Qualitative Financials Inc. v. London (City), 2025 CanLII 135447

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 23, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000736

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

Applicant and Appellant: Qualitative Financials Inc.

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit conversion of the existing detached garage to an additional residential unit with reduced interior side yard setback

Reference Number: A-25094

Property Address: 419 Ronald Street

Municipality/UT: London/Middlesex

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000736

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000736

OLT Case Name: Qualitative Financials Inc. v. London (City)

Heard: December 09, 2025, by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Qualitative Financials Inc. (Appellant / Applicant)

Bert Arnold

DECISION DELIVERED BY J. INNIS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to the Order

BACKGROUND

1Qualitative Financial Inc. (“Applicant”) sought a minor variance from the City of London's (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) to permit the conversion of an existing detached garage into an additional residential unit (“ARU”) with a reduced interior side yard setback, on the property municipally known as 419 Ronald Street (“Subject Property”).

2The Applicant proposes to convert the existing detached one-car garage into a single-storey ARU. The conversion would retain the garage’s existing exterior walls and roof, with no additions or expansions proposed; all current setbacks would therefore remain unchanged. The existing overhead garage door would be replaced with a new wall containing a window with a pedestrian entrance. A second window is proposed on the north facade, facing the rear yard. No windows are proposed on the west or south elevations adjacent to neighboring properties. The resulting unit would have a floor area of approximately 29.6 metres square (“m²”), and it would be configured as a bachelor-style layout with a combined living and sleeping space.

3The existing dwelling on the Subject Property currently contains one residential unit. However, the Applicant has obtained building permits to renovate the structure to accommodate a total of three units, one primary dwelling and two ARU’s within the existing building. Construction pursuant to those permits is currently underway.

VARIANCES REQUESTED and decision of the COA

4The minor variance requested is to permit a detached additional residential unit with a south interior side yard setback of 0.4 metres (“m”), whereas 1.2 m is the minimum required.

5On Thursday, August 28, 2025, the COA denied the requested minor variance. In its decision, the Committee found that the variance did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law or the Official Plan, was not minor in nature, and did not represent appropriate or desirable development or use of the land, building, or structure.

SUBJECT PROPERTY and SURROUNDING CONTEXT

6The Subject Property is developed with a single detached dwelling and a detached garage, accessed via a driveway from Ronald Street. The existing dwelling provides the following setbacks to the lot lines: 7.8 m to the front, 17.95 m to the rear, 1.92 m to the north interior side, and 3.5 m to the south interior side. The detached garage is situated approximately 24 m from Ronald Street, 9.26 m from the rear lot line, 10.73 m from the north interior side, and 0.48 m from the south interiors side. The garage is legally non-conforming with respect to the current Zoning By-law, as it does not meet the required interior side yard setbacks; however, it was constructed in accordance with building permit requirements in effect at the time of issuance.

7The Subject Property is designated Neighborhood Place Type in the City's Official Plan (“OP”) and is zoned Residential R2-3 under Zoning Bylaw Z-1 (“ZBL”). Ronald Street is a local residential street, connecting to Dundas Street approximately 50 m to the south. The surrounding area is urban and mixed-use, consisting primarily of low-density residential development on local streets, with higher density residential buildings, commercial uses, and institutional uses located along major streets nearby.

8Notable features in proximity to the Subject Property include the Canadian Pacific Kansas City Rail Line approximately 200 m to the north, Fanshawe College London campus about 1.5 kilometres to the northwest, and various public and institutional uses, including schools, parks, and community facilities. The area also includes commercial nodes along Dundas Street and Argyle Mall, approximately 250 m to the east. Overall, the neighborhood is a mature, well-established urban community with a variety of land uses and services consistent with a complete community.

Parties and evidence

9The City advised the Tribunal in advance of the hearing that it would not be participating in the proceeding. As such, no representative of the City attended the hearing.

10Counsel for the Applicant appeared and called D. Robert Russell, a Registered Professional Planner in the province of Ontario, who has previously been qualified to provide expert opinion evidence before the Tribunal and its predecessors. Mr. Russell was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in land use planning. Mr. Russell also adopted his Witness Statement as part of his testimony, and the statement was received into evidence and marked as Exhibit 1.

11At the request of Counsel for the Applicant, the Tribunal received the City’s Planning Staff Report (“Staff Report”) to the COA dated August 28, 2025, as part of the municipal record, and entered it into evidence as Exhibit 2.

12The Tribunal also received a request for Participant status jointly from Ronald and Ruth Whitehead, owners of an adjacent property. On consent, Participant status was granted. The Tribunal directed the Applicant to address the concerns set out in their Participant statement at the appropriate time. No other requests for Party or Participant status were received.

Applicant’s position and Section 45(1) of the Planning Act

13When considering a proposed variance, the Tribunal must consider each of the four elements set out in s. 45(1) of the Planning Act (“Act”), to determine if the requested variance:

1. Maintains the general intent and purpose of the official plan;
2. Maintains the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law;
3. Is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
4. Is minor in nature.

All four elements must be satisfied.

14The Applicant, through their expert witness, Mr. Russell, provided evidence in support of the requested minor variance to facilitate the conversion of the existing detached garage into an ARU. Mr. Russell explained that the proposed conversion would retain the existing building footprint, exterior walls, and roof structure. No additions or expansions are proposed, and the garage door would be replaced with a wall containing a pedestrian entrance and windows oriented to minimize impacts on adjacent properties.

15Mr. Russell noted that, under s. 2 of the Act, several matters of provincial interest are relevant to the Application, including: the orderly development of healthy communities; the provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing; efficient use of land and municipal services; transit-supportive development; and the conservation of energy and water. He confirmed that the proposed conversion is consistent with these interests, as it increases the number of residential units without expanding the building footprint or requiring additional municipal infrastructure. The proposal also aligns with Ontario Regulation 299/19, allowing an ARU in an accessory structure.

16Mr. Russell provided evidence that the proposed minor variance is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (“PPS 2024”). The conversion represents residential intensification within a serviced urban area, contributing to compact, transit-supportive development. He noted that the Subject Property is close to existing transit routes and urban amenities, and that the additional unit would increase housing supply and provide a gentle form of intensification. The PPS 2024 policies supporting complete communities, efficient land use, and a range of housing options were cited as aligning with the proposal.

17Mr. Russell testified that the Application met the ‘Four Tests’ in s. 45(1) of the Act and provided the following evidence:

1. Maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan: Mr. Russell testified that the Subject Property is designated Neighbourhood Place Type in the London Plan, and that the proposal aligns with policies supporting a diversity of housing options, affordable units, and gentle intensification. The existing garage is legally non-conforming with respect to the current side yard setback but remains a permitted structure under the Plan’s policy for additional residential units in accessory buildings. He noted that the property’s proximity to the Urban Corridor designation on Dundas Street allows the development to function as a transition, and that the proposed unit would have minimal impact on the surrounding neighbourhood.

2. Maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law: Mr. Russell indicated that the property is zoned Residential R2-3 under the ZBL, which permits accessory buildings and ARUs. The only zoning relief required is for the south interior side yard setback of the detached garage (0.48 m existing versus 0.6 m required under s. 4.1(4)(b) in the ZBL). He confirmed that all other Zoning By-law provisions, including maximum lot coverage, height, and rear yard setback, are met.

Mr. Russell provided evidence that the Subject Property’s zoning establishes a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 m for accessory structures. He noted that, after the COA decision, legislative changes came into effect that modify the applicable setback requirements. Specifically, s. 34(1.4) of the Act, as amended, and Ontario Regulation 257/25 (filed November 21, 2025) now deem the minimum side yard setback to be 90% of the by-law requirement. For the Subject Property, this adjustment reduces the effective minimum side yard setback from 1.2 m to 1.08 m. The relief requested by the Applicant to reduce the setback to 0.4 m therefore, remains unchanged in scope, but the reference point is updated to reflect the 1.08 m requirement under the current legislation. Mr. Russell opined that this updated legislative framework supports the requested minor variance without altering the nature of the relief sought. He confirmed that all other Zoning By-law standards, including height, lot coverage, and rear yard setback, continue to be satisfied.

3. Desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and structure: The witness explained that the use of the existing garage as an ARU is consistent with the planning vision for compact, transit-supportive neighbourhoods. Repurposing the structure rather than relocating or reconstructing it reduces waste and makes efficient use of the existing building and lot. The modest intensification is compatible with the surrounding context, which includes a mix of low- and higher-density residential uses, and nearby commercial and institutional facilities.

4. Minor in nature: Mr. Russell provided evidence that the variance is minor. The difference between the existing 0.48 m side yard setback and the required 0.6 m setback is minimal (0.12 m). No physical expansions are proposed, and the visual and functional impact on neighbouring properties is negligible. He further noted that the proposed intensification is significantly less impactful than potential redevelopment along Dundas Street, where taller and higher-density buildings are permitted.

18Mr. Russell provided evidence that the City Staff Report recommended approval of the requested minor variance and noted his agreeance with the Report’s recommendation to include a condition requiring the redirection of downspouts on the south side of the detached garage to ensure no adverse impacts to neighbouring properties. Further, Mr. Russell addressed the public comments noted in the Report and that he concurred with City staff, that the majority of the concerns raised were regarding density. It was his opinion that these are not relevant to the Tribunal’s consideration, as the conversion of the garage to an ARU is a permitted use. The only matter before the Tribunal is the requested reduction in the side yard setback, and Mr. Russell concluded that the proposal is consistent with applicable planning policies and standards as outlined in the Staff Report.

19Mr. Russell also noted that, other than the matter regarding the downspout, no other issues or concerns were identified by the various municipal departments throughout the planning process.

20In addressing the concerns raised in the participant statement submitted by Ronald and Ruth Whitehead, Mr. Russell testified that in his opinion, their statement primarily focused on matters of density and parking; however, the proposed development is permitted under the 2024 PPS and the OP, and parking requirements are satisfied in accordance with the ZBL. With respect to the south interior side yard setback, the participants expressed concerns related to proximity, but Mr. Russell testified that there are no anticipated physical impacts to the adjacent property. He further stated that the Fire Department reviewed the proposal and provided no comments, and that any technical matters will be addressed through the standard building permit process in accordance with the Ontario Building Code.

21Mr. Russell concluded that the proposed minor variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the OP and ZBL; represents appropriate and desirable development of the land and existing structure; and is minor in nature. He further opined that the proposal is consistent with the 2024 PPS and constitutes good planning.

FINDINGS

22The Tribunal notes that the COA refused the Application. In hearing this appeal, the Tribunal considers the matter de novo, and its determination is based on the evidence and submissions before it, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Planning Act.

23The Tribunal recognizes that, when making its decision, it must apply the legislation in effect at the time of the hearing. In this regard, the Tribunal notes the changes to the Act and Ontario Regulation 257/25, which deem the minimum side yard setback for accessory structures to be 90% of the By-law requirement. For the Subject Property, this reduces the effective minimum side yard setback from 1.2 m to 1.08 m. The relief sought by the Applicant to permit a 0.48 m setback remains unchanged in scope, but the reference point is updated under current legislation.

24Section 2 of the Act requires the Tribunal to have regard to matters of provincial interest, including the orderly development of healthy communities, the provision of a full range of housing, efficient use of land and municipal services, transit-supportive development, and the conservation of energy and water. The Tribunal finds that based on the evidence, the proposed minor variance aligns with these interests. The conversion of the existing garage to an ARU increases the number of units without enlarging the building footprint or requiring additional municipal infrastructure, contributes to compact, transit-supportive development, and makes efficient use of the existing building and lot.

25The Tribunal concurs with Mr. Russell that the requested variance is consistent with the 2024 PPS as the Subject Property is located within a serviced urban area, close to transit and amenities, and the proposed ARU constitutes a gentle form of residential intensification. The proposal supports complete communities, a mix of housing options, and efficient land use, consistent with the policies cited in the 2024 PPS.

26After considering the Application in light of the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, the Tribunal makes the following determination:

1. Maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan: The Subject Property is designated Neighbourhood Place Type in the London Plan. The Tribunal accepts Mr. Russell’s evidence that the proposal aligns with policies supporting a diversity of housing options, affordable units, and gentle intensification. The property’s proximity to the Urban Corridor on Dundas Street allows it to function as a transition, and the additional unit would have minimal impact on the surrounding neighbourhood.

2. Maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law: The property is zoned Residential R2-3 under the ZBL, which permits accessory structures and ARUs. As such, the Tribunal accepts the evidence provided Mr. Russell that the sole variance required is for the south interior side yard setback of the detached garage and all other ZBL standards, including lot coverage, height, and rear yard setbacks, are met. The requested reduction from 1.08 m to 0.48 m reflects the current legislative framework.

3. Desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and structure: The Tribunal accepts Mr. Russell’s evidence that the use of the existing garage as an ARU is consistent with the planning vision for compact, transit-supportive neighbourhoods. The modest intensification is compatible with the surrounding context and makes efficient use of the existing structure, while avoiding waste associated with demolition or reconstruction.

4. Minor in nature: The Tribunal finds, as supported by Mr. Russell’s evidence, that the difference between the existing setback (0.48 m) and the updated minimum requirement (1.08 m) is small and will have negligible impact on adjacent properties. No physical expansions are proposed, and the visual and functional impacts are minimal. The requested variance is also substantially less impactful than potential redevelopment along Dundas Street, where higher-density buildings are permitted.

27Regarding the concerns raised in the Participant statement, the Tribunal accepts Mr. Russell’s evidence that the ARU itself is a permitted use under the OP and 2024 PPS and further that the issue raised in relation to the side yard setback are limited to proximity concerns regarding fire safety; the Fire Department reviewed the proposal and raised no issues, and that any technical matters will be addressed through the building permit process.

28The Tribunal notes the recommendation of City staff, supported by Mr. Russell, regarding the condition concerning the placement of downspouts to protect neighbouring property, and finds this condition to be reasonable and appropriate.

29On the basis of the uncontroverted evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the requested minor variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law; is desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land and existing structure; is minor in nature; and aligns with the policies of the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement and s. 2 of the Planning Act. The Tribunal therefore finds that the requested minor variance represents good planning and is appropriate in the circumstances.

ORDER

30THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the variance to Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 of the City of London is authorized, subject to the following condition:

1. That the downspouts on the south side of the detached structure shall be redirected to another green space location or Low-Impact Development and not to the south interior side yard; and a drawing shall be submitted with proposed downspout location to ensure lot drainage is not affected for neighbouring properties, to the satisfaction of the City of London Engineer.

“J. Innis”

j. inniS

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: 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.