John Jackson

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 applicant appealed the conditions imposed by the Parry Sound Area Planning Board on a consent application to sever a waterfront property into three lots.

The Township of Carling also appealed after the Board removed certain conditions regarding private road upgrades.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant and the Township agreed on revised conditions for road upgrades to ensure emergency vehicle access.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed consent, subject to the agreed-upon conditions, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the applicable official plans, has regard for the criteria in section 51(24) of the Planning Act, and represents good planning.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit the construction of an oversized detached garage on a waterfront property.

The parties reached a settlement to rezone the property to permit the garage with a larger footprint than the principal dwelling.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conformed to the applicable official plans, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law was amended.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance application to recognize an as-built dock and proposed boathouse with reduced side yard setbacks on Lake Muskoka.

The Town did not participate, but the neighbouring property owners (the Smiths) were granted party status and opposed the appeal.

The Tribunal preferred the planning evidence of the appellant's expert, finding that the proposed location did not impede views, create safety hazards, or negatively impact privacy.

The Tribunal concluded that the requested variances satisfied the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and allowed the appeal.

The moving party brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment without a hearing under section 34(25) of the Planning Act.

The amendment facilitated the creation of four residential lots on an island and implemented environmental protections.

The Tribunal found that the appellants' notice of appeal merely quoted policies from the Provincial Policy Statement and the Official Plan without explaining how the by-law was inconsistent or failed to conform with them.

Relying on the East Beach decision, the Tribunal concluded the appeal did not disclose any genuine, legitimate, and authentic planning grounds and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance to increase the maximum building height from 6 metres to 7.5 metres for a new single-storey dwelling.

The Township did not oppose the appeal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was desirable, and was minor in nature with no adverse impacts on neighbours.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized.

The applicant sought judicial review of a municipal council decision upholding a repair order issued against her for dumping sand on her shoreline property in contravention of a site alteration by-law.

The applicant argued that the alterations were historical, fell under provincial jurisdiction, and that the council breached procedural fairness by not providing written reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Township had concurrent jurisdiction, the decision was reasonable based on the evidence of by-law contravention, and the council's process met the requirements of procedural fairness for an administrative municipal decision.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to adopt a site-specific official plan amendment, a zoning by-law amendment, and to make a decision on four consent applications to create new non-waterfront lots on a privately maintained road.

The applicant argued the lots would provide affordable housing for the local Metis Nation community.

The Township opposed the applications on the basis that the official plan only permits new lot creation in settlement areas or on recreational waterways.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the applications align with the provincial planning mandate to increase housing supply, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represent good land use planning.

The applicant appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to permit the expansion of an existing cottage on a waterfront property.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing, agreeing to the variances subject to a landscape restoration plan.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The applicants appealed the Township's refusal of minor variances required to rebuild a larger boathouse on their shoreline property.

The parties reached a settlement reducing the requested lot coverage variance.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variances met the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were minor, and were desirable for the appropriate recreational use of the land.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The applicants appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance to allow the construction of a detached garage.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement based on a revised application with a reduced garage size and increased side yard setback.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised variances satisfied the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized the variances subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance to permit the replacement of an existing single-storey condominium unit with a 1.5-storey unit.

The variance sought to increase the maximum permitted floor area from 80 square metres to 114.2 square metres.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variance, preferring the applicant's expert planning evidence that the proposal maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was minor in nature, and was desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of a provisional consent to sever a shoreline access parcel.

The appellants, who owned a cottage 10 km away, appealed the consent.

The Tribunal found that the appellants' representative and their planning witness had a collective interest in thwarting the severance.

The Tribunal disqualified the planning witness due to a lack of objectivity and found the appeal disclosed no legitimate land use planning grounds.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeal under section 53(31) of the Planning Act, finding it to be an abuse of process, a delay tactic, and vexatious.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a zoning by-law amendment without a hearing under section 34(25) of the Planning Act.

The appellant, a professional planner who admitted a personal interest in the outcome, failed to provide any independent expert evidence to support his environmental and planning concerns.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert evidence of the Township's planner that the amendment was consistent with provincial policies and the Official Plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding it disclosed no apparent land use planning grounds, was frivolous and vexatious, and was made only for the purpose of delay.