Derek Truelove

The appellants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit an additional residential unit above an existing garage with greater building height and lot coverage.

The Tribunal qualified a land use planner who testified that the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal favored the appellant's evidence, finding that the application represented efficient use of the lands and met the four tests.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The applicant appealed the City of Woodstock's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the redevelopment of a property to facilitate an addition of four dwelling units to an existing three-unit dwelling.

City planning staff had recommended approval, but City Council refused the application citing compatibility and overdevelopment concerns.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal, accepting uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the City's Official Plan, and represents good planning through modest residential intensification.

Following a successful appeal of the City's refusal to enact a zoning by-law amendment, the appellants sought full indemnity costs against the City.

The appellants argued the City's conduct was unreasonable.

The Tribunal dismissed the costs motion, finding that a municipality is permitted to defend its council's decision in the ordinary course without being subject to a costs sanction, and the City's conduct was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The applicant appealed the City of Woodstock's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to rezone a property from R1 to R2 to permit a converted dwelling with a basement apartment.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, preferring the evidence of the applicant's planner that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the County Official Plan, and represented good planning by providing sensitive residential intensification without adverse impacts on the neighbourhood.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to amend the remedies sought in their human rights application.

The respondents subsequently filed a Request to amend their response to address the altered remedies, to which the applicant consented.

The Tribunal granted both requests.