Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 11, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-001204
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit and create a second parking space
Reference Number: A-2024-0395
Property Address: 21 Bramfield Street
Municipality/UT: Brampton/Peel
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001204
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001204
OLT Case Name: Nagah v. Brampton (City)
Heard: July 30 and 31, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
Sunny Nagah (“Appellant”)
Self-represented*
City of Brampton (“City”)
Naimal (Mia) Nadeem
DECISION DELIVERED BY L.P. YOU AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The appeal arises under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P. 13 (“Act”), as amended, brought by the Appellant, with respect to the City’s Committee of Adjustment’s (“CoA”) refusal of the application for a Minor Variance (“Application”) to permit and create one additional parking space on the lands municipally known as 21 Bramfield Street (“Subject Lands”).
CONTEXT
2The Subject Lands are located on Bramfield Street to the west of Madronna Gardens and have an area of approximate 237.9 square metres with lot width of approximate 9.15 metres (“m”) and lot depth of approximate 26 m.
3The Subject Lands are occupied with a single-detached dwelling with a registered additional residential unit (“ARU”) located in the basement of the dwelling.
4The Appellant expanded the driveway without permits from the City and the expanded driveway measures 6.0 m in width.
5The Subject Lands are located within the “Urban System” in the Region of Peel Official Plan (“Region OP”), and the City’s Official Plan 2006, as amended (“OP”) designates the Subject Lands as “Residential”. The City’s Fletcher’s Meadow Secondary Plan (“Secondary Plan”) designates the Subject Lands as “Medium Density Residential”.
6The City’s Zoning By-law No. 270-2004, as amended (“ZBL”), zones the Subject Lands to “Residential (R2A) Special Section 1009”, which contains the provisions of minimum parking space size, including depth to ensure that the parking space is sufficiently sized to fit the majority of automobiles.
7The Subject Lands are immediately surrounded by single-detached homes to the north, east and west. The south of the Subject Lands is dominated by street townhouses.
8The Appellant sought the relief from the City ZBL to legalize the additional parking space in the depth of 3.03 m, whereas the City ZBL requires a minimum parking space depth of 5.4 m.
STATUS REQUEST
9The Tribunal received no written request for Party or Participant status nor were any individuals at the hearing requesting either status at the hearing.
NOTICE OF HEARING
10There is no issue with notice of this hearing.
EXHIBIT
11Following documents were marked exhibits during the hearing.
Exhibit 1: Witness Statement of Emily Mailling
Exhibit 2: City’s Document Book; and,
Exhibit 3: Witness Statement of David Monaghan.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
12The Tribunal qualified Ms. Mailling, a student member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute and student member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, to assist the Tribunal with opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.
13The Tribunal qualified David Monaghan, the Supervisor of Traffic Planning with the City, with sound experience in and knowledge of traffic and transportation planning, to assist the Tribunal with opinion evidence concerning traffic planning in the matter before the Tribunal.
14The Tribunal advised Mr. Nagha, who is the self-represented Appellant, that his evidence would only be considered as factual evidence for the matter before the Tribunal. The Tribunal further had a brief introduction of the procedure in the beginning of the Hearing to ensure that all the attendees understand the process and further to ensure the procedural fairness to both Parties.
15The Appellant stated that the Subject Lands had a total of two units within the dwelling and each unit needed two car parking spaces, as the residents in the City had to rely on two cars per family for commuting. In addition, the Appellant acknowledged that the City ZBL did not require additional parking space as there was only one ARU within his single-detached dwelling home.
16The Appellant indicated that there was sufficient space in the City’s right of way for additional parking and would not cause any issues as this street was not busy.
17The Appellant added that he had been parking on the expanded hardscape since the purchase of the Subject Lands and there were no issues until complaints were filed to the City. He added that many residents parked in City’s of right of way without issues.
18The Appellant expressed his concerns about the City’s process to approve developments containing single-detached dwellings on small lots and that the City did not consider the needs of additional parking spaces while approving additional residential units within single-detached dwellings in City-wide area.
19The Appellant demonstrated to the Tribunal that the City of Toronto approved a Minor Variance application to permit a parking space in the depth of 2.52 m and no issues were verified.
20The City’s Counsel, Naimal (Mia) Nadeem, confirmed with the Appellant to ensure that the Appellant understood the purpose and location of the property line, which separated the private property and the City’s right of way. Counsel for the City stated that the anything on the City’s right of way should be safe for the public and encroachment onto the City’s road was not permitted.
21The Tribunal indicated that the City’s process to approve ARUs and developments in the City area was beyond the matter before the Tribunal and directed the Appellant to focus his evidence on the Application.
22Ms. Mailling and Mr. Monaghan both stated that, upon the receipt of complaints from residents, site visits were conducted to confirm the non-conforming driveway expansion, and the Application was reviewed and assessed followed by the City staff’s recommendation of refusal to the CoA.
23Ms. Mailling opined that the Application was not consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024(“PPS 2024”), particularly reference to policy 2.3.1.2, as the Application diminished key streetscape and design elements of the house and functions to create an urban environment that is car oriented.
24Ms. Mailling stated that the Region of Peel expressed no comments on or objections to the Application and held her opinion that the Application had no impacts within the context of the Region OP.
25Ms. Mailling demonstrated to the Tribunal that the Application failed to maintain the general purpose of the City OP, as one of the objectives of the City OP was to avoid excessive parking of motor vehicles on the driveways in the front yard and to promote a realistic driveway design that was complimentary to the house and lot size.
26Ms. Mailling further expressed her opinion that the Application failed to meet the Urban Design Guidelines referenced in the City OP due to the visual impacts to the neighbourhood characteristics, the technical requirements of parking space based on the review of the City’s Traffic Planning staff, and the City’s Accessibility Technical Standards.
27Ms. Mailling held the opinion that motor vehicles would overhang onto the City’s road, which would result in safety concerns and would negatively impact the City’s abilities to achieve the goals to improve pedestrian-scaled environment and de-emphasize the importance of the car/garage on the streetscape.
28Ms. Mailling held the opinion that the expanded driveway failed to satisfy the directions of the City’s Development Design Guidelines, which required the impacts of garages and driveways to streetscape to be minimized and the design to promote a well-designed and liveable environment, encouraged a thoughtful approach to the integration of driveways and garages within the context of the neighborhood.
29Ms. Mailling stated that the City ZBL required the Appellant to provide another parking space for a third unit and there were only a total of two units on the Subject Lands.
30Ms. Mailling presented the Tribunal a list of approved Minor Variance applications within the 500 m radius of the Subject Lands and confirmed that the approved applications excluded similar proposal to permit the driveway in the same or similar depth as the Application.
31Ms. Mailling concluded that the additional parking space proposed in the Application was unnecessary, not desirable, not minor and not a good use of lands, and the Application did not fit the existing neighbourhood character.
32Ms. Mailling recommended the Tribunal to refuse the application and indicated that approving this Application would result in setting a precedence example in the neighbourhood and would violate the general intent of the City ZBL.
33During the cross-examination, Ms. Mailling indicated that she did not have the knowledge of the City of Toronto’s Zoning By-law and would not comment the application that City of Toronto approved.
34Mr. Monaghan stated that the City’s Traffic Planning staff carried out the technical review of the proposed depth of the additional parking space based on the data of Transport Canada and presented to the Tribunal, that the proposed depth of the additional parking space could not fit the average size of the passenger motor vehicles sold in Canada.
35Mr. Monaghan opined that overhanging onto the City’s road would impact the motor vehicles on the road at night time and further cause safety issues with snow plows and other maintenance activities on the street. Mr. Monaghan also expressed concerns about the safety of pedestrians as there was no sidewalk and the pedestrians would have to walk further to the middle of the road to bypass the overhanging vehicle. Lastly, Mr. Monaghan indicated that overhanging would prohibit the City’s installation and impact the maintenance of the sidewalk if the City planned sidewalk installation in the area of the Subject Lands. Mr. Monaghan finally recommended the Tribunal to refuse the Application.
36Counsel for the City summarized the City’s position on the matter before the Tribunal that the proposed parking space in the Application was significantly less than the required depth, which would cause function issues and raised the City’s concerns about safety and maintenance on a regular basis, the Application failed to meet all the four tests set out in the Act, the City had its own ZBL and implementation of its own ZBL, the approval of the Application would set a precedence example and would cause a long-term impact.
37The Tribunal recognizes that the City had the right to develop its own ZBL and agrees with the City’s Counsel and planning expert witness, Ms. Mailling, that the City had its right to interpret its own ZBL to protect and reflect the public interest in the City-wide area. Also, the Tribunal finds that it is difficult to verify the appropriateness of the parking space depth approved by the City of Toronto due to lack of background of this application and details of the approval.
38The Tribunal agrees with Ms. Mailling that the additional parking space is not desirable as there are already two parking spaces provided on the Subject Lands for the two units and Ms. Mailling’s interpretation of the City’s ZBL is appropriate. Further, the Tribunal finds that the shortfall of 2.37 m of the parking space is significant.
39The Tribunal finds that Mr. Monaghan’s analysis of parking space for the average size of the passenger motor vehicles sold in Canada is acceptable and agrees with Mr. Monaghan’s conclusion that the proposed depth is insufficient for the average size of the passenger motor vehicles.
40The Tribunal acknowledges the safety concerns of the City and regular maintenance disturbance resulted by the encroachment onto the City’s right of way, and agrees with the City’s position that the public road should be managed and maintained to protect the public interest and ensure the safety of the users of the road. Lastly, the Tribunal considers the long-term impact of the Application to the neighbourhood and the public while making the decision.
41The Tribunal accepts the opinion evidence of the expert witnesses of the City and finds that the Application does not meet the four tests as set out in s. 45(1) of the Act:
the minor variance does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the City OP.
the minor variance does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the City ZBL.
the minor variance is not considered desirable for the use of the lands.
the minor variance is not considered minor in nature.
ORDER
42THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is dismissed and the variance to the City’s Zoning By-law No. 270-2004 are not authorized.
“L.P. You”
L.P. YOU
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.