Michael Manett

The applicant appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to permit a wellness centre as a home business within a dwelling and a detached garage.

The Tribunal found that the proposed use did not conform with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan's definition of a 'home business', as it would operate in both the dwelling and an accessory structure, and its scale would dominate the residential use.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the variances failed the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the City of Richmond Hill's refusal of consent applications to sever a property to create two new residential lots, as well as the City's Official Plan Amendment No. 22 and By-law 64-21, which expanded the Lake Wilcox Special Policy Area.

The appellant argued that the property was not within the Regulatory Floodplain and that the City's floodplain mapping was flawed.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority that the property is located within the Regulatory Floodplain and lacks safe access during flood events.

The Tribunal found that the proposed severances were inconsistent with provincial policies protecting public safety and environmental integrity.

The Tribunal upheld OPA 22 and By-law 64-21, finding them to be grounded in sound planning principles and supported by robust technical analysis, and dismissed the appeals.

The applicant appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and draft Plan of Subdivision to permit the redevelopment of portions of an existing golf course into residential lots and a mid-rise or townhouse block.

The City and local residents' associations opposed the development, arguing it would result in the loss of open space, remove mature trees, and undermine the character of the established community.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the proposed development represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert evidence that the development is compatible with the existing neighbourhood, appropriately manages stormwater and natural hazards, and provides needed housing through intensification.

The applicant appealed the City of Richmond Hill's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a high-density mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal for two residential towers connected by a podium.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and representative of good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the Official Plan Amendment and approving the Zoning By-law Amendment in principle, withholding its final order pending the finalization of the zoning by-law.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's approval of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a three-storey supportive housing apartment building for people leaving homelessness on a site currently occupied by a seniors' apartment building.

The appellants argued the new development would be incompatible with the existing seniors' residence and sought to restrict the new building's occupancy to senior citizens.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development was compatible with the existing building and that restricting occupancy by age would be inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and human rights principles.

The appeals were dismissed.

The applicant sought minor variances to construct a rear two-storey addition, a third-storey addition, and a detached garage.

The Committee of Adjustment approved the variances, and the neighbouring property owners appealed to the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

The tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish the prevailing building type in the immediate context and did not demonstrate how the proposal, particularly the requested floor space index, respected and reinforced the existing physical character of the neighbourhood.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were refused.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit an 11-storey mixed-use residential building.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontested expert planning, urban design, and transportation evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms with the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit an 8-storey mixed-use building.

The applicant and the City reached a settlement on a revised proposal, but an adjacent property owner opposed it, citing concerns over height, angular planes, and privacy impacts.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's planning evidence, finding that the revised proposal conforms with the Official Plan, is consistent with provincial policies, and provides appropriate transition and mitigation of impacts.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement proposal.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment that would permit a six-unit residential dwelling within an existing former motel building on a shoreline property.

The property was zoned Shoreline Residential, which permits only single detached dwellings.

The Tribunal found that the proposed multiple-unit residential use on rural lands outside a settlement area was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

Furthermore, the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the Township's planner, concluding that the proposal did not conform to the 'limited residential' policies of the County Official Plan or the waterfront policies of the Township Official Plan.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan Committee of Adjustment's refusal to authorize minor variances for lot coverage and exterior side yard setbacks to permit a partial second-storey addition.

The subject property featured an existing covered pool that made the lot coverage a legal non-compliant condition for nearly 50 years.

The Ontario Land Tribunal preferred the applicant's planning evidence, finding that the proposed addition maintained the existing building footprint and fit the character of the established large-lot neighbourhood.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances, concluding they satisfied the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The County of Wellington submitted a Zoning By-law Amendment application, approved by the City of Guelph, to permit the adaptive reuse of an existing building for transitional housing with supports.

The appellant appealed the approval, raising concerns about compatibility with the existing community, access to open space, and the suitability of the building without detailed floorplans.

The Tribunal found that the proposal would not create substantial land use compatibility issues, that access to open space on retained lands would continue, and that detailed interior floorplans were not required at the zoning stage.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part only to amend the by-law to reflect the approved maximum density of 28 bedrooms, and otherwise dismissed the appeal.

The City of Ottawa and Shepherds of Good Hope brought motions to dismiss an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted an eight-storey supportive housing development.

The Tribunal allowed the City's motion, finding the appellant failed to properly serve the notice of appeal as required by s. 34(19) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal also allowed the applicant's motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing under s. 34(25), concluding the notice of appeal failed to explain how the by-law was inconsistent with applicable policies and failed to disclose any apparent land use planning grounds.

The appellant residents association appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to permit the construction of a new two-storey single detached house.

The requested variances related to maximum lot coverage and minimum side and rear yard setbacks.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the proposed development was compatible with the evolving character of the neighbourhood, where similar variances had been approved.

The Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and dismissed the appeal, authorizing the variances.

The appellant appealed the City's refusal to amend a zoning by-law to permit the future creation of an additional building lot for a single detached residential building.

The City argued the severance would threaten the large estate lot and heavily wooded character of the subdivision.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed infill development was consistent with provincial policies encouraging intensification, would not result in significant tree loss, and was compatible with the character of the neighbourhood.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, challenged the validity of a by-law passed by the respondent condominium corporation that leased common element parking spaces to unit holders.

The applicant argued the by-law was ultra vires, discriminatory, unreasonable, and oppressive, as it restricted her tenant's (a popular restaurant) access to parking.

The court found the by-law valid under the Condominium Act, not discriminatory, and that the Board's actions were not oppressive, as they were a reasonable response to a parking monopolization issue caused by the applicant's tenant.

The application was dismissed.

The moving party municipality sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that approved official plan and zoning bylaw amendments permitting a mixed-use high-density development.

The municipality argued the Board failed to have regard to its new official plan, exceeded its jurisdiction regarding community benefits, and provided inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the Board's decision on the applicable official plan and height issues were matters of fact or mixed fact and law entitled to deference.

The court also held that the Board did not impose community benefits and that its reasons were adequate and met the duty of procedural fairness.