Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• NOVA challenged a Committee of Adjustment decision granting Dow minor variances under the Planning Act.

• The case tested whether the new legislative scheme under the More Homes Built Faster Act limited judicial oversight.

• NOVA argued the decision lacked adequate reasons and failed to consider impacts on its industrial operations.

• The court applied the Vavilov standard of reasonableness to assess procedural fairness and justification.

• It found the committee's reasons sufficient and its decision supported by planning evidence and statutory compliance.

• Judicial review was dismissed, affirming municipal decision-making discretion in minor variance applications.

Background and minor variance application

Dow Chemical Canada ULC owns and operates a research facility in Sarnia, Ontario. It applied to the City of Sarnia’s Committee of Adjustment for two minor variances: one to reduce the required rear yard setback and another to increase the maximum permitted building height. These variances were intended to allow construction of a new research building on the existing Dow site. The variances were granted by the Committee in July 2023.

NOVA Chemicals Corporation, whose industrial operations are adjacent to the Dow site, objected to the proposed development. It raised concerns about safety, regulatory impacts, and operational disruptions. Under the new legislative regime introduced by the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, certain third-party appeal rights under section 45 of the Planning Act were removed, limiting NOVA’s ability to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal. As a result, NOVA initiated an application for judicial review.

Arguments and legal framework

NOVA challenged the Committee’s decision on several grounds. It argued that the decision was procedurally unfair, that the Committee failed to provide adequate reasons as required by section 45(8.1) of the Planning Act, and that the decision lacked a reasonable foundation based on planning evidence. NOVA maintained that the changes would affect its emergency response zones and undermine the coordinated use of adjacent industrial lands.

Dow responded that the Committee’s decision met the statutory requirements and was supported by evidence, including a detailed planning report, site plan drawings, and testimony at the hearing. Dow also contended that NOVA’s application for judicial review was an improper attempt to circumvent the legislative removal of appeal rights under the revised Planning Act.

The Court reviewed the matter under the Vavilov framework, which requires administrative decisions to be reasonable, intelligible, and justified in light of the applicable legal and factual constraints.

Court's analysis and application of reasonableness

Justice Pollak held that the Committee of Adjustment’s decision met the standard of reasonableness. The Committee had clear jurisdiction to grant minor variances under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and was not required to produce elaborate written reasons. The court found that the brief but direct written reasons satisfied the obligations under section 45(8.1), especially when viewed alongside the oral deliberations and supporting documentation.

The court also rejected NOVA’s argument that its proximity and status as a significant industrial actor should have triggered enhanced procedural protections. Justice Pollak emphasized that the legislative amendments were intended to streamline development approvals and that judicial review is not a substitute for lost appeal rights.

Outcome and dismissal of application

The court dismissed NOVA’s application for judicial review. It found that the Committee’s decision was procedurally fair, reasonable in substance, and aligned with statutory planning principles. Costs were awarded against NOVA, consistent with Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the general principle that unsuccessful judicial review applicants bear costs.

The ruling affirms the limited scope of judicial oversight in municipal land use decisions post-reform and signals that courts will respect administrative discretion where basic procedural and statutory requirements are met.