Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: May 12, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000715
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Nasir Bashir
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit the creation of two additional residential units
Reference Number: A-2025-0060
Property Address: 128 Abell Drive
Municipality/UT: Brampton/Peel
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000715
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000715
OLT Case Name: Bashir. v Brampton (City)
Heard: December 2 and 3, 2025, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
Nasir Bashir (“Appellant”)
Self-represented*
City of Brampton (“City”)
Rashad Usmanali Steven Ross (in absentia)
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, as amended (“Act”), by the Appellant, with respect to the City’s Committee of Adjustment’s (“COA”) refusal of the application for minor variances (“Application”) to permit a reduced number of parking spaces and undersized parking spaces on the lands municipally known as 128 Abell Drive (“Subject Lands”).
CONTEXT
2The Subject Lands are located north of Abell Drive and east of Hansen Road North. The Subject Lands have a lot area of approximately 278.71 square metres (“m2”), a lot width of approximately 9.144 metres (“m”) and a lot depth of 30.48 m.
3There is a semi-detached dwelling located on the Subject Lands with one legally dimensioned parking space on the driveway. The attached garage has been converted to habitable space with elimination of the use for vehicle parking.
4The Subject Lands are immediately surrounded by low-density residential dwellings.
5The Subject Lands are located within the “Urban System” as per Schedule E-1-Regional Structure on the Region of Peel Official Plan (“Region OP”) and are designated “Residential” on Schedule “A” of the City’s Official Plan (2006) (“City OP”).
6The City initiated and adopted a city-wide amendment to the City OP through By-law No. 155-2022. This amendment to the City OP was assigned with a file number of OP 2006-221 (“City OPA”) and aligns with Ontario’s Bill 108, the More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019, to support the inclusion of Additional Residential Units (“ARUs”) city-wide, and to promote diversity of housing options as well as gentle intensification.
7The Subject Lands are located within the Brampton Flowertown Secondary Plan 6 (Area 6) (“Secondary Plan”), and Schedule SP6 of the Secondary Plan designates the Subject Lands “Low Density Residential”.
8The Subject Lands are zoned “Residential Semi-detached A (R2A)” in the City’s Zoning By-law No. 270-2004, as amended (“City ZBL”).
9The Appellant sought the approval of a total of two variances to permit the creation of two ARUs, which will result in a total of three units within the dwelling on the Subject Lands:
To permit two parking spaces on a property having two ARUs, whereas the City ZBL requires three parking spaces; and,
To permit two parking spaces each measuring 2.565 m in width by 5.196 m in length on a property having two ARUs, whereas the City ZBL requires three parking spaces measuring 2.6 m in width by 5.4 m in length.
10City staff recommended the refusal of the Application to the COA, which ultimately denied the Application following the staff’s recommendation.
STATUS REQUEST AND CONCERNS OF THE PARTICIPANT
11The Tribunal received and granted Participant status to Richard Campbell based on the written request from Mr. Campbell and with the consent of the Parties.
12Mr. Campbell expressed his concerns about the number of the units within the dwelling, safety, and overflow of parking due to the intensification resulted by the Application.
NOTICE OF HEARING
13There is no issue with Notice of this Hearing.
EXHIBITS
14The following documents were marked as exhibits during the Hearing:
Exhibit 1: City’s Document Book;
Exhibit 2: Witness Statement of Qian(Andrea) Zhang; and,
Exhibit 3: Witness Statement of Subhesh Baral.
EVIDENCE, ANALYSIS, AND FINDINGS
15During the roll call, the Tribunal noted that the Appellant, Mr. Bashir, was self-represented. The Tribunal explained the procedure and provided cautions to Mr. Bashir on the risks of the absence of a counsel and/or a professional land use planner. Mr. Bashir indicated that he was confident in and comfortable with implementing the plain language in the Act and City By-laws on his own. He further confirmed that he was aware of the risks and his rights and requested the Tribunal to continue the proceeding of the Hearing.
16The Tribunal advised Mr. Bashir that his written statement pre-filed to the Tribunal and oral opinion presented at this Hearing would be admitted as lay evidence pursuant to the practice of the Tribunal. Mr. Bashir confirmed his acknowledgement and expressed no concerns about the Tribunal’s ruling on this matter.
17The City called Ms. Qian (Andrea) Zhang and Mr. Subhesh Baral to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning and traffic analysis, respectively, to support the City’s denial of the Application. The Tribunal qualified Ms. Zhang and Mr. Baral at the City’s request to assist the Tribunal with their opinion evidence in the matter before the Tribunal.
18Mr. Bashir provided an overview of the Application history. He referenced a work permit application submitted to the City and indicated that the City had examined the parking requirements for ARUs while reviewing the work permit application. According to Mr. Bashir’s interpretation of the City’s by-laws, no parking space was required for the occupant of one or both ARUs with respect to the by-law passed under s. 34 of the Act. He also stated that the by-law was intended for new ARU(s).
19Mr. Bashir further requested the Tribunal to consider the Application and COA’s decision null and void. He also requested the Tribunal to refund the Application fee submitted to the City with no deductions.
20In Ms. Zhang’s written witness statement and comprehensive oral testimony, she indicated that there was ongoing City By-law enforcement action related to an existing legal, non-conforming, and unregistered ARU, and the legal, non-conforming issues had to be addressed under the Act.
21Considering evidence of both Parties before the Tribunal, the Tribunal found that the parking requirements for ARUs and minimum size requirements of parking spaces as described in the City OP, City OPA, and City ZBL are still applicable, and the legal, non-conforming issues are subject to the legal frameworks under the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled to continue the proceeding of the Hearing.
22In terms of the Appellant’s request for refunding of the Application fee, the Tribunal ruled that the Appellant should discuss his request with the City as it was not the matter before the Tribunal and beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
23In the opening remarks of the City’s Counsel, Mr. Rashad Usmanali indicated that the purpose of the Application was to permit two ARUs, resulting in three units in total, and the Application included the reorientation of the front porch to accommodate the two parking spaces to the City’s policies, by-laws, and standards. He added that the City supported the ARUs but the ARUs must be compatible with the neighbourhood character.
24Ms. Zhang demonstrated the history of the Application. In her overview, she repeated that the Application involved a non-conforming and unregistered ARU on the Subject Lands and her opinion on the Application remained the same as indicated in her report to the COA.
25There are two issues under dispute during the Hearing.
Issue No.1: Is the reduced parking space size appropriate?
Evidence and submissions
26Mr. Bashir indicated that the traffic on Abell Drive was relatively little and minor overhang of the parked vehicles onto the City’s right of way should not cause safety issues.
27Mr. Baral, the City’s Traffic Planning Analyst, indicated that the minimum requirement of the parking space size in the City ZBL was based on the average size of TAC (Transportation Association of Canda) standard Passenger Vehicles. He added that in addition to the space for the vehicle itself, the minimum parking space needed to accommodate the needs of safely exiting and moving around the vehicle. Mr. Baral opined that the proposed parking space size was insufficient for parking and for pedestrians’ moving around the vehicle.
28Mr. Baral further indicated that the City required the parking spaces to be fully on the Subject Lands without encroaching onto the City’s right of way, for safety purposes, for impact on pedestrians’ access, and for the grass in the boulevard. He mentioned that he observed the encroachment of parked vehicles onto the green space during his site visit.
29In conclusion, Mr. Baral expressed his opinion that the reduced size of parking space was inappropriate and unacceptable.
Analysis and findings
30In the Tribunal’s view, it is the City’s responsibility to maintain the safety of the use of the public road and sidewalk, and overhanging of the parked vehicles would occupy the space within the City’s right of way and further block the pedestrians to have full access on the designated sidewalk. Also, overhanging of the parked vehicles could limit the City’s capability of maintenance activities on the City’s right of way when needed. The Tribunal concludes that the undersized parking space is inappropriate and unacceptable.
Issue No.2: Does the Application satisfy the legislative tests of the Act?
The general intent and purpose of the Region OP, City OP, and City OPA
Evidence and submissions
31Ms. Zhang demonstrated her assessment of policies 5.6.2 and 5.9.14 of the Region OP while considering the Application. She stated that the two policies directed the City to include policies in the City OP to permit ARUs on the lands within the Urban System, as identified by the Region OP. She added that the Region of Peel expressed no objections to the Application. As such, Ms. Zhang opined that the Application to permit ARUs maintained the general intent and purpose of the Region OP.
32Ms. Zhang particularly referenced relevant criteria under policy 4.2.5.6.1 of the City OPA that outlines key provisions to permit ARUs within a single-detached, semi-detached, or townhouse dwelling:
i. A maximum of two ARUs are permitted per residential lot, one located within the principal dwelling, known as a second unit, and one within an accessory structure or building, known as a garden suite;
viii. Adequate on-site parking is to be provided in accordance with the requirements of the Zoning By-law.
33In addition, Ms. Zhang stated that the above-referenced policy and other relevant policies of the City OP and City OPA provided directions on fundamental principles to the parking requirements and further support ARUs within a single-detached, or semi-detached, or townhouse dwelling located in older, mature neighbourhoods. She indicated that the purpose and objectives of these policies were to ensure the residential additions to be compatible with the character of the existing neighbourhood and to avoid excess parking of vehicles.
Policy 4.2.7 of the OP:
- to avoid excessive parking of vehicles in the front yard on driveways and to promote a realistic driveway design that is complementary to the house and lot size.
34Ms. Zhang also presented her review of the Application against the policies of the City OP in relation to the streetscape. According to her interpretation of the policies, the proposed streetscape elements should be coordinated to ensure the pedestrians’ safety and de-emphasize the importance of the car/garage on the streetscapes.
35Ms. Zhang added that the City reviewed the Development Design Guidelines and Accessibility Technical Standards under the directions of the City OP while considering the Application. She stated that the intent of the Development Design Guidelines was to promote a well-designed and liveable environment, and the Application failed to maintain this intent. Ms. Zhang also expressed her opinion that the reduced parking space size was inconsistent with the accessibility design standards and was contrary to the goal of providing sufficient space for users to move around the parked vehicle as described in the Accessibility Technical Standards.
36In Ms. Zhang’s opinion, the Application was not compatible with character of the neighbourhood and would cause excessive parking in the front yard as well as the encroachment on to the City’s right of way. She indicated that Mr. Baral’s assessment of the dimensions of the parking space supported her opinion.
37Ms. Zhang stated that the Region issued a notice of approval with modifications to the City’s new Official Plan (“Brampton Plan”) on May 16, 2024, and Schedules 1A and 2 of the Brampton Plan had been appealed on a city-wide basis. Schedule 1A and 2 designate the Subject Lands “Community Areas” and “Neighbourhoods”, respectively.
38Ms. Zhang added that she reviewed the relevant policies of the Brampton Plan and noted that these policies were similar to the policies of the City OP in relation to the encouragement of year-round comfort for different users and de-emphasizing the importance of car/garage on the streetscape. She indicated that the Brampton Plan also developed policies to support ARUs subject to the condition of adequate on-site parking being provided in accordance with the City ZBL.
39Ms. Zhang reviewed the context of the Application against the policies of the Secondary Plan and found that the policies of Secondary Plan had no significant implications.
40In conclusion, Ms. Zhang opined that the variances in the Application, individually and collectively, did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the City OP.
41The Appellant did not cross-examine the evidence of Ms. Zhang.
Analysis and findings
42In the view of the Tribunal, the Application introduces additional parking on the driveway which does not align with the City’s goals of promoting streetscape design in the neighbourhood and de-emphasizing the importance of car/garage. The Application does not maintain nor continue the streetscape character in the neighbourhood resulted by the expansion of the driveway in the front yard. The Application could also raise safety concerns due to the decreased parking space size.
43Further, considering the absence of the Appellant’s evidence on this test and Ms. Zhang’s above-listed opinion evidence, the Tribunal agrees with the Ms. Zhang’s assessment that the Application maintains the general intent and purpose of the Region OP but fails to maintain the general intent and purpose of the City OP and OPA.
Maintain the general intent and purpose of the City ZBL
Evidence and submissions
44Mr. Bashir presented that on-street parking was available for additional parking. As such, he indicated that it was unnecessary to have extra parking space for the third ARU on the Subject Lands.
45Ms. Zhang assessed the variances with s. 10.9.1(a) and 10.16 of the City ZBL, which set out requirements for parking space number and size for ARUs. She stated that the parking space within the attached garage had been converted into habitable space for an ARU. Therefore, this space was no longer considered as a parking space and a total of three parking spaces were required for the total of three residential units within the semi-detached dwelling. Ms. Zhang added that all the parking spaces must be entirely located within the boundaries of the Subject Lands.
46Ms. Zhang shared with the Tribunal that the intent of regulating the parking space number and size was to ensure no overflow of vehicles to be offloaded onto the City’s right of way and to avoid adverse impacts to driveway functionality and pedestrians’ safety. Ms. Zhang was of the opinion that the Application did not accommodate parking demands on the Subject Lands for the creation of two ARUs.
47Mr. Baral confirmed that the on-street parking was available on both sides of Abell Drive but designated parking space on the street was not assigned. He added that the on-street parking could be removed at any time for operation and safety purposes and could be limited or restricted by the City when needed. In summary, Mr. Baral concluded that on-street parking is not guaranteed.
48With the supporting opinion of Mr. Baral, Ms. Zhang indicated that the Application would impact the vehicle functionality and cause safety concerns. Ms. Zhang expressed her opinion that the requested variances, individually and collectively, do not maintain the general intent and purpose of the City ZBL.
Analysis and findings
49The Tribunal finds that the on-street parking is not reliable and the City’s concerns about overflow of the vehicle parking onto the street and safety resulted by the encroachment of on-site parking are reasonable. There is no evidence showing that the Appellant has addressed the City’s concerns properly. Therefore, the Tribunal determines that the Application does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the City ZBL.
Desirability for the appropriate development of the lands
Evidence and submissions
50Ms. Zhang presented the observations of the site condition during her site visit. She stated that the Application proposed to expand the driveway width with the reduction to permeable landscaping and, as such, an excessive amount of hard surface would be created in the front yard. Also, she maintained the position that the undersized parking spaces would cause the parked vehicles overhanging onto the City’s right of way and further negatively impact the pedestrians’ safety and comfort as well as the streetscape and character of the neighbourhood.
51In addition, Ms. Zhang repeated that the proposed two on-site parking spaces were insufficient to accommodate that parking needs of the occupants of the three residential units within the semi-detached dwelling. In her opinion, the variances, individually and collectively, are not desirable for the appropriate development of the lands.
52Mr. Bashir did not comment on Ms. Zhang’s evidence on this test.
Analysis and findings
53In the view of the Tribunal, additional parking spaces are necessary for the parking needs of the proposed residential units, and the two parking spaces are insufficient for future residents of the dwelling. In this circumstance, the residents will have to rely on the on-street parking, which is not guaranteed. Further, considering the adverse impact of and safety concerns about the undersized parking spaces as presented in Ms. Zhang’s evidence, the Tribunal determines that the Application fails to meet the test regarding the desirability for appropriate development of the lands.
Whether the Application is minor
Evidence and submissions
54Ms. Zhang repeated that the undersized parking spaces and reduced parking space number would lead to negative impacts, including difficulty of vehicles accessing and exiting the parking spaces, safety concerns, encroachment of the parked vehicles onto the City’s roadway and blocking emergency vehicles to access the dwelling, etc. She further stated that the approval of undersized parking spaces would create a precedent and create long-term impact on the availability of parking within the mature neighbourhood. Therefore, Ms. Zhang opined that the Application was not minor in nature.
Analysis and findings
55The Tribunal has considered Ms. Zhang’s evidence on the impacts of the variances individually and collectively along with the absence of Mr. Bashir’s evidence and response to the concerns of the City and the Participant. It is the Tribunal’s view that the concerns remain outstanding, and the adverse impacts resulted by the Application are not minor in nature.
CONCLUSION
56The Tribunal accepts the opinion evidence of the City and finds that:
The minor variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Region OP but fail to maintain the general intent and purpose of the City OP, City OPA, and Brampton Plan;
The minor variances do not maintain the general intent and purpose of the City ZBL.
The minor variances are not desirable for the appropriate development of the lands.
The minor variances are not minor in nature.
57In conclusion, the Tribunal finds the Application does not satisfy the legislative tests as set out in s. 45(1) of the Act. The Application must meet all the tests for an approval. Therefore, the Tribunal determines that it will uphold the COA’s decision based on the above-mentioned analysis and evidence.
ORDER
58THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is dismissed, and the variances to Zoning By-law No. 270-2004 of the City of Brampton 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.