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. Demczur v. Town of Orangeville

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Residential Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Appeal the granting of a minor variance by the Committee of Adjustment of the Town of Orangeville from the provisions of Zoning By-law 22-90.This By-law requires a minimum yard setback of 1.5 metres and an encroachment of up to 0.7 metres into the side yard for stairs and other structures provided a setback of a minimum of 0.6 metres is maintained.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed (variance not authorized)


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the construction on the subject property does not adhere to the rules and measurements of the Zoning By-law and is therefore contrary to both the provisions and the general intent and purpose of the By-law. Further, it fails three of the four tests required in s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and therefore is not desirable for the appropriate development, as it has an adverse impact on the Demczur property and is not minor.


    Document(s):



  2. Colville-Reeves v. Jobin

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Residential Development, Shoreline Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    A motion requesting to adjourn a hearing, which would allow the Moving Party sufficient time to measure certain elements along the shoreline of the Respondent’s lakefront property. This matter involved an appeal of a decision by the Town of Gravenhurst to amend Zoning By-law 95-54 to permit the construction of a 12.5 metre dock. The appellant states that the dock is a safety hazard to boaters as it is located in a “Narrow Waterway.”


    Held:

    Motion dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the accuracy of the measurements that they had received with the application for the building permit for the boathouse were satisfactory, and therefore the Moving Party will not be prejudiced if the hearing goes ahead as scheduled. Hearing is scheduled for one day only.


    Document(s):



  3. Reid Uptown Homes v. City of Guelph

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Residential Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Reid’s Uptown Homes has appealed the decision of the City of Guelph Committee of Adjustment refusing its application for a total of nine minor variances from the provisions of the City of Guelph Zoning By-law 14864 to permit construction of its proposed 118 residential units. The proposal was supported by the City of Guelph but opposed by an unincorporated group comprising some 40 local residents calling themselves the “By-the-Law Coalition.” Three individuals represented the Coalition at the hearing.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the variances satisfy the four tests under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act. They conform to the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan, which in this case is Official Plan Amendment 39 to make more efficient use of land as required by the Growth Plan. As well, the proposed density conforms to the policies for Greenfield Areas. They also conform to the general intent of the By-law, which permits stacked townhouses. Finally, because there is no foreseeable adverse impact on the surrounding properties and because the variances are themselves numerically slight and, from a land use planning point of view, inconsequential, the test of minor is met.


    Document(s):



  4. Slater v. KRH Holdings Inc. & Township of Muskoka Lakes

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Boathouses, Shoreline Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    An appeal from the decision of the Council for the Township of Muskoka Lakes that enacted Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2009-140, which permitted a sleeping cabin above a boathouse in the Community Residential (R1) Zone. The ZBA also placed a maximum floor area size restriction of 650 feet squared for the second storey of the boathouse and in addition restricted the maximum permitted lot coverage.


    Held:

    Appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that there are no consistency issues with any Provincial Planning policies resulting from the application and that the proposed ZBA would be in conformity with the OP policies. There would be no negative impacts resulting from the relief being requested beyond what one would anticipate from a structure built in full compliance with the Zoning By-law’s regulations.


    Document(s):



  5. Coverdale v. Town of Bracebridge

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Shoreline Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    An appeal under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act against the decision of the Town of Bracebridge, which authorized a minor variance to permit a front yard setback of 24.6 m from Wood Lake, whereas the By-law requires a minimum of 30 m. The applicants had requested the Committee to authorize a setback of 19.6 m to accommodate the construction of a new two-storey cottage and deck.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed in part


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that there is room for flexibility to permit the new cottage and there is sufficient space to accommodate additional vegetation on the property up to the 30 m line from the lake. Therefore, the proposed cottage would maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, despite the 20 m setback provisions. However, the Board requires the following conditions: the footprint of the cottage and deck shall not exceed 15.7 m by 12.1 m or 190 m2 of ground coverage; the recommendations of the Environmental Consultant are to be incorporated into the Site Plan Agreement between the Town and the applicants/appellants.


    Document(s):



  6. Brown & Orrett v. Town of Bracebridge & Benson

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Boathouses, Minor Variances, Shoreline Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    An appeal of a variance to Zoning By-law 2006-120 in order to construct a boathouse. Authorization of the variance would increase the permitted percentage of the shoreline to be developed from 25% to 36.52%, resulting in a boathouse of 48.69 feet in width as compared to a permitted 30.08 feet.


    Held:

    Appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the Committee of Adjustment gave the application a thorough review, stating that the application is minor and is appropriate as the boathouse will meet all other requirements of the Zoning By-law. The Board rejects the appellant’s submissions that the application would affect his property value. The Board agrees with the applicants that the general purpose and intent of the ZBL is maintained through the limitation on waterfront structures in that the proposed structure is less extensive than the existing docks and is located some 61 feet from the appellant’s property.


    Document(s):



  7. Steel Crown Corporation v. Township of Muskoka Lakes

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Residential Development, Shoreline Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    An appeal against the Township of Muskoka Lakes refusal to enact a proposed zoning amendment to Zoning By-law 87-87 to rezone lands from Waterfront Residential (WR1) to Waterfront Residential with a Special Exemption (WRS) to permit a cottage on a lot having less than the required frontage.


    Held:

    Appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that there would be some impact on the waters of Medora Lake from the proposed septic system as well as the fish habitat from shoreline activities. It also concludes that there would be impact on the privacy of the abutting property that would result from the reduced setback from the proposed dock. The Board accepts the evidence of the Township that this has not been a developable lot for over 40 years and the Township is concerned about the precedent-setting nature of the application.


    Document(s):



  8. Maile v. Township of Muskoka Lakes

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Costs, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Maile is seeking an award for costs under ss. 97(1) of the Ontario Municipal Board Act against the Township of Muskoka Lakes in respect to a hearing on an appeal from a decision of the Township’s Committee of Adjustment. The appeal imposed certain setbacks and rezoning, which was allowed by the Board.


    Held:

    Motion is dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board does not believe that Council was being unreasonable, frivolous or vexatious or acting in bad faith in imposing Condition 7 during the hearing, in resisting the appeal, in requiring Ms. Mailer to go through a contested hearing or in allowing its Director of Planning to give evidence. The Board also finds nothing in the Township’s conduct that could be viewed as so clearly unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious or exercised in bad faith as to warrant an award for costs.


    Document(s):



  9. Graham v. Town of Gravenhurst

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Residential Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    An appeal of a decision by the Town of Gravenhurst Committee of Adjustment authorizing minor variances for a property on which the applicants wish to construct a new dwelling. The applicants required relief from the minimum side yard and minimum rear yard requirements of By-law 95-54, as amended.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed in part


    Reasons:

    The Board was advised that the Parties had successfully negotiated a settlement of their differences. The Board finds that the requested relief from By-law No. 95-54, as amended, satisfies the statutory requirements of Section 45(1) of the Planning Act.


    Document(s):



  10. Rowan v. Town of Erin

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Agricultural, Residential Development, Severances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The Appellant/Applicant owns property approximately 40.9 hectares and is zoned agricultural and environmental protection. She seeks to sever a 1.1 hectare parcel with the intention of creating a new residential lot. The County’s Land Division Committee refused her severance application and the matter is now before the Board on appeal. The Town’s planning staff reviewed the severance application and did not support the proposed severance.


    Held:

    Appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds the evidence of the Town’s planner to be uncontroverted and unchallenged. The Appellant/Applicant’s evidence was the only planning evidence given at the hearing and the Board accepts her evidence. While the Board may be sympathetic to the reasons given by the Applicant in seeking the severance, financial security is not planning evidence. The Board is required to decide on the planning merits of an appeal before it. Further, the agricultural severance policies of the county and the Town’s Official Plan also address new residential lot creation in prime agricultural areas and the conditions upon which they will be allowed. The Applicant’s proposal does not meet these criteria nor does it appropriately address the criteria found in subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.


    Document(s):



Collingwood

Orillia

Owen Sound

Sudbury

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

 

*Practicing in association