Kang v. Ottawa (City), 2026 CanLII 46897

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: May 15, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000851

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

Applicant and Appellant: Zhi Bin Kang

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit construction of a self-use one-storey accessory recreational building for indoor sports

Reference Number: D08-02-25/A-00204

Property Address: 236 Cedar Pond Road

Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000851

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000851

OLT Case Name: Kang v. Ottawa (City)

Heard: February 9, 2026 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Zhi Bin Kang (“Appellant”)

Counsel Philip Osterhout Tamara Belley

Parties City of Ottawa (“City”)

Counsel Did not attend

DECISION DELIVERED BY A. SAUVE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The application before the Tribunal is an appeal under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”) to permit construction of a self-use one-storey accessory recreational building for indoor sports. Planning staff of the City found no concern with the application; however, the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) denied the application for the minor variances on October 17, 2025.

2This is the first hearing event for this application, and it had been set for a merit hearing without a case management conference. The Tribunal had been advised that the City would not be attending this Hearing.

3The subject property is about 1 hectare, rectangular in shape, with approximately 60 metres (“m”) of frontage along the northwest side of Cedar Pond Road and a depth of approximately 162 m. There is a two-and-a-half-storey detached dwelling now occupying the subject property, with a detached garage and shed located in the rear yard. The Appellant is seeking relief for two minor variances to build a self-use one-storey accessory recreational building for indoor sports, as follows:

a. To permit an accessory building height of 7.25 m, whereas Zoning By-law No. 2008-250 (“ZBL”) imposes a maximum height of 6 m for accessory buildings; and

b. To permit a maximum lot coverage of 8.17% for all accessory buildings, whereas the ZBL permits a maximum lot coverage of 5% for all accessory buildings.

4The existing shed is proposed to be removed prior to the construction of this new building; therefore, the proposed 8.17% lot coverage includes the new recreational building and the existing detached garage.

5The recreational building is proposed to be in the rear yard of the subject property. The new building will be approximately 27m behind the existing house, at a lowered grade.

LEGISLATIVE TEST

6An appeal pursuant to s. 45(1) of the Act is a hearing de novo. The Appellant bears the onus of demonstrating that the four tests, as set out in s.45(1) of the Act, have been met, namely, that the requested variances:

a) Maintain the general intent and purpose of the City’s Official Plan (“OP”);

b) Maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL;

c) Are minor in nature; and

d) Are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building, or structure.

7In addition, s. 3(5) of the Act requires the Tribunal's decision to be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”). The Tribunal must also have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act, as well as for the decision of the COA and the information it considered while making its decision, as set out in s. 2.1(1) of the Act.

PARTICIPANT AND PARTY STATUS REQUESTS

8The following persons were granted Participant status after finding that they met the applicable legislative test, and without objection from the Applicant:

1. Christopher Martyniuk;
2. Jared Havelock;
3. Lore Hervato; and
4. Maryanne Ambroziak.

9Two persons filed Party status requests prior to this Hearing. The first, from Peter Ambroziak, was dismissed as he was not in attendance and the Tribunal did not find the legislative test had been met.

10The other Party status request was from Gary Callaghan, who was present and had filed materials in advance. Mr. Callaghan is a direct neighbour to the subject property and has a legitimate interest in this application. He informed the Tribunal that he was not planning on calling evidence but wanted to make a presentation using the materials he had previously submitted and cross-examine the Appellant’s witnesses. The Tribunal found that Mr. Callaghan would not meaningfully participate in the proceeding, as a Party, in a manner that could not be accomplished through a written statement. The Tribunal denied the Party status request; however, granted Mr. Callaghan Participant status and accepted his statement and filed materials as his Participant Statement.

EVIDENCE

11The following were marked as Exhibits at this Hearing:

1. Affidavit of Service of Tamara Belley, sworn January 19, 2026; and
2. Appellant’s Book of Documents.

12The Appellant called two witnesses at this Hearing. The first was Simran Soor, who is a professional planner. The Tribunal found Mr. Soor to be an expert in the field of land use planning.

13The second witness, Wendy Yang, appeared under summons. Ms. Yang is a registered professional planner candidate member and is employed by the City and authored the report for this application. The Tribunal found Ms. Yang to be an expert in the field of land use planning.

14Both witnesses provided thorough and complimentary evidence supportive of the application. Their uncontested evidence was accepted by the Tribunal.

15Mr. Soor testified that the subject property and surrounding context is a rural area near the City. He also led the Tribunal through pictures of the area showing other houses in the area with similar accessory structures, highlighting that the proposed accessory structure would not be visible from the road due to tree buffering, and that the house is graded 2-3 m above the ground level on the remaining area of the subject property, which will also be a visual barrier as the proposed structure is to be located behind the home.

16Ms. Yang testified that the proposed structure would not create any additional noise as it is enclosed, would not create shadowing impacts because of the large setbacks, and would have no impact on privacy as the side of the accessory structure that will face a neighbour will not have windows.

17Both planners agreed in their evidence that the minor variances being requested have regard to matters or provincial interest, as found in s. 2 of the Act, as they promote the orderly development of safe and healthy communities and are appropriately located for growth and development.

18Both planners also agreed that the application is consistent with the PPS. Mr. Soor testified that the application is consistent with sections 2.1(6), 2.5 and 2.6 of the PPS as it will meet the long-term needs of the property owners, accessory building is part of the rural character, and the permitted uses do not prohibit accessory structures.

19Both planners also agreed that the application satisfies the four tests outlined in paragraph [6] above. Both planners agreed that the application maintains the general intent and purpose of the OP as the principal use of the subject property is residential. They also agreed that an accessory structure is in keeping with the character of a residential use.

20Mr. Soor testified that the application maintains the general intent and purpose of the ZBL as the intent of the ZBL, regarding this application, is to limit negative impacts on neighbours with height restrictions and lot coverage restrictions are to ensure there is adequate space on the subject property for servicing and landscaping. Ms. Yang testified that the proposed structure is far away from lot lines and residential buildings, so there would be no negative impact.

21Both witnesses agreed that the requested variances are minor in nature. Mr. Soor testified that the proposed structure will not be more noticeable from the street than what is statutorily allowed as of right. Ms. Yang testified that the application is minor in nature as there will be no negative impacts to the community as an as-of-right would have the same minor impacts.

22Ms. Yang testified that the proposal is an appropriate use of the land as the requested variances preserve the rural character of the subject property. Mr. Soor testified that the application is a desirable use of the land as it supports the long-term needs of the occupant, and it is in harmony with the size, scale, and character of the area.

PARTICIPANT STATEMENTS

23The five Participant Statements that the Tribunal has received all ask the Tribunal not to grant the variances. To summarize, the Participants generally assert that the size of the proposed structure is too large and will create negative effects on neighbours, the proposed structure is not in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood, and concerns over any industrial or commercial use of the proposed structure.

24Ms. Yang testified that reading the Participant Statements does not change her opinion regarding the variances and that the variances being requested would not allow for an industrial or commercial use of the proposed structure. Mr. Soor also testified that the issues raised in the Participant Statements do not change his opinion and that the variances should be allowed.

25Mr. Soor also testified that, when evaluating the impact a proposal may have, the size does not matter as much as the impact from the size being requested. Mr. Soor proffered that the increases being requested will not create additional impacts that would have also been created by a proposal for only what is allowed as-of-right.

FINDINGS

26The Tribunal accepts the uncontested expert planning evidence and opinions of Mr. Soor and Ms. Yang and finds that the application has regard for matters of provincial interest, is consistent with the PPS, and conforms to the OP.

27The Tribunal finds that the application meets the general intent and purpose of the OP, meets the general intent and purpose of the ZBL, is a desirable and appropriate use of the lands, and is minor in nature.

28The Tribunal finds that the requested variances, both collectively and individually, represent good planning and are in the public interest.

ORDER

29THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the variances to the City of Ottawa Zoning By-law No. 2008-250 are authorized.

“A. Sauve”

A. SAUVE

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.