A Newfoundland and Labrador adjudicator acting under the Urban and Rural Planning Act, 2000, upheld Bonavista’s refusal of a short-term rental permit in Pamela Westover v. Town of Bonavista, appeal No. 15-006-094-027. The decision, dated Aug. 4, 2026, confirmed the town’s Nov. 3, 2025 refusal to permit the proposed rental in an accessory building.
The owners wanted to rent out a one-bedroom, one-bathroom unit above their garage. The adjudicator found the building’s approval excluded its use as a dwelling. That restriction was enough to support refusal without considering the short-term rental rules, although she also upheld the town’s assessment under its street-level limit.
Garage approval excluded dwelling use
The town issued a permit for an accessory garage in August 2023, initially without water and sewer services. Council subsequently permitted those connections on the express condition that the building not be used as a dwelling. The decision also describes an email advising an owner of that condition and setting out the development regulations’ definition of an accessory building.
The owners argued that the definition’s inclusion of a domestic garage allowed a dwelling inside it. The adjudicator rejected that interpretation. The definition described a detached, subordinate building not used as a dwelling. Its separate lists for residential, commercial and industrial properties identified the kinds of accessory structures allowed; they did not authorize an apartment in a residential garage.
The adjudicator said the owners had been made aware of the restriction when the garage was built and again when services were connected. They argued that some town employees knew visiting family and friends stayed there and had done nothing to prevent it. Even if that assertion were true, she found, it neither made the use lawful nor required the town to issue a short-term rental permit.
The owners also alleged unfair treatment compared with other properties allowed to use accessory buildings for rentals. The adjudicator said decisions about other properties fell outside this appeal. Her role was to determine whether the town properly applied the regulations to the refusal before her, not to decide allegations of abuse of power or conflicts of interest.
Council referral was not required here
The owners argued the application should have gone to council. They wanted councillors to consider the potential retirement income, business taxes and additional accommodation for visitors during the busy tourist season.
The adjudicator pointed to section 109(2) of the planning act, which permits councils to delegate approval or rejection of designated development applications to employees. Development includes a material change in use. The chief administrative officer testified that she had authority to assess applications under the regulations, and the owners presented no evidence to the contrary.
The adjudicator found the officer had applied objective criteria already established by council. Because the building could not be used as a dwelling, no discretionary decision required council’s consideration in this case. That finding concerned this refusal, rather than removing council’s role in discretionary short-term rental applications generally.
Street limit later amended
The town had also relied on a rule limiting short-term rentals to 10 per cent of the dwelling units on any street. Its evidence was that the limit had already been exceeded on the relevant street. The calculation used residential dwelling units recorded on the municipal assessment roll, not the number of buildings, and excluded vacant lots.
The owners challenged the inclusion of another property because it had driveway access from other streets. The adjudicator found no obligation on the town or the assessment agency to change a civic address to create room for more short-term rentals under the cap.
Bonavista amended the street-level rule on June 29, 2026, after the November refusal and the June 24 appeal hearing, but before the Aug. 4 decision. The amended short-term rental regulations retain the 10 per cent limit while allowing a maximum of one short-term rental on a street with fewer than 10 dwelling units, subject to all other regulatory requirements.
A town notice published July 2 announced the change and said it was effective immediately. The exception is conditional, not an automatic permit. The Westover decision independently rests on the prohibition against using the approved accessory building as a dwelling.
The decision’s notice says an appeal may be brought to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador on a question of law or jurisdiction. It sets a filing deadline of 10 days after the appellants receive the adjudicator’s decision, not 10 days after the date on the reasons.
