making of these by-laws until they are forced upon us. We aim to change this!!
INDIVIDUALLY WE HAVE NO VOICE BUT TOGETHER WE CAN BE HEARD!!!
Road License Agreement
New regulations and taxes for accessing your property -Lake of Bays
Township of Lake of Bays Road Entrance Permit (By-law 2024-055) and Road License Agreement (By-law 2024-098). https://www.lakeofbays.on.ca/ municipal-services/roads/
We are a group of concerned Lake of Bays residents (and taxpayers) deeply concerned with recent municipal attempts to disproportionately download shared municipal responsibilities onto targeted groups of taxpayers under the premise of “saving the average taxpayer money”. We add our voices to those of Haliburton County Voices and residents in Tay Valley Township (https://lsrl.ca/) in demanding accountability, fair taxation and equitable representation from our elected officials.
Background information
The Township of Lake of Bays (LOB) encompasses an extensive rural road network of highways that by statute fall under the municipality’s jurisdiction (see the Ontario Municipal Act 2001, chapter 25, sections 26 & 28). These highways include unopened (aka unassumed) road allowances that can be roads, streets, lanes or dirt tracks that are owned by the municipality but not maintained by them, and that benefit all Township residents by providing public access to waterways, parkland and public utilities as well as provide resident with road access to their MPAC assessed properties.
In 2024, the LOB township passed two egregious by-laws downloading huge costs onto a targeted subset of residents for using these public roads to access their properties—the Road License Agreement (RLA bylaw 2024-098) and the Road Entrance Permit (REP bylaw 2024-055) that apply to USING roads/entrances to access private property in addition to new construction/improvement projects. The Township makes no contribution of any kind (financial or otherwise) to the maintenance or monitoring of safety of unassumed roads under their jurisdiction but demands that residents pay 100% of the costs to survey, upgrade, maintain, and insure these Township-owned public roads, on pain of large fines and denying residents access to their properties.

As residents in the LOB Township, we want Muskoka to thrive. We agree that Municipalities have jurisdiction over our roads and rightfully collect property taxes for the benefit of the Township, however we vociferously object to attempts to download Township financial responsibilities disproportionately onto targeted subsets of taxpayers. As a specific example, the 38 terms of the Lake of Bays Road License Agreement are confusingly written, often contradictory, and have serious legal and financial implications. The lack of meaningful public consultation in favor of rushing this into law can only be looked upon as a failure of governance. Please take a moment to download and read the by-law in its entirety https://www.lakeofbays.on.ca/ municipal-services/roads/roads-license-agreement/ Note that while the Township website indicates that the agreement is only required when applying to work on or improve a road allowance, this is incorrect: the by-law applies to anyone regularly using unassumed roads on road allowances to access their properties. Moreover, signing the Roads License Agreement is a required condition for obtaining a short term rental license. This is grim reading.
What will you be required to do?
RLA 2024-098 stipulates that property owners must (#s refer to specific clauses in the RLA):
- Pay an application/administration fee (#16) plus yearly road license fee (#7)
- Pay to survey township owned roads (#26)
- Pay to upgrade township-owned roads to standards dictated by the Township (#1,3) and pay a security deposit as cash/letters of credit to the Township for said work (#28)
- Pay to maintain roads to a safe standard at our own cost (we already do this)
- Pay to insure township owned roads to indemnify the Township–$5 million/incidence (#13)* *This type of commercial insurance cannot be purchased by individuals
The By-law also stipulates that the Licensee must:
- Register agreement to title to “run with the lands”. The agreement is binding on heirs yet non-transferrable to buyers. License “may be withheld at the sole and absolute discretion of the Township” (#4-6)
- Agree to pay all taxes, rates and assessments relating to the Township lands (…) if (when) they are ever levied by the Township. (#22) and never acquire an easement for access (#9)
- Township can terminate license to use the road allowance with 60 days notice “for any reason whatsoever” and no claim can be made for losses/damages (#18, #11)
- Licensee may not challenge the agreement in any proceeding whatsoever in law or in equity or before any court (#15)
- “defend the Township (…) against any and all claims, losses, costs, damages, demands, causes of action, suits, administrative penalties, administrative orders, judgments and expenses (including legal fees on a substantial indemnity…) suffered by or occasioned to the Township in any manner whatsoever…” (#10)
Why is the LOB road license agreement so contentious?
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.
What Can You Do?
- Stay informed. Skip the spin. Read the details of the bylaw at LOB RLA website.
- Connect with us through our site: https://repealbylaw2024098.wordpress.com/
- Contact us at: repealmuskokalicenseagreement@gmail.com
- Sign our petition
- Register to vote in municipal elections: taxpayers deserve a voice
- Join the discussion on Facebook [this is a landing page, there’s a private discussion group too]
- Read the LOB Road Access FAQ: only 29 roads are listed SO FAR, there will be more
- Read the OMA’s brief on Municipal Insurance reform here: AMO: Issue at a Glance – Municipal Insurance
Call to action
- We call on the Township of Lake of Bays to repeal by-laws 2024-098 (Road License Agreement) and 2024-055 (Road Entrance Permit) due to their lack of clarity, fundamental unworkability, and prejudicial application. Saddling properties with an onerous RLA only serves to decrease property values, cause reticence of banks to extend mortgages for Lake of Bays properties, discourage local investment and make Lake of Bays a less attractive place for young families, doctors and retirees to settle. The high cost of Municipal Insurance is a shared problem—the solutions must engage all citizens and the Provincial Government in solving it
- We call on the Government of Ontario to follow the AMO’s recommendations and (1) reform Ontario’s joint and several liability system and (2) address the crisis facing municipalities and the dearth of not-for-profit insurance providers. The delay in reforming municipal insurance is in part to blame for Municipalities’ desperate attempts to download costs for basic services like roads onto residents.
- We call on all Ontarians to engage with the political process and to support broader legal challenges. Be heard–register to vote wherever you live (FYI you can vote in each municipality where you own property). Contact your MPP and ask what they are doing to reform Ontario’s joint and several liability system because the status quo is crippling municipalities—who then pass the costs down to us. Contact your Municipal Councillors and hold them accountable: ask them “would YOU sign this agreement?”
What Can You Do?
Stay informed. Skip the spin. Read the details of the bylaw at LOB RLA website.
Connect with us through our site: https://repealbylaw2024098.word press.com/
Contact us at: repealmuskokalicenseagreement @gmail.com
Register to vote in municipal elections: taxpayers deserve a voice
Join the discussion on Facebook [this is a landing page, there’s a private discussion group too]
Read the LOB Road Access FAQ: only 29 roads are listed SO FAR, there will be more
Read the OMA’s brief on Municipal Insurance reform here: AMO: Issue at a Glance – Municipal Insurance