Prince Edward Island’s Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission has upheld a permit for a non-commercial storage building in Lake Verde, while making clear that the ruling does not settle the neighbours’ property boundary or excuse construction that breaches required setbacks.
In Squires v. Minister of Housing, Land and Communities, 2026 PEIRAC 26, issued May 28, 2026 as Order LA26-06, Vice Chair Kerri Carpenter and Commissioner Gordon MacFarlane dismissed Willemina and Floyd Squires’ appeal of a permit issued to their neighbour, Anthony McQuillan.
The commission found the permit properly authorized construction in accordance with the submitted plans and applicable regulations. If the developer had placed the boundary incorrectly on his application and the building did not meet the required setbacks, enforcement would be a matter for the minister, not something the commission could resolve in this appeal.
A permit appeal delayed by a boundary dispute
McQuillan applied in March 2022 to construct a detached storage building, and the minister issued the permit that May. The Squires appealed in June, questioning the boundary line and asking for a licensed surveyor to confirm the building’s location before construction. They later clarified that their objection was to a permit allegedly based on insufficient or erroneous information.
The commission initially put the appeal on hold because the evidence about the boundary was inconsistent and it could not decide that legal dispute. It extended the pause in May 2024 to allow a court determination. That December, however, the Squires’ lawyer advised that a title review had found no uncertainty about the boundary and that they would not pursue the proposed court application.
The commission subsequently chose to decide the permit appeal in writing. It circulated a list of the material received and invited further submissions. Counsel for the Squires and the minister declined to add evidence or submissions, and the developer did not respond.
What the permit authorized
The Squires argued that a survey showed errors in the developer’s sketch and that the proposed building’s staked location had no side yard and encroached on a public road. They said they were not asking the commission to draw the boundary, but to ensure that setbacks were measured from the correct line. Those were their allegations, not findings that the structure was unlawfully located.
The developer maintained that his information used the original boundary and complied with the required setbacks. He said he had obtained a survey, but did not provide it to the commission. The minister argued that the development officer had properly assessed the application and that deciding the location of a property boundary was outside the permit process.
The commission applied its usual two-part planning-appeal approach: whether proper procedures, including procedural fairness, were followed, and whether the decision complied with planning law and sound planning principles. It would then consider whether to substitute its own decision, while recognizing that it did not lightly interfere with the planning authority.
The regulations generally required a building to be at least 15 feet from a side or rear lot line. No party argued that an exception applied. The developer’s sketch identified a 28-foot setback from the left-side line, exceeding that regulatory minimum. The application also declared that its statements were complete and true, and a development officer’s inspection report recorded a site visit and compliance with the minimum setbacks.
Crucially, the permit required construction in accordance with the submitted plans and information, as well as compliance with the regulations. The commission therefore treated it as authorizing a building at least 28 feet from the left-side property line, not as permission to ignore the actual boundary or the applicable setback.
The minister could request additional information, including a survey, but the commission did not find the choice not to request one unreasonable in these circumstances. It appeared that evidence of a boundary dispute had arisen only after the permit was issued. The decision did not establish that surveys are never necessary for development applications.
Boundary and enforcement questions left outside the appeal
The commission concluded that the permitting process complied with the regulations and that the permit authorized compliant construction. It nevertheless said it had no jurisdiction to settle the boundary’s exact location: that remained a matter for the parties, with courts having the final say on legal boundary disputes.
The appeal was denied. The result preserves the permit, but is not a ruling that any building as actually located complies with it. The commission expressly left possible non-compliance for enforcement by the minister, rather than treating a valid permit as a defence to building in the wrong place.
