Open Letter to RVCA October 30, 2025

Open Letter to Laura Cummings,

Rideau Valley Conservation Authority

371832

October 30, 2025

Hello Laura,

I am following up on your email of October 15th, as well as our telephone conversation October 17th.

As you know, the bridge at Blueberry Creek Forest School was completed on April 10th, 2025 and our environmental planner has, since that date, submitted to the RVCA, all the documents that the law requires us to submit to your organization.

However, your October 15th email effectively ordered us to submit additional reports (In the form of revisions to a report which had been submitted to you on September 23). You wrote:

“The RVCA has reviewed the submitted as-built plan and noted relatively large deviations from the approved plans. The bridge has been installed at a higher elevation (135.96 masl vs. 135.70 masl), an additional 15m3 of fill has been, and observations of the completed structure noted the placement of stone within the channel in front of the bridge abutments.

It is required that the Hydrology and Hydraulics Review Report be amended to reflect the as-built conditions. The amended report shall consider the installation elevations (in particular the low chord of the bridge) and consider any lateral constrictions due to the rock placed in front of the abutments. The updated results will inform if further alterations or mitigation measures are needed to ensure no adverse impact on the floodplain of Blueberry Creek.

Please let me know if you have any questions.”

I do have some questions. They are laid out below:

-----o0o-----

First Question: Am I under a legal obligation to redo this report in the manner spelled out in your October 15 email? Please cite the statutory basis for your assertion that I must comply---including the relevant sections of the law, so that I can read it for myself.

Rationale for asking this question: Your email is full of the language of command: “It is required”; “the amended report shall”; “the updated results will.”

The RVCA’s approach in the past has been to order me to comply with its commands, with the explicit threat that disobedience will be severely punished. For example, in October 2018, the RVCA sent me a letter threatening me with potential imprisonment if I failed to obey its commands:

“You should be aware that legal action may be initiated against you and the company and operators working on the property if the matter is not resolved to the satisfaction of the Conservation Authority. Section 28 (16) of the Conservation Authorities Act states that every person who contravenes a regulation made under subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or a term of imprisonment of not more than three months".

My husband was so upset by this that he wrote back to your office, stating, “I can not describe to you the devastating effect caused by the threat of imprisonment in your Wednesday letter. Robyn was so stressed and upset that she vomited. You need to retract this threat.” (this threat was never retracted.)

So I couldn’t help but notice that your commands are not accompanied by threats about what you will do to me if I fail to comply. This leaves me wondering: on what legal basis am I required to comply? And what sanctions does the law allow you to impose on me if I fail to do so?

The RVCA’s list of commands have already cost us $12,235 for this bridge.

-----o0o-----

Second Question: What are the tolerances permitted, under the law, with regard to the height of the bridge and the amount of fill that you assert has been used. You claim that, in these two respects, there are “relatively large deviations” from the approved plans. “Large” is a subjective term, and allowable tolerances are measured objectively. Do these deviations go beyond what is permitted by the laws which you are legally obliged to objectively enforce? If so, cite your authority for making this assertion.

Rationale for asking this question: If we are within the tolerances permitted under the law, then you have no need to ask for any amendments.

-----o0o-----

Third Question: Do you have any evidence that any impermissible “placement of stone within the channel in front of the bridge abutments” has taken place?

Rationale for asking this question: Your letter is worded to leave the impression that there is new stone, place in the space between the bridge abutments, which would reduce the available space for water to move between the abutments (presumably leading to reduced water flow during a flood, and therefore to water backing up, upstream of the bridge).

But no additional stone was placed between the abutments. So when you speak of “observations of the completed structure”, you must be referring to stone that does not obstruct the channel. Perhaps by “in front of” the abutments you mean either upstream or downstream? Please clarify where, exactly, you are claiming that this stone was placed, and whether you are claiming that it is new stone.

-----o0o-----

Fourth Question: Is RVCA truly making the claim that this new bridge will cause an “adverse impact on the floodplain of Blueberry Creek”? Would you care to explain how this is so?

Rationale for asking this question: The new bridge is 26 centimeters higher than the approved plan. Since the bridge itself is unchanged from the original plan, this means that there is an additional 26 cm of space, under the bridge, for water to pass through. We don’t need a series of expensive amendments to the report to show that this is so. As for the rock, if it is not between the abutments, how can it impede flow?

-----o0o-----

A concluding observation: RVCA has been no friend to the safety of myself, the guests at the Airbnb, or to the students at the forest school. For eight years, RVCA made it impossible for me to construct a new raised bridge. Your refusal to allow me to do so ended only when, this spring of 2025, the old bridge - which the RVCA had approved in 2005 below their floodplain mapping, and would predictably be overtopped by spring floods- was damaged.

This refusal meant that I had no choice but to use a bridge which could be overtopped by fast-moving, near-freezing water, and which finally was pushed off its moorings by spring flooding. This resulted in extreme stress for eight years while we continually monitored the water level and moved the forest school offsite every spring. We also paused our Airbnb each spring, resulting in lost revenue to our not-for-profit operating budget.

The original bridge was quoted at 72k in 2018. My current cost is $134,000, over 88% higher. What rationale does the RVCA have for blocking one’s sole access to their property until it becomes impassable? Given that you operate your own forest school up the road from us, you must know the importance of children learning in nature. Why have you fought us every step of the way, and why are you working with Tay Valley Township in this needless litigation against us?

We do know of the 998 pages withheld from our Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) requests by TVT concerning our forest school, over half of these documents are shared with the RVCA. Why so much secrecy?

Tay Valley Township claims in their most recent August 29th, 2025 affidavit that the new bridge does not meet the standards of the RVCA. In fact, of the 21 points in the statement by Noelle Reeve, 19 concern the floodplain and bridge. I have included the affidavit below.

None of this is relevant to the township’s lawsuit against us over whether we meet the definition of a “Hotel”, which we are legally entitled to be under our Commercial C zoning. Given that the RVCA had us spend thousands of dollars over four years to complete 22 new requirements to our studio build, only to ultimately deny the permit, there is a long history of the RVCA having us jump through endless hoops with no promise of approval.

The township's affidavit is merely an exercise to drive up costs by hiring our own planner to show we followed due process, and where we were obstructed by the RVCA. Our current legal bill is at 9k, but to date we have spent over 400k (on legal costs) to keep our forest school alive and vibrant in our community.

Noelle Reeve states in the final line of her affidavit “However, I have been advised by the RVCA, and verily believe, that not all conditions contained in the permit approving the bridge have been met. As of August 28, 2025, I was advised by Laura Cummings, Regulations Officer, and verily believe that as-built certification by a professional engineer was outstanding and, in fact, overdue.”. Many of the points in her affidavit are factually incorrect.

Given that RVCA’s past actions were a direct violation of your mandate to protect public safety in the floodplains for which it is responsible, I’ll be obeying your commands after you prove that you have the lawful authority to issue them.

Sincerely,

Robyn Mulcahy