Mohammed Ali Kulaib Ahmed v. Mississauga (City), 2024 CanLII 48175

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: May 24, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000103

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Mohammed Ali Kulaib Ahmed

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit a transitional housing use on the subject property.

Reference Number: A491/23

Property Address: 3980 McDowell Drive

Municipality/UT: Mississauga

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000103

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000103

OLT Case Name: Mohammed Ali Kulaib Ahmed v. Mississauga (City)

Heard: May 1, 2024 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative*

Mohammed Ali Kulaib Ahmed

R. Shahid*

City of Mississauga

K. Pfaff

DECISION DELIVERED BY A. Snowdon and C.I. MOLINARI AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal concerns an Appeal filed pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), by Mohammed Ali Kulaib Ahmed (“Appellant”) regarding the decision of the City of Mississauga (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”), which denied a minor variance application (“Application”) to allow a Transitional Housing use on the property located and known as 3980 McDowell Drive (“Property”). The Property is developed with a detached dwelling and is within an urban residential area.

2The Appellant sought relief from Zoning By-Law 0225-2007 (“ZBL”) to allow a Transitional Housing use on the Property as an additional permitted use.

3The COA denied the Application despite receiving comments from the City Planning Department in support of the Application.

BACKGROUND AND APPELLANT SUBMISSIONS

4At the outset of the Hearing, and despite having filed the Application, Ms. Shahid advised that the Appellant was not seeking a variance to allow a Transitional Housing use and clarified that the Appellant was intending to operate a Group Home use at the Property, as permitted by the ZBL. Ms. Shahid was concerned that a Transitional Housing use is meant to be a temporary use and that approval of the Application would not permit the Appellant to use the dwelling for a Group Home use.

5Ms. Shahid advised that the Appellant operates SacredHand Canada (“SHC”), a non-profit organization that helps to house community members who cannot afford rent for various reasons. Among other services, and through donations, SHC pays the rent for single community members to live communally in group homes.

6Ms. Shahid explained that the Appellant approached the City to inquire about operating a Group Home and to get a Certificate of Occupancy for such use. She added that the City indicated that the proposed use was not a Group Home and would be considered Transitional Housing, which would require approval of the Application as Transitional Housing is not a permitted use on the Property.

7On review of the submitted material after the Hearing, it appears to the Tribunal that the Appellant, Mr. Ahmed, is the owner of the Property, while SHC, who Ms. Rashid is associated with, rents the dwelling and is considered by Ms. Shahid as the Appellant in her submissions.

CITY EVIDENCE

8Despite the Application being denied by the COA, the City attended the Hearing in support of the Application.

9The City filed a Document Book in support of the Application, which includes the Curriculum Vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty for the City’s witness, Daniel Grdasic, as well as the City Planning Report (“Planning Report”), the COA decision and the requisite policy documents. The City also filed an Evidence Outline for Mr. Grdasic in support of the Application.

10Mr. Grdasic is a Candidate Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners and Ontario Professional Planners Institute. He is currently employed as a COA Planner for the City. The Tribunal qualified him, on consent, to provide land use planning opinion evidence.

11Mr. Grdasic prepared research and analyses on minor variance and site-specific ZBL Amendment applications for Transitional Housing in the City, wrote the planning comment section of the Planning Report, and attended the COA meeting for the hearing of the Application.

12Mr. Grdasic reviewed s. 2 of the Act, the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”), the A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”), the Region of Peel Official Plan (“RPOP”), the City Official Plan (“COP”), the ZBL, and provided his professional opinion on the Application.

13Mr. Grdasic opined that the Application meets s. 2. (h), (i) and (o), of the Act, related to the orderly development of safe and healthy communities, the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing, and the protection of public health and safety.

14Mr. Grdasic stated that the Application is in line with the PPS (policies 1.1.1(b) and 1.4.3) and the Growth Plan (policies 2.2.1.4.c) and 2.2.6.1.a) i.) to accommodate affordable and market-based range and mix of residential types that meet the social, health, economic and well-being requirements of current and future residents. He opined that the Application serves the needs of many members of the community and fits the well-being requirements of the PPS and the Growth Plan.

15Mr. Grdasic indicated that policies 5.9.36, 5.9.37, and 5.9.46 of the RPOP seek opportunities to provide an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities, including affordable housing, that utilize existing housing stock. This includes enabling special needs and supportive housing arrangements, shelter/emergency housing, and innovative and alternative housing options in residential or other suitably zoned lands with convenient access to existing or planned infrastructure, amenities, and support services. He stated that the Application conforms to the RPOP.

16When considering the COP, Mr. Grdasic highlighted policies 7.2.2(c) and 7.2.10 which state that the City will provide opportunities for the production of housing for those with special needs, such as housing for the elderly and shelters, and social housing in appropriate locations to meet the needs of the local population. He stated that the Application meets these needs.

17Mr. Grdasic indicated that the Property is designated Residential Low Density II in the COP and permitted uses include detached dwellings amongst other uses (policy 11.2.5.4). He opined that the Application conforms to the COP.

18The Property is zoned R6-1 in the ZBL. Mr. Grdasic provided the definitions for Group Home and Transitional Housing according to the ZBL:

Group Home

means a supportive housing facility located within a dwelling unit where persons live as a unit under responsible supervision consistent with the requirements of its occupants, which may or may not be licensed or approved by the Province of Ontario, but excludes a supportive housing facility that provides accommodation and care for any other purpose including the observation, detention and rehabilitation of offenders or ex-offenders.

Transitional Housing

means a building, structure or part thereof consisting of dwelling units or rooms designed or intended to contain accommodation for sleeping, or both, that is owned and/or operated by or on behalf of a public authority or a non-profit housing provider, and is used as an emergency shelter or temporary accommodation in which the provision of support services are included.

19The Property is developed with a detached dwelling which allows for a Group Home use as of right. Mr. Grdasic stated that Group Homes are a unit or initiative which require constant supervision, whereas Transitional Housing provides support services and assistance and does not require constant supervision.

20It was Mr. Grdasic’s professional opinion that Transitional Housing is an appropriate use for the Property under the R6-1 zoning.

21Mr. Grdasic summarized his opinion of how the Application meets the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act as follows:

1. First Test – Mr. Grdasic opined that the Application maintains the general intent and purpose of the RPOP and COP as:

• there are no proposed changes to the form of the dwelling or its primary function; and
• the COP states that it is necessary to provide for those with special needs, including emergency and support housing.

2. Second Test – Mr. Grdasic opined that the Application maintains the general intent and purpose of the ZBL as:

• the R6-1 zoning allows only detached dwellings;
• the Application proposes no changes to the house or property;
• No support services are being offered; and
• the Transitional Housing use is similar to a Group Home use which is permitted as of right within a detached dwelling.

3. Third and Fourth Tests – Mr. Grdasic opined that the Application is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building, or structure and is minor in nature as:

• there would be no significant impact on the area or streetscape;
• the dwelling would maintain a residential low density use;
• the use would not disrupt the neighbourhood as all support services would be conducted off-site; and
• the Transitional Housing use would be consistent with the currently permitted Group Home use.

22It was Mr. Grdasic’s professional opinion that the Application meets and satisfies the four tests for a minor variance. In addition, the Application is supported by similar approvals throughout the City, provides affordable housing and supportive housing.

23To clarify aspects of the proposed use of the Property, and for the benefit of the Appellant, Mr. Grdasic confirmed that the Property could be used as a Group Home with or without the approval for the Transitional Housing use, that the Transitional Housing use is not a temporary use but provides for temporary housing, and that approving the Application to add Transitional Housing as a permitted use would not preclude the Property from operating as a Group Home.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

24The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Grdasic and is satisfied that the Application has regard to the relevant matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the Growth Plan in accordance with s. 3(5) of the Act.

25Further, pursuant to s. 2.1(1) of the Act, in making this decision, the Tribunal has had regard for the information and material considered by the COA and the decision of the COA with respect to the Application. Further, the Tribunal is satisfied that the four tests for a minor variance are met, in accordance with s. 45(1) of the Act.

Order

26THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the variance to By-law No. 0225-2007 to allow a Transitional Housing use on the Property as an additional permitted use is authorized.

“A. Snowdon”

A. snowdon

MEMBER

“C.I. Molinari”

c.I. Molinari

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.