A. Cornacchia

The applicant, having been successful in its appeal regarding a minor variance application, brought a motion for costs against the City and a self-represented party.

The applicant argued that the City was responsible for the Committee of Adjustment's delay, advanced a weak case, and caused delays through late filings.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or bad faith conduct by either responding party.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to permit an existing widened driveway.

The City supported the appeal.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the widened driveway was compatible with the neighbourhood character and met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to authorize minor variances to facilitate the construction of a new two-storey single-detached dwelling.

The proposed dwelling would replace an existing legal non-conforming one-storey dwelling.

The Tribunal found that the revised variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as the proposed dwelling was compatible with the neighbourhood and the variances were minor and desirable.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The applicants appealed the City of Burlington Committee of Adjustment's refusal to authorize minor variances for the construction of a new 2.5 storey detached dwelling on a corner lot.

The variances included increased building height, increased floor area ratio, an additional half storey, and reduced setbacks.

The Tribunal found that the variances were driven by Conservation Halton's requirement to exclude a basement due to the property's location in a flood plain.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the variances satisfied the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they were minor, desirable, and maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to authorize a minor variance to increase the maximum lot coverage from 35% to 39% to permit a roofed-in terrace on a new single-family dwelling.

The Town supported the application and presented uncontested expert planning evidence.

The Tribunal found that the variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it maintained the general intent of the official plans and zoning by-law, was desirable, and was minor in nature with no adverse impacts.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized.

The applicant appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment's refusal of two consent applications and three minor variance applications to sever a vacant rural lot into three parcels for residential use.

The Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed development is consistent with provincial policies, conforms to the applicable official plans, and can be supported by private water and septic systems.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, granting provisional consents subject to conditions and authorizing the minor variances for reduced lot frontages, finding that the applications satisfy the criteria under s. 51(24) and the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The applicant sought minor variances and consents to sever a corner lot to facilitate the construction of two new detached dwellings.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the consents subject to conditions and authorized the minor variance subject to a site plan condition.

A neighbour appealed both decisions, arguing the variance was major, while the applicant appealed the site plan condition.

The Tribunal allowed the applicant's appeal and dismissed the neighbour's appeals, finding that the variances met the four-part test under the Planning Act and would preserve high-priority trees, and that the consents satisfied the criteria under section 51(24).

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance application to permit a basement apartment and an additional parking space.

The Tribunal found that recent amendments to the Planning Act under Bill 23 eliminated the need for variances related to minimum lot frontage, minimum floor area, and parking minimums for accessory apartments.

The Tribunal authorized the remaining variance to reduce the minimum front yard landscaped open space to accommodate an additional parking spot, finding it met the statutory tests.

The applicants appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications intended to facilitate the construction of a new semi-detached dwelling on separate parcels.

The City did not appear at the hearing.

Relying on the uncontested expert planning evidence provided by the applicants, the Tribunal found that the minor variances met the four-part test under the Planning Act and that the consent applications satisfied the statutory criteria.

The appeal was allowed, provisional consent was granted subject to conditions, and the variances were authorized.

The appellants appealed the City of Thorold Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent application and two minor variance applications.

The applications sought to sever a residential property into two lots and construct a new two-storey detached dwelling, requiring relief from minimum lot area and frontage requirements.

The City did not appear at the hearing.

The Tribunal heard expert planning evidence from the planners who originally reviewed the applications for the City, who testified that the variances met the four-part test under the Planning Act and the consent met the statutory criteria.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert evidence, allowed the appeals, authorized the variances, and granted provisional consent subject to conditions.

The applicants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to reduce the minimum distance separation (MDS) between their vacant lot and a nearby dairy farm to permit the construction of a single-detached dwelling.

The Tribunal heard uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, as the proposed residential use was permitted, compatible with surrounding uses, and would not impede the dairy farm's expansion more than existing proximate residential lots.

The Tribunal authorized the variance.

The applicant appealed the non-decision of the City of Thorold's Committee of Adjustment regarding a minor variance application to facilitate a 6-storey, 40-unit apartment building.

The City argued that a rezoning application was required and that a heritage impact assessment had to be completed before the variances could be considered.

The Tribunal rejected the City's arguments, finding that the property was already appropriately zoned for apartment dwellings and that the heritage impact assessment could be addressed at the Site Plan Approval stage.

Relying on the planning evidence of the applicant's planner and the former City staff planner, the Tribunal found that the four requested variances met the tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized them.

The applicant brought a motion for costs against the appellants and their representatives following the dismissal of a consent appeal.

The Tribunal found that the appellants and their representatives, who were deemed indirect parties due to their collective interest and orchestration of the appeal, engaged in conduct that was unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious.

The Tribunal awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis against the appellants and the indirect parties jointly and severally, finding their behaviour to be an abuse of process.

The applicant appealed the City's Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance application to facilitate the development of a three-storey, 10-unit apartment building for student housing.

The requested variances included an additional apartment building, reduced setbacks, increased lot coverage, reduced landscaped open space, and reduced parking.

The Tribunal found that the variances were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal preferred the planning evidence of the applicant's planner and the City's planner over the independent planner retained by the City, finding that the variances maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and zoning by-laws, were minor in nature, and resulted in a desirable development.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to a condition regarding parking warnings in purchase and lease agreements.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying minor variances to permit the construction of a detached secondary dwelling unit in their rear yard.

The variances sought to reduce the minimum side yard setback and the minimum width of the unobstructed access path.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal, preferring the City's expert evidence that the proposed variances would result in massing, drainage, and access issues.

The Tribunal found the application failed the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, and was neither desirable nor minor.

The applicant appealed the refusal of a consent application by the Norfolk County Committee of Adjustment.

The application sought a minor boundary adjustment to add a 1.181-acre parcel from an adjacent property to the subject property to facilitate the construction of an accessory structure.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the application was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Official Plan, and satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent was granted subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision authorizing minor variances for lot coverage, side yard setback, and garage face setback to facilitate the construction of a new dwelling.

The appellant failed to appear at the hearing.

The Tribunal proceeded in the appellant's absence and accepted the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the variances met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The applicants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying their application under s. 45(2)(b) of the Planning Act to permit a dog food production facility on their property.

The property was zoned Rural General, which permitted kennels and accessory uses.

The Tribunal found that the dog food processing business, which supplied internet customers and retail stores, was an independent use and not accessory to the kennel.

The Tribunal also held that s. 45(2)(b) did not apply because the zoning by-law defined kennel and accessory uses specifically, not in general terms.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the decision of the County of Elgin Land Division Committee granting a consent application to sever a new residential lot with reduced frontage.

The Tribunal found, based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, that the proposed severance conforms to the applicable Official Plans and meets the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed and the provisional consent was upheld subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of London Committee of Adjustment's denial of a consent application for a lot boundary adjustment.

The adjustment would reduce the lot area of the subject property and increase the lot area of an adjacent lot to form a larger lot utilizable for residential development.

The Tribunal found that the consent application met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the City's Official Plan and the London Plan.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent was granted subject to conditions.