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. Muchnik v. Garfield

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Residential Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The applicants are proposing to demolish a small bungalow in order to construct a new two-storey home. To do this, they require four variances from the zoning by-law. They applied to the Committee of Adjustment for the City of Toronto for approval of those variances and were granted approval. The appellants were not satisfied with the decision as the second storey home will exceed the by-law maximum and affect the appellants; therefore they have appealed the decision before the Board.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed in part


    Reasons:

    At the commencement of the hearing, the Board was advised that the parties had achieved a settlement of the issues between them that would result in a reduction in length of the second storey. The Board also finds that the amendment to the variance application is minor, and that no further notice of the variance is required. Further, the Board concludes that the variances meet the four tests under the Planning Act, there will, be no adverse impact on adjacent properties or on the neighbourhood and it meets the general intent of the Official Plan and zoning by-law.


    Document(s):



  2. Signum Corporation v. City of Peterborough and Wal-Mart Canada Corp.

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Commercial Development, Motion to Dismiss, Official Plan Amendments, Shopping Centre Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Signum Corporation has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act in regard to Official Plan Amendment No. 126 of the City of Peterborough and further, has appealed to the Board under subsection 34(19) of the Act in regard to Zoning By-law Nos. 04-037 and 04-038 of the City of Peterborough. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. has brought a motion under subsections 17(45) and 34(25) of the Act to dismiss the appeals. Wal-Mart seeks its costs incurred in bringing this motion on a substantial indemnity basis.


    Held:

    Motion granted


    Reasons:

    Based on the affidavit evidence submitted by Wal-Mart the Board finds that OPA 126 and By-laws 04-37 and 04-38 are consistent with the City’s policies. The Official Plan sets out a multi-nodal retail commercial structure, which reflects the Wal-Mart site, adjacent to the designated Portage Node and the proposed Signum site in the southwest part sector of the City, which is independent of a Shopping Node designation. The Board finds that the proposal before it represents an incremental expansion of the designated Portage Node and that it reinforces the City’s planned commercial structure.


    Document(s):




  3. Pope v. Toronto (City)

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Heritage Conservation


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The matters before the Board consist of appeals under the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act in connection with By-law 115-2003 enacted by Council for the City of Toronto designating a specific area of the City as a heritage conservation district pursuant to Part V of the Act.


    Held:

    Appeals dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board accepts the submissions of Counsel and the evidence of the expert witnesses that the designation of the south Rosedale Area as a Heritage Conservation District represents good planning. The restrictions to individual property owners are minimal as the permitting system is in no way directed at interior renovations or exterior renovations that cannot be seen from the street. The Board further states that ratepayers and volunteers have been desirous of a heritage designation for the area for many years and the action of Council in enacting the By-law has widespread support.


    Document(s):



  4. Mattamy (Rouge) Ltd. v. City of Toronto

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Plan of Subdivision, Residential Development


    Court:

    Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Divisional Court


    Application/issue:

    Application by the Ontario Municipal Board for determination of a stated case as to whether the board had jurisdiction to order a municipality to assume ownership of, and service, a laneway in a subdivision against its wishes. The applicant Mattamy owned 150 acres of land in Toronto; it wished to build a subdivision and submitted plans to the city for approval. The plans included laneways for access, depicted as public streets, which Mattamy intended to be city streets with attendant city services. The city refused to approve the plans on the grounds that the proposed lanes were too narrow, at 10.5 metres, for city streets, whereas the City’s standard width was 18.5 metres. Mattamy argued that, within the subdivision, the proposed width met all needs for access by the city and its services, and that the plan should be approved. It also argued that the city had assumed ownership of other laneways of the same width in the area. Mattamy appealed to the Board, seeking approval of the plan and an order requiring the city to assume the ownership and service of the laneways at the proposed width. The city argued that the Board had no jurisdiction to make such an order.


    Held:

    The OMB did not have jurisdiction to order the city to assume the ownership of the proposed laneways or to service those laneways, even if the OMB approved Mattamy’s subdivision plan.


    Reasons:

    The Board does not have any jurisdiction to order the City to assume roads or services under section 41 or section 51 or the Planning Act, and the Board does not have the jurisdiction to order the City, against its will, to enter into subdivision agreements or site plan agreements that include clauses requiring the municipality to assume roads and services in order to give effect to the Board’s decision approving the plan. It is therefore the Board’s view that they are without jurisdiction to order the City, contrary to its wishes, to do any of the things set out in the stated case submitted to the court.


    Document(s):



  5. York Rose Investments Ltd. v. City of Toronto

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    No categories


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:


    Held:


    Reasons:


    Document(s):



  6. Petrucci and Rutigliano v. Niagara Escarpment Commission

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Niagara Escarpment Commission, Residential Development


    Court:

    No categories


    Application/issue:

    This is an appeal against the Niagara Escarpment Commission’s refusal of an application for a development permit, pursuant to section 25(8) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.2, made by Petrucci and Rutigliano to construct a single dwelling unit (with attached garage) and septic system and to recognize installation of a driveway access on property in the Town of Caledon.


    Held:

    Appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    The proposed development is located within the Escarpment Rural Area designation in the NEP. A single dwelling is a permitted use, subject to the relevant NEP Development Criteria. A thorough examination of the proposal by NEC staff determined that it does not comply with the policies of the NEP. Consulted agencies have also provided evidence and rationale to conclude that the relevant Development Criterion has not been satisfied. The Commission finds that allowing development to occur under these circumstances may set a dangerous precedent in that any owner of a lot with environmentally sensitive attributes or that by other constraints could alter the lands in such a way that could potentially circumvent policies that are in place to prevent incompatible site development.


    Document(s):



  7. Grivogiannis v. Toronto (City) Committee of Adjustment

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Residential Development, Severances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The appellant seeks permission to create a new lot of 1150 metres squared, primarily by the removal of the three-car garage attached to the southeast side of his bungalow. To address conflictions with two standards of Zoning By-law 6752, the appellant also seeks a variance to the lot frontage and permission to install a front parking pad to the front of the bungalow. His application to the panel of the Toronto Committee of Adjustment having been denied, they have been appealed to the Board.


    Held:

    Appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the proposed lot will adversely affect the physical character of the neighbourhood by introducing an inappropriate lot shape and house form that fails to adequately address item 51(24) of the Planning Act. Also, having found that the application is in conflict with the East York Official Plan policy 2.5.8, it fails to address item 51(24) of the Act.


    Document(s):




  8. Springhill Development Corp. and Dahmer and DeGraff v. City of Orillia

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Condominium Development, Official Plan Amendments, Residential Development, Shoreline Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The applicant wishes to build an 8-storey condominium building on the site containing 74 residential units. This is an appeal to the Board under subsection 34(19) and 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, against Zoning By-law 2001-173 of the City of Orillia and from a decision of the City of Orillia to refuse approval of Proposed Amendment No. 3 to the Official Plan.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed in part


    Reasons:

    The Board is satisfied there are sufficient controls relating to the Site Plan and the Holding Zone in the By-law to provide for a good development. In this case, the Board finds that the proposed development will have a minimal acceptable impact on the neighbours. While there will be impact to properties surrounding the condominiums development and some sunlight and privacy will be lost, overall the Board finds the impact acceptable, recognizing that the proposed development may set a precedent for what can be developed along the waterfront.


    Document(s):



Collingwood

Orillia

Owen Sound

Sudbury

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

 

*Practicing in association