Wayne P. Meagher

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance to permit a 13.4-metre tall accessory structure on an agricultural property.

The proposed structure, intended for storing collectibles and observation, significantly exceeded the 6.5-metre height limit for residential accessory buildings.

The Tribunal found that while the proposal met the general intent of the Official Plan, it failed the remaining three tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The variance was not minor, did not maintain the intent of the zoning by-law, and was not desirable for the appropriate use of the land.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the municipality's decision to grant a lot severance and minor variance for a reduced rear yard setback to permit the creation of a new residential lot.

The appellant failed to appear at the hearing.

The Tribunal heard unchallenged expert planning evidence from the municipality that the applications were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable official plans, and met the four tests for a minor variance under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant municipality sought an extension of time under section 100 of the Drainage Act to apply for a review of an engineer's account under section 72.

The account had been paid in 2016, but a 2017 Tribunal decision heavily criticized the engineer's report.

The municipality delayed until December 2018 to seek the extension.

The Tribunal denied the extension, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the delay between the 2017 decision and the 2018 application, and concluding that the balance of prejudice favoured the respondent engineer.

The applicant health unit sought to relocate its headquarters by entering into a new lease.

The respondent County, which was the applicant's current landlord and an unsuccessful bidder for the new location, refused to consent to the lease under s. 52(3) of the Health Protection and Promotion Act.

The court determined that a lease constitutes 'holding real property' under the Act, thus requiring municipal consent.

However, the court set aside the County's refusal, finding it was made in bad faith and with a reasonable apprehension of bias due to the County's direct financial interest in keeping the applicant as a tenant.