Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: December 17, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000407
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: David Moubarak
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal
Description: To permit the rezoning of the subject property
Reference Number: Z-9689
Property Address: 1494 Commissioners Road West
Municipality: London
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000407
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000407
OLT Case Name: Moubarak v London (City)
Heard: November 24, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| David Moubarak | Analee Baroudi |
| City of London | Aynsley Hovius Christina McCreery |
| Matthew Parezanovic and Francyelle Fernandez | Paula Lombardi |
DECISION DELIVERED BY HUGH S. WILKINS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
1This Decision addresses the appeal brought by David Moubarak (“Appellant”) arising from the refusal by the City of London (“City”) of his application for a zoning by-law amendment in relation to the property located at 1494 Commissioners Road West (“subject property”).
2The Appellant seeks to construct a four-storey apartment building with 10 units on the subject property. Presently, there is a single detached dwelling with a shed located there. The existing dwelling is located toward the rear of the lot. The dwelling is surrounded by a manicured lawn and lies adjacent to a forested protected area called the Warbler Woods Environmentally Significant Area to the rear.
3The subject property has a lot area of 2,056.2 square metres and frontage of 30.5 metres along Commissioners Road West. To facilitate the proposed development, the Appellant is seeking to rezone the subject property from “Residential (R18) Zone” to the “Open Space (OS5) Zone” and the “Residential (R8-4) Zone”. The Appellant seeks to amend the zoning to allow for reduced west and east interior side yard setbacks, increased maximum height, increased maximum lot coverage, and reduced rear yard depth.
4On March 5, 2024, City Council refused the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment.
5The Appellant appealed the City’s decision. The Parties engaged in settlement discussions and, in October 2025, they informed the Tribunal that proposed settlements had been reached by all of the Parties. The Tribunal scheduled a hearing to consider the proposed settlements, which was held on November 24, 2025.
TESTS
6In making a decision on zoning by-law amendment appeals, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act. The decision must be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024) (“PPS”) and it must conform with applicable official plans.
EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS
7The Tribunal heard evidence solely from the Appellant, who called Nick Dyjach to provide opinion evidence on his behalf. The Tribunal qualified Mr. Dyjach to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.
8Mr. Dyjach stated that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment would rezone the subject property from “Residential (R18) Zone” to “Open Space (OS5) Zone” and “Residential (R8-4) Zone”. He stated that the proposed OS5 Zone boundary is based on buffers and setbacks from the 250-year flood scenario and erosion hazard limits for the site and would take up more than one-third of the subject property. He said the proposed apartment building would be located closer to the road (and further back from the Warbler Woods) than the existing building. He said the front two-thirds of the lot would be zoned R8-4 Zone with site-specific regulations to request relief from west and east interior side yard setbacks and a reduced rear yard depth, an increased maximum lot coverage, and an increased maximum building height.
9Mr. Dyjach opined that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is consistent with the PPS. He stated that it would provide housing through intensification with a range and mix of housing options within an established neighbourhood on full municipal services. He opined that it would facilitate compact development and the efficient utilization of land, resources, and infrastructure within an existing settlement area. He opined that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment would protect the adjacent Warbler Woods natural heritage features and that impacts of the proposed development have been evaluated in terms of site ecological habitat, slope stability, and floodplain mapping. He said the proposed development is consistent with the findings of the scoped environmental impact study that was conducted, which found that the proposed development would not create adverse impacts on the Warbler Woods. Mr. Dyjach said the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment would provide for additional environmentally sensitive lands by rezoning a portion of the subject property as Open Space (OS5 Zone) to act as a buffer for Warbler Woods. He said ownership of this part of the subject property would be transferred to the City.
10Mr. Dyjach opined that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment conforms with the City’s Official Plan. He reiterated that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment would facilitate intensification in an appropriate location for growth. He said the proposed development would be sensitive and compatible with the surrounding area with appropriate stepbacks to facilitate transition to nearby lower height residential built form. He said the proposed height and massing are well-articulated and the subject property has frontage on an arterial road. He said the proposed development would include nine indoor parking spaces and one exterior parking space. He also reiterated that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment will provide buffers and help protect the neighbouring Warbler Woods.
11Mr. Dyjach also reviewed the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act, including those relating to the protection of ecological systems, the adequate provision of a full range of housing, and the adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems. He opined that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment has regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act.
12Mr. Dyjach also reviewed the proposed settlements with the City and with Matthew Parezanovic and Francyelle Fernandez (“Added Parties”). He said the settlement with the City includes provisions for the preparation and submission of an environmental management plan, the construction of a green roof to be designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with the Toronto Green Roof Construction Standard, the construction of a fence between the Residential and Open Space zones, and the distribution of information regarding the environmentally sensitive area. He said the proposed settlement with the Added Parties includes a payment for the construction of additional screening for their properties and the receipt of a copy of the environmental management plan.
13The Parties agreed that any changes to the City of Toronto’s Green Roof By-law will not impact the intent of the Parties to use the Toronto Green Roof Construction Standard.
FINDINGS
14Based on Mr. Dyjach’s uncontested opinion evidence, the Tribunal finds that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is consistent with the PPS and conforms with the City’s Official Plan. The Tribunal has had regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act and it finds that the appeal should be allowed, in part, and the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment should be approved.
ORDER
15THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeal is allowed, in part, and the Zoning By-law Amendment is approved as set out in Attachment 1 attached to this Order and Decision.
“Hugh S. Wilkins”
HUGH S. WILKINS
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.
Attachment 1