The applicant sought judicial review of a Committee of Adjustment decision granting the respondent's application for a minor variance under the Planning Act.
The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable due to a lack of responsive reasons and procedural fairness breaches.
The Divisional Court found that the applicant had standing to seek judicial review despite recent legislative amendments removing its statutory right of appeal.
The court quashed the decision, holding that the Committee's reasons, which merely recited statutory language, failed to meet the requirements of Vavilov and s. 45(8.1) of the Planning Act.
The matter was remitted to the Committee for a determination de novo.
