311 Golf Inc. v. Hamilton (City), 2026 CanLII 25170

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 19, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000960

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

Applicant and Appellant: 311 Golf Inc.

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To Permit the development of three blocks consisting of ten Street Townhouse Dwellings

Reference Number: A-25:208

Property Address: 311 Golf Links Road

Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000960

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000960

OLT Case Name: 311 Golf Inc. v. Hamilton (City)

Heard: March 9, 2026 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

311 Golf Inc. (“Appellant”)

Patrick Harrington

City of Hamilton (“City”)

Melanie Benedict

DECISION DELIVERED BY L.P. YOU AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This Hearing was originally scheduled to determine the merits with respect to an appeal by the Appellant under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (“Act”), regarding the refusal of the City’s Committee of Adjustment of the minor variance application (“Application”). The intent of the Application is to permit the construction of three blocks consisting of ten (10) townhouses on the lands municipally known as 311 Golf Links Road. This Hearing was converted to a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) to address CMC related matters and preliminary issues based on the request from the Parties.

2Prior to the Hearing, the City contacted the Tribunal in writing that “Street Townhouse Dwelling” related variances raised two preliminary issues:

• Whether the proper characterization of the proposed development under the City’s Zoning By-law is Street Townhouse Dwelling or Multiple Dwelling Townhouse; and,
• Whether the appeal, framed in accordance with the properly characterized development, seeks the relief necessary to render the proposed development permissible within the zoning by-law.

Service of Notice of CMC

3There is no issue with the service of the Notice of this Hearing and no further Notice is required.

Requests for Status

4The Tribunal received Participant status requests from the following individuals and granted Participant status to these individuals with consent from the Parties at the Hearing.

• Susan Burbidge
• Heather Bull (nee Tod)
• Linda and Brian Foote
• Bob and Vera Lees
• Anne MacMillan
• Catherine McAndie
• Sandy Tod
• James and Natalie Barclay
• James and Catherine Barclay

MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT

5The Tribunal explored the possibility of mediation and settlement with the Parties and encouraged the Parties to narrow down the scope of the issues for a future hearing. The Parties requested that the Tribunal schedule a three-day hearing to determine the merits for the matter before the Tribunal.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

6Ms. Benedict, on behalf of the City, requested the Tribunal to provide directions on the preliminary issues as described in Paragraph [2] and for a Motion to determine the preliminary matters prior to the Merit Hearing. Ms. Benedict provided an overview of the Application to the Tribunal that the Application was proposed for two variances that related to height and the number of storeys of the townhouse building under the current City Zoning By-law no. 05-200 (“ZBL”).

7Ms. Benedict indicated that the Subject Lands were designated as “Neighbourhoods” under the City’s Urban Hamilton Official Plan (UHOP) and zoned as “Low Density Residential-Large Lot (R2)” in the City ZBL.

8Ms. Benedict added that the change to the definition of Street Townhouse Dwelling in the City ZBL was approved on April 8, 2025, and the Application was received in September of the same year. According to the City staff’s implementation of the ZBL, the revised definition classified the townhouse units fronting a laneway as Multiple Townhouse Dwelling, which was not permitted on the Subject Lands by the City ZBL.

9Further, Ms. Benedict stated that the proposed variances relied on a future planning application to permit the townhouse units fronting a condominium/private road, though the Appellant planned to convey the private road to the City. Ms. Benedict repeated that the City accepted the current Application instead of a future planning application. Therefore, Ms. Benedict concluded that the Application was premature and considered the two preliminary issues as threshold issues.

10Mr. Harrington argued that there were no issues with the proposal when the lands were purchased and before the modifications to the definition of the ZBL. Mr. Harrington requested a specific revision to the change to the definition to permit the townhouse units fronting a private road to be considered as Street Townhouse Dwelling. Also, he confirmed that, following the Application, a subsequent planning application would be submitted to the City and the laneway would be conveyed to the City as per the City’s request.

11Mr. Harrington added that both issues were outside of the tests of the Act and provisions under the Act allowed the Tribunal to consider the changes to a minor variance request. Also, he indicated that there would be conditions of approval for minor variance applications and that the requirement of road conveyance can be added as a condition for the approval of the Application. Mr. Harrington disagreed with Ms. Benedict’s conclusion and expressed the Appellant’s position that this was not a threshold matter and could cause the Appellant to lose the right to appeal. He also stated that the issues could be heard and be addressed by the Appellant during the Merit Hearing.

12In Ms. Benedict’s response to Mr. Harrington, she referred to the Tribunal’s decision, 2025 CanLII 121112 (ONLT), Neo Construction Inc. v. Cambridge (City) (“Reference Decision”) regarding the procedural threshold issue. She indicated that in the Reference Decision, the Tribunal made the decision on the threshold issue with respect to the applicable zoning permissions and the consequent scope of the matters though the parties did not discuss this matter before the Tribunal. Ms. Benedict requested the Tribunal to schedule a hearing to deal with the City’s motion on the preliminary issues.

13The Tribunal confirmed with Ms. Benedict, that the Appellant did not receive the Reference Decision beforehand and directed the City to forward this material to the Appellant to ensure that the Appellant’s right to be informed is protected.

14The Appellant reviewed the Reference Decision during the break provided by the Tribunal.

15Considering the short review time of the Reference Decision, it is the Tribunal’s view that it is unfair for the Appellant to review the Reference Decision and then to provide a proper response to this new information without sufficient time.

16The Tribunal recognizes that the decision on the preliminary issues is needed prior to the Merit Hearing. To ensure the procedural fairness to both Parties, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to schedule a hearing to determine the preliminary issues by way of motion. With the consent of both Parties, a Motion in writing format is scheduled to determine whether the preliminary issues are considered threshold.

17Lastly, the Tribunal determines that the schedule of the three-day merit hearing will be subject to the decision on the Motion.

HEARING

Motion in Writing

18Upon request of the Parties, the Tribunal sets a one-day hearing on Friday, April 10, 2026. in writing. The Member is seized. No further Notice is required.

19The Tribunal directs the Parties to follow the following schedule to exchange the information for the Motion:

• City’s Notice of Motion-March 26th, 2026;
• Appellant’s Response-April 2nd, 2026;
• City’s Reply-April 8th, 2026.

Video Hearing for Merits

20Upon request of the Parties, the Tribunal sets a three-day hearing commencing on Wednesday, May 13, 2026 to Friday, May 15, 2026 at 10 a.m. by Video Hearing. The Member is not seized. No further Notice is required.

21Parties and/or Participants and/or Observers are asked to log into the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:

Go To Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/660145013;

Access Code: 660-145-013

22Parties and/or Participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

23Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: 1-888-299-1889 (Toll Free) or +1 (647) 497-9373. The Access Code is as indicated above.

24Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the hearing by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

25As of March 30, 2026, all hearing events are governed by the Tribunal’s Artificial Intelligence Practice Direction. This Practice Direction requires a party, participant, or witness to include a declaration within each submitted document if generative AI was used to create or generate content.

ORDER

26THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:

1. the date and particulars of the hearings are as set out above.

“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.