Michael Polowin

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to subdivide a property into two lots for the construction of two semi-detached dwellings.

The Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the consents had regard for provincial interests and the variances met the four-part test under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, granting provisional consent subject to conditions and authorizing the requested variances for reduced lot width and area.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Amber Peak Developments Inc. against the City of Kingston's adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and corresponding Zoning By-law Amendments.

The Tribunal noted that only issues related to the number of bedrooms and the height of accessory buildings would proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The parties agreed to a two-day video hearing for expert testimony followed by written legal submissions.

The Tribunal scheduled the hearing and dispensed with the need for a formal Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Clublink Corporation ULC against the City of Ottawa's adoption of Official Plan Amendment 266 and Zoning By-law No. 2021-328.

The appellant requested a partial withdrawal of its appeals concerning the parcel at 6301 Campeau Drive, as the proposed development on that parcel would not drain stormwater onto the appellant's lands.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal allowed the partial withdrawal, bringing the OPA and ZBA into full force and effect for that parcel.

The appeals remain active for the parcel at 6475 Campeau Drive, and the Tribunal scheduled a further CMC and a four-day hearing.

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 appealed the adoption of a zoning by-law concerning environmental zoning and wetland designation on his property.

The parties reached a settlement to amend the by-law to allow the municipality to alter the boundary of the EP-LSW zone without further amendment, provided a qualified professional demonstrates the appropriate location.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Official Plan, allowing the appeal in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of an application to sever a residential property into two lots.

The City opposed the severance, arguing that the reduced lot frontages would destabilize the neighbourhood and did not conform to the Official Plan.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's planner, finding that the proposed lots were compatible with the eclectic lot fabric of the surrounding area, which included several narrow lots.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted provisional consent subject to conditions.

The applicant sought minor variances to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new one-and-a-half storey dwelling on an undersized waterfront lot.

The Committee of Adjustment approved the variances, which were subsequently appealed by a neighbour.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that slightly amended the variances and included conditions.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the amended variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and authorized the variances subject to the agreed-upon conditions.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the appellant against the municipality's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a proposed distribution warehouse.

The Tribunal reviewed the draft issues list, approved the Procedural Order, and scheduled a seven-day video hearing to commence in November 2021.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Ottawa's Zoning By-Law No. 2019-353, which introduced new zoning provisions for high-rise buildings.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day video hearing to commence on July 11, 2022, and issued a procedural order governing the proceedings, including the finalization of the issues list and the order of evidence.

The applicants, developers in the City of Kingston, challenged the validity of the City's Impost By-law, which imposed fees for the capital costs of water and sewer infrastructure.

The applicants argued that the City was required to impose such fees under the Development Charges Act, 1997, and that the Impost By-law conflicted with that Act, was ultra vires the Municipal Act, 2001, and was discriminatory.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the legislative framework allowed the City to enact the Impost By-law under the Municipal Act, 2001, that there was no conflict with the Development Charges Act, 1997, and that the by-law was neither ultra vires nor discriminatory.

The applicants and respondent sought a last-minute consent adjournment of a full-day application hearing scheduled for February 21, 2020, citing ongoing settlement discussions that required City Council approval.

The court expressed frustration with the late notice, noting it resulted in wasted judicial and courtroom resources.

The court adjourned the matter to be spoken to at a future motions court, recommending that any new hearing date be made peremptory to both sides.

The respondent operated a public parking garage as a legal non-conforming use under a new comprehensive zoning by-law.

The new by-law contained performance standards identical to those in the former by-law.

The respondent introduced valet parking, which contravened these performance standards, and was convicted of breaching the by-law.

The conviction was quashed on appeal, but the Court of Appeal allowed the municipality's appeal and restored the conviction.

The Court held that subjecting a legal non-conforming use to performance standards identical to those in place when the use was acquired does not prevent the use of the property within the meaning of the Planning Act.