Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: June 01, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000189

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

Appellant: Tejinder Singh Vohra

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit the development of a 2-storey garden suite

Reference Number: A-2024-0462

Property Address: 2 Glengrove Court L6S 1Z3

Municipality/UT: Brampton/Peel

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000189

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000189

OLT Case Name: Vohra v. Brampton (City)

Heard: June 20, 2025, March 18, 2026, and May 11, 2026 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative*

Tejinder Singh Vohra (“Appellant”)

Self-represented*

City of Brampton (“City”)

R. Usmanali

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY D. ARNOLD ON MAY 11, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1These proceedings pertain to an appeal filed by the Appellant (“Appeal”) pursuant to subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Planning Act”), of the refusal of the Committee of Adjustment (“CoA”) of the City to grant the Appellant’s application to permit certain minor variances from the provisions of the City’s Zoning By-law 270-2004, as amended (“Zoning By-law”), to facilitate a proposed garden suite on the property municipally known as 2 Glengrove Court (“Subject Property”).

2The hearing of the Appeal was held on June 20, 2025, continued on March 18, 2026, and had a further continuation scheduled to occur on May 11, 2026. Prior to this latter date, however, the Parties advised the Tribunal that they reached a settlement of the Appeal and requested that these proceedings be converted to a settlement hearing in order to provide evidence on the proposed minor variances contemplated by their settlement for the Tribunal’s consideration (“Hearing”). The Tribunal granted this request.

3At the conclusion of the settlement hearing, the Tribunal rendered an Oral Decision allowing the Appeal, in part, to authorize certain minor variances to the Zoning By-law, as detailed in this written Memorandum of that Oral Decision and Order.

THE APPEAL

4In the application that is the subject of the Appeal (“Application”), the Appellant sought the following minor variances:

1. To permit a proposed two-storey garden suite having a height of 6.7 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a garden suite having a maximum height of 4.5 metres in all other Residential zones;
2. To permit a proposed two-storey garden suite having a separation distance of 1.22 metres from the existing attached carport, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum separation distance of 3 metres from the principal dwelling;
3. To permit a lot coverage of 38%, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33.3% for a demi-detached dwelling; and
4. To permit a proposed two-storey garden suite having a gross floor area of 49.12 square metres, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a maximum gross floor area of 35 square metres in all other Residential zones.

PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

5The proposed settlement of the Appeal entails consideration of the following proposed minor variances (as set out in Exhibit 5 in evidence in these proceedings):

1. To permit a garden suite having a height of 4.6 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a garden suite having a maximum height of 4.5 metres in all other Residential zones (“Height Minor Variance”); and
2. To permit a garden suite having a separation distance of 2.43 metres from the existing attached carport, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum separation distance of 3 metres from the principal dwelling (“Separation Distance Minor Variance”).

6The Tribunal was advised that the proposed settlement contemplates dismissal of the Appeal as it pertains to the minor variance described in paragraph 4 of the Application as set out in paragraph [4] of this Decision because the gross floor area contemplated by the proposed settlement (34.86 square metres) does not exceed the maximum gross floor area of 35 square metres prescribed by the Zoning By-law.

7At the Tribunal’s request, and as detailed below, the Tribunal heard evidence pertaining to the minor variance described in paragraph 3 of the Application as set out in paragraph [4] of this Decision and the lot coverage contemplated by the proposed settlement as follows:

3. To permit a lot coverage of 35.8% for the Subject Property, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33.3% for a property containing a semi-detached dwelling (“Lot Coverage Minor Variance”).

8Collectively, the proposed minor variances contemplated by the settlement and the proposed lot coverage minor variance are referred to in this Decision as the “Proposed Minor Variances”.

EVIDENCE

9On the first day of the Hearing, the following documents were entered as exhibits in evidence:

• Exhibit 1: Document Book of the City; and
• Exhibit 2: Evidence Outline of Megan Fernandes, dated May 17, 2025.

10At the Hearing, the City called one witness, François Hémon-Morneau, who was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion land use planning evidence. The Curriculum Vitae and signed Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty of this witness are found in Exhibits A and B, respectively, of the Affidavit of François Hémon-Morneau, affirmed May 9, 2026. This Affidavit was entered into evidence in these proceedings as Exhibit 3 (“Hémon-Morneau Affidavit”).

11A site plan of the Subject Property dated April 15, 2026, that depicts the proposed garden suite as it would be constructed in accordance with the Proposed Minor Variances, was provided by the City and entered into evidence at these proceedings as Exhibit 4 (“Site Plan”).

12Mr. Hémon-Morneau testified that the Application was for a “larger and taller” garden suite than what is contemplated by the Proposed Minor Variances (“Proposed Garden Suite”). Mr. Hémon-Morneau testified that the Proposed Garden Suite entails substantial revisions to the size and scale in relation to four features: 1) lot coverage; 2) gross floor area; 3) building height; and 4) separation distance from the attached carport/principal dwelling. Mr. Hémon-Morneau testified that the Proposed Garden Suite addresses the primary concerns previously identified with respect to the Application regarding “massing, shadowing, and visual impact” and “maintains the intended accessory and subordinate function of the garden suite relative to the principal dwelling” (Paras. 26 to 28 of Exhibit 3).

13With reference to the Site Plan, Mr. Hémon-Morneau testified that the Proposed Garden Suite would be 34.86 square metres in size, and as such, would be less than the maximum gross floor area of 35 square metres permitted by the Zoning By-law. Accordingly, Mr. Hémon-Morneau opined that no minor variance is required with respect to this element of the Proposed Garden Suite. In this regard, Mr. Hémon-Morneau opined that “bringing the size of the [Proposed Garden Suite] within the Zoning By-law’s gross floor area standard assists in maintaining the intended accessory and subordinate function of the garden suite relative to the principal dwelling” (Para. 26 of Exhibit 3).

14Mr. Hémon-Morneau also provided evidence pertaining to the lot coverage of the Proposed Garden Suite. Mr. Hémon-Morneau testified that, although the Zoning By-law prescribes a maximum lot coverage of 33.3% for the Subject Property, Ontario Regulation 299/19 under the Planning Act (“Planning Act Regulation”) overrides, or supersedes, the Zoning By-law and prescribes a maximum lot coverage of 45%. As such, Mr. Hémon-Morneau opined that the proposed Lot Coverage Minor Variance of 35.8% is permitted and does not require an approval under the Planning Act. Mr. Hémon-Morneau opined that the Appeal, as it pertains to the proposed Lot Coverage Minor Variance, could be dismissed by the Tribunal.

15The Tribunal, while concurring with Mr. Hémon-Morneau’s opinion on the interpretation of the Planning Act Regulation, requested that Mr. Hémon-Morneau provide evidence on the proposed Lot Coverage Minor Variance for the following reasons.

16In response to questions by the Tribunal regarding the possible consequence if the Planning Act Regulation were to be amended or repealed in the future, Mr. Hémon-Morneau opined that, in such an instance, the “default” maximum lot coverage of the Zoning By-law might be applicable and the Proposed Garden Suite exceeds the Zoning By-law’s maximum lot coverage of 33.3%. There may or may not be “legal non-conforming status” depending upon the status of the construction of a garden suite, if approved. Mr. Hémon-Morneau agreed that the Planning Act does not provide for the same appeal rights of the Appellant (as in the case of the Appeal before the Tribunal currently) if the Planning Act Regulation is amended or repealed in a way that materially affects the land use planning status of a proposed (or actual) garden suite for the Subject Property. The Tribunal found that dismissing the Appeal, as it pertains to the proposed Lot Coverage Minor Variance, would be prejudicial to the Appellant’s rights of this Appeal. In view of the foregoing, and on no objection of the Parties, the Tribunal requested that Mr. Hémon-Morneau provide expert opinion evidence on the proposed Lot Coverage Minor Variance. Mr. Hémon-Morneau obliged in this regard and the Tribunal appreciated this additional assistance to enable the Tribunal to determine the land use planning merits of the proposed Lot Coverage Minor Variance.

17Mr. Hémon-Morneau opined that the Proposed Minor Variances conform to the Regional Municipality of Peel’s (“Region”) Official Plan and the City’s Official Plan (2006, in force and effect), which both contain policies relating to additional residential units in a building or structure ancillary to, among other things, a semi-detached dwelling. In this regard, Mr. Hémon-Morneau referred to Policy 5.9.14 of the Region’s Official Plan at para. 37 of Exhibit 3, which:

…directs that local municipalities include policies in local municipal official plans that permit additional residential units including the use of two residential units in a….semi-detached house and the use of a residential unit in a building or structure ancillary to a semi-detached house.

18Mr. Hémon-Morneau also referred to Policy 4.2.5.6 of the City’s Official Plan, which states:

The City supports the creation of affordable housing and creative housing solutions that broaden the range of housing typologies and provide gentle intensification in the Residential designation to better utilize infrastructure and services. Second units and garden suites are a form of Additional Residential Units (ARUs) permitted City-wide, subject to the provisions of this Plan, the Zoning By-law and the Registration By-law.

ARUs aim to support the overall planning objectives of this Plan, including:

• Supporting modest population growth and densification;
• Providing a variety of housing choice;
• Supporting the supply and range of rental housing options across the City;
• Supporting changing demographics through opportunities for multi-generational living, aging in place and age friendly communities;
• Utilizing efficiencies in City and Regional infrastructure including roads, public transportation, water/wastewater and community services; and,
• Providing flexibility for homeowners to enhance the use of their property.

19Mr. Hémon-Morneau opined that the Proposed Minor Variances meet the general intent and purpose of the Official Plans of the Region and City. He opined, at para. 46 of Exhibit 3, that garden suites are:

…intended to remain accessory and subordinate to the principal dwelling, with controls on size and height ensuring this relationship. [The Proposed Garden Suite] achieves this objective and represents an appropriately sized and ancillary form of development relative to the principal residential dwelling.

20Mr. Hémon-Morneau also opined that the Proposed Garden Suite meets the general intent and purpose of the City’s 2024 Official Plan (adopted but under appeal and not in force and effect). Mr. Hémon-Morneau opined, at para. 54 of Exhibit 3, that the Proposed Garden Suite satisfies the applicable Garden Suite policies of the 2024 Official Plan, as it:

…appropriately addresses considerations related to privacy, massing, and compatibility with adjacent properties. The [Proposed Garden Suite] maintains the intended accessory and subordinate relationship to the principal dwelling, preserves adequate amenity space and reflects the intent of both the Additional Residential Unit policies and the Zoning By-law. Accordingly, the [Proposed Minor Variances] represent an appropriate and supportable form of minor deviation in this context.

21Mr. Hémon-Morneau further opined that the Proposed Minor Variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. In this regard, Mr. Hémon-Morneau provided evidence that the Subject Property is zoned Residential Semi-Detached A-Special Section 100 under the Zoning By-law. As such, there are applicable regulations pertaining to maximum height, minimum separation distances, and maximum lot coverage for garden suites.

22Mr. Hémon-Morneau opined that the intent of the maximum height regulation is to ensure that a proposed garden suite remains subordinate to the principal dwelling and does not result in “undue massing, shadowing, or visual impacts on adjacent properties or the surrounding streetscape” (Para. 63 of Exhibit 3). Mr. Hemon-Morneau opined that the proposed Height Minor Variance of 4.6 metres represents a minor increase of 0.1 metres above the maximum height of the Zoning By-law (4.5 metres) and “remains appropriately scaled and will be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood context, which includes a mix of one-storey and two-storey dwellings” (Para. 65 of Exhibit 3).

23Mr. Hémon-Morneau opined that the intent of the minimum separation distances between a garden suite and the principal dwelling/carport prescribed by the Zoning By-law is “to ensure an adequate spatial buffer between buildings, facilitate access for maintenance, and support appropriate drainage and site functionality” (Para. 66 of Exhibit 3). Mr. Hémon-Morneau opined that the proposed Separation Distance Minor Variance represents a minor deviation of 0.57 metres from the Zoning By-law and “remains sufficient to maintain an appropriate spatial relationship between structures, and does not give rise to concerns related to building massing, access, maintenance, or drainage” (Para. 68 of Exhibit 3).

24Mr. Hémon-Morneau opined that the intent of the maximum lot coverage regulation of the Zoning By-law is to ensure appropriate scale and preserve reasonable amenity space through “gentle intensification”. Mr. Hémon-Morneau opined that the proposed Lot Coverage Minor Variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law as it would permit a Proposed Garden Suite that would be of “appropriate scale” and maintain a “modest” overall built lot coverage on the Subject Property constituting only a 2.5% increase from the Zoning By-law’s maximum lot coverage of 33.3%. Moreover, adequate outdoor amenity area would be preserved and the property line setbacks would be unaffected and remain appropriate.

25Mr. Hémon-Morneau opined that the Proposed Minor Variances are minor in nature. Mr. Hémon-Morneau opined that “whether a variance is minor in nature is not simply a matter of numbers but depends on the scale of the change and what it means in practical planning terms. Both the size of the deviation and its effects need to be considered” (Para. 74 of Exhibit 3). Mr. Hémon-Morneau opined at paras. 74, 76, and 78 of Exhibit 3 that the Proposed Minor Variances constitute small numerical variations from the requirements of the Zoning By-law and that:

more importantly, [do] not result in any meaningful adverse impacts. There are no concerns with respect to shadowing, privacy, overlook, or massing…Taking into account the site context and surrounding residential character, the variances are minor in both scale and effect.

26Mr. Hémon-Morneau opined that the Proposed Minor Variances are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the Subject Property. Mr. Hémon-Morneau opined at paras. 70-73 of Exhibit 3 that the Proposed Garden Suite is:

a form of gentle intensification that contributes to the efficient use of residential land within an established neighbourhood…[It] maintains the existing neighbourhood character and responds appropriately to the site context and surrounding built form…The introduction of a garden suite also supports broader housing objectives by contributing to the City of Brampton’s housing supply, consistent with Provincial direction to facilitate additional residential units.

27Mr. Hémon-Morneau opined that the Proposed Minor Variances are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, including the policies pertaining to providing for a supply and range of housing options, as the Proposed Garden Suite will provide an additional residential housing unit within an existing residential area and make use of existing infrastructure. Mr. Hémon-Morneau further opined that the Proposed Minor Variances have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest identified in section 2 of the Planning Act, including those matters pertaining to orderly development and the adequate provision of housing.

28Mr. Hémon-Morneau testified that he reviewed the written statements of the two Participants in these proceedings, Taryn Nurse and Denise Hale. With respect to the land use planning concerns raised in those statements, Mr. Hémon-Morneau opined that the Proposed Garden Suite contemplated by the Proposed Minor Variances appropriately address those concerns for the reasons detailed in Mr. Hémon-Morneau’s evidence and described earlier in this Decision. Mr. Hémon-Morneau opined that, from a land use planning perspective, there is not a concern regarding the adequacy of servicing.

FINDINGS

29The Proposed Minor Variances differ from the Application. The Tribunal found that the preponderance of evidence at these proceedings established that the Proposed Minor Variances constitute less of a variance from the requirements of the Zoning By-law than the variances sought pursuant to the Application. The Tribunal found that, upon consideration of the evidence at these proceedings, it was appropriate to amend the Application to reflect the Proposed Minor Variances pursuant to subsection 45(18.1) of the Planning Act. Moreover, the Tribunal was of the opinion that such an amendment was minor within the meaning of subsection 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act such that no notice under subsection 45(18.1) of the Planning Act was required.

30Upon consideration of the evidence set forth in the Hémon-Morneau Affidavit and the oral evidence of Mr. Hémon-Morneau at the Hearing, all of which was uncontroverted expert opinion evidence, the Tribunal finds that the Proposed Minor Variances satisfy the requirements of subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act. Specifically, the Proposed Minor Variances:

1. Maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law;
2. Maintain the general intent and purpose of the Region and the City’s Official Plans;
3. Are minor in nature; and
4. Are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the Subject Property.

30Moreover, the Tribunal finds on the uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Hémon-Morneau that the Proposed Minor Variances are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, as required by subsection 3(5) of the Planning Act, and have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in section 2 of the Planning Act.

31As part of its consideration of the merits of the Appeal and the Proposed Minor Variances, the Tribunal had regard for the decision of the CoA of the City and the information that it considered in the course of making its decision, in accordance with subsection 2.1(1) of the Planning Act.

32As part of its consideration of the merits of the Appeal and the Proposed Minor Variances, the Tribunal considered the written statements of the two Participants in these proceedings, as well as the expert opinion evidence of Mr. Hémon-Morneau with regard to the land use planning concerns identified in those statements.

33The Tribunal finds, on the uncontroverted expert opinion evidence in these proceedings, that the Proposed Minor Variances satisfy the prescribed tests and requirements of the Planning Act, as described above, and, accordingly, shall be authorized as set out in the Order below.

ORDER

34THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Appeal is allowed, in part, and the following variances to the City’s Zoning By-law No. 270-2004, as amended, are authorized with respect to the property municipally known as 2 Glengrove Court, in the City of Brampton (“Subject Property”):

1. To permit a proposed garden suite having a height of 4.6 metres, whereas the by-law permits a garden suite having a maximum height of 4.5 metres in all other Residential zones;
2. To permit a proposed garden suite having a separation distance of 2.43 metres from the existing attached carport, whereas the by-law requires a minimum separation distance of 3.0 metres from the principal dwelling; and
3. To permit a lot coverage of 35.8% for the Subject Property, whereas the by-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33.3% for a property containing a semi-detached dwelling.

"D. Arnold"

D. ARNOLD 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.