Michael Polowin

The applicant brought a motion to deny Party status to the Rockcliffe Park Residents Association (RPRA) in an upcoming merit hearing regarding a minor variance appeal to expand a legal non-conforming duplex.

The Tribunal found that while the RPRA had a direct interest, it would not meaningfully assist the Tribunal because it did not intend to call expert evidence on the planning and heritage issues.

The Tribunal denied Party status, granted Participant status instead, and established the issues list for the merit hearing.

The applicant brought a motion for costs against the self-represented appellant following the dismissal of her appeal of a zoning by-law amendment.

The amendment sought to recognize an existing eight-unit multiple-family dwelling that had been in place for over 50 years.

The Tribunal found that the appeal was void of any legitimate land use planning grounds and had no probability of success, rendering it frivolous.

The Tribunal ordered the appellant to pay $5,000 in costs to the applicant.

The appellant appealed the City of Ottawa's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate a residential subdivision.

The parties reached a comprehensive settlement proposing approximately 440 residential units, a park block, and protection of a creek corridor.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the planning instruments were approved.

At a second Case Management Conference concerning appeals of the City of Ottawa's failure to make decisions on zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision applications, Tamarack (Cardinal Creek) Corporation sought party status.

The parties consented to Tamarack's request, limited to the issue of the appellant satisfying its obligations under a cost-sharing agreement.

The Tribunal granted Tamarack party status on this scoped issue and approved a revised Procedural Order and Issues List.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Ottawa's Official Plan Amendment No. 3, the Tribunal heard a motion to substitute Denise Ménard as a party in place of 3930149 Canada Inc., whose conditional agreement of purchase and sale with Ménard had been cancelled.

With no objections, the Tribunal granted the motion.

The Tribunal also granted participant status to 21 individuals representing the public's interest in the overall effect of the OPA.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled for June 2024.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs against the appellant following the dismissal of the appellant's appeals regarding official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The applicant argued that the appellant persistently violated the Procedural Order and that the appeals were frivolous, in bad faith, and brought for a collateral purpose.

The Tribunal found that the appellant did not breach the Procedural Order, having provided adequate notice for withdrawing issues and a witness.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of frivolous, vexatious, or bad faith conduct, concluding that the appellant raised valid planning issues.

The motion for costs was dismissed.

The applicant sought permission under section 45 of the Planning Act to change the legal non-conforming use of the property from an automobile service station to a retail, leasing, and repair facility for light construction equipment.

The City and area residents opposed the application, arguing that the previous use had been abandoned and that the new use caused significant adverse impacts, including noise, odours, and traffic issues.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding insufficient evidence that the legal non-conforming use had continued until the date of the application.

Furthermore, the Committee concluded that the proposed use was not desirable, created unacceptable adverse impacts on the neighbourhood, and was less compatible than the former use.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Phoenix Harbour Old Montreal Road Inc. against the City of Ottawa for failing to make decisions on zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision applications.

A request for party status by Tamarack (Cardinal Creek) Corporation was deferred on consent to allow for potential resolution of issues.

The Tribunal scheduled a six-day hearing for August 2024 and a second Case Management Conference for February 2024, and approved a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a proposed high-rise development.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised proposal consisting of two towers (38 and 40 storeys) with a public park and privately-owned publicly accessible space.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policy and the City's Official Plan, allowing the appeals in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed a condition imposed by the City of Ottawa on a zoning by-law amendment that required the waste storage area for a proposed residential addition to be located within the principal building.

The appellant argued for an external enclosed accessory building for waste storage.

The Tribunal found that the internal option would require an external lift, increase costs, reduce the size of barrier-free units, and result in a sub-optimal basement unit.

The Tribunal concluded that the external enclosed option represented better land use planning, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the City's Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed and the condition was removed.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Ottawa's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 3, which adds the Orleans Corridor Secondary Plan.

SDLP 1887 Orleans Limited requested and was granted party status without opposition.

The parties indicated ongoing settlement discussions and a willingness to pursue Tribunal-assisted mediation if necessary.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled for October 26, 2023.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Application to permit a 26-storey mixed-use building.

The City opposed the development, arguing it did not conform to the Official Plan's height and density hierarchy and failed to provide appropriate transition to the adjacent low-rise neighbourhood.

The Tribunal found that the Official Plan does not contain an implicit height and density hierarchy, and that the proposed development provides suitable transition through setbacks, stepbacks, and building orientation without relying solely on angular plane analysis.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Zoning By-law Amendment in part and deferred the Site Plan Approval appeal to allow the parties to reach an agreement.

The appellant community association appealed the City of Ottawa's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment and Official Plan Amendment to permit a six-storey residential care facility.

The appellant argued that the Future Land Use Study was incomplete from a transportation perspective and that the development was premature due to existing transportation deficiencies.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed development would have a minimal impact on traffic, that the developer is not responsible for fixing existing municipal transportation deficiencies, and that the amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Official Plan.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the Upper Hunt Club Community Association against the City's approval of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments for a residential care facility.

The parties resolved most of the draft Procedural Order but disputed four items on the Issues List.

The Tribunal ruled on the contested issues, striking speculative and redundant language, finalized the Issues List, and scheduled a five-day video hearing.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the City of Ottawa's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a three-tower development.

The City indicated its intent to bring a motion arguing that its new Official Plan ousts the Clergy Principle, which would require the applications to be evaluated under the new plan rather than the former one.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC to organize the motion and directed the City to request consolidation of similar appeals for the purpose of the motion.

A Procedural Order was also issued, subject to the outcome of the motion.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Bertone Montreal Road LP against the City of Ottawa for failing to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two parties and approved the draft Procedural Order, including a provision allowing participants to refine their statements 45 days before the hearing.

A five-day merits hearing was scheduled for April 2023.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal for the City's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 26-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two parties on consent.

The only dispute regarding the draft Procedural Order was whether a participant could submit a refined participant statement 45 days prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal allowed the provision, noting it is appropriate for participants to review the approved issues list and refine their statements accordingly.

A five-day merits hearing was scheduled.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the community association against the municipality's approval of zoning and official plan amendments for a 12-storey mixed-use development.

The parties agreed to a draft Procedural Order and requested a 4-day hearing.

The Tribunal issued the Procedural Order and scheduled the hearing to commence on December 12, 2022.

The appellant appealed zoning by-law amendments that limited the aggregate number of bedrooms on low-density residential lots and restricted the height of detached additional residential units to that of other accessory structures.

The appellant argued these restrictions constituted 'people zoning' and conflicted with the Building Code Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the regulations were appropriate performance standards to manage intensity and built form, represented good planning, and were protected from appeal under s. 34(19.1) of the Planning Act.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of an Official Plan Amendment without a hearing under s. 17(45) of the Planning Act.

The appellant argued the amendment was res judicata due to a 2014 OMB decision.

The Tribunal found the proposed development had sufficiently changed, defeating the res judicata claim.

The Tribunal concluded the notice of appeal failed to disclose any apparent land use planning grounds and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant's request for costs was denied as the appellant's conduct was not unreasonable or frivolous.