Mathieu E. Quesnel

The applicant appealed the City of Pickering Committee of Adjustment's refusal of three of six minor variances required to expand an existing church and daycare facility.

The Ontario Land Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed expansion, including reductions in parking and increases in building height and gross floor area, met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and approved all six variances, finding they were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and represented good planning.

The applicant appealed a decision of the City of Hamilton Committee of Adjustment refusing a minor variance to reduce the required visitor parking spaces from 2 to 0 for a proposed three-storey, six-unit multiple dwelling.

The Tribunal found that the variance was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the reduction supports transit-oriented intensification and improves the streetscape.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized.

The applicants appealed the refusal of a minor variance by the Township of King Committee of Adjustment.

The variance sought to permit a reduced side yard setback of 1.06 metres for an as-built pool cabana, where 3.6 metres is required.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, as it was desirable, minor in nature, and maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized subject to a condition.

The applicants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to permit a reduced side yard setback for a newly constructed dock.

The Ontario Land Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act and was consistent with provincial policies.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variance, subject to conditions agreed upon by the parties prohibiting mooring on the western side of the dock.

The applicants appealed the City of Pickering Committee of Adjustment's refusal of their minor variance application to permit a third dwelling unit.

The requested variances sought to reduce the required parking spaces from four to three and increase the maximum driveway width.

The City did not attend the hearing.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, representing appropriate residential intensification that maintains neighbourhood character.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to reduce a side yard setback from 6 metres to 1.5 metres for a covered porch on a reconstructed cottage.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and would have minimal impact on neighbouring properties.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the township and county for failing to adopt an Official Plan amendment and a Zoning By-law amendment.

The amendments were requested to permit a special events facility on agricultural lands.

The Tribunal granted participant status to one individual, scheduled a five-day video hearing to commence on January 19, 2026, and issued a Procedural Order to govern the conduct of the proceeding.

The appellant appealed the Town of Oakville Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to facilitate the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling.

The requested variances related to garage floor area, garage projection, dwelling depth, front yard setback, and main wall proportionality.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances, finding that they satisfied the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal accepted the expert planning evidence that the proposed development was compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood and would not create unacceptable adverse impacts.

Grassy Narrows First Nation applied for leave to appeal a decision by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to issue a Permit to Take Water to Great Bear Resources Ltd. for an advanced exploration gold mining program.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant met the standing requirements under the Environmental Bill of Rights.

Applying the leave to appeal test, the Tribunal concluded there was good reason to believe no reasonable person could have issued the Permit, as the Director failed to properly apply the precautionary principle, consider cumulative effects, and adopt an ecosystem approach in light of scientific uncertainty regarding mercury methylation and contaminant release.

The Tribunal also found that the decision could result in significant harm to the environment.

Leave to appeal was granted.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings for an appeal by the applicant regarding a zoning by-law amendment to permit a 12-storey mixed-use building in the City of Toronto.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the issues list, and the order of evidence.

The hearing is scheduled to commence on March 24, 2025, for a duration of five days.

The applicant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment that approved minor variances for accessory structures and a reduced front yard setback, but imposed a condition requiring the gratuitous conveyance of land for a road widening.

The Tribunal found that the requested variances met the four tests under the Planning Act.

However, relying on established case law, the Tribunal held that the road widening condition was inappropriate because it lacked a reasonable relationship to the requested variances.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized without the road widening condition.

The applicant appealed the City's Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to facilitate a five-storey mixed-use building.

The requested variances included reductions in setbacks, parking, and loading spaces, and increases in floor area ratio.

The City did not call any witnesses.

Relying on the uncontradicted expert planning and traffic engineering evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances satisfied the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.