Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 01, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000312
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 1610287 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: Minor Variance to seek relief to build a covered patio onto the required front yard depth
Reference Number: A-25027
Property Address: 1770 Ernest Avenue
Municipality/UT: London/London
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000312
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000312
OLT Case Name: 1610287 Ontario Inc. v. London (City)
Heard: July 11, 2025 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Mannal Roukie (“Appellant”)
Khalid Otaifa
City of London (“City”)
Did Not Appear
DECISION DELIVERED BY A. SAUVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1This appeal stems from the London Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) refusing a Minor Variance application seeking relief from Zoning By-law Z.-1 (“ZBL”) to facilitate the construction of an enclosed outdoor patio for an existing restaurant use. A Planning Report had recommended approval of the application.
2The subject property is municipally known as 1770 Ernest Avenue, located at the northeast corner of Ernest Avenue and Jalna Boulevard, within the White Oaks Planning District of the city. The south lot line along Jalna Boulevard is classified as the “front” lot line for purposes of zoning compliance. The subject property is approximately 0.24 hectares in size and is part of a broader community-scaled commercial node focused around the intersection of Southdale Road and Ernest/Nixon Avenue in South London.
3The property contains an existing single-storey (multi-tenant) commercial building occupied by a restaurant with an associated outdoor patio along the building’s south frontage. The building is oriented toward Ernest Avenue, with direct pedestrian and vehicular access from both Ernest Avenue and Jalna Boulevard.
4The application before the Tribunal involves the establishment of an enclosed patio along the Jalna Boulevard frontage. The new structure is intended to replace the unenclosed outdoor patio with a fully enclosed, weather-protected space to support year-round use. The application seeks relief from the minimum front yard depth requirement of 8.0 metres (“m”) to permit a 3.7 m setback. The current unenclosed patio is situated on an unused drive through lane. The unenclosed patio is in compliance with the ZBL.
5It should be noted that the application was originally brought by the tenants of the building, but the owner of the subject property is now the Appellant in this matter.
6Attachment 1 contains the conceptual site plan for reference.
7The Appellant’s representative, Khalid Otaifa, had no experience in front of the Tribunal nor in anything related and was not helpful in assisting the Tribunal adjudicate this matter. They attended in more of a supporting role.
8Prior to this Hearing the Tribunal received 5 requests for Participant Status from:
Nadine and Archie McConnell
Mary Cormier
Maria and Eugenia Chaidemenos
Lillian Topping
Frank and Prema Monterio
9All five of the requestors are direct neighbours to the subject property and are not in favour of the Minor Variance being granted. The five Participant Status requests were not contested and granted by the Tribunal.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
10An Appeal pursuant to s. 45(1) of the Planning Act (“Act”) is a hearing de novo. The Appellant bears the onus of demonstrating that the four tests as set out in s. 45(1) have been met, namely that the requested variances:
a) Maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan (The LondonPlan) (“OP”);
b) Maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL;
c) Are minor in nature; and
d) Are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure.
11In addition, s. 3(5) of the Act requires the Tribunal's decision to be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (“PPS”). The Tribunal must also have regard to the matters of Provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act, as well as for the decision of the COA and the information considered while making its decision, as set out in s. 2.1(1) of the Act.
EVIDENCE
12The Tribunal heard from one witness, Michael Davis, whom the Tribunal found to be an expert in the field of Land Use Planning. The Tribunal found his uncontested evidence to be thorough and comprehensive.
13Along with his own witness statement Mr. Davis informed the Tribunal that he agrees with the Staff Report that had been created for the COA.
14In summary, Mr. Davis testified that the proposed minor variance would be an improvement to what is currently there. He opined that by enclosing the patio it would reduce noise and would add more floor space during the winter which will be good for business. Mr. Davis does not believe that enclosing the patio will create any new impacts that are not already created by the unenclosed patio.
15Concerning the relevant planning framework Mr. Davis testified that the subject land is designated Shopping Area Place Type on Map 1 – Place Types of the OP. He also testified that the subject land is located within the City’s identified “Primary Transit Area” and sits at the intersection of two Neighbourhood Connector streets as identified on Map 3 – Street Types of the OP.
16Mr. Davis also stated that the subject land is zoned CSA1 (Community Shopping Area) Zone under the ZBL, which permits a range of commercial uses, including restaurants and associated patios.
17Mr. Davis opined that the proposed minor variance is consistent with the PPS which directs growth and development toward serviced settlement areas and promotes compact, efficient, and context-sensitive intensification. Mr. Davis highlighted the following policies, and his opinions on how they relate to this application, as being supportive of the application:
Policy 2.3.1(1) states that “Settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development.” The proposal represents modest commercial intensification within a serviced urban area.
Policy 2.3.1(3) directs planning authorities to support general intensification and redevelopment to achieve complete communities. The patio enclosure enhances the usability and year-round viability of an existing restaurant, contributing to the vibrancy of the commercial node.
Policy 2.8.1(1)(d) promotes compact, mixed-use development to support complete communities and economic resilience – goals advanced by the proposed enclosed patio.
18Mr. Davis testified that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the OP because the variance reinforces the site’s pedestrian-oriented role within the Shopping Area Place Type and supports the economic vitality of a permitted commercial use.
19Concerning the ZBL, Mr. Davis testified that the proposal maintains it’s general purpose and intent by not resulting in adverse impacts on site functionality, provides adequate space for landscaping and separation, does not offend the physical character of the streetscape and supports appropriate commercial use.
20Mr. Davis opined that the proposal is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure because it will enhance an existing commercial use and contributes to the economic viability of the business. Also, he testified that enclosing the patio allows for year-round use, better weather protection, and improved customer comfort while maintaining the same spatial footprint as the former unenclosed patio which is permitted as-of-right by the ZBL.
21Mr. Davis testified that the proposal is minor in nature because, while the numerical reduction from 8.0 m to 3.7 m is notable, the impact on the public realm and adjacent properties is minimal. He also noted that the patio already exists in this location in an unenclosed form and enclosing it does not introduce new impacts such as noise, privacy, or overshadowing.
22Mr. Davis also addressed the concerns raised in the Participant Statements. He testified that the complaints arise from the establishment itself and not the proposal. The statements list noise, rowdiness, pests and lighting issues (signage) and Mr. Davis noted that those issues are not related to the proposal. In fact, Mr. Davis opined that enclosing the patio will alleviate the noise issues.
DECISION
23Upon a review of the evidence, and upon the analysis of the evidence as set out in this Decision, the Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted planning evidence from Mr. Davis presented in this hearing and finds that the proposed Minor Variance maintains the general intent and purpose of both the OP and the ZBL, are minor and are desirable for the appropriate development and use of the site. It is the finding of the Tribunal that the authorization of the Variance represents good planning and should be authorized.
24In considering this Appeal, the Tribunal has also had regard for the decision that was made by the COA, and for the information and material that the COA considered in making their decision.
ORDER
25THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the variances to the City of London Zoning By-law Z.-1, as amended as Attachment 1, is authorized
“A. Sauve”
A. SAUVE
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.
ATTACHMENT 1