Barrister & Solicitor | Integrity Commissioner

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. Simcoe (County) v. Simcoe (County)

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Official Plan Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    This was a second pre-hearing conference related to the new County of Simcoe Official Plan and Growth Plan for Greater Golden Horseshoe conformity exercise for the County of Simcoe. The Board is being asked to adjourn this hearing and order the County of Simcoe to undertake whatever public consultation the Chair deems necessary.


    Held:

    Adjournment denied and Official Plan approved in part


    Reasons:

    The Board orders that the request for an adjournment is denied. The Board is satisfied that the requirements for public consultation have been satisfactorily met. In all other respects, the Official Plan of the County of Simcoe is approved with the exception of the sections under appeal as set out in the attachments.


    Document(s):



  2. Township of Muskoka Lakes Heritage Designation

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Heritage Conservation, Recreational Development, Renewable Energy, Shoreline Development


    Court:

    Conservation Review Board


    Application/issue:

    Intention to designate three properties known as Township Dock at Lake Muskoka; Portage Landing at Moon River; and Shield Parking Lot, in the Town of Bala under the Ontario Heritage Act R.S.O. 1990, Chapter O.18, amended to 2009.


    Held:

    Properties designated


    Reasons:

    The Board found that under s. 29 of the Act, the Township had conducted a reasonable and fair process and the properties hold cultural heritage value and interest to the community. The Board finds that the Township met the requirement of s. 29(3) and s. 29(4); and finds that Swift River Energy’s argument is redundant. Since the Township is not in violation of the Act and the properties are identified as holding cultural heritage value, the Board finds that the Township can proceed with designating the three properties.


    Document(s):



  3. Durfy v. Township of Muskoka Lakes

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Residential Development, Shoreline Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Appeal an application for a minor variance to increase permitted lot coverage from 10% to 14.1% of the lot and 14.3% of the lot within 200 feet of the high water mark. The subject property is designated “Waterfront” and zoned WR1 in Zoning By-law No. 87-87.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the modest addition to the cottage is far enough removed from the waterfront and buffered by trees to have minimal impact on the views from the lake. The addition meets the general intent of the zoning by-law because it is hidden from view, does not interfere with development of abutting property and is not any more of a precedent than that of the abutting lands.


    Document(s):



  4. Mehlenbacher v. Township of Muskoka Lakes

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Boathouses, Minor Variances, Shoreline Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Appeal for two minor variances to expand an existing two storey boathouse by adding a 198 square foot covered deck to the second storey. The variance would allow relief for the cumulative width of 15% whereas the by-law permits 13%.


    Held:

    Appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the addition to the boathouse will have an impact on the views from the lake and the covered deck would fundamentally change the view from the water. The OP sets limits for the development of waterfront structures based upon the size of the lake, the coverage of structures, and the frontage of the lot. The evidence clearly demonstrated that a significant area of natural shoreline would be blocked by the new roof and would increase the dominance of the man-made environment as opposed to the natural environment. Therefore, the Board finds the scale of the variance to be excessive because it transfers the rights of larger lots (over 400 feet) to a much smaller lot.


    Document(s):



  5. Train v. Weir

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Boathouses, Leave to Appeal, Shoreline Development


    Court:

    Ontario Superior Court of Justice


    Application/issue:

    Train moves under s. 96 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.28 for leave to appeal the decision to the Divisional Court on a question of law. The original appeal was granted to Mr. Weir resulting in the Board declining the building of a boathouse by Mr. Train.


    Held:

    Leave to Appeal declined


    Reasons:

    The moving party has not satisfied the Court that the Board failed to adhere to the underlying principles in having regard to council’s decision. Therefore, the Court does not find that the Board’s application of the principle is open to substantial doubt as an error of law. The Court also finds that the argument of possible abuse of hearsay evidence is not something that would ordinarily meet the test for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court, and does not so in this instance.


    Document(s):



  6. Sherman 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:

    Appeal of the refusal to pass an amendment to the Zoning By-law No. 87-87 to allow variances to a cottage dwelling. The variance are lot coverage of 13.5% rather than maximum 10%; a setback of 44 ft. from water’s edge rather than required 45 ft.; and a landing are of 60 sq. ft. from the required front yard setbacks, whereas s. 3.1.2.b.ii) for the By-law permits 50 sq. ft.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that there are no matters of Provincial interest affected by this application and it is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the District of Muskoka OP. The OP through a rigorous set of policies does allow for the consideration of exemptions in specific cases subject to a review of criteria set out in s. F.1.6 By-law Administration and policies found in s. B “Waterfront.” There would be no cumulative impacts on this or other lands in the immediate area and to the shoreline.


    Document(s):



  7. Robinson v. Township of Muskoka Lakes

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Minor Variances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The appellants are appealing a decision from the Township of Muskoka for the refusal of a minor variance from Zoning By-law 87-87, which would permit a proposed garage/storage building on the subject property. The variances are relief from s. 7.3.1 of ZBL 87-87; a lot are of 0.4 acres rather than the required 1.0 acres; a lot frontage of 110 ft, rather than required 200 ft; and a maximum height of 20.5 ft, rather than maximum height of 20 ft.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed with conditions


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that there are no matters of Provincial interest affected by this application and that the applications are in conformity with the intent and purpose of the District of Muskoka OP and the Township of Muskoka Lakes OP as amended by OPA No. 40. It is also the determination of the Board that the relief being sought out is minor and will have no adverse impact on any abutting properties, nor will the plans not comply with the standards of the municipality or the Ontario Building Code.


    Document(s):



  8. St. John’s Evangelical Latvian Lutheran Church v. Township of Essa

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Recreational Development, Severances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    St. John’s appealed the decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing provisional consent to sever one new lot of approximately 7 hectare from a total land parcel of approximately 28 ha at the subject property.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed with conditions


    Reasons:

    The Board found that the application conforms to the County Official Plan and the OP, and complies with all applicable provisions of the ZBL. The Board also stated that the Provincial Policy Statement clearly outlined that severance of the lots comprises development and therefore, provisional consent is possible, but only if the conditions proposed by the NVCA and Township are met.


    Document(s):



  9. Sculati 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 a decision of the Township of Muskoka Lakes approving By-law Amendment No. 2012-15 with provisions requiring a proposed dwelling to have a minimum front yard setback of 50 feet and limiting the size of the dwelling to a maximum of 4700 square feet for the subject property. The purpose of the appeal is to obtain relief from the two above-noted provisions. The subject property is a waterfront lot that previously had been two separate lots, which now have been merged and contains two cottages.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed in part


    Reasons:

    In consideration of the evidence and factors presented before the Board, including the opinion of the Planner, the Board finds that the revised By-law 2012-15 is appropriate and it should be approved. He indicated that revised By-law 2012-15 raises no issues with regard to the Provincial Policy Statement; it conforms to the Township Official Plan and represents good planning.


    Document(s):



  10. Davis v. Township of Muskoka Lakes

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Boathouses, Official Plan Amendments, Shoreline Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Appeal to the Board of the refusals of the Township to approve an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a two-storey boathouse. The OPA will permit lot coverage of 11.9% whereas maximum is 10%. The ZBLA will permit side yard setback of 42 feet rather than the required 45 feet.


    Held:

    Appeal granted


    Reasons:

    Settlement was reached and appeal of OPA was withdrawn. Further, the ZBLA conforms to the OP and represents good planning, will have no adverse environmental impacts, and the built-form of the boathouse will not dominate the natural environment and it will maintain the existing character of the shoreline. In addition, the proposed development will only cover 16.3% of the actual shoreline, as compared to the 25.0% limit contained in the OP.


    Document(s):



  11. 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):



  12. 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):



  13. 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):



  14. 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):



  15. 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):



  16. 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):



  17. 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):



  18. 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):



  19. 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):



  20. 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):