Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: July 08, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000208
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: 1001091948 Ontario Inc. Subject: Consent - refused by Approval Authority Description: To facilitate division of property into three parcels for construction of three townhouses. Reference Number: D08-01-25/B-00001 Property Address: 120 Queen Mary Street Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa OLT Case No: OLT-25-000208 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000208 OLT Case Name: 1001091948 Ontario Inc. v Ottawa (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: 1001091948 Ontario Inc. Subject: Minor Variance - refused by Approval Authority Description: To facilitate division of property into three parcels for construction of three townhouses. Reference Number: D08-02-25/A-00005 Property Address: 120 Queen Mary Street Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa OLT Case No: OLT-25-000209 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000208
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: 1001091948 Ontario Inc. Subject: Consent - refused by Approval Authority Description: To facilitate division of property into three parcels for construction of three townhouses. Reference Number: D08-01-25/B-00002 Property Address: 120 Queen Mary Street Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa OLT Case No: OLT-25-000214 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000208
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: 1001091948 Ontario Inc. Subject: Minor Variance - refused by Approval Authority Description: To facilitate division of property into three parcels for construction of three townhouses. Reference Number: D08-02-25/A-00006 Property Address: 120 Queen Mary Street Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa OLT Case No: OLT-25-000215 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000208
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: 1001091948 Ontario Inc. Subject: Minor Variance - refused by Approval Authority Description: To facilitate division of property into three parcels for construction of three townhouses. Reference Number: D08-02-25/A-00007 Property Address: 120 Queen Mary Street Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa OLT Case No: OLT-25-000216 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000208
Heard: May 29, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| 1001091948 Ontario Inc. | Christian Campanale |
DECISION DELIVERED BY G.A. CROSER AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to the Order
INTRODUCTION
11001091948 Ontario Inc. (the Appellant”) appealed the February 28, 2025, decision of the Committee of Adjustment (“CoA”) for the City of Ottawa with respect to its dismissal of consent and minor variance applications (collectively the “Application”) that were required to subdivide the property known municipally as 120 Queen Mary Street in the City of Ottawa (“Property”), into three parcels to facilitate the construction of three townhouses. These Appeals are brought pursuant to s.53(19) and s.45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”).
2In the City’s Planning Report (“Report”) which was provided to the CoA in advance of the February 19, 2025, CoA hearing, City staff recommended approval of the Application subject to a list of conditions. The CoA written decision on the Application, issued on February 28, 2025, was a tied vote. In the event of a tie, it is CoA procedure to deny the application.
3Christian Campanale appeared on behalf of the Appellant and provided the Tribunal with the corporation’s Articles of Incorporation which were requested to ensure that Camapanale was permitted to represent the company. No expert witnesses were called by the Appellant. To assist the Tribunal, the Appellant provided testimony with respect to background and recent comparable decisions of the CoA. The Appellant also confirmed that the consent and minor variances before the Tribunal for adjudication were the same as those before the CoA.
4The City was not represented at the Hearing, either by counsel or planning staff.
5The Notice of a Hearing Event was provided by the Tribunal. There were no requests for Party or Participant status either in advance or at the Hearing event.
EXHIBITS
6The following Exhibits were marked by the Tribunal:
- Exhibit 1: PowerPoint Presentation of Appellant
- Exhibit 2: City of Ottawa Municipal Record
- Exhibit 3A: 280 Queen Mary Street Decision of the CoA (minor variance)
- Exhibit 3B: 280 Queen Mary Street Decision of the CoA (consent)
- Exhibit 3C: 280 Queen Mary Street plans
- Exhibit 3D: 280 Queen Mary Street, Tree Information Report
- Exhibit 4: Email from Campanale to Case Coordinator, sent on May 29 at 12:23 pm
HEARING
7The City did not make representations at the Hearing which was unfortunate given the fact that the Planning Report contained several proposed conditions if the CoA granted the Application. Self-represented applicants are reminded that they can subpoena City planning staff to compel them to provide evidence at a Tribunal hearing event. The Tribunal relied upon the Municipal Record, the written decision of the CoA on the application, and submissions of the Appellant in adjudicating this matter.
SITE CONTEXT
8The Property is presently occupied by a 1.5 storey detached dwelling with a large mature tree fronting the street in the community of Overbrook. It is located within a well-established mature residential area that is comprised of a mixture of detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, townhomes, and low-rise apartment buildings. The abutting lots to the Property are an existing 2.5 storey detached dwelling and a 2-storey detached dwelling under construction, with a 3.5 storey low-rise apartment building directly across the street. The lands are designated ‘Neighbourhood’ in the City of Ottawa’s Official Plan (“Official Plan”) and are zoned Residential Third Density Zone Subzone M (RSM) in the City’s Zoning By-law, 2008-250 (“Zoning-By-law”).
MINOR VARIANCE TESTS
9As approval of the consent application will create separate parcels of land and development that would not be in conformity with the requirements of the Zoning By-law, 11 minor variances are required for the three parcels. The variances requested, and grouped per proposed lot, are as follows:
Retained Lot
a) To permit a reduced lot area of 175.1 square metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum lot area of 180 square metres.
b) To permit a reduced rear yard setback of 21.3 percent of the lot depth or 5.5 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law states that the minimum required rear yard setback is 28 percent of the lot depth but may not be less than 6 metres and need not exceed 7.24 metres.
c) To permit a reduced rear yard area of 21.3 percent of the lot area or 37.2 square metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum rear yard area of 25 percent of the lot area or, in this case, 43.78 square metres.
Middle Lot
a) To permit a reduced lot width of 5.51 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum lot width of 6.0 metres.
b) To permit a reduced lot area of 142.5 square metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum lot area of 180 square metres.
c) To permit a reduced rear yard setback of 21.3 percent of the lot depth or 5.5 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law states that the minimum required rear yard setback is 28 percent of the lot depth but may not be less than 6 metres and need not exceed 7.24 metres.
d) To permit a reduced rear yard area of 21.3 percent of the lot area or 30.3 square metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum rear yard area of 25 percent of the lot area or, in this case, 35.6 square metres.
e) To permit a driveway with a width of 2.6 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law does not permit a driveway for a lot with a width or frontage of less than 6 metres.
End Lot
a) To permit a reduced lot area of 175.1 square metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum lot area of 180 square metres.
b) To permit a reduced rear yard setback of 21.3 percent of the lot depth or 5.5 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law states that the minimum required rear yard setback is 28 percent of the lot depth but may not be less than 6 metres and need not exceed 7.24 metres.
c) To permit a reduced rear yard area of 21.3 percent of the lot area or 37.2 square metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum rear yard area of 25 percent of the lot area or, in this case, 47.78 square metres.
10There are four tests that a minor variance must meet under s.45(1) of the Planning Act. The Tribunal has considered the variances listed above in relation to these four tests.
Maintain the General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan
11The ‘dissenting commentary’ in the CoA decision found that the loss of the tree in the front yard of the Property was “avoidable” and as such the Application did not meet the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan,
“…which encourages the preservation of the urban tree canopy and directs that planning and development decisions, including CoA decisions, shall give priority to the retention and protection of large, healthy trees over replacement plantings.”
12This was the sole reason given by the dissenting panel members. It is unclear to the Tribunal why the dissenting panelists of the CoA, focused solely on one subset of one policy in reaching their decision on this matter. The Tribunal is of the view that the preservation of the existing tree canopy may be one factor; however, it is not the sole policy directive found within the Official Plan. A review of the materials in the Municipal Record includes exerts from the Official Plan. Section 2 of the Official Plan, titled ‘Strategic Direction’ lists five “Big Policy Moves” as the broad policy directions of the Official Plan. Increasing the urban tree canopy is mentioned in ‘Big Policy Move 1’ which also touches upon the evolution of Ottawa’s neighbourhoods and making efficient use of public services, and ‘Big Policy Move 4’ on the ‘future livability’ of Ottawa, also speaks to the evolution of neighbourhoods and includes a policy target of a 40 percent urban forest canopy.
13The Planning Report notes that the proposed development must be designed to prioritize tree retention and provide adequate space for future planting, in keeping with Official Plan Policy 4.8.2.3(a). It states that large growing trees should be planted in the rear yards of the future townhomes to compensate for the loss of existing trees and contribute towards the City’s canopy cover target of 40 percent. The dissenting opinion in the CoA decision provides a partial quote from Official Plan policy 4.8.2.3(d), see paragraph [11]. The Tribunal reviewed the entirety of Policy 4.8.2, titled ‘Provide residents with equitable access to an urban forest canopy’ and respectfully disagrees with dissenting panel members of the CoA that the intention of 4.8.2.3 is for the CoA to mandatorily reject an application solely based on whether a tree can be protected or replaced. The Tribunal could find no policy directive in the materials provided by the City that states the protection and preservation of the existing tree canopy was to be prioritized over all other policy directives.
14The Planning Report states that, in the City’s view, the proposed 11 variances meet the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. The Tribunal has reviewed the exerts of the Official Plan that were provided to the CoA by the City’s Planning, Development and Building Services department, and is satisfied that this test has been met for the eleven variances. In this Application, the proposed compact, in-fill development located in an area targeted for such growth and supported by existing infrastructure, meets the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.
Maintain the General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law
15It was the opinion of the Planning Report that the 11 variances meet the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. In the written decision in favour of the Application, the CoA Panel Members noted that this test was met as the “proposal represents orderly development that is compatible with the surrounding area.” The Tribunal notes that Residential Third Density Zone in the Zoning By-law allows for a mix of residential building forms ranging from detached to townhouse dwellings and promotes efficient land use and compact form. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal accepts the position taken by the Planning Report and finds that the General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law has been met for the 11 variances.
Be Desirable for the Appropriate Development or Use of the Land, Building or Structure
16City staff opined in the Planning Report that the proposal is desirable for the appropriate redevelopment of the Property. It is also noteworthy that the Overbrook Committee Association (“OCA”), a volunteer group that supports the Overbrook community, provided written comments to the CoA with respect to the Appellant’s Application. The OCA commented that while the loss of a tree in the front yard was “unfortunate”, it did not oppose the Application. The Tribunal also reviewed the decision written by the CoA Panel Members who supported the Application who stated that the additional residential units were at a “locally appropriate scale” and that from both a planning and public interest perspective that the Application was desirable for the appropriate development or use of the lot. The Tribunal agrees and finds that the proposed redevelopment will provide a more efficient use of land and that its small-scale intensification is appropriate for the area.
Be Minor in Nature
17The Planning Report is of the opinion that the proposed variances result in no physical or functional adverse impact on the street or neighbourhood and are minor in nature. The OCA did not oppose the Application. In the absence of any contrary evidence, the Tribunal agrees that the 11 variances, both individually and cumulatively, are minor as they will not create any unacceptable adverse impacts on abutting properties or in the context of the neighbourhood.
CONSENT
18The Appellant proposes to demolish the existing dwelling on site and subdivide the Property into three separate parcels of land for the construction of three townhouses. Consent is required to sever the land and to grant an easement over Part 4 in favour of Part 2 for pedestrian access. The sizes of the resulting lots, which would be deficient in size if not for the proposed minor variances, are as follows:
| Parcel | Frontage | Depth | Area | Part Nos. | Municipal Address |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retained Lot | 6.77 m | 25.86m | 175.1 sq. m | 1 | 120 Queen Mary |
| Middle Lot | 5.51 m | 25.86m | 142.5 sq. m | 2 | 122 Queen Mary |
| End Lot | 6.77 m | 25.86m | 175.1 sq. m | 3 & 4 | 124 Queen Mary |
19When considering an appeal pursuant to s.53(19) of the Act, the Tribunal must first be satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality as required by s.53(1) of the Act. The next step considers s.53(12) of the Act, which states that the Tribunal shall have regard to the matters under s.51(24) which includes the following provisions: whether the proposed subdivision is in the public interest, conformity with the official plan, suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots, and the adequacy of utilities and municipal services. Then, pursuant to s.53(12) of the Act, the Tribunal may consider and impose such conditions as are determined to be reasonable, having regard to the nature of the Application. Lastly, the Tribunal must also have regard for the decision of the CoA in respect of the Application and the information and material that was before it when making that decision.
20The Tribunal finds that a plan of subdivision is not required to create an additional two lots in this established neighbourhood. As more housing is required in the province, the Tribunal finds that increasing housing supply is in the public interest. As the Property is an oversized lot the Tribunal finds that the lands are suitable and appropriate for division. With respect to the adequacy of utilities and municipal services, the Tribunal relies upon the Planning Report which notes that City “staff have no concerns with the proposed consent”. The Tribunal finds that the consent application meets the criteria listed under s.51(24) of the Act.
TRIBUNAL FINDINGS
21With respect to the eleven proposed minor variances, the Tribunal finds that based on its review of the materials provided including the City’s Planning Report, written decision of the CoA, and the submissions of the Appellant, that the proposed variances meet the general intent of the Official Plan. It is noted that the dissenting opinion in the CoA decision found that the Application did not meet this requirement; however, as stated above, the Tribunal finds that the preservation of one tree is not an overriding policy directive of the Official Plan and that it must be balanced with other policy directives. Furthermore, the Tribunal has reviewed the Tree Information Report, filed with the Municipal Record, and is satisfied that the tree replacement and protection plan are aligned with the City’s policies with respect to its urban tree canopy. With respect to the other tests, the Tribunal finds that the Application meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law, are desirable for the appropriate development and use of the lands, and are minor in nature.
22The Tribunal finds that the consent application to create three parcels does not require a plan of subdivision and has regard for matters under s.51(24) of the Act. The Tribunal finds that the proposed redevelopment aligns with established policy principles by enhancing the area’s compact urban form and makes efficient use of land and existing infrastructure. It is an appropriate location for a small-scale intensification project. The Application is local in context, but it recognizes provincial policy direction that encourages efficient use of existing infrastructure and provides a policy context to encourage much-needed housing supply, which is in the public interest.
23While the City did not appear before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has reviewed the proposed conditions outlined in the City’s Planning Report and, in accordance with s.53(12), will impose these conditions to ensure that redevelopment occurs in a manner aligned with City planning requirements.
24In short, the Tribunal finds that the Application represents good land use planning.
ORDER
25THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that
i. The Appeal of the Minor Variance applications are allowed and the variances to the City of Ottawa Zoning By-law No. 2008-250, are authorized as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.
ii. The Appeal is allowed, and provisional consent is to be given, as set out in Attachment 2 to this order, subject to the conditions set out in Attachment 3 to this Order.
“G.A. Croser”
G.A. CROSER 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
Attachment 2
Attachment 3