S. Gopikrishna

The applicant appealed the City of Richmond Hill Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consent to sever a residential lot and associated minor variances.

The applicant sought to create a new lot and retain the existing dwelling.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed severance failed to satisfy the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, primarily because the Official Plan required such severances to proceed via a Zoning By-law Amendment rather than a minor variance application.

Consequently, the Tribunal also found that the requested variances failed the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit the construction of a single detached dwelling on an existing lot of record fronting an unassumed public road.

The municipality opposed the variance primarily due to unresolved liability concerns regarding potential damage to the road during construction, as the property was not part of an adjacent subdivision agreement.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on a conditional basis, finding that the variance satisfied the four tests under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal preferred the appellant's planning evidence over the municipality's circular liability arguments, but imposed a condition requiring the parties to resolve the liability issue within six months.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a residential townhouse development.

The parties agreed on a Procedural Order and Issues List, and requested a 10-day hearing.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled a 10-day video hearing to commence on November 24, 2025.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to regularize an existing gazebo located near a municipal drain.

The core issue was a requested reduction of the minimum setback from the drain from 10.4 metres to 0 metres.

The Tribunal preferred the appellants' expert engineering evidence, which confirmed the slope was stable and not prone to erosion, over the municipality's reliance on a 1988 drainage report.

Finding that the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances.

The appellant appealed the City of Brampton Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to increase the maximum permitted driveway width from 6.71 metres to 8.1 metres.

The variance was sought to accommodate parking for a proposed three-unit dwelling.

The Tribunal found that the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the widened driveway would not result in unacceptable adverse impacts on the streetscape, drainage, or pedestrian safety, provided it was tapered to avoid a wider curb cut.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized subject to conditions, including the submission of a tree evaluation report.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision that approved variances to retain an as-built gazebo but imposed a condition requiring the removal of a patio.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to authorize the variances subject only to a condition requiring a Site Plan Agreement for a planting plan to re-vegetate the shoreline buffer, without requiring the patio's removal.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and allowed the appeal in part to authorize the variances subject to the revised condition.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit three two-storey stacked townhouses.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed development conforms to the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 and the Town of Lindsay Official Plan, representing appropriate residential intensification.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law was amended in accordance with the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a final order allowing the appeal by the applicant regarding a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a Temporary Use By-law to permit a fire training academy in Tay Township.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the pre-requisite matters identified in its previous Interim Order had been fulfilled, and approved the Zoning By-law Amendment.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision regarding minor variances for a driveway extension and accessory structure.

At the commencement of the hearing, the appellant requested an adjournment to retain an expert witness, noting their newly retained counsel was absent.

The City opposed the adjournment.

The Tribunal reluctantly granted the adjournment to prevent prejudice to the appellant, setting a peremptory hearing date and ordering the advance exchange of witness statements and documents.

The appellants appealed a condition of consent imposed by the Town of Leamington that required closing access to County Road 34 from the severed lands.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties informed the Tribunal that they had reached a settlement, approved by the Municipal Council, to install an entrance gate instead of closing the access.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit settlement documents, after which a settlement hearing will be scheduled.

The City of Oshawa appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to reduce the required front yard landscaped open space from 50% to 45.9% to accommodate a parking space for an accessory apartment.

The City argued the variance would necessitate the removal of a municipal tree and a fire hydrant to allow a curb cut.

The Tribunal found that the practical challenges of operationalizing the variance, such as tree removal, were separate from the planning merits of the variance itself.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's planning evidence, finding the variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, and dismissed the appeal, authorizing the variance subject to a condition.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit stacked townhouses.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to a local resident's association.

The parties advised that a settlement had been reached, and the Tribunal scheduled a settlement hearing for October 28, 2024.

The appellants appealed the Township's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment that would rezone a severed portion of agricultural land to Rural Residential.

The Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert planning evidence from the Township's Manager of Planning, who had been summoned by the appellants, that the amendment did not conform to the applicable Official Plans and was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement because it would result in the loss of agricultural land and exceed the permitted number of severances.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and repealed the Zoning By-law Amendment.

The applicant appealed the Town of Aurora's failure to make decisions on applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to facilitate an 8-storey mixed-use building.

Following a settlement between the parties, the Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments, finding them consistent with provincial policies and representing good planning.

The appellant appealed the Town of Aurora's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate an 8-storey mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement proposing two 9-storey buildings connected by a central lobby, with an urban square.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposal conformed to the Provincial Policy Statement, Growth Plan, and applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending submission of the final amendment documents.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a high-density residential development.

Following an interim decision that withheld the final order pending the fulfillment of certain conditions, the Tribunal was advised that the conditions had been met.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and approved the final Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to reduce the front yard setback from 7.5 metres to 0.6 metres for a sleeping cabin on a private island.

The Tribunal found that the reduced setback would result in unacceptable adverse visual impacts on the shoreline and neighbouring properties, contrary to the Official Plan's goal of preserving the natural waterfront character.

The Tribunal preferred the municipality's planning evidence and concluded the variance failed all four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the Township of Tay's refusal of a temporary Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a fire training academy on a portion of agricultural lands for a three-year period.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed temporary use was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, as it would not preclude the long-term agricultural use of the site.

The appeal was allowed on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending submission of the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendment.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the City of Windsor Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to create three new lots.

Several neighbouring residents requested and were granted party status.

The appellant proposed changes to the requested variances during the hearing.

The Tribunal determined that new notice was required for the amended variances.

After notice was circulated and no objections to the changes were raised at a subsequent hearing, the Tribunal scheduled a two-day hearing on the merits.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Oakville's refusal to pass an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a 57-unit residential development.

The Tribunal granted Party status to the Region of Halton and Participant status to several local residents.

The Tribunal also scheduled a 15-day hearing on the merits for January 2025 and directed the parties to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.