Ian White

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit a required parking space to be located 0.84 metres from the street line, rather than the required 6 metres, to facilitate the conversion of an attached garage into an additional residential unit.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variance, finding that it met the four-part test under the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning by supporting gentle intensification without negatively impacting the streetscape.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Guelph's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and related Official Plan Amendment No. 88.

The Tribunal received status updates indicating that several site-specific appeals had been resolved, while constructive discussions continued on the remaining city-wide and site-specific appeals.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal scheduled a second multi-day Case Management Conference for March 2026 to further organize the proceedings and establish a Procedural Order for any unresolved issues.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed 14-storey mixed-use building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent property owner, consolidated the appeals, and scheduled an eight-day hearing on the merits.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the City of Guelph's Development Charges By-law.

The appellant sought an exemption for a proposed student residence.

The Tribunal determined that a two-day merit hearing with viva voce evidence was appropriate and scheduled the hearing for January 2026.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to convert a detached garage into an additional dwelling unit.

The application sought to reduce the interior side yard setback from 1.2 metres to 0.61 metres.

The Tribunal found that while the application maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and was desirable, it failed to maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law and was not minor in nature due to concerns about the maintenance of the structure along the lot line.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the non-decision (indefinite deferral) of the City of Guelph's Committee of Adjustment regarding an application for minor variances to reduce permanent and temporary parking requirements for a residential development.

The Tribunal first determined it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, finding the indefinite deferral was tantamount to a refusal.

On the merits, the Tribunal authorized the variances, finding they met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's expert evidence that the reduced parking rates were justified by site-specific studies, supported transit use, and avoided an oversupply of parking.

The variances were approved subject to conditions, including the provision of additional temporary spaces and transit passes.

The appellant appealed the City of Guelph's passage of a heritage designation by-law concerning a property containing a stone gate, farmhouse, and stone shed.

The parties reached a settlement to amend the by-law's schedules to facilitate the stabilization of the property and its potential integration into a heritage conservation district.

Based on uncontested expert heritage planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and amended the by-law in accordance with the joint submission.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan applications to permit two 12-storey apartment buildings and a public park.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised applications consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City of Guelph's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application for a residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal was advised that a settlement had been reached in related appeals concerning a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval for the same development.

The Tribunal granted a request to consolidate the present appeal with the related appeals to be heard at the scheduled settlement hearing.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order issued by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks regarding a property in Guelph.

At the third Case Management Conference, the Ministry advised that the Order had been fulfilled.

The appellant requested additional time to review newly disclosed documents and determine how to proceed with the appeal.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal granted the request and ordered the matter held in abeyance until the appellant requests a subsequent conference or until April 22, 2025.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order issued by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks regarding a property in Guelph.

At the second Case Management Conference, the appellant requested an adjournment to review a recently received technical report review from the Ministry.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference and ordered a further exchange of relevant documents.

The appellants appealed the Director's decision to issue a Certificate of Property Use (CPU) for a former industrial property in Guelph, arguing that the CPU failed to adequately address the risk of contaminated groundwater migrating offsite to their adjacent properties.

The Tribunal found that while there was a risk of contaminant migration to one of the adjacent properties (10 Kingsmill), there was no risk of migration to the other (490 York).

The Tribunal held that the CPU's groundwater monitoring program and contingency requirements provided sufficient safeguards to address the potential for adverse effects, and that implementing physical barriers would be premature and potentially harmful given the complex fractured bedrock environment.

The Tribunal ordered minor amendments to the CPU to reclassify two monitoring wells as downgradient and to require the City to provide advance notice of groundwater sampling to the adjacent property owners, but otherwise confirmed the CPU.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing concerning three appeals against the City of Guelph's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law.

The appellants reached settlements with the City to establish site-specific zoning provisions for their respective properties, including permissions for office and medical clinic uses, and a mixed-use development.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed amendments were consistent with provincial policies, conformed to the official plan, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to give effect to the settlements.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 24-unit stacked townhouse development.

The parties reached a settlement and presented revised amendments to the Tribunal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed infill development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and City Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal approved the amendments to the 1995 Zoning By-law but noted it lacked jurisdiction to approve anticipated amendments to the City's new 2023 Zoning By-law, which was not before it.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Tricar Properties Limited against the City of Guelph for failing to make a decision on a Zoning By-Law Amendment application within the statutory timeframe.

The Tribunal granted participant status to seven individuals concerned with traffic impacts.

The City indicated its intent to file a motion arguing the appeal is not properly before the Tribunal due to a recent resubmission.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for October 2024 and a 10-day merit hearing for March 2025.

The applicant brought a motion for directions under s. 41(3.7) of the Planning Act to deem its site plan application complete.

The City of Guelph had refused to accept the application, arguing it was incomplete due to missing external agency clearances, lack of conformity with the Provincial Policy Statement, and the retroactive effects of the Official Plan Adjustments Act, 2023.

The Tribunal found that the City conflated the requirements for deeming an application complete with the requirements for granting site plan approval.

The Tribunal held that the applicant had provided all prescribed materials and that the City's additional demands at the completeness stage were unreasonable.

The motion was granted, and the application was deemed complete as of its submission date.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Guelph's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law, related Official Plan updates, and residential parking requirements.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal consolidated the Parking By-law Appeal with the Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment appeals.

The Tribunal also scheduled a settlement hearing for April 23, 2024, to address settlements reached with several appellants, and a third Case Management Conference for June 25, 2024.

This was the fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Guelph's Official Plan Amendment No. 79 (Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan).

The parties reported substantial progress in settlement discussions and requested a partial Settlement Hearing.

The Tribunal approved a revised Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a partial Settlement Hearing for January 25, 2024.

Electrolux Home Care Products Canada Inc. brought a motion to be added as a Party to an appeal regarding a Certificate of Property Use issued for a neighbouring property.

Electrolux is a defendant in related civil proceedings concerning historic contamination.

The Director and the City opposed the motion.

The Tribunal found that Electrolux had a genuine interest in the proceeding because the issue of historic contamination was relevant to both the Tribunal appeal and the civil proceedings.

The Tribunal granted Electrolux Party status, limited to providing evidence and submissions on the specific issue of historic contamination, and required it to shelter under the appellants' issue without altering the existing procedural schedule.

At a case management conference regarding an appeal of a Director's Order under the Environmental Protection Act, the Tribunal considered requests for party status from Electrolux Home Care Products Canada Inc., Florence Lane Residents Group Inc., and the City of Guelph.

Finding that all three entities had a genuine and direct interest in the proceeding and would assist the Tribunal, party status was granted to each.

The parties also provided an update on settlement discussions and a subsequent case management conference was scheduled.