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.

An Examination of Current Approaches to Integrative Indigenous and Western Knowledge System Implementation in Water Research and Management: A Case Study Encompassing the Colonized Geographies of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States

The commodification of natural resources and the pursuit of continuous growth has resulted in environmental degradation, depletion, and disparity in access to these life-sustaining resources, including water. Utility-based objectification and exploitation of water in some societies has brought us to the brink of crisis through an apathetic disregard for present and future generations. The ongoing depletion and degradation of the world’s water sources, coupled with a reliance on Western knowledge and the continued omission of Indigenous knowledge to manage our relationship with water has unduly burdened many, but particularly so for Indigenous communities. The goal of my thesis research is to call attention to and advance the value and validity of using both Indigenous and Western knowledge systems (also known as Two-Eyed Seeing) in water research and management to better care for water. To achieve this goal, I used a combined systematic and realist review method to identify and synthesize the peer-reviewed, integrative water literature, followed by semi-structured interviews with first authors of the exemplars from the included literature to identify the challenges and insights that researchers have experienced in conducting integrative water research. Findings suggest that these authors recognize that many previous attempts to integrate Indigenous knowledges have been tokenistic rather than meaningful, and that new methods for knowledge implementation are needed. Community-based participatory research methods, and the associated tenets of balancing power, fostering trust, and community ownership over the research process, emerged as a pathway towards the meaningful implementation of Indigenous and Western knowledge systems. Data also indicate that engagement and collaborative governance structures developed from a position of mutual respect are integral to the realization of a given project. The recommendations generated from these findings offer support for future Indigenous-led research and partnerships through the identification and examination of approaches that facilitate the meaningful implementation of Indigenous and Western knowledge systems in water research and management. Asking Western science questions and seeking Indigenous science solutions does not appear to be working; instead, the co-design of research projects and asking questions directed at the problem rather than the solution better lends itself to the strengths of Indigenous science.