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. Municipality of Temagami v. Lake Temagami Residents Group Inc. and Temagami Barge Limited

    Location:

    Northern Ontario


    Subject:

    Shoreline Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The appellants have appealed to the Board under subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act against Zoning By-law 06-650 of the Municipality of Temagami.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed in part


    Reasons:

    At the outset of the hearing, the Board was advised by Counsel for the Municipality of Temagami, that the appeal by Lake Temagami Residents Group Inc. has been settled. The Board had been advised of the amendments that had been made to the by-law that has been approved by Council to address the concerns raised in the appeal. The Board accepts the evidence and finds that the by-law does represent good planning and that it does conform to the municipal Official Plan.


    Document(s):



  2. Waltman v. City of Toronto

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Residential Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Elise Waltman is requesting a variance from the provisions of the north York Zoning By-law 7625, as amended, to permit the construction of a two storey dwelling at 132 Dunblaine Avenue in the City of Toronto. The existing dwelling will be demolished. The Committee of Adjustment denied the Applicant’s minor variance application. The Applicant appealed the Committee’s decision to the Ontario Municipal Board. An amendment was made at a later date to these variances (see attachment).


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that all of the four tests of subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act have been satisfied regarding the amended variances. The Board finds that the amended variances are minor and that they comply with the general purpose and intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law and is desirable for the development proposed.


    Document(s):



  3. Komeilinejad v. City of Toronto

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Commercial Development, Minor Variances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    An appeal to the Committee of Adjustment of the City of Toronto for a minor variance to create six parking spaces at the rear of her property, however, Zoning By-law 7625 requires eight parking spaces of a specified size and with specified turning circles and aisles for the uses proposed. The appeal is under subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board concludes that the proposal will comply with and conform to the land use documents and represents appropriate planning. The Board allows the appeal and the site plan approval requested be authorized subject to the conditions set out at the hearing.


    Document(s):



  4. Town of Gravenhurst v. 670409 Ontario Limited

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Residential Development, Severances, Shoreline Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The subject property is approximately 11.1 acres in size and fronts onto Morrison Lake and Morrison Creek. The proposal is for a new road to be constructed by the applicant. These large lots provide flexibility in the location of dwellings and septic tile beds and that the number of docks is limited to one for each lot to be located off existing rock faces. The subject lands are to be rezoned to permit the intended residential use subject to a 30.0 metre Environmental Protection Zone being retained along the shoreline and measured from the high water mark.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the proposed zoning by-law amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the District of Muskoka Official Plan and the Town of Gravenhurst Official Plan. By-law 94-54 is hereby amended and satisfies that criteria set out in subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.


    Document(s):



  5. Township of Seguin v. Gagnon

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Boathouses, Minor Variances, Shoreline Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    An appeal from a decision of the Township’s Committee of Adjustment, which denied the application for variances from the provisions of the Township’s Interim Control By-law Z200-97 to replace a recently demolished boathouse. The variances were for maximum width and maximum length extensions.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed in part


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that variances cannot be authorized unless they meet all four requirements of Section 45(1) of the Planning Act; maintain the general purpose and intent of the operative Official Plan and that of the applicable zoning by-law; and they must be minor and desirable for the appropriate development of the land. For these reasons, the Board allows the appeal, but with the conditions that the boat port width be reduced from 1.83 metres to 1.52 to satisfy the maximum requirement and the railing be installed along the upper perimeter of the port.


    Document(s):



  6. D’Urzo v. City of Toronto

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Residential Development, Severances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    An appeal from decisions of the Committee of Adjustment for the City of Toronto, which dismissed two applications for consent and three minor variances for the purpose of the application is to create three single-family building lots where two currently exist. In order for construction to occur, the applicant applied for the following variances from By-law 7625: proposed frontage and width of 12.89 metres whereas minimum is 15 metres; side yard setback of 1.21 metres whereas minimum is 1.54 metres; and proposed dwelling length of 18.9 metres whereas maximum is 18.8 metres.


    Held:

    Appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    It is clear to the Board that this is a very stable single-family area with large lots and is undergoing revitalization with existing lots being purchased and new home being constructed, and is therefore not in a state of decline or transition to a different or more intensive use. It is also clear that the Official Plan policies state that preservation of stable residential area is an important policy direction and that intensification as being proposed should be undertaken with circumspection. The Board finds that this residential area is not in decline or that reduced lot sizes are required as a planning tool to reinvigorate the area.


    Document(s):



  7. Town of Huntsville Zoning By-law 2005-18P (Re)

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Shoreline Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The appeals involve two separate planning instruments. The first relates to a Zoning Amendment By-law 2005-18P. The second relates to five consent applications, which create four new lots connecting another parcel of land to an existing lot. The appeals focus upon the rear lot access to the Robinson Lake Shoreline, which is part of a large Provincially Significant Wetland called Big East River Delta Wetland. The Appellant asserts that four boat docks and the pedestrian paths to them would damage the many botanical species in this shoreline area. Further, since Robinson Lake is very small, permitting boat docks would encourage excessive boating on the Lake, and would encourage dredging of the very small channel connecting this Lake to the larger Lake Vernon. The Appellant asserts that dredging would eliminate the remnant beaver dam, which may vary water levels in Robinson Lake. The issue remained that of access to Robinson Lake and the potential dredging of the channel. The aspect of a potential motorboat ban on Lake Robinson and the question of drenching of the channel are beyond the jurisdiction of the Board. However, these issues are part of the overall assessment of the Applications.


    Held:

    Board allows in part the appeals by Edward Williams under section 34(10) and 53(19) of the Planning Act; Board orders approval of proposed By-law 2005-18P; Board orders provisional consent be given.


    Reasons:

    The Board is satisfied that the proposed Zoning By-law and the proposed Consents subject to the conditions imposed by the Committee of Adjustment meet all the provincial, District, and Town policies and represent good planning. (See attachment for amended decision).


    Document(s):



  8. Mitchell v. Township of Seguin

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Recreational Development, Shoreline Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    This hearing concerned a rezoning to permit the demolition of most of Rocky Crest Resort at the North end of Lake Joseph in the Township of Seguin. The appellants have appealed to the Board under subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, against Zoning By-law Z272-2005 of the Township of Seguin.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed in part


    Reasons:

    The Board does not find any undue adverse impact and will therefore amend the by-law as set out by the Board.


    Document(s):



  9. Bamberger v. Morgan, Hamilton and Natale

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Residential Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The applicants are seeking to replace their existing one storey rear addition with a new two-storey addition. Zoning By-law 438-86 prescribes a maximum gross floor area of 163.82 square metres or 0.35 times the area of the lot and a west side yard setback of a minimum of 0.9 metres. The owners are seeking relief from these provisions so as to have a gross floor area of the building of 232.06 square metres and a west side yard of 0.76 metres.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed in part


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the four tests required under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act have been met. The objectors were in agreement with the applicants and it has been confirmed that the settlement has been successfully reached. Further, the Board finds that the proposal satisfies that Official Plan policies individually and collectively; it will create reinvestment and regeneration to the neighbourhood; and there are no adverse planning impacts.


    Document(s):



  10. Kay Family Trust v. City of Toronto

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Residential Development, Severances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    An appeal from a decision of the Committee of Adjustment of the City of Toronto that dismissed an application for consent to convey approximately 215.3 square metres of land from the rear yard area of the Kay Family Trust Property to be added to the rear yard area of the Brodie property.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board agrees that there is no adverse impact on the public interest and that the rear yard amenity area function would remain unchanged. Its intended use for soft landscaping and the lot addition, results in a lot depth and area more in keeping with the existing physical character of the vicinity and no resulting adverse impact. The Board finds that consent meets the applicable criteria as set out 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