Barristers & Solicitors*

Menu

Ontario cases.


To view sample cases that we have been involved in, browse by location by clicking on the geographical area you are interested in, or browse by subject area by clicking on an icon below.

Our Work
Location
Subject
Court
  1. Train v. Weir

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Boathouses, Shoreline Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Appeal to the Board of Town council’s decision to pass Zoning By-law 2011-157, permitting the construction of the boathouse, as it does not conform to the town’s Official Plan; it does not comply with the spirit and intent of Comprehensive ZBA 2010-04; and the matter was previously dealt with by the Town.


    Held:

    Appeal granted


    Reasons:

    The Board’s reasons have to do with the natural environment and culture of the area, as there are not many boathouses near Portage Bay, and therefore maintaining a natural shoreline environment with the construction of boathouse becomes challenging. Further, the Portage Bay constitutes a narrow waterway by the definition of the zoning by-law, however the distance from shoreline to shoreline is approximately 90 metres, less than the 150 metres required to remove it from this definition, and therefore the boathouse is not permitted.


    Document(s):



  2. Thomasfield Homes Limited v. Whiteley

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Motion to Dismiss, Official Plan Amendments, Plan of Subdivision, Residential Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Motion to the Board to dismiss an appeal of Thomasfield’s approvals for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision pursuant to subsections 17(45), 34(35) and 51(53) of the Planning Act. Further, the appellant states that the City should require a Secondary Plan on lands surrounding the subject property; applicant be required to conduct a more detailed Environmental Impact Study; no development on southern and western portions of subject property; conditions 13, 15 and 25 should be more detailed; and development should be modified to include appropriate parkland dedication.


    Held:

    Motion granted, appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board found that the appeal did not disclose any apparent planning grounds upon which the plan or part of the plan that is subject to the appeal could be approved or refused by the Board. The Board stated that raising apprehensions is not sufficient to sustain an appeal, and therefore the Board grants the Motion to Dismiss on the ground enunciated under subsection (a)(i) only of subsections 17(35), 34(35) and 51(53) of the Planning Act.


    Document(s):



  3. Savelli v. Elliot

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Minor Variances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Appeal to Board for minor variance of construction of two-storey garage, seeking relief in s. 3.1.2.a of By-law 87-87, as amended, being the maximum coverage of buildings on a lot and a variance of the maximum coverage permitted on building from the high water mark of 359 square feet.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed with conditions


    Reasons:

    The land-use planner found that the two-car garage will meet all other zoning by-law requirements except for lot coverage. In addition, the variance is considered minor because the OP regards anything less than 1/10 over the permitted lot coverage as minor. For these reasons, the Board is satisfied that the proposed variances meet the tests in subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, are in the public interest and represent good planning.


    Document(s):



  4. Trans Canada Pipelines Ltd. V. Israel

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Minor Variances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, Trans Canada Pipelines Ltd. has appealed a decision of the Town of Oakville, which authorized a variance from the provisions of the Town’s zoning by-law to permit the development of a pool by the applicants with a reduced rear yard setback.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the variance, as amended, meets the four tests set out in s. 45(1) of the Planning Act. There has been regard to matters of provincial interest, as required under S. 2 of the Act, the decision is consistent with applicable policy statements and conforms with provincial plans, as required under ss. 3(5)(a) and (b) of the Act.


    Document(s):



  5. Northridge Homes Ltd. v. Township of Georgian Bluffs

    Location:

    Grey/Bruce


    Subject:

    Plan of Subdivision, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Appeal to the Board under subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, from Council’s refusal or neglect to enact a proposed amendment to Zoning By-law 6-2003 of the Township of Georgian Bluffs to rezone lands to permit the development of a subdivision.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed upon settlement


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that based on the uncontested testimony of both planners that the proposed development represents good planning; is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement; conforms to the Official Plan and is in keeping with the pattern of regulations in the zoning By-law the Board will allow the appeals in part and By-law 6-2003 is hereby amended.


    Document(s):



  6. Smejkal v. City of Guelph

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Residential Development, Severances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    This was a telephone conference settlement hearing with respect to appeals by Robert and Leslie Smejkal of the decisions by the City of Guelph Committee of Adjustment to grant provisional consent, subject to conditions, and to authorize minor variances for the subject property. In 2009, the Applicants filed applications for consent to sever and permit minor variances for both Lots, in order to permit the construction of a single detached residential dwelling on part of the first Lot, and to recognize a legal off-street parking space for the existing single detached dwelling on the second Lot.


    Held:

    Appeals allowed in part


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the proposed lot line adjustment (severance) implements the goals and objectives of the Growth Plan, the Provincial Policy Statement, and the City of Guelph Official Plan, and represents good planning. The proposed variances conform to the overall goals of the Official Plan and maintain the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. The variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the property, will not result in the creation of adverse impacts, and are minor in nature. The Board further finds that these planning applications, subject to the conditions of the proposed Settlement, satisfy the criteria set out in subsections 51(24) and 45(1) of the Planning Act.


    Document(s):



  7. Whiteley v. City of Guelph

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Condominium Development, Residential Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The City of Guelph passed Zoning By-law 2010-19022 to permit a residential condominium townhouse development in Guelph. Whiteley appealed the Zoning By-law Amendment to the Board. The Applicant seeks approval for 45 dwelling units including the existing single, 28 cluster townhouses and 16 multiple attached dwellings on the eastern portion of the site, east of a union gas easement and adjacent to the open space valley lands. The Appellant questions the safety, visual impact and environmental aspects of the development.


    Held:

    Appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    The appeal is dismissed as to By-law 19022 based upon the reasons he advanced above and the findings of the Board. By-law 19022 is found to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and the City of Guelph Official Plan in effect. By-law 19022 represents good planning and is in the public interest. There is appropriate regard for the Provincial interests in section 2 of the Planning Act, including the protection of ecological systems.


    Document(s):



  8. Moss v. Town of Bracebridge

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Motion to Dismiss, Residential Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Appeal from a decision of the Town of Bracebridge to pass Zoning By-law Amendment 2011-011, which rezoned lands from R1-2 to R3-18. The purpose of the By-law Amendment is to allow for the construction of 40 townhouse units on a cul-de-sac and two semi-detached dwelling units along with parkland and a storm water management facility. Counsel for the applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing, pursuant to subsection 34(25) of the Planning Act.


    Held:

    Motion to dismiss the appeal is allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the appellant’s reasons for appeal are not substantiated and therefore the Board concludes from the appellant’s submissions that there would be nothing that would allow the Board, in whole or in part, to allow all or part of her appeal. There is no compelling evidence that the Town of Bracebridge failed to give proper notice as prescribed by the Planning Act of the subject application and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2011-011, and therefore there are no technical grounds for appeal on that basis.


    Document(s):



  9. Northridge Home Ltd. v. Township of Georgian Bluffs

    Location:

    Grey/Bruce


    Subject:

    Plan of Subdivision, Residential Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Pre-hearing Conference to deal with procedural matters arising from the Township of Georgian Bluffs Council’s refusal to approve a Zoning By-law Amendment application and draft Plan of Subdivision by Northridge Homes Ltd. for a residential development that is proposed to be on individual septic systems.


    Held:


    Reasons:

    The Parties agreed to approach the Board to explore resolution through mediation. Once this process is completed, the Parties are directed to contact the Board to set a further Pre-hearing Conference to deal with procedural matters and to set a date for the hearing.


    Document(s):



  10. 1066517 Ontario Inc. v. Township of Grey Highlands

    Location:

    Grey/Bruce


    Subject:

    Commercial Development, Official Plan Amendments, Severances, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The first Pre-hearing Conference to consider procedural matters for the hearing which will deal with appeals filed by 1066517 Ontario Inc. on Council’s refusal to approve its application for Official Plan Amendment, rezoning and consent, seeking to permit a commercial enterprise and other commercial uses at a 1.4 ha parcel.


    Held:

    Hearing is scheduled for future date


    Reasons:


    Document(s):



Collingwood

Orillia

Owen Sound

Sudbury

© 2019 Elston Watt Barristers & Solicitors*. All rights reserved.

 

*Practicing in association