In 2022, Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government passed the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 and effectively eliminated third-party appeals of municipal planning decisions. Nearby property owners could no longer challenge outcomes at the Ontario Land Tribunal. The government’s stated goal was to speed up housing approvals and reduce application costs by removing the uncertainty and time cost of OLT appeals. The primary concern driving the change was that NIMBY opposition was exploiting the OLT process as a means to block development.
However, the legislative elimination of third-party appeals did not extinguish the common-law right to seek judicial review “based on private interest standing if a decision affects the applicant’s direct, personal interest or tangibly interferes with an applicant’s private right.”
Ontario’s Divisional Court confirmed this principle in a recent decision quashing a Haldimand County Committee of Adjustment decision that permitted decreases to lot line setbacks of an existing dog kennel operation. The reduced setbacks negatively impacted the neighbouring property’s ability to construct a potential residential dwelling.
Section 4.33(c) of the Haldimand County Zoning By-law requires that no dwelling be erected or located on a separate lot within 300 metres of any animal kennel. The CoA approvals permitted the kennel to operate with side-yard setbacks as small as 23.78 metres instead of the required 125 metres under the Zoning By-law.
The minor variance approval meant that “significant parts of the applicant’s land would not be permitted to have a residential dwelling built upon it.” Therefore, the neighbouring property owner proved they had private interest standing, and the CoA decision tangibly interfered with property rights.
In reviewing the CoA decision, the Divisional Court relied upon the County’s meeting minutes. The minutes simply summarized submissions and stated the Committee approved the minor variances. The minutes lacked any reasoning or explanation of how the variances met the four-part test for minor variance approval.
On the grounds that there were no reasons, the Divisional Court concluded the approval was unreasonable. Following standard judicial review practice, the matter was returned to Haldimand County’s Committee of Adjustment to conduct a rehearing.
The decision should be read as a cautionary tale for municipal committees of adjustment, many of which follow Haldimand’s practice of not providing detailed reasons for decisions.
Production Details
v. 1.0.0
Published: February 16, 2026
Last updated: February 16, 2026
Author: Joey Coleman
Update Record
v. 1.0.0 original version