Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 12, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000485

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

Applicant/Appellant: Zalman Goldman

Owners: David Arcus, Elizabeth Christo and Katherine Arcus

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit home business within dwelling and garage, occupying up to 35% of the buildings and 3 workers other than the owner

Reference Number: A 11-2025

Property Address: 7826 5 Sideroad

Municipality/UT: Adjala-Tosorontio/Simcoe

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000485

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000485

OLT Case Name: Goldman v Adjala-Tosorontio (Township)

Heard: October 23, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Zalman Goldman	K. Sliwa D. Pateman
Adjala-Tosorontio (Township)	L. English I. Tang, in absentia

Link to the Order

DECISION DELIVERED BY C. HARDY AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1Zalman Goldman (“Applicant”) brought an application before the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio’s (“Township”) Committee of Adjustment (“Committee”) for two minor variances to permit a home business at 7826 5 Side Road (“subject property”). The Township Staff Report recommended approval of the application subject to conditions. On May 21, 2025, the application was refused by the Committee and the Applicant appealed the Committee’s refusal to the Tribunal pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (“Planning Act”).

2Township Planning Staff prepared a report (“Staff Report”) to the Committee, wherein it recommended that the application be approved, subject to the following conditions:

a) that the owner shall remove or relocate the five (5) existing accessory structures currently located within the front yard of the subject property, as they do not comply with the applicable provisions of Zoning By-law No. 03-56;

b) any relocated structures must be sited in accordance with all applicable zoning regulations, including front yard setback requirements, and must comply with the Ontario Building Code. All required building permits and approvals shall be obtained to the satisfaction of the Township's Chief Building Official;

c) that a septic system review be completed to the satisfaction of the Township, confirming that the existing system is capable of supporting the proposed use and occupancy;

d) that a full building inspection of all structures on the property be conducted, to the satisfaction of the Township's Chief Building Official, to confirm compliance with all applicable building regulations.

3The Committee denied the minor variances, determining that the application failed to satisfy the four tests set out in s.45(1) of the Planning Act.

4Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the Tribunal issued August 28, 2025, the originally scheduled hearing was adjourned to October 23, 2025, and 15 individuals and entities were granted participant status in the proceedings.

SITE CONTEXT

5The subject property is a large rural lot approximately 58,135 square metres in size and is located within the Oak Ridges Moraine (“ORM”). It is currently improved with a single detached residential dwelling, detached garage and five additional non-conforming accessory structures in the form of cabins and sheds. In addition, the subject property includes wooded areas, wetlands and a small pond.

6The subject property is designated Natural Core Area pursuant to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (“ORMCP”), and the Natural Core designation is carried forward in the County of Simcoe Official Plan (“County OP”) and the Township Official Plan (“Township OP”). On July 19, 2004, Township Council adopted Official Plan Amendment Number 3 to the Township OP, which brought the Township OP into conformity with the ORMCP.

7The subject property spans two zones in the Adjala-Tosorontio Zoning By-law No. 03-56 (“ZBL”). The buffer zone surrounding the permanent water area is within the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Zone (“ORMC”). The remainder of the subject property, including the existing structures, are within the Oak Ridges Moraine Natural Core Zone (“ORMN”) and do not encroach into the ORMC zone.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: AMENDED APPLICATION

8The Applicant is proposing to operate a wellness centre providing professional services in the form of counselling, life coaching, nutrition, exercise (yoga/meditation) and overnight accommodate for treatment of those suffering varying mental health or addiction disorders (“proposed use”). To permit the proposed use, the Applicant requires two minor variances to ss. 3.13(b) and 3.13(d) of the ZBL.

9The originally requested minor variances set out in the Applicant’s Appeal Form dated June 10, 2025 (“original variances”) were amended in the Reply Witness Statement of the Applicant’s Land Use Planner (“proposed variances”). The permitted use, original variances and proposed variances are as follows:

ZBL	Permitted	Original Variances	Proposed Variances
s. 3.13(b)	The home business shall be conducted entirely within the dwelling and shall not occupy greater than 25 percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling.	The home business shall be conducted within the dwelling and garage buildings and shall not occupy greater than 50 percent of the gross floor area of the buildings.	The home business shall be conducted within the dwelling and garage buildings and shall not occupy greater than 35 percent of the gross floor area of the buildings.
s. 3.13(d)	No more than (1) person other than the owner of the dwelling shall work in the home business	No more than (7) persons other than the owner of the dwelling shall work in the home business.	No more than (3) persons other than the owner of the dwelling shall work in the home business.

10Section 45(18.1) of the Planning Act requires notice to be circulated if an original application has been amended. The exception, set out in s. 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act, alleviates the notice requirement if the Tribunal determines that the amendment to the original application is minor.

11At the commencement of the hearing, the Applicant submitted that the amendments to the original variances were minor and were proposed to address the concerns set out in the Township’s filed materials. The proposed variances are reductions to the original variances, pertain to the same sections of the ZBL and were provided to the Township in advance of the hearing. The Tribunal determined that the amendments to the original variances were minor and, pursuant to s. 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act, do not require notice to be issued.

12The Township submitted that it was prepared to proceed with the proposed variances, indicating that it had an opportunity to mitigate any potential prejudice through the filing of sur-reply evidence in advance of the hearing. Given that the proposed variances were reductions to the original variances and the Township had an opportunity to consider and respond to the amendments, the Tribunal determined that no prejudice would result from the Tribunal considering the proposed variances without issuing further notice.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

13The issue before the Tribunal is whether the proposed variances meet the four-part test set out in s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and should be authorized by the Tribunal. As such, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the proposed variances:

a) maintain the general purpose and intent of the Official Plan;

b) maintain the general purpose and intent of the Zoning By-law;

c) are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building, or structure; and

d) are minor in nature.

14In addition to the four-part test, the proposed variances must be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”) and the Tribunal, in making its decision, must have regard for matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act. Finally, pursuant to s. 2.1(1) of the Planning Act, the Tribunal must have regard for the decision of the Committee and the information considered by it, however, the Tribunal is not bound by that decision.

15With respect to properties located in the ORM, policy hierarchy dictates that if a proposed use conforms to the policies of the ORMCP, the ZBL serves primarily as an implementation tool. In other words, as aptly set out in the Staff Report, the Township OP and ZBL contain specific provisions for lands located in the ORM, however, the ultimate determination of land use permissions is based on conformity with the ORMCP.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

16The Tribunal qualified Heath Purtell Sharp on behalf of the Applicant and Michael Manett on behalf of the Township to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.

17The Applicant’s case centred around the technical nature of the proposed variances emphasizing, that approval would result in the least amount of disturbance to the subject property as it would not result in any development or structural alterations to the existing buildings. The Applicant argued that concerns raised at the public meeting and by the Township are based on misplaced fears that the proposal is to permit a detox or rehabilitation facility, which is being presented as a wellness centre, which the Applicant maintains is not what is being proposed. The Applicant further argued that Township staff recommended approval subject to conditions after determining that the proposed use could be classified as a home business. Township staff did not review, nor require, floor plans to conclude that the original variances met the four-part test.

18The Applicant explained that it did not seek an additional variance to amend the definition of “home business” because Mr. Sharp and Township Staff agreed that the proposed use fits within the definition. However, during closing submissions, counsel for the Applicant noted that if the Tribunal determined that a variance to the definition is required, it is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to allow an additional variance and amend the definition of “home business”. The Applicant emphasized that the ORMCP policies explicitly permit a “home business” as do the County OP, Township OP and ZBL, and as such, requested that the Tribunal allow the appeal and approve the proposed variances subject to the conditions set out in the Staff Report.

19The Township argued that conformity with the ORMCP is a threshold question. The Township’s case focused on the failure of the proposed variances to conform with the policies in the ORMCP and argued that the Tribunal must dismiss the appeal as the proposed use is not permitted. The Township submitted that the Applicant has not provided sufficient information regarding the nature of the proposed use, however, based on the information that has been provided, the proposed use will dominate the residential use. As such, the proposed use is not small-scale, not a home business and therefore not a permitted use.

20Counsel for the Township emphasized that the subject property is located in the Natural Core Area, which is the most protected designation in the ORMCP. Despite the value of having mental health and wellness services available in communities, the Township argued that this value does not outweigh the lack of conformity with the ORMCP.

Planning Act and Provincial Planning Statement, 2024

21Mr. Sharp testified that the proposed variances have regard to s.2 of the Planning Act and matters of provincial interest. He referred the Tribunal to ss. 2(a) and 2(p) noting, that the proposed variances would not have negative impacts to natural heritage or features and that there is an identified need in the area for mental health services. In Mr. Manett’s opinion, the key provincial interest raised in the hearing is s. 2(p), which the proposed variances do not have regard for. He testified that the proposed use is not a home business and the subject property is located in the Natural Core Area of the ORMCP, which does not permit commercial operations, and therefore, the subject property is not the appropriate location for the proposed use.

22Mr. Sharp opined that the proposed minor variances are consistent with the PPS. He noted that the proposed use expands wellness services throughout the community, thereby supporting the creation of a complete community. Further, the proposed use is tied to the rural character of the subject property and will diversify the economic base of the area without negative impacts to the surrounding area or the subject property. Mr. Sharp emphasized that the proposed use would continue to use existing buildings on the subject property without any further development, which avoids threats to the natural heritage features on the subject property.

23Mr. Manett testified that Mr. Sharp’s evidence on natural features is not relevant because the issues to be determined are narrow, being what percentage of the building(s) is being used for a home business relative to the main residential use. Mr. Manett opined that, given his opinion that the proposed use is not a home business and not permitted in the Natural Core Area designation of the ORMCP, it follows that it is also not consistent with the PPS.

Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan

24Mr. Sharp reviewed various policies in the ORMCP to conclude that the proposed variances conform with the ORMCP. Mr. Sharp referred to s. 11(3) of the ORMCP, which lists permitted uses in Natural Core Areas and includes home businesses and bed and breakfast establishments. Mr. Sharp opined that the proposed use fits into these permitted uses as it is a home business and will be providing food and accommodation. He was clear to note that the proposed use was not a bed and breakfast, but had similarities, given the provision of food and accommodation.

25The Township argued that the primary issue for determination is whether the proposed use is a “home business” as defined in the ORMCP. If the answer is “no”, then the proposed use is not permitted within the Natural Core Area designation and therefore does not conform with the ORMCP, as required by s. 3(5) of the Planning Act. During cross-examination, Mr. Sharp agreed that the Tribunal cannot allow the appeal if it determines that a wellness centre use is not a home business use as defined in the ORMCP, however, he emphasized that it was his opinion that a wellness centre does fit within the ORMCP definition of home business. The Township disagreed, arguing that the proposed use is a commercial operation, which is not permitted on the subject property.

26Tuning to the home business definition, the Parties agree that a home business is a permitted use in the ORMCP. The dispute between the Parties centred on whether the proposed use fits within the ORMCP definition of “home business”, which reads as follows:

“home business” means a business that is not located on a farm and,

(a) Involves providing personal or professional services or producing custom or artisanal products,

(b) Is carried on as a small-scale secondary use within a single dwelling, or a building that is accessory to the dwelling, by one or more residents of the dwelling, and

(c) Does not include uses such as an auto repair or paint shop or furniture stripping.

27The Parties disagreed on the interpretation of the word “or” in (b). Mr. Sharp testified that “or” is inclusive and should be read as “and/or”. He disagreed with Mr. Manett’s interpretation and provided his opinion that the use could be carried out in both a residence and accessory structure and whether that use is small-scale is based on the context of the property as a whole. In other words, the overall property should be considered, not just the location where the use will take place. In this case, the gross floor area in which the proposed use will operate is small in comparison with the overall size of the subject property and thus, fits within the definition of home business.

28Counsel for the Applicant argued that during cross-examination, Mr. Manett agreed that in other ORMCP policies the word “or” could be read as “and” and the modern approach to statutory interpretation requires words be read in their entire context and ordinary sense. Therefore, the word “or” must be read consistently throughout the ORMCP, which is that it can also be read as “and”, resulting in a home business use being permitted in both a home and accessory structure.

29Mr. Manett disagreed with Mr. Sharp’s interpretation of the word “or” opining that the proposed use can only operate in the dwelling or accessory structure, but not in both. Mr. Manett testified that, based on the information provided by the Applicant, the proposed use does not fit the definition of a home business in the ORMCP and ZBL, is not permitted in the Natural Core Area designation, and minor variances to the ZBL cannot remedy the lack of conformity with the ORMCP.

30Counsel for the Township referred the Tribunal to Telus Communications Inc. v. Federation of Canadian Municipalities (2025) SCC 15 where the Supreme Court of Canada held that words of a provision must be interpreted “…in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament”. The Township argued that the plain meaning of the word “or” is to mark a choice. The Legislature is intentional in its choice of words, and in the ORMCP definition of “home business” it chose “or” meaning that a home business is not permitted in both a dwelling and an accessory structure. The Township argued that the Tribunal’s analysis can stop here as ORMCP conformity is a requirement (Adjala-Tosorontio (Township) Zoning By-law No. 76-4 (Re), [2003] O.M.B.D. No. 928).

31There was no disagreement that subsections (a) and (c) of the ORMCP definition of “home business” are satisfied. The Tribunal’s analysis and decision must focus on subsection (b) of the definition. In that regard, the Tribunal finds the Township’s evidence and submissions on interpreting the ORMCP definition of “home business” more persuasive. Counsel for both parties submitted that words must be read in their ordinary sense, and the Tribunal agrees. Reading the word “or” in its ordinary sense and in the context of the entire provision, the Tribunal finds that it could not have been the intent of the Legislature to read “or” as “and”. If this had been the intent, the Legislature would have made it clear that a home business could be carried out in both a dwelling and a structure accessory to the dwelling. While matters of statutory interpretation are generally outside of the expertise of those qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence, the Tribunal does agree with Mr. Manett that context is important. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that if one can read “or” as “and” in some ORMCP policies, then one must read it consistently in all ORMCP policies. The Tribunal disagrees. While one must read words in the context of the scheme of the ORMCP, one must also read words in their ordinary sense and in the context of the provision. In this case, the Tribunal finds that the Legislature intended to offer a choice in the home business definition and that choice is to operate the home business in either the dwelling or the accessory structure, but not both.

32The Tribunal’s finding is that a plain reading of the word “or” is exclusive, and as such, the proposed use taking place in both the dwelling and the accessory structure is not permitted and fails to conform with the ORMCP. Further, as will be expanded upon below, the scale of the proposed use would render it the primary use of the subject property as opposed to secondary to the residence, which also fails to conform with the ORMCP.

33Based on the Tribunal’s finding that the proposed use does not conform with the home business definition in the ORMCP, both Mr. Manett and Mr. Sharp agreed that the Tribunal cannot allow the appeal. However, the Tribunal will continue its analysis of the remainder of the evidence and submissions.

Maintain the general purpose and intent of the Official Plan

34Mr. Sharp opined that the proposed variances conform with the County OP. He reviewed policy 3.11.3, concluding that the proposed home business use conforms with the applicable Natural Core Area policies in the County OP. Mr. Manett testified that in the absence of a definition of home business in the County OP, one consults the ORMCP definitions pursuant to policy 3.11.49. Based on his analysis that the proposed use does not meet the home business definition in the ORMCP, it consequently follows that the use does not meet the general intent and purpose of the County OP.

35Mr. Sharp opined that the proposed variances conform to the general intent of the County OP and Town OP. The Town OP permits home business uses within single detached residential homes and accessory structures. In this case, the proposed use is on an existing lot with no changes to the fabric of the neighbourhood, no additional development and the retention of natural vegetative areas. Mr. Sharp testified that the proposed use is similar to the previous use as a yoga studio and would support the achievement of a more complete community by improving access to social and health services to the community which is consistent with the goals for community improvement.

36In reviewing the Town OP, Mr. Sharp referred to the Nottawasaga Community Safety and Well-Being Plan 2025-2029 (“CSWB Plan”), which included the prioritization of locally delivered mental health care and services. He opined that the proposed use supports the expansion of required and missing services to the community, allowing those accessing the wellness centre services to stay close to family members in the community.

37The Township emphasized that the submissions and evidence proffered relating to the previous use as a yoga studio are of no use, as there is no evidence that the yoga studio was a legal use, nor how a yoga studio would compare with the proposed use. Mr. Manett referred to policy 4.12.2 of the Town OP, which permits home businesses for lands located in the Natural Core Area and refers to the ORMCP for definitions. He again reiterated his earlier testimony that the proposed use does not meet the definition of home business in the ORMCP given it is not small-scale and not limited to one building and therefore it does not meet the general intent and purpose of the Town OP.

38Given Mr. Sharp’s testimony that up to 12 guests could be provided with overnight accommodation, the number of required staff, meal provision and programming, counsel for the Township argued that the scale of the proposed use, as explained by the Applicant, is a commercial enterprise as opposed to a small-scale operation.

39The Tribunal was persuaded by the evidence and opinions of the Township. The County OP and Township OP refers to the definitions in the ORMCP and as the Tribunal found above, the proposed use does not conform with the “home business” definition in the ORMCP. It follows that it also does not meet the general purpose and intent of the County OP or the Township OP.

40There is no debate that mental health care and services are important and should be prioritized, when feasible. In this case, the Tribunal finds that the proposed variances are too significant and not appropriate for the subject property. The prior use of the accessory structure as a yoga studio cannot be given any weight by the Tribunal as there was no evidence presented that the use was permitted, nor how the use would compare with the proposed use. The Tribunal finds that the proposed variances do not maintain the general purpose and intent of the County OP nor the Township OP as the scale of the operation, as described by Mr. Sharp, cannot be considered small-scale.

Maintain the general purpose and intent of the Zoning By-Law

41Mr. Manett referred the Tribunal to the list of permitted uses in the ORM N Zone pursuant to s.10.1 of the ZBL which includes “…home business ancillary to the single detached dwelling”. In Mr. Manett’s opinion the proposed use will be the primary activity at the subject property as opposed to ancillary to the residential use as evidenced by the GFA for the proposed use being similar to that of the residential component and the number of employees exceeding the number of residents.

42Mr. Manett reviewed the ZBL definition of home business with the requirement in s. 2.60(b) that it be a small-scale accessory use and be within a single dwelling. He then reviewed s.3.13 which applies to home businesses and from which the Applicant is seeking relief. The key factors set out in s.3.13 are location, size and number of employees. In Mr. Manett’s opinion, the proposed use is not limited to a single dwelling, is not small-scale and involves too many non-resident employees. With respect to location and size, Mr. Manett testified that floor plans are required given the lack of certainty about the intended uses and where those uses will take place. The Applicant has not provided floor plans showing what 25 percent or 35 percent of the dwelling is nor how it would be allocated. Floor plans showing the residential space allocated to the owner for day to day use along with the intended allocation for the use of clients and employees of the home business would provide some certainty to the Township and the Tribunal in assessing the proposed variances. During cross examination, Mr. Manett acknowledged that the Township did not request floor plans nor were they required pursuant to any policy that he is aware of. With respect to the number of employees, Mr. Manett opined that the intent of limiting the number of employees to one person other than the owner is to ensure that the home business is a small-scale operation that is ancillary to the residential use. The proposed variances seek to alter the three key factors governing home businesses in s. 3.13 which the Township argued does not meet the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.

43Mr. Sharp reviewed s. 3.13 of the ZBL and opined that the proposed use conforms with the home business requirements, save and except for the provisions related to (b) and (d) which the Applicant is seeking relief from. Mr. Sharp testified that the proposed variances meet the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.

44Mr. Sharp disagreed with Mr. Manett’s opinion that the proposed use was not small-scale because the proposal includes up to three employees, and use of 35% of the building area of each of the two buildings. Mr. Sharp opined that a determination of small-scale should be made by looking at the facts and context, including lot size and characteristics. In this case, the subject property is 6.4 hectares, the as of right permission is buildings up to a maximum lot coverage of 5 percent and currently the subject property lot coverage is 0.7 percent with the existing buildings.

45During cross examination, Mr. Sharp was questioned on the number of employees and the floor area. Mr. Sharp acknowledged that he had not included cooking staff in his employee calculation noting that the family already had cooking staff who would likely perform that service. He noted that the proposal was for 3 employees as the existing cooking staff formed part of the resident’s employees, not those of the home business. Mr. Sharp explained that the garage is a two-storey structure with kitchen and bathroom facilities located on the main floor and an open space on the second floor. Counsel for the Township questioned how the proposed use would be limited to 35% of the floor space given the second floor was an entirely open space with washrooms and kitchen facilities located on the main floor. Mr. Sharp explained that a partition could be erected in the open second floor space to ensure that programming is limited to 35%. Mr. Sharp did agree that if 35 percent of the second-floor space was being used for the home business then guests would not be able to use the washroom or kitchen facilities on the main floor.

46The Tribunal heard limited submissions and evidence on the proposed variance to the number of employees. Mr. Sharp’s explanation during cross examination that the family’s cooking staff could fulfil cooking and cleaning duties would, in the Tribunal’s view, render the existing cooking staff a fourth employee of the wellness centre. As the Tribunal heard, with three employees, the number of employees would exceed the number of family members on the subject property elevating the use beyond a small-scale operation.

47The Township argued that Mr. Sharp’s testimony that the 35% allocation could evolve depending on the activity would effectively mean that 100% of the building would be used for the home business. The Township reiterated that floor plans are required to assist the Tribunal in assessing the proposed variances.

48When looking at the proposed use as a whole, the Tribunal cannot find that the proposed use operating in both the dwelling and the accessory structure and occupying up to 35% of the GFA and having three employees maintains the purpose and intent of the ZBL. The Tribunal agrees with the Township that these three deviations from the ZBL would result in the proposed use becoming the primary use of the subject property.

49As set out above, one reason the Tribunal determined that the proposed use does not meet the definition of home business was that the use needed to be carried on in either the dwelling or the accessory structure, but not both. Section 3.13(b) of the ZBL is even more restrictive noting that “[t]he home business must be conducted entirely within the dwelling…” and does not include an accessory structure. Based on the testimony and evidence of the Applicant, the programming, and perhaps meal provision, would take place in the accessory structure, however, the overnight accommodation would take place in the residence. The Tribunal acknowledges that the Applicant is seeking relief from s. 3.13(b) of the ZBL, however, the Tribunal could not determine that the proposed variances meet the general purpose and intent of the ZBL given the lack of certainty surrounding where the different activities will take place and the fact that they would take place in two buildings.

50The evolving nature of the 35 percent allocation was concerning for the Tribunal. The Tribunal was not presented with any evidence setting out which parts of the building or buildings the proposed use would take place in or be limited to. Further adding to the Tribunal’s concern was Mr. Sharp’s admission that the upper floor of the garage would be used for programming, however, there were no washroom facilities provided on the upper floor for use of clients. The 35 percent allocation required more thought in order to provide the Tribunal with sufficient detail to make an informed decision. Without such detail, the Tribunal cannot determine that the proposed variances maintain the general purpose and intent of the ZBL.

Desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building, or structure

51The Applicant referred the Tribunal to the principles set out in Vincent v. Degasperis, 2005 CanLII 24263 (ON SCDC) and Rioux v. Toronto (City), 2017 CanLII 36194 (OM LPAT) to determine desirability. Factors impacting desirability include overall impact that the variances will have on the neighbourhood and surrounding area and whether the variances will improve the use of existing buildings. In this regard, Mr. Sharp emphasized throughout his testimony that no development was required which ensured that the ecological integrity of the subject property and surrounding area would be upheld. He noted that the Applicant could have expanded the buildings on the subject property and avoided the need for the variances, however, the existing buildings can accommodate the residential use along with the proposed use which alleviates the need for any development. Further, the vegetative screening, setbacks and buffers to neighbouring properties and the roadway all assist in maintaining the rural character of the subject property and ensure privacy of the neighbourhood is maintained. Mr. Sharp opined that the proposed variances are desirable for the use of the land.

52It was Mr. Manett’s opinion that the intensity of the proposed use, the amount of GFA and number of additional employees being requested does not fit with the rural character nor with the intended land use in the ORMCP. Counsel for the Township argued that the subject property is located in the most protected area of the ORMCP, which must factor into any decisions permitting uses not allowed as of right. The proposed variances would permit a commercial wellness centre, which the Township argued is not desirable for the appropriate use of the lands and buildings.

53The Tribunal has determined that the proposed use is not small-scale and does not fall within the definition of home business use making it akin to a commercial operation. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal finds that the proposed variances are not an appropriate use of the subject property or the buildings located on the subject property.

Minor in nature

54Mr. Sharp testified that the primary use would continue to be residential with no impact to the character of the property or the surrounding neighbourhood and as such, he opined that the proposed variances are minor in nature.

55Counsel for the Applicant referred the Tribunal to caselaw confirming that the test for “minor” is not mathematical but rather must be interpreted relative to impact on adjacent properties, uses or the area (Stoll v. Kawartha Lakes (City) (2004), 48 O.M.B.R. 30 (O.M.B.)).

56Mr. Manett opined that the ZBL allows a small-scale accessory use, meaning that the proposed use should be subordinate to the residential component. Counsel for the Township submitted that the minor branch of the test is broad and, as set out in 430 Royal York LP v. Toronto (City), 2025 CanLII 79642, includes both a numerical and impact assessment. The Township argued that the proposed variances are not minor in that they propose changes to three of the factors governing home businesses: increased GFA, use in two buildings, and increased number of employees.

57The Tribunal finds that the proposed variances are not minor. The Tribunal agrees with the submissions of both parties that impact forms a significant part of the “minor” branch of the test. As set out in the Tribunal’s findings above, the impact of the proposed variances together would introduce a commercial operation to the subject property. The Tribunal has found that, based on the evidence, the proposed use would dominate the subject property. This fact is not mitigated by the overall size of the subject property.

Participant Concerns

58Mr. Sharp addressed the land use planning concerns raised by the participants in both his written Witness Statement and his viva voce evidence. He noted that minor variance approvals will not establish a precedent for other home business approvals, as minor variances are site-specific and each is assessed based on its own merits. Many of the remaining concerns were addressed through Mr. Sharp’s response to the minor variance test above and in the recommended conditions set out in the Staff Report.

59The Tribunal read and considered the concerns raised by the Participants and has responded to the planning matters raised in the statements in the analysis provided throughout the Decision.

Conclusion

60The Tribunal finds that the proposed variances do not meet the legal and planning criteria and as such, cannot be approved. The Tribunal finds that the ORMCP definition of home business does not permit the use in both the residence and the accessory structure. The definition cannot be interpreted in that way. Based on the evidence and submissions, the Tribunal finds that the proposed variances do not meet any of the branches of the minor variance test as set out above. While the proposed use as a wellness centre has merit and would be beneficial to the community, the value of the use cannot override the lack of conformity with the applicable policies.

61The Tribunal will briefly address the Applicant’s closing submissions regarding the option for the Tribunal to amend the definition of home business as a further variance not included in the application. The Tribunal does not have sufficient evidence to support amending the definition, nor would it save the appeal. The Tribunal has found that the appeal fails to meet all four branches of the Minor Variance test, and an amended definition would not change the conclusion.

ORDER

62THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is dismissed and the variances to By-law ORM 03-56 are not authorized.

“C. Hardy”

C. HARDY

VICE-CHAIR

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.