The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board affirming a Committee of Adjustment's authorization of minor variances for a neighbouring commercial property.
The applicant argued the Board member erred in law by failing to properly address the tests for a 'minor' variance, 'desirability', and 'impact' under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, and that the reasons were insufficient.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no errors of law, that the Board member's reasons were adequate, and that the matter did not raise an issue of general importance warranting the court's attention.
