Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: July 31, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000388
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Prowise Engineering Inc. (Owner: Lijun Jing)
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To increase the maximum height of a proposed residential building to 9.9 metres
Reference Number: A/105/2023
Property Address: 15 Forster Park Drive
Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000388
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000388
OLT Case Name: Prowise Engineering Inc. v. Oakville (Town)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 19(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6
Request by: Town of Oakville
Request for: Request for Dismissal Without a Hearing
Heard: In writing only; submissions delivered on July 15, July 17 and July 28, 2025
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel*/Representative
Town of Oakville (“Town”)
D. Perlin*
Prowise Engineering Inc. (“Prowise”)
R. Jing
DECISION DELIVERED BY WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1This matter concerns a written motion brought by the Town on July 15, 2025 (“Motion”) to dismiss the appeal by Prowise filed on May 26, 2025, concerning the denial by the Town’s Committee of Adjustment on May 14, 2025, of his application for a variance relating to property owned by Prowise located at the address municipally known as 15 Forster Park Drive in the Town (“Subject Property”).
2The basis for the Motion is that Prowise has failed to properly articulate any proper grounds for its appeal in its notice of appeal dated May 26, 2025.
3The materials before the Tribunal on the Motion were the Town’s Motion Record dated July 15, 2025, comprising 48 pages; Prowise’s ‘Affidavit in Response’ dated July 17, 2025, comprising 24 pages; and the Town’s Reply dated July 28, 2025, comprising a total of 7 pages.
4Following the delivery of the Town’s Reply, Prowise attempted to deliver a “Supplementary Reply” which was not accepted by the Tribunal since it is not provided for under Rule 10.3 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Rules”). The counsel for the Town objected to that supplementary submission by Prowise on the same basis and also because of the Town’s allegation that it was in essence, simply an attempt to file an entirely new notice of appeal.
5It seems apparent to the Tribunal that Prowise who was represented by its employee/principal Mr. Jing did not seek or receive legal or other professional advice concerning either the original notice of appeal or the response to the Motion. This is unfortunate and because of the failure by Prowise to address the substantive merits of the Motion has lead the Tribunal to grant the Motion and to dismiss the appeal.
6It may be that there are other future options for Prowise to pursue in respect of its desire to make certain changes to the Subject Property and in respect of its complaints regarding the governing zoning by-law, indeed as pointed out by the Town in its Reply but that is not a matter to be dealt with on this Motion nor is it appropriate for this Tribunal to in effect provide advice to Prowise about such options.
The Test on the Motion
7The tests and considerations on this Motion pursuant to subsection 45(17)(a)(i) of the Planning Act (“Act”), are well known and were aptly summarized in the recent decision of the Tribunal in Ravindra v. Mississauga (City), 2020 CanLII 87149 (ON LPAT), cited by the Town in its submissions (below emphasis added):
The principles that are applicable may briefly be stated as follows:
Under the provision, the Tribunal is entitled to examine the reasons stated to see whether the reasons stated constitute genuine, legitimate and authentic planning reasons [Toronto (City) v. East Beach Community Association 1996 CarswellOnt 5740, (1996) O.M.B.D. No.1890, 42 O.M.B.R. 505].
At the time of the motion, there should be the presence of a real, relevant and tenable issue or issues, expressly raised by the appellant, worthy of adjudication with a demonstration of an intent to call probative evidence on the issue at the ultimate hearing and the steps taken to that end [Millar v. St. Catharines (City) 2017 CarswellOnt 2540, (2017) O.M.B.D. No. 164, 2 O.M.B.R. (2d) 297, 74, M.P.L.R. (5th) 344].
Raising the apprehension of possible planning grounds or deploying planning language is not sufficient to meet the test of requiring a hearing [MacLean v. Strathroy-Caradoc (Township) 2017 CarswellOnt 21406].
The legislation and related jurisprudence make it clear that it is not sufficient that appellants raise land use issues in the notice of appeal. Such issues have to be worthy of adjudication and the responsibility falls on the shoulders of the appellants to demonstrate through their conduct in pursuing the appeal, including their gathering of evidence to make their case, that the issues raised in their notice of appeal justifies a hearing [Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court) Zellers Inc. v. Royal Cobourg Centres Ltd. 2001 CarswellOnt 3362, (2001) O.J. No.3792, 108 A.C.W.S. (3d) 384, 156 O.A.C. 133, 22 M.P.L.R. (3d) 122, 42 O.M.B.R. 193].
The Notice of Appeal Does Not Satisfy the Tests
8The Notice of Appeal filed by Prowise simply does not meet the tests or satisfy the considerations described above. It simply states:
The unfair and improper decision was made during the COA hearing, the committee members did not consider the majority support from the homeowners of the neighbourhood. The city bylaw update has not been properly considered for the future development of the neighbourhood compared with the land on the east of Trafalgar Rd….We will provide the grounds when they are ready…
9The Tribunal agrees with the argument of the Town’s counsel that this fails to disclose any apparent land use planning grounds upon which the Tribunal could allow all or part of the appeal. The Tribunal further agrees that the notice of appeal does not allege an error in planning principles, policy interpretation, or factual determination related to land use planning considerations and does not address provincial interests, the Provincial Policy Statement 2024. Simply put, it does not identify any tenable issue that requires adjudication under subsection 45(17)(a)(i) of the Act.
10The ‘Affidavit in Response’ offers no additional justification for the inadequate Prowise notice of appeal. Instead, it regurgitates the content of a presentation apparently made to the Committee of Adjustment. Importantly, it also seems to acknowledge the failure of the notice of appeal to conform to 45(17)(a)(i) of the Act (below emphasis added):
We acknowledge the Town’s concern that the original appeal form may not have articulated the planning grounds with sufficient detail. We respectfully submit that the substance of our position has always centered around legitimate planning considerations:
The height variance is reasonable and minor in scope.
It is consistent with the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law when applied in the context of an evolving neighbourhood.
The community support and technical studies substantiate that the impact is negligible.”
11The Prowise ‘Affidavit’ is not from a professional planner or other expert who could assist the Tribunal. Instead, it is simply written argument prepared by Mr. Jing, Prowise’s representative which appears to repeat submissions made to the Town’s Committee of Adjustment. In any event, under the applicable law and principles outlined in paragraph [7] above, it cannot remedy the defective notice of appeal delivered by Prowise.
ORDER
12THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the motion by the Town of Oakville to dismiss the appeal of Prowise Engineering Inc. dated May 26, 2025, is granted and that the appeal is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to any costs associated with this motion.
“William R. Middleton”
WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON
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.