A judge has stayed an attempt by a group of citizens in northern Ontario to stop the demolition of the Dean Lake Bridge in Huron Shores. However, the citizens’ group still has the option to try and quash the bylaw by refiling its application to the court under Ontario’s Municipal Act. The Dean Lake Bridge and culvert, built in 1908, has serious structural and deck deterioration and the municipal council decided to demolish it and improve a nearby road instead. The bridge spans the Mississagi River between Blind River and Iron Bridge and is used as a point of access to Highway 17. “The municipality obtained engineering information concerning the condition of the bridge and culvert,” said the decision by the Ontario Court of Justice. “That information indicated that the bridge had deck and structural deterioration and that, absent intervention, its use would be limited to light vehicle traffic.” Repairs would cost $8M Fixing the bridge would cost about $8 million, while decommissioning it would be $2.2 million. Another $5 million would be spent on improving Chevis Road. “Council decided to decommission the bridge and proceed with the infrastructure improvements,” the court said. The decision to demolish the bridge was made Nov. 12, 2025, in an open council meeting that was also broadcast on the internet. A group quickly formed called the Community Voices Committee, and it began legal action Dec. 19, 2025, opposing the decision. In its response, the municipality argued that the legal action was an abuse of process and should be thrown out or stayed. It argued that the group was relying on the wrong legislation – the Judicial Review Procedure Act -- instead of section 273 of Ontario’s Municipal Act. And it said the request for a judicial review was filed after the 30-day time limit. “The municipality argues that, where a proceeding is legally untenable, procedurally improper, or an abuse of process, a court ought to exercise its discretion to strike, or stay it at an early stage,” the court said. In response, the lawyer for the citizens’ group said it was free to choose what legislation it wanted to proceed with when launching its appeal of the decision. Sought judicial review “The residents argue that judicial review has a broader scope of review than a section 273 application (under the Municipal Act),” the court said. “They submit that it would involve not only a review of the legality of the resolutions, but also the procedural fairness of the decision-making process that culminated in the resolutions.” However, the court ruled that section 273 of the Municipal Act “is the legislature’s chosen forum and process to challenge municipal bylaws, resolutions, and orders and that it should not be departed from lightly,” the court said. While ruling that the resident’s case was not an abuse of process, the court ruled that “a stay of this proceeding is the more appropriate remedy.” “A stay may be ordered when there are two or more proceedings in two or more different courts, and they have a question of law or fact in common or claim relief arising from the same occurrence,” the judge wrote. “While a parallel proceeding has not yet been commenced, in this case where one has been directed, I find that it is appropriate to exercise my discretion and order a stay. I therefore order a stay of this proceeding until after the determination of a s. 273 application, if any.” Read the full decision here.
