Indwell Community Homes v. Sarnia (City), 2026 CanLII 46868

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: May 13, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-26-000220

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

Applicant/Appellant: Indwell Community Homes

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: Variances requested to Zoning By-law 85-2002 in order to permit a 5-storey apartment containing 35 affordable units and associated supportive services

Reference Number: A46/2025

Property Address: 353 George Street

Municipality/UT: Sarnia/Lambton

OLT Case No.: OLT-26-000220

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-26-000220

OLT Case Name: Indwell Community Homes v. Sarnia (City)

Heard: May 6, 2026 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Indwell Community Homes (“Appellant”)

Max Laskin

City of Sarnia (“City”)

Paul DeMelo

Richard Chumko GA Farag Properties Ltd. (“non-appellant Parties”)

Steven Pickard

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

INTRODUCTION

1This appeal arises under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (“Act”), by the Appellant, 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 development of a five-storey apartment building on the lands municipally known as 353 George Street. This Hearing is a first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) of this matter. A CMC was scheduled for this matter due to the high level of public and media engagement as a result of this Minor Variance request.

Service of Notice of CMC

2There is no issue with the service of the Notice of this Hearing, and no further Notice is required.

Requests for Status

Party status requests

3The Tribunal received and addressed the request for Party status from the following company and individual:

GA Farag Properties Ltd., represented by Steven Pickard
Richard Chumko, represented by Steven Pickard

4Mr. Pickard demonstrated the interests of his clients in the matter before the Tribunal but did not provide a list of issues to the statutory Parties due to insufficient time prior to the commencement of the CMC.

5City Counsel expressed no objections to both requests for Party status.

6Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Laskin, stated that he did not object to granting Party status to GA Farag Properties Ltd. but was concerned about Mr. Chumko’s request due to the lack of a municipal address of Mr. Chumko’s property.

7Mr. Pickard responded that Mr. Chumko had properties immediately adjacent to the Subject Lands and was concerned about the impact of the Application on the character of the area.

8The Tribunal considered the arguments of Mr. Laskin and Mr. Pickard and found that Mr. Pickard’s clients had direct interest in the matter before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal granted Party status to these two requestors.

Participant status requests

9The Tribunal received requests from and granted Participant status to the following individuals with consent of the Parties at the Hearing:

Ben Prins, Benjamin George Prins Holdings Inc.
Ross and Wendy McKay, Residents of Mitton Village in Sarnia
Jaylene Henry, BGC Sarnia-Lambton
Tristan Bassett, nuSarnia
Hannah Burdett
Debbie Martin
Laurie Laviolette
Donna Martin
Penny Cousins
Richard Marsh
Brenda Ferguson
Mark Burdett
Lawrence Lawlor
Chris Beausoleil
Mary Anne Bracewell
Kathy Bresett, North Lambton Community
Kelly O’Connor-Beausoleil
Jim Curran
Corrie Henderson, Women’s Interval Home of Sarnia Lambton
Maurice Trepanier
Lisa Regan, Lambton Elderly Outreach
Melissa Sharpe-Harrigan, Canadian Mental Health Association Lambton Kent
John DeGroot, DeGroot’s Nurseries
Andy Laviolette, Vintage Renovations Inc.
Alison Mahon
Madeline Mahon
Paula Reaume-Zimmer, Bluewater Health
Kirk Wilson
Curtis Robichaud, Mitton Village Community Development Advisory Committee

MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT

10The Tribunal offered the Parties the assistance of Tribunal-led mediation and advised the Parties that the request can be made through the Case Coordinator. The Tribunal also requested the Parties to update the Tribunal should they achieve a settlement prior to the Merit Hearing.

SECOND CMC AND MERIT HEARING

11Considering the nature of the appeal, the Tribunal finds that a second CMC will be helpful to identify the issues in dispute and to ensure the Merit Hearing is efficient and cost-effective. Neither the City nor Mr. Pickard’s clients had completed an Issues List prior to today’s CMC as they had not retained any Planners to assist in the identification of issues. Therefore, the Tribunal sets a one-day CMC on Thursday, June 25, 2026, at 10 a.m., by Video Hearing.

12Upon request of the Parties, the Tribunal sets a four-day Merit Hearing commencing on Tuesday, September 22, 2026 at 10 a.m. to Friday, September 25, 2026 by Video Hearing.

13The Tribunal also directs the Parties to finalize and submit the Draft Procedural Order and Issue List to the Tribunal by Monday, May 25, 2026.

14The CMC and Merit hearings are scheduled to proceed by video as follows:

Thursday, June 25, 2026 at 10 a.m. (1-day CMC Hearing) GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/765631861 Access code: 765-631-861 Audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9391 or (Toll Free) 1-888-455-1389 Audio-only access code: 765-631-861

Tuesday, September 22 to 25, 2026 at 10 a.m. (4-day Merit Hearing) GoTo Meeting: https://meet.goto.com/558205565 Access code: 558-205-565 Audio-only line: +1 (