L.P. You

The appellant appealed the City of Brampton Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit an additional parking space on a residential property.

The appellant had expanded the driveway without permits, creating a parking space with a depth of 3.03m, significantly less than the required 5.4m.

The Tribunal accepted the expert evidence of the City's planner and traffic planner, finding that the proposed parking space would cause vehicles to overhang onto the City's right of way, creating safety and maintenance concerns.

The Tribunal concluded the application failed to meet the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant appealed a site plan matter to the Ontario Land Tribunal for a mixed-use development.

Following an interim order approving the site plan drawings in principle subject to pre-clearance conditions, the parties advised the Tribunal that all conditions had been satisfied.

The Tribunal issued a final order allowing the appeal and approving the site plan drawings subject to post-clearance conditions.

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a four-storey residential apartment.

A neighbouring property owner was granted party status and opposed the development, citing concerns about density, scale, and neighbourhood compatibility.

The Tribunal preferred the planning evidence of the appellant, finding that the proposed development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, directing the municipality to amend the zoning by-law with site-specific requirements limiting the maximum height to 14 metres and maximum density to 70 units per gross hectare.

The appellant appealed the Town's Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to legalize an existing cabana and two decks on a property located within the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Area.

The Town did not appear but provided recommended conditions of approval.

Based on uncontested expert planning and ecological evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions, including the establishment of a tree planting compensation area.

The appellant appealed the City of Brampton Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit an existing accessory structure and a widened driveway at their residential property.

The appellant argued the widened driveway was necessary for wheelchair accessibility.

The Tribunal authorized the variances for the accessory structure and driveway width, finding they met the four tests under the Planning Act.

However, the Tribunal refused the variance for a reduced parking space depth, agreeing with the City's expert that it could negatively impact sidewalk accessibility.

The appellant appealed the Town's Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit a Village Commercial Resort Unit Complex.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and requested the Tribunal to convert the hearing to a settlement hearing.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and represented good land use planning.

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

The appellant appealed the Town's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application intended to facilitate the future severance of a surplus farm dwelling.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed severance would create a residential lot not associated with agricultural use in a prime agricultural area.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the application failed to meet Minimum Distance Separation requirements, was inconsistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024, and did not conform to the County and Town Official Plans.

The appellant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of an application for minor variances to legalize five accessory structures, including sheds, a hot tub, and a play structure.

While the City did not contest nine of the variances, it opposed the height and setback variances for the play structure, citing privacy and safety concerns.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized all variances, finding that the play structure's minor height deviation maintained the intent of the Zoning By-law, was desirable for recreational use, and would not create unacceptable adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The appellant appealed the Town's Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to divide a rural lot into two lots and reduce the minimum lot frontage.

The appellant's planner argued the proposal represented reasonable intensification and conformed to the Official Plans.

The Town's experts testified that the site contained wetlands, lacked sufficient buildable area for dwellings and private septic systems, and did not meet the Official Plan's rural cluster policies.

The Tribunal preferred the Town's evidence, finding the proposal did not conform to the Official Plans, was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and lacked sufficient room for development.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Town's refusal of a Class III Development Permit Application to construct six street-facing townhouses.

Prior to the merit hearing, the parties reached a settlement that addressed the Town Committee's compatibility concerns by increasing the exterior side yard setback and requiring tree planting.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, conformed to the applicable official plans and by-laws, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to issue the permit subject to the agreed conditions.

The appellants appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on their zoning by-law amendment application to permit the replacement and redevelopment of an existing waterfront dwelling and garage.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the settlement proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conformed to the County Official Plan, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the zoning by-law in accordance with the settlement.

The Appellant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to sever and create four lots for long semi-detached dwellings.

The Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal supports residential intensification, is compatible with the neighbourhood character, and meets the four tests for minor variances under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, authorized the variances, and granted provisional consents subject to agreed-upon conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Cambridge Aggregates Inc. against the Township of North Dumfries for failing to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a new aggregate pit.

The Tribunal granted party status to the North Dumfries Conservation Alliance and participant status to a local resident.

A Procedural Order was approved, and an eight-day merit hearing was scheduled for October 2025.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to facilitate the construction of 19 row dwelling units.

Prior to the merit hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and represented good land use planning.

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

The appellants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances related to parking requirements and first-floor height for a proposed 28-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement that addressed the City's concerns regarding reduced parking spaces by including conditions of approval, including a financial contribution to a parking reserve.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized the variances subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the Town's refusal of zoning by-law amendment and consent applications to sever a residential lot containing a heritage dwelling.

The parties reached a settlement to create two lots with site-specific zoning provisions, addressing heritage conservation and tree protection.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning and heritage evidence, finding the settlement consistent with provincial policies and representing good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the refusal of a minor variance application to permit an addition containing two suites.

A neighbour, whose property shares a rear lot line and is designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, brought a motion requesting party status and an adjournment of the merit hearing.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the neighbour had a direct interest in the matter and that granting party status was fair and without prejudice.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing, directed the scheduling of a new four-day hearing, and ordered the parties to prepare a Procedural Order with an Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Peterborough Action for Tiny Homes against the City of Peterborough's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment for a transitional housing development.

The Tribunal granted party status to Toromont Industries Ltd. and participant status to several others on consent.

A Procedural Order was approved, and a 10-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence in June 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order following a video hearing event for an appeal under subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act.

The appeal concerns a minor variance application to permit an addition containing two suites at 86 John Street in Markham.

The Tribunal established the procedural dates, issues list, and order of evidence for the upcoming four-day video hearing scheduled to commence on March 14, 2025.

The applicant appealed a decision of the City of Burlington's Committee of Adjustment refusing minor variances related to parking requirements for a 28-storey mixed-use building.

The scheduled merit hearing was converted to a Case Management Conference after the parties advised the Tribunal that a settlement had been reached in principle.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day written hearing to consider the settlement and directed the parties to provide the necessary supporting materials.