A Minor Change?: A Case Study of Carleton Place's Integration of Minor Variance Procedures into Ontario's Development Permit System

The Development Permit System has been introduce with minimal directives for establishing a decision making process. This is in opposition to the long established process for minor variances and suggests that the Development Permit System does not necessarily incorporate all of Ontario’s fundamental planning principles. From this concept, the study aimed to identify how minor variances are incorporated into the Development Permit System. In order to examine this topic, the research was based around the following research questions: • How are ‘minor variance’ applications processed within the DPS? • To what extent do the four tests of a minor variance influence the outcomes of lower level applications in the DPS approval process? A case study approach was used for this research. The single-case design employed both qualitative and quantitative research methods including a review of academic literature, court cases, and official documents, as well as a content analysis of Class 1, 1A, and 2 Development Permit application files from the Town of Carleton Place that were decided between 2011 and 2015. Upon the completion of the content analysis, it was found that minor variance issues were most commonly assigned to Class 1 applications. Planning staff generally met approval timelines and embraced their delegated approval authority, readily attaching conditions to applications in order to mitigate off-site impacts. While staff met the regulatory requirements of the DPS, ‘minor variance’ applications were largely decided on impact alone, demonstrating that the principles established by the four tests, the defining quality of the minor variance approval process, had not transferred to the Development Permit System. Alternatively, there was some evidence that the development community has not fully adjusted to the requirements of the new approvals process, as some applications were supported using a rationale containing the four tests. Subsequently, a set of four recommendations were offered which reflect the main themes established by the findings. The first two recommendations are directed towards the Province, the third to municipalities and the fourth to developers and planning consultants: 1) Amend Ontario Regulation 608/06 so that provisions under Section 4(3)(e) fall under Section 4(2). 2) Change the rhetoric from “combining elements of minor variances” to “replacing minor variances”. 3) Establish clear evaluation criteria. 4) Understand the evaluative criteria of the municipality in which you are working.

The Influence of 1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D3 on the Cross-Priming of Lymphocytic Choriomeningitis Virus Nucleoprotein

Biologically active 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 (1,25-(OH)2D3) binds the vitamin D receptor (VDR) to exert its effect on target cells. VDR expression is found in a number of immune cells including professional antigen-presenting cells such as dendritic cells. It has been found that the actions of 1,25-(OH)2D3 on the immune system are mainly immunosuppressive. The cross-presentation pathway allows for exogenously derived antigens to be presented by pAPCs on MHC-I molecules to CD8+ T cells. CD8+ T cell activation results in the expansion of epitope-specific T cell populations that confer host protection. These epitopes can be organized into an immunodominance hierarchy. Previous work demonstrated that introducing LCMV-NP via the cross-priming pathway significantly alters the immunodominance hierarchy of a subsequent LCMV infection. Building upon these observations, our study assessed the effects of LCMV-NP cross priming in the presence of a single dose of 1,25-(OH)2D3. Treatment with 1,25-(OH)2D3 was found to have biological effects in our model system. In vitro pAPCs were demonstrated to up-regulate IL-10 and CYP24A1 mRNA, in addition to the transactivation of cellular VDR, as demonstrated by a relocalization to the nuclear region. Mice treated with 1,25-(OH)2D3 were found to produce up-regulated IL-10 and CYP24A1 transcripts. Expression of VDR was increased at both the transcript and protein level. Our results demonstrate that a single dose of 1,25-(OH)2D3 does not affect the cross-priming pathway in this system. Treatment with 1,25-(OH)2D3 did not influence the ability of differentiated pAPCs to phagocytose or cross-present exogenous antigen to epitope-specific CD8+ T cells. Furthermore, 1,25-(OH)2D3 did not alter cross-priming or the establishment of the LCMV immunodominance hierarchy in vivo. By confirming that 1,25-(OH)2D3 does not suppress cross-priming in our model, our study helps to expand the understanding of the immunomodulatory role of exogenous 1,25-(OH)2D3 on the outcome of virus infection. Collectively, our data supports the observation that the role of 1,25-(OH)2D3 in the immune system is not always associated with suppressive effects.

Does social context influence male mating tactics in Drosophila melanogaster?

Social context, such as mate availability and perceived competition, can influence a male’s mating tactics. In Drosophila melanogaster most research has investigated how physical interactions and the perceived levels of sperm competition alter mating behaviour. I wanted to know if males would respond to the perceived social environments without the presence of physical interaction. Using a unique apparatus, I altered focal males’ social context by separating them physically from a social environment using a screen. Focal males were either in: (i) the presence of rival males and mates, (ii) the presence of potential mates only, (iii) isolation, or (iv) the presence of rival males only. I also manipulated the period the focal male was conditioned to a social environment to assess if the timing of cues is important. My findings suggest that the duration of acclimation alters male mating tactics. Regardless of social environment, the duration a male was conditioned influenced copulation latency. Males that were conditioned to their social environment for the duration of the experiment had differing copulation latencies between environments. Males held in isolation took longer to successfully court females, and transferred less sperm during mating then experimental males in the presence of rival males. Additionally, copulation duration correlated with the number of sperm transferred. Overall, my results suggest that the social environment and the perceived competition level affect mating strategies even without physical interactions. Since this apparatus may trick flies into believing they are a part of a social group, while controlling the male mating status, future work could examine behavioural, genetic and physiological phenotype effects of the social environment for both sexes.