Andrew Ip

The appellant appealed a minor variance application to permit the construction of an inground swimming pool in the rear yard, requiring a reduction in the rear yard setback.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and submitted a revised application that shifted the pool to avoid tree removal.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized.

Shoal Bayly brought a motion to add an issue to the Issues List regarding the funding of a specific road and bridge project through the Region's development charges.

The Region and other appellants had already reached a settlement on the existing issues.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed issue was distinct, should have been raised earlier, and was more appropriately addressed in separate ongoing proceedings regarding Shoal Bayly's draft plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal then approved the uncontested settlement, finding the proposed changes to the Development Charge By-law to be fair, reasonable, and in compliance with the Development Charges Act.

The applicant brought a motion requesting the Tribunal determine that the servicing conditions imposed on a previously granted provisional consent had been fulfilled, allowing for the issuance of a certificate of consent.

The conditions required a Functional Servicing Report to the satisfaction of the City's engineering department.

The City refused to clear the conditions, citing deficiencies in the proposed lateral connections and separation widths in the narrow public lane.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that while the applicant's engineering evidence on feasibility was credible, the City had not approved the servicing arrangements, and the Tribunal lacked the authority to deem the conditions satisfied or to determine the City's statutory duty regarding servicing.

The plaintiff brought an action in negligence, nuisance, and trespass against her neighbours and the City of Vaughan, alleging that construction activities on the neighbours' property altered the grading and caused water to flow onto her property, resulting in damages.

The claims against the municipal defendants were settled during trial.

The court dismissed the remaining claims against the neighbour, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove causation.

Expert evidence established that the water problems were actually caused by the plaintiff's own landscapers, who had flattened the common swale and altered the grading on her property, preventing proper drainage.

The court found no negligence or unreasonable interference by the neighbour.