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. McIntyre 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:

    Applications requesting an amendment to By-Law 87-87 to rezone the subject lands from Waterfront Residential (WR6) to Waterfront Residential (WR5), along with other provisions of minimum lot frontage and maximum floor area for a dwelling. The application was denied and the applicants have appealed this decision before the Board.


    Held:

    Appeals dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board considers Policies 8.8 and 8.9 of the Township Official Plan and has found no qualifying language, provision for exemptions and no reference to any other policy in the Plan that provides relief from the requirements. The Board concludes that the applications do not conform to the general intent of the Township’s Official Plan and as a result, Section 51(2) of the Planning Act is not met. The proposed frontage’s conformity with the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law is not proven.


    Document(s):



  2. The Corporation of the Town of Markham v. Gordon

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Leave to Appeal, Minor Variances, Residential Development


    Court:

    Ontario Superior Court of Justice


    Application/issue:

    Town of Markham seeks leave to appeal to the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board to the Divisional Court. Ms. Gordon was successful in her appeal before the Board to demolish an existing building and garage and construct a new gothic revival brick two-storey dwelling with an attached two-car garage. The Town argues that there is reason to doubt the correctness of the Board’s position on the question of the law.


    Held:

    Leave to appeal denied


    Reasons:

    The Court is not satisfied that it is of sufficient importance to merit the attention of the Court. Further, the Court cannot conclude that there is reason to doubt the correctness of the Board’s decision, even if it were determined that a question of law was involved. The applicant has failed to satisfy the Court that there is reason to doubt the correctness of the decision for which leave is sought.


    Document(s):



  3. Solaris Energy Partners Inc. v. Township of East Hawkesbury

    Location:

    Eastern Ontario


    Subject:

    Agricultural, Renewable Energy, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    An appeal to an Interim Control By-law under Section 38 of the Planning Act, in which the applicant proposed a solar farm in the Township of East Hawkesbury. The solar farm consists of a substantial array of solar panels to generate electricity and relies on access to Ontario’s power grid. However, because it is on Prime Agricultural land, neighbours have raised concerns about that land-use and apprehensions about side effects. The applicant appealed the ICB pertaining to its proposed rezoning and site plan.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    While rezoning and site plan approval remain to be addressed, for this hearing the Board draws its decision specifically on the ICB appeal. The Board finds that whatever constructive purposes Interim Control and the ICB may have had in the past, Interim Control By-Law No. 288-58 of the Township of Easy Hawkesbury has no further practical purpose.


    Document(s):



  4. Leonard v. Town of Bracebridge

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Recreational Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    An appeal against the Town of Bracebridge Committee of Adjustment’s decision to refuse an application for a minor variance, to permit a hunt camp on a 39.97 hectare parcel of land. By-law 2006-120 requires a hunt camp in a rural area to have a minimum lot area of 40 hectares.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the variance meets all four of the statutory tests of subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act and it is the Board’s view that this proposal will be compatible with the immediate area and will not adversely impact the neighbourhood and surrounding properties.


    Document(s):



  5. Brookfield Power Wind Corp. v. Town of Kingsville

    Location:

    Southwestern Ontario


    Subject:

    Official Plan Amendments, Renewable Energy, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Brookfield Power Wind Corp. has appealed to the Board under subsections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, as amended, from Council’s refusal or neglect to enact a proposed amendment to the Official plan for the Town of Kingsville as well as a proposed amendment to Zoning By-law 59-1998 and Zoning By-law 1988-15 of the Town of Kingsville, to redesignate lands within the municipality, add definitions, regulation and setbacks to evaluate and permit application for Wind Energy Conservation Systems.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board recognized that the safeguards itemized as preconditions for the wind farm, the assessments and reports and the locational rules on frontage, area and setback, were are consistent with the principles of sound planning. The Board also agreed that the amendments to the Official Plans and the Zoning By-law advanced the stated objectives of the Provincial Policy Statement.


    Document(s):



  6. Hanmer v. Town of Gravenhurst

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Boathouses, Minor Variances, Shoreline Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    An appeal from the decision of the Committee of Adjustment for the Town of Gravenhurst, which refused his application for relief from the provisions of the Zoning By-law 94-95, for an increase in the height of his one-storey boathouse. The permitted height is 3.9 metres and the Appellant requests an increase of 0.7 metres, to 4.6 metres. The Town’s position is that it would have negative aesthetic impact on the shoreline when viewed from the water.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the Appellant has discharged its burden to meet all four tests under Section 45 of the Planning Act for the application to be approved. The height variance is minor both in size and impact and the applicant has demonstrated that he intends that structure to be used solely for storage and not habitation. Further, there would be no adverse effect on the aesthetic quality and natural environment of the waterfront.


    Document(s):



  7. Town of Markham v. Gordon

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Residential Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The Appellant proposes to demolish the existing dwelling and detached garage to construct a new two-storey dwelling with an attached two-car garage. The appellant submitted a Demolition Permit application, a Minor Variance application for three variances and a Site Plan Control application, however was denied by the Committee of Adjustment of the Town of Markham. These decisions were appealed and consolidated for this hearing.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the demolition conforms to the Provincial Policy Statement (2005) and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, as well as the York Regional Official Plan and the Town of Markham Official Plan and the Thornhill Secondary Plan. Further, the variances maintain the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law by allowing the construction of a two-storey dwelling in an R2 Zone. As such, the variances also meet the four statutory tests under Section 45(1) of the Planning Act.


    Document(s):



  8. Gordon v. Town of Markham

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Heritage Conservation, Minor Variances, Residential Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The Applicant/Appellant submitted a Demolition Permit application, a minor variance application for three variances and a Site Plan Control application. The Town of Markham refused the demolition permit for the property. Later, the Committee of Adjustment approved one of the three variances regarding lot frontage, but refused a building height variance and depth variance, followed by the refusal of the Site Plan Control application. All decisions were appealed and consolidated for the hearing.


    Held:

    Appeals allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the subject property is was assigned the lowest classification category, a Class C, in the 2007 Thornhill-Markham Heritage Conservation District Plan and therefore does not find this modest dwelling to be a significant building. Further, the Board finds that the demolition of this dwelling conforms to the Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe with respect to conservation of significant heritage resources. Based on the evidence, the variances maintain the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and Section 45(1) of the Planning Act.


    Document(s):



  9. Town of Bracebridge By-law No. 2006-120 (Re)

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Commercial Development, Recreational Development, Shoreline Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The matter before the Board is the only remaining appeal against the Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2006-120 of the Town of Bracebridge. The remaining appeals of N. Montanaro, J.R. Ward, L. Power are site specific appeals dealing with the zoning proposed for the subject property known as Little Europe Resort. The Resort property is an established tourist camp of 56.33 acres with extensive frontage on the Muskoka River. A Superior Court of Justice Decision respecting the Resort site ordered that; The use as a tourist camp of the lands is a legal non-conforming use within the meaning of Section 34(9)(2) of the Planning Act. The lands are subject to the By-laws of the Town of Bracebridge. The appellants articulated their concerns effectively. Their concerns include impediment to the enjoyment of their properties, trespassing, smoke, continuous expansion, public safety with respect to use of boats and the boat ramp, defined swimming area and environmental issues as they relate to septic systems.


    Held:

    Board orders that Zoning Amendment come into full force and effect.


    Reasons:

    The Board accepts the testimony of the Town Planner and finds that the proposed zoning provisions are in the public interest, set standards of operations, regulations and permitted uses and zone provisions respecting the naturalized buffer areas, and provide for a scale of development that is appropriate for the Resort site.


    Document(s):



  10. Weselan Farms Limited v. Norfolk County

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe, Southwestern Ontario


    Subject:

    Official Plan Amendments, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    An appeal of Official Plan Amendment 22 and an appeal of the City of Nanticoke’s Zoning By-law 30-Z-2007.


    Held:

    Settlement of OPA 22 and appeal allowed for ZBL


    Reasons:

    The Board is satisfied that the proposed zoning amendment conforms to both the City of Nanticoke Official Plan and the adopted but not yet approved Norfolk County Official Plan. Further, the Board accepts that the proposed amendment represents good planning and is in the public interest.


    Document(s):



Collingwood

Orillia

Owen Sound

Sudbury

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

 

*Practicing in association