Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 14, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000503
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Rafic Rizk
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: New lot with reduced minimum lot area for both lots
Reference Number: A-050/25
Property Address: 2439 Norman Road
Municipality/UT: Windsor/Essex
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000503
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000503
OLT Case Name: Rizk v. Windsor (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Rafic Rizk
Subject: Consent
Description: New lot with reduced minimum lot area for both lots
Reference Number: B-038/25
Property Address: 2439 Norman Road
Municipality/UT: Windsor/Essex
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000504
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000503
OLT Case Name: Rizk v. Windsor (City)
Heard: September 04, 2025 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Rafic Rizk | Mariana Samaan |
| City of Windsor | Aaron Farough |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY K. HEWITT ON SEPTEMBER 04, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision and Order arises from an appeal filed by Mr. Rafic Rizk (“Appellant”) pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), in respect of the refusal by the City of Windsor’s (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“CoA”) of his applications for a Minor Variance and Consent, which sought to create two residential lots with frontages of 12.2 metres (“m”) and areas of 397–403 square metres (“m2”), seeking relief from the City’s Zoning By-law No. 8600 (“ZBL”).
BACKGROUND
2The properties subject to the applications are known as 2439 Norman Road and 0 Norman Road (“Subject Properties”) in a neighbourhood designated for low density residential use, in the urban boundary of the City.
3The Appellant applied to the County of Essex CoA for a Minor Variance and Consent to create two separate residential lots. After thorough review of the applications, the Planning staff for the City recommended support to both the Consent and Minor Variance applications and that it was their belief that it satisfied the four tests for the variance and the consent to sever the lots, that they were consistent with the City’s Official Plan (“OP”) and the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”).
THE HEARING
4The Appellant called Ms. Rita Jabbour, a Registered Professional Planner, to provide expert opinion evidence. Her qualifications are well documented within her Expert Witness Statement within the Book of Documents, marked as Exhibit 1.
5The City was represented by Mr. Aaron Farough, who was only there to respond to any questions from the Tribunal, and maintained the City’s support of the applications as it was presented to the City’s CoA.
6There were no requests for Party or Participant status. The Subject Properties are legally described as Plan 1157 Lot 24, 25 and PT Lot 26; PT CLSD ALLEY on Registered Plan 1157. The Subject Properties are zoned Residential District 1.1 (“RD1.1”) on Zoning District Map 11 under the ZBL.
7The RD1.1 zoning district permits one single unit dwelling as a permitted use, and being subject to zoning provisions, including, but not limited to, a minimum lot width of 15 m and a minimum lot area of 450 m2 under subsection 10.1.5 of the ZBL.
8The Appellant made applications for Consent and Minor Variance to the City’s CoA for the purpose of a technical severance. This severance would have the effect of conveying a part of 0 Norman Road to 2439 Norman Road to correct the encroachment of an existing dwelling into the easterly side yard, and to convey parts of the closed alley (Part 3) from 2439 Norman Road to 0 Norman Road for the purpose of correcting the irregular shape of the lot.
9The Minor Variance application was required to recognize a reduction in the minimum lot width and minimum lot area for both lots.
10Ms. Jabbour was affirmed and her qualifications were highlighted for the Tribunal. In Ms. Jabbour’s Expert Witness Statement, she maintained that she also agreed with the City’s staff report in that both the Consent and Minor Variance should be granted with no conditions.
11Ms. Jabbour went further to state that, in her professional opinion, the variances maintain the general intent of the ZBL and are minor in nature. The variances are required to facilitate technical severance, which will correct an encroachment and will adjust an irregular lot shape. It was further stated that the variances are desirable for the appropriate use of the land, buildings, and structures, that they would not hinder the development or use of the other properties in the neighbourhood, and they would not have any negative impacts or detract from the character of nearby properties.
12Ms. Jabbour further contended that the Consent conforms with the OP, the PPS 2024, and the ZBL. Additionally, she stated that the Consent application is consistent with an orderly development pattern and the lot pattern in the neighbourhood.
13The Consent application will have the effect of supporting and facilitating residential redevelopment in an area designated in the OP for residential purposes, and therefore, provide for an adequate provision of a full range of housing.
14The Municipal Planner has recommended that the Consents be granted with no conditions. No further concerns were raised by other municipal departments, public agencies, or authorities.
THE FOUR TESTS
15Pursuant to s. 45(1) of the Act, an application for a minor variance may be granted if the following four tests are met:
- The application maintains the general intent and purpose of the official plan;
- The application maintains the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law;
- The requested variance is minor in nature; and
- The requested variance is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building, or structure.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
16The Tribunal confirmed that counsel for the City was in agreement with the submitted Expert Witness Statement by Ms. Jabbour and that the City did in fact support the applications as submitted.
17The Tribunal agrees with Ms. Jabbour, in her assertions, that the applications pursuant to s. 45(1) of the Act does meet the four tests, and furthermore, that the Consent does in fact improve the Subject Properties in rectifying an irregular lot shape, while maintaining the integrity of the local neighbourhood.
18Based on the thorough review and evidence provided by the Planning Report, and Ms. Jabbour’s expert statement, the Tribunal finds that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the OP and ZBL, is minor in nature and is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land.
19When evaluating a proposed consent, the Tribunal must ensure that the application meets the criteria outlined in s. 51(24) of the Act. This includes determining whether the proposed consent is premature or serves the public interest, whether it aligns with the official plans of the region and city, as well as applicable zoning by-laws, and whether the land is suitable for the intended purpose of subdivision. The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed consent meets this criteria.
ORDER
20THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed for both the Consents and the minor variance to the City of Windsor’s Zoning By-law No. 8600 is authorized with no conditions.
“K. Hewitt”
K. HEWITT
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.