Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 5, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000249
Appellant: Zachary Jenner
Subject: Complaint against a Development Charge imposed
Description: Construction of a tiny house
Reference Number: ACS2025-PDB-BCS-0002
Property Address: 327 Bayview Drive
Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa
OLT Case No: OLT-25-000249
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000249
OLT Case Name: Jenner v. Ottawa (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27.
Heard: July 17, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative* |
|---|---|
| Zachary Jenner ("Applicant") | Zachary Jenner* |
| City of Ottawa ("City") | Tim Marc |
DECISION DELIVERED BY w. DANIEL BEST AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1This Decision and Order arises from an appeal filed by the Applicant pursuant to subsection 22(1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27 ("DCA") against the Development Charges ("DCs") imposed on the property located at 327 Bayview Drive ("Subject Property")
2The Applicant purchased the Subject Property in 2018.
3The Applicant intended to apply for a building permit with the City in 2019. After the Applicant was advised that the DCs for the Subject Property were approximately $19,602.00, the Applicant chose not to submit an application for a building permit at that time.
4The Applicant applied for a building permit on April 15, 2024. The building permit was finalized and deemed complete on September 20, 2024. A building permit was issued on October 11, 2024.
5In 2024, the total amount paid by the Applicant was $45,614.54. This amount was comprised of City DCs, Education DCs and Cash-in-lieu of Parkland Fees.
6The Applicant’s position is that there was a building on the Subject Property in 2017. Based on that premise, the Applicant’s position is that at the time of his first inquiry regarding a building permit in 2019, a Redevelopment of Land Credit ("RLC") would have applied.
7The City’s position is that a building permit was issued on October 11, 2024, and that the calculation for the DC was correct, no credit was available and there was no error in the application of the DC By-law ("DCBL")
DECISION
8The Tribunal dismisses the appeal.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
Late Submission of Materials
9The Applicant expressed concern via email on the City providing a Book of Documents 48 hours prior to the Hearing. The City apologized for the delay in submission but advised that the only material the Applicant would not be familiar with is the Curriculum Vitae of the fact witness of the City.
10In advance of the Hearing, the Tribunal reviewed the submission materials of the City. The Tribunal did not find any prejudice to the Applicant by allowing the Book of Documents to be relied upon during the Hearing.
11The Tribunal asked the Applicant if he would like time to review the City’s Book of Documents before proceeding further with the Hearing. The Applicant advised that he was prepared to proceed.
Review of Hearing Process For the Applicant
12As a self-represented Party, the Tribunal reviewed in detail the framework of the Hearing of the Merits and the distinction of the opening statements/submissions, presentation of testimony and documentation and closing submissions.
WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS
13The following witnesses appeared before the Tribunal:
| Name | Party | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Matthew Brozincevic | City | Fact Evidence Only |
| Zachary Jenner | Applicant | Unrepresented Litigant Appearing on their Own Behalf. Factual Evidence Only. |
14The following materials were identified as Exhibits and marked as follows:
Exhibit 1: City of Ottawa Book of Documents
Exhibit 2: Applicant Background Information
Exhibit 3: Applicant Aerial Photograph
Exhibit 4: Applicant Short Term Rental Agreement
Exhibit 5: Applicant Exterior Photograph
Exhibit 6: Applicant Interior Photograph
POSITION OF THE CITY
15Mr. Marc, Counsel for the City, confirmed with Mr. Brozincevic that a building permit was applied for on April 5, 2024, and issued on October 11. 2024
16Mr. Brozincevic advised that he first became involved with the matter when he was asked to approve a "roll-back" of the DCs for the Subject Property to a pre-October 1, 2024 calculation. Mr. Brozincevic approved the "roll-back" due to the delay in issuance of the building permit as the deficiency letter was not sent to the Applicant in a timely fashion, delaying the completion of the technical review of the building permit application until September 20, 2024.
17Mr. Brozincevic stated that according to City records, a demolition permit for the Subject Property was applied for on November 28, 2001. He continued that any entitlement to an RLC ended in 2006.
18Mr. Brozincevic reviewed s.9(1) of the DCBL which states the following;
Where residential development occurs on a site which involved within the immediately previous five years the demolition of a previously existing building or structure, other than a derelict building, or will involve such demolition to permit the issuance of a building permit for the construction of the subject development, a credit will be provided against the development charge so that only the net increase in residential use dwelling units is charged.
19Mr. Marc argued that no issue has been raised on the calculation of the DC or error in applicability.
20Mr. Marc stated that a demolition permit was issued in 2001. There had been no building permit applications from 2001 – 2024. Accordingly, there is no entitlement to an RLC for the Subject Property.
21Mr. Marc argued the Subject Property had been vacant since the Applicant purchased the property in 2018. The Applicant applied for and was issued a building permit in 2024. Accordingly, there is no entitlement.
POSITION OF THE APPLICANT
22The Applicant advised that he and his wife purchased the Subject Property in 2018 to build a family cottage. A prefabricated building was placed on the Subject Property to utilize the land while plans to build a permanent 4 season cottage developed. The installation of the building occurred in May of 2019.
23The Applicant stated that prior to the sale of the property, a detailed septic inspection confirmed the septic system which served a building that was demolished in 2017 was in good condition and functioned as designed and originally approved.
24The Applicant confirmed that in the summer of 2024, an order to comply was issued by the City stipulating that a building permit was required for the prefabricated building. Discussions with City staff occurred and in his view were unproductive as the building in place was too small to meet the minimum requirements of a primary dwelling.
25The Applicant advised that as requested by the City, a structural engineer was hired to verify the prefabricated building met all current building code requirements.
26The Applicant stated that in 2019, he intended to submit a complete package for building permit application but was advised that the DCs would be $19,602.00. Mr. Jenner stated he requested a meeting with a city manager to discuss RLCs as there was a building on the property in 2017.
27The Applicant advised that his repeated requests to discuss the matter were ignored. He advised that from 2020 - 2022 no orders, updates, fines, or instruction from the City were received.
28The Applicant stated that in 2022, the City updated its policy on short term rental units. He continued that an application was made for a short-term rental permit, as plans for the property had changed.
29The Applicant acknowledged that given the issuance of this permit, and the lack of correspondence with the City, he had assumed that the City had changed their position on the need for a building permit or had changed a policy or by-law which would permit the temporary installation of a prefabricated tiny home without triggering the building permit process.
30The Applicant advised that in March 2024, a second order to comply was issued by the City, citing the need for a building permit.
31Since March 2024, the Applicant advised he has had continued discussions with the City, and he has satisfied all City requirements as promptly as possible.
32The Applicant summarized that the City records are incomplete. He continued that the City should have been more proactive and followed up on the matter which would have resulted in his requirement to at that time, pay a maximum of $19,602.00.
LEGAL CONTEXT
33This is an appeal made pursuant to s. 22(1) of the DCA. An appeal under this section is an appeal of the City’s decision on a complaint regarding the application of it’s DCBL. The requirements for a complaint, including the statutory grounds for a complaint, are set out in s. 20(1) of the DCA.
34Section 20(1) sets out three grounds for a complaint:
The amount of the DC was incorrectly determined;
Whether a credit is available to be used against the DC or the amount of the credit or the service for which the credit was given was incorrectly determined; or
There was an error in the application of the DC by-law.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
35The weight of the evidence presented is such that the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the City to that of the Applicant on the matter to be adjudicated in this Hearing.
36The Applicant relied on his submission to Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee ("ARAC"), City Council and oral testimony as evidence. The evidence presented by the Applicant provided an overview of events that transpired between the Applicant and the City. Unfortunately, the evidence provided by the Applicant lacked probative value. For example, emails between the Applicant and City were referenced and conversations between the Applicant and City. Although this evidence was allowed, there was no documentary evidence provided to support the emails and conversation evidence is unsubstantiated evidence.
37Under cross examination, the Applicant’s evidence in this Hearing was problematic in the following areas:
The Applicant chose not to move forward with his building permit application in 2019 and did not re-apply for a building permit until April 5, 2024;
The Applicant provided no evidence that the building that was on the Subject Property was not derelict in 2017; and,
At the time of purchase in 2018, the only information that the Applicant had was respecting the septic system.
38The City’s evidence relied on the application and approval of the building permit in 2024.
39The City Witness provided fact testimony and limited his evidence to his knowledge of the matter. Under direct examination, the City witness acknowledged a delay in communication during the period of the application of the building permit and issuance in 2024.
40Under cross-examination, the City Witness acknowledged that he was not privy to conversations between the Applicant and the City from 2019 – 2024 but was made aware during his review in the preparation of the report for the DC appeal to ARAC and City Council.
41The Tribunal findings can be summarized as follows:
The amount of the DC was correctly determined by the City.
No credit is available to be used against the DC.
There was no error in the application of the DC By-law by the City.
ORDER
42THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is dismissed.
W. Daniel Best"
W. DANIEL BEST
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.