Magnetawan yurt owners must apply for permits or remove structure, court rules

Owners of a substantial yurt in Magnetawan must submit a perfected application for the required permit and/or zoning amendments within 30 days or remove both the yurt and its deck, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled. A separate injunction bars entry and occupancy while the required authorization remains outstanding.

In The Corporation of the Municipality of Magnetawan v. Owens, 2026 ONSC 5691, released October 7, 2026, Justice R.A. Bellows rejected the owners’ argument that their canvas-covered structure qualified as a tent exempt from a building permit. The decision turned on its construction, size and permanence, rather than establishing a blanket prohibition on yurts.

A permanent structure, the court found

The municipality and its chief building official sought to enforce a May 31, 2024 order to comply concerning a yurt installed without a permit. The matter was heard as a summary judgment motion on an application, supported by affidavits from the building official and the owners.

The yurt had been purchased in 2021 and installed in 2022. It remained securely attached to a raised wooden deck accessible by stairs or a ramp. Measuring 615 square feet and weighing approximately 2,000 pounds, it had required heavy equipment for installation.

Its canvas covering was supported by 50 rafters. Other features included a lockable steel door in a solid wooden frame and a wood stove vented outdoors.

The owners argued that the structure was portable, could be disassembled and fell below the 645-square-foot size they said qualified for the tent exemption. They also maintained that a removal order would effectively require demolition.

Bellows found that fabric construction and the possibility of transport after substantial disassembly did not make this structure a tent. Its features and continued presence since 2022 supported the opposite conclusion. The court found it was not temporary or intended to be temporary, and the owners had no intention of removing or relocating it.

The judge also considered earlier decisions involving fabric-covered structures treated as buildings. Their relevance was the structures’ purpose and permanence: a canvas exterior did not itself displace the building-permit requirements. In this case, Bellows found the tent exemption depended heavily on the temporary character of an event-style tent.

Compliance order and deck also upheld

The owners separately challenged the wording of the municipal order. They accepted that it used the prescribed form but argued that it should have directed them to apply for a permit, rather than referring to the prohibition on building without one and requiring removal.

The municipality responded that its information came from staff observations and that it believed a permit application would not succeed. Bellows found the order sufficiently identified the unauthorized yurt and the action required for compliance, and held it enforceable.

Treating the deck separately did not resolve the permit problem. Although the record contained no measurement establishing its height above ground, height was only one requirement for an exemption. The court found the deck was approximately six times the permitted area for an exempt deck and required a permit in its own right.

An application option, but no continued occupancy

The court also found a zoning amendment would be required. The owners asked for an opportunity to seek the necessary approvals while continuing to use the structure. Although the municipality’s primary position was removal, it did not oppose a short period for submitting an application.

The resulting order gives the owners 30 days either to submit a perfected application for a permit and/or zoning amendments as required, or to comply with the municipal order by removing both unauthorized structures: the yurt and the deck. That application option does not guarantee approval.

The separate permanent injunction commences October 9, 2026. It restrains the owners, their guests, tenants, invitees, employees and others from entering or occupying the yurt until a building permit has been issued and/or the chief building official has lifted the compliance order and confirmed in writing that entry and occupancy are permitted. Submitting an application alone does not authorize continued use.

The reasons do not establish whether an application has since been submitted, permission granted or either structure removed. Costs were left for agreement or further written submissions; the decision fixes no costs amount.