Kandasamy v. Ajax (Municipality), 2026 CanLII 12504

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 09, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000577

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant / Appellant: Balakowsala Kandasamy

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To construct a second level to the existing platform

Reference Number: Minor Variance Application A18/25

Property Address: 64 Rumbellow Cres L1Z 0P8

Municipality/UT: Ajax

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000577

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000577

OLT Case Name: Kandasamy v. Ajax (Municipality)

Heard: December 8, 2025 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Balakowsala Kandasamy ("Applicant/Appellant")	Self-represented
Town of Ajax	(Did not appear)

MEMORANDUM OF A DECISION DELIVERED BY GREGORY J. INGRAM ON DECEMBER 8, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1The matter before the Tribunal is an Appeal filed by Balakowsala Kandasamy under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), against a Town of Ajax Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) decision to refuse a minor variance application (“Application”) for the property at 64 Rumbellow Crescent (“Subject Property”). The Application sought relief from Zoning By-law 95-2003 (“ZBL”), to permit a maximum area of 105.0 square metres (“m²”) for all platforms more than 1.2 metres (“m”) in height above finished ground level (“the Proposal”), whereas the by-law permits a maximum area of 50 m² which was approved previously for the Subject Property. The relief requested accounts for both the existing and proposed platform.

2In 2023 the Town approved a Minor Variance to permit the construction of a 50m² deck with a sloped roof above. The Appellant indicated that during construction in 2024 several practical and structural issues were identified by the contractor if they proceeded with the approved sloped roof design which may have resulted in issues with water infiltration, long-term structural damage and significant costs. Through discussions with town staff, the Applicant/Appellant submitted a revised permit request which resulted in the approval of a flat roof design. Following the completion of the flat roof structure, the Applicant/Appellant identified safety concerns due to the potential of someone in the house accessing the platform from the second-floor window. Glass railings were then installed as a safety measure.

3In June 2025, the Town’s COA considered an application for the redesigned flat roof to be used as a functional secondary storey platform. A Staff Planning Report (“Planning Report”) was provided to the COA which recommended approval. The Planning Report also recommended conditions requiring that the relief only applied to the subject property, that construction be in accordance with the drawings submitted and that the property owner obtain all necessary building permits. The COA was provided with names of four neighbours who indicated that they had “no concerns” with the relief sought and others who expressed concerns regarding the scale of the build and its impact on privacy and the view of adjacent neighbours.

4The COA decision indicated that it had regard for all “written and oral submissions” related to this request and issued a decision refusing the minor variance application. The COA indicated that they did not consider the request “minor” or “desirable” for the appropriate development and use of the property.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

5An Appeal pursuant to s. 45 of the Act is a hearing de novo and the Appellant bears the onus to demonstrate to the Tribunal that the four tests set out under s. 45(1) have been met. The four tests are:

1. maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.
2. maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
3. be desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; and,
4. be minor in nature.

6In addition to the four tests, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, and to the decision of the approval authority under s. 2.1 of the Act and be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024.

THE HEARING

7The Tribunal was notified before the Hearing that the Town would not be participating in the proceedings.

STATUS REQUEST

8The Tribunal considered a request for Party Status from Ashish Jain who lives at 62 Rumbellow Crescent., directly adjacent to the Subject Property. Mr. Jain participated in the municipality’s public process regarding this application and indicated that he had no additional information to provide the Tribunal than what was shared then. Briefly summarized, Mr. Jain’s concerns related to the potential loss of privacy, the size of the deck and the impact on the value of his property. He indicated that the Applicant/Appellant had agreed at the municipality’s public meeting to integrate a 2.5 m space/buffer from the southern edge of the deck to address the privacy concern but has since indicated that she is not willing to do this.

9Tribunal Rule 8: Role and Obligations of a Party indicates that a person granted Party Status shall be prepared to fully participate in the proceedings from identifying issues, presenting opening and closing submissions, present and examining witnesses to claiming or being subject to costs.

10The Tribunal, having considered the written and oral submissions of Mr. Jain, denied him Party Status. Following a discussion with Mr. Jain, it was determined that a Participant Status request may be more appropriate. He indicated that he has no new issues to raise and that he had outlined them in writing and provided it to the Tribunal with his Party Status request

11An individual granted Participant Status has an interest in the matter and provides a written statement that outlines the individual’s concerns for the Tribunal’s consideration.

12The Tribunal granted Mr. Jain Participant Status and that he could use his Party Status request submission for this purpose.

EVIDENCE

13The Tribunal qualified the Applicant/Appellant, Balakowsala Kandasamy to provide factual evidence for these proceedings. In addition, the Tribunal relied on the Planning Report submitted and approved by Eric Simpson who is the Supervisor of Development and Committee of Adjustment for the Town of Ajax, is a Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners and is a Registered Professional Planner.

14Three items were marked as exhibits:

1. Exhibit 1: Notice of Hearing.
2. Exhibit 2: Appellant Document Book
3. Exhibit 3: Additional Photos from COA Meeting

15The Applicant/Appellant said that the relief sought does not add height, massing or increase the footprint or projection into the rear yard of the property. The flat roof already exists, and the change is to formalize its safe use by adding glass railings and a door to facilitate safe access.

16The Applicant/Appellant indicated that the rationale for the minor variance is related to creating an improved, safer structure which the town staff have endorsed and was recommended by an engineer. The addition of a proper door and railings reduces the likelihood of anyone falling off the flat roof. She also indicated that access for snow removal and to maintain good drainage is required. Finally, the Applicant/Appellant indicated that the glass railings and open aesthetic are similar to other transparent deck systems in place in the neighbourhood and maintain its character. She indicated that the reconfigured roof does not obstruct ravine views or add visual bulk.

17The Applicant/Appellant referred to the planning staff report which supports her application and addresses the legislative tests for a minor variance application as outlined at paragraphs [5] and [6] above.

18Regarding the Town of Ajax Official Plan, the Planning Report indicates that the Subject Property is designated Low Density Residential and is subject to Area Specific Policy 6.20. Area Specific Policy 6.20 has no provisions applicable to the Proposal.

19The Subject Property is zoned Residential One – ‘D (R1-D) and is subject to Exception 163 within Zoning By-law 95-2003, as amended. Platforms are permitted in any residential zones in accordance with Sections 4.3, 6.22. and 6.2.4 of the Zoning By-law. Platforms are limited to a maximum of 30 m² but a previous minor variance approved a 50m² area for the platform on this property. With the redesign of the upper deck at the Subject Property, the combined decks have an area of 105 m². The proposed platform complies with all other applicable platform standards/provisions of the Zoning By-law, and it is of note that it is the combined platform area and not each at this size.

20The Planning Report indicates that the intent of the maximum area provision in general “is to ensure that a platform does not dominate the yards of property in order to maintain a suitable amount of amenity space” and given that the upper platform, is aligned with the lower, the footprint remains the same. The footprint meets all setback requirements and takes up less than 50% of the rear yard.

21Regarding the concern with privacy, the Planning Report indicates that the grade of the yard, regardless of the height or size of the platform will result in the same privacy implications that already exist. The upper platform is basically the same size as the lower platform. The report indicates that the Applicant/Appellant is willing to address side view privacy concerns with retractable screens or some other acceptable screen and notes that residents have protected lands behind their properties which offers more privacy than if they abutted other homes.

22The Staff Report indicated that the Proposal will not result in increased adverse effects on adjacent properties, is appropriate for the use of the property and considered minor in nature. It also maintains that it is in keeping with the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law as the added platform does not dominate the yard with the footprint remaining the same while meeting or exceeding all applicable setback provisions.

NEIGHBOURING PROPERTY CONCERNS

23Regarding obstructed views, the Applicant/Appellant indicated that no concerns were raised regarding the obstructed views during the minor variance process for the sloped roof and she contends that the flat roof does not create any new issues. She indicated that no new walls or solid structure will be built, and only transparent glass railings will be used. She indicated that town staff confirmed that the footprint and massing are unchanged. It was her contention that a row of evergreens at the rear of an adjacent property had more of an impact on view than her proposal.

24Regarding angled roof lines, the Applicant/Appellant contends that angled roof lines are typical within the neighbourhood and the Proposal does not create any greater visual impact than long established roof forms in the area.

25Regarding privacy concerns, the Applicant/Appellant maintains that there are pre-existing privacy limitations due to the downward slope of the rear yards which produce clear sightlines between properties. In addition, she suggests that the public trail behind the properties impacts privacy and sightlines into multiple backyards and rear facing windows. The Applicant/Appellant suggested that there are several homes in Ajax with secondary storey balconies, positioned near neighbouring, second floor rooms.

FINDINGS

26In determining this matter, the Tribunal considered the submissions of the Applicant/Appellant, the Municipal Record and specifically relied upon the Planning Report approved by a Registered Planner in considering the merits of this minor variance application.

27The Tribunal adopts the planning rationale provided in the Planning Report and finds that the variance sought is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development and use of the property and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

28Specifically, the Proposal meets the setback and lot coverage requirements of the Zoning By-law and individually, the platforms comply with the size previously approved by the COA.

29The Tribunal finds that the Town’s approval of the design change from a slope roof to a flat platform design for the reasons provided (see paragraph [16]) further justifies the approval of the relief sought.

30Regarding the issues raised by neighbouring property owners, the Tribunal accepts the rationale provided in the planning report that privacy is an existing challenge given the slope of the land, the public trail and the general closeness of each home. The Tribunal also concurs with the Applicant/Appellant that the approval of the variance does not impact the view of the ravine.

31The Tribunal, while sympathetic to the specific privacy concerns raised by Mr. Jain, finds that the Proposal meets the planning tests as outlined above and supported in the Planning Report in the Municipal Record. The Tribunal notes that both the Applicant/Appellant and Mr. Jain indicated a willingness to work together on any refinements to the design of the upper platform in the interest of both property owners.

ORDER

32THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed in part and the variance to By-law 95-2003 to permit a maximum aggregate area of 105.0 m² for all platforms more than 1.2 metres in height above finished ground level is authorized subject to the following conditions:

1. That the subject variance applies only to the property municipally known as 64 Rumbellow Crescent, substantially in accordance with the drawings submitted with the Minor Variance Application to the Town of Ajax (as generally illustrated in the figures contained therein), or this approval shall become null and void;
2. That the Owner/Applicant obtain all necessary building permits from the Town, or this decision shall become null and void.

“Gregory J. Ingram”

GREGORY J. INGRAM 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.