10999709 Canada Inc. v. Woodstock (City), 2025 CanLII 83052

ISSUE DATE:

August 14, 2025

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-25-000212

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant:

10999709 Canada Inc.

Subject:

Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application

Description:

To permit a redevelopment of the subject site to facilitate an addition of 4 dwelling units to an existing 3 dwelling unit converted dwelling and to relocate the existing accessory structure

Reference Number:

ZN8-24-20

Property Address:

18-20 Delatre Street

Municipality/UT:

Woodstock/Oxford

OLT Case No.:

OLT-25-000212

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-25-000212

OLT Case Name:

10999709 Canada Inc. v. Woodstock (City)

Heard:

June 27, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

10999709 Canada Inc.

Michael Nemanic

City of Woodstock

Derek Truelove

DECISION DELIVERED BY K. HEWITT AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to the Order

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision and Order arise from the Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held regarding an appeal filed by 10999709 Canada Inc., pursuant s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended (“Act”), in respect of the City of Woodstock’s (“City”) refusal of its application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBLA”), ZN8-24-20 to permit the redevelopment of the properties municipally known as 18-20 Delatre Street, in the City (“Subject Lands”).

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

2The Tribunal was in receipt of two Affidavits of Service dated May 29, 2025, which was marked as Exhibit 1. There were no issues with the service of notice for the CMC, and as such, no further notice is required.

3The Tribunal received a Party status request from Michael Flynn, on behalf of Susan Rampersaud, and a Participant status request from Dan Scheele of the Grace Presbyterian Church. After some discussion and agreement by Mr. Flynn, the Tribunal granted Participant status to both requests.

4Due to the timing, it was requested by Mr. Flynn that he be given an additional two weeks to submit his information regarding this appeal and the Tribunal, after no objections being raised, granted the extension to the end of July 2025.

5After some discussion and addressing preliminary matters at the CMC, and in the absence of any opposition, the Tribunal granted the Parties’ request to convert the CMC to a Merit Hearing, in accordance with Rule 19.6 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

6The Subject Lands currently consists of three dwelling units, with a secondary accessory structure. The proposal is to rezone the Subject Lands from Special Residential Zone (R2-25) to Special Entrepreneurial District Zone (C3-11) to facilitate an additional four (4) dwelling units and relocate the existing accessory structure. The ZBLA filed was to reduce the lot frontage, side yard width and parking area setbacks.

7The Subject Lands are surrounded by low density residential uses as well as some higher density residential uses to the North. There are some central Commercial uses as well as two churches within proximity of the Subject Lands. The current three-plex is deemed rental units.

8City staff recommended approval of the proposal to facilitate the seven-unit multiple attached dwelling as they were satisfied that the proposal was consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024 (“PPS”) and meets the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan (“OP”) respecting permitted uses and residential intensification within the Entrepreneurial District designation.

9Despite the staff report to Council along with various agencies supportive of the ZBLA, Council raised concerns of compatibility and overdevelopment and therefore, turned down the application on February 20, 2025.

10Michael Nemanic introduced Blair Scorgie, a Registered Professional Planner, retained by 10999709 Canada Inc. and affirmed by the Tribunal with no objections. Mr. Scorgie shared with the Tribunal the physical location of the Subject Lands along with the proposed design of the new building. He ensured the Tribunal that the seven dwelling units were the maximum and that the secondary structure was to be used for storage purposes only and would not be converted into another dwelling. He went on to further advise the Tribunal that he has been in several conversations with the surrounding neighbors and those that have raised concerns regarding this application. It is his belief that most issues have been resolved and that more conversations were to take place to ensure that they are both heard and where possible, adjustments to be made to the satisfactory of the neighbourhood. Those that were present as participants did agree that ongoing dialogue had and is taking place.

11It was the professional opinion of Mr. Scorgie, that this application represented good planning and should be approved by the Tribunal as it has appropriate regard for matters of Provincial interest in Section 2 of the Act. Along with the recommendation of the staff report to approve this application, it is consistent with the PPS, where residential intensification is encouraged, and efficient use of land and infrastructure is achieved. The application does conform with the City’s Official Plan, highlighting the Entrepreneurial District as suitable for modest residential intensification. The proposed dwelling’s built form is modest and sensitive to the existing neighbourhood and re-purposing the existing structure rather than demolition allows for the least disruption to the neighbourhood.

12Derek Truelove for the City when asked for comments stated that the City planning staff was of the same opinion and agreed with the Planning report submitted by Mr. Scorgie.

13Mr. Scheele, who is part of the adjacent Grace Presbyterian Church group, was concerned about parking and potential impacts on the Church property, right next to the proposed property given the elevation of the Church property. He had indicated that he was satisfied with the ongoing dialogue that he had been having with Mr. Scorgie, and Mr. Nemanic, and further stated that the concerns of the Church group had been heard and that he was satisfied with the application and the proponents desire to work together.

14Mr. Flynn was concerned with the impacts of the proposal and raised several questions that Mr. Scorgie has addressed and while he had no further substantive issues to raise, he had asked if the Tribunal could extend the decision to allow him the opportunity to complete his analysis and submit further material if necessary to the Tribunal for further consideration. The Tribunal agreed to the extension of an extra two weeks to complete the decision and it was supported by Mr. Nemanic.

15The Tribunal confirms that it has received, reviewed, and considered the following materials.

i) two Affidavits of Service as Exhibit 1;

ii) The Document Book (inclusive of Mr. Scorgie, resume) as Exhibit 2;

iii) Written submission, Meaghan Wright, Exhibit 3; and,

iv) Written and Oral submissions by Participants, Mr. Flynn and Mr. Scheele as Exhibits 4.

CONCLUSION

16After a thorough review of all submitted documentation, the Tribunal agrees with the evidence provided by Mr. Scorgie that this application is consistent with the PPS and conforms with the City’s OP. It does represent good planning and he agrees that its built form does conform with the existing neighbourhood.

ORDER

17THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, and Zoning By-law No. 8626-10 is amended as set out in Attachment 1.

“K. Hewitt”

K. HEWITT

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