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 adaptive response of humans to exercise: Impact of exercise intensity, fibre-type specific responses and molecular patterns of response

In an attempt to improve the current understanding of the adaptive response to exercise in humans, this dissertation performed a series of studies designed to examine the impact of training intensity and mode on aerobic capacity and performance, fibre-type specific adaptations to training, and individual patterns of response across molecular, morphological and genetic factors. Project #1 determined that training intensity, session dose, baseline VO2max and total training volume do not influence the magnitude of change in VO2max by performing a meta-regression, and meta-analysis of 28 different studies. The intensity of training had no effect on the magnitude of increase in maximal oxygen uptake in young healthy participants, but similar adaptations were achieved with lower training doses following high intensity training. Project # 2 determined the acute molecular response, and training-induced adaptations in aerobic performance, aerobic capacity and muscle phenotype following high-intensity interval training (HIT) or endurance exercise (END). The acute molecular response (fibre recruitment and signal activation) and training-induced adaptations in aerobic capacity, aerobic performance, and muscle phenotype were similar following HIT and END. Project # 3 examined the impact of baseline muscle morphology and molecular characteristics on the training response, and if muscle adaptations are coordinated. The muscle phenotype of individuals who experience the largest improvements (high responders) were lower before training for some muscle characteristics and molecular adaptations were coordinated within individual participants. Project # 4 examined the impact of 2 different intensities of HIT on the expression of nuclear and mitochondrial encoded genes targeted by PGC-1α. A systematic upregulation of nuclear and mitochondrial encoded genes was not present in the early recovery period following acute HIT, but the expression of mitochondrial genes were coordinated at an individual level. Collectively, results from the current dissertation contribute to our understanding of the molecular mechanisms influencing skeletal muscle and whole-body adaptive responses to acute exercise and training in humans.

Does estrogen fluctuation throughout the menstrual cycle impact flow-mediated dilation during exercise in healthy premenopausal women?

The endothelium is the inner most layer of cells that lines all arteries. A primary function of endothelial cells is to regulate responses to increased blood flow and the resulting frictional forces or shear stress by producing factors such as nitric oxide that mediate arterial dilation (flow mediated dilation (FMD)). Menstrual cycle variations in estrogen (E2) have been shown to influence brachial artery (BA) FMD in response to transient increases in shear stress brought about by the release of a brief forearm occlusion (reactive hyperemia (RH)). FMD can also be assessed in response to a sustained shear stress stimulus such as that created with handgrip exercise (HGEX), and studies have shown that RH- and HGEX stimulated FMD provide unique information regarding endothelial function. However, the impact of menstrual phase on HGEX-FMD is unknown. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the impact of cyclical changes in E2 levels on HGEX-FMD over two discrete phases of the menstrual cycle. FMD was assessed via ultrasound. 12 subjects (21 ± 2yrs) completed two experimental visits: (1) low estrogen phase (early follicular) and (2) High estrogen phase (late follicular). In each visit both RH- and HGEX-FMD (6 min handgrip exercise) were assessed. Results are mean ± SD. E2 increased from the low to the high estrogen phase of the menstrual cycle (low: 34 ± 8, high: 161 ± 113pg/mL, p = 0.004). There was no change in mean FMD between phases (RH-FMD: 7.7 ± 4.3% vs. 6.4 ± 3.1%, p = 0.139; HGEX-FMD: 4.8 ± 2.8% vs. 4.8 ± 2.3%, p = 0.979). The observation that both RH- and HGEX-FMD did not differ between phases indicates that menstrual cycle fluctuations in estrogen may not universally impact endothelial function in young, healthy premenopausal women. Further research is needed to improve our understanding of the mechanisms that underlie variability in the impact of menstrual phase on both transient and sustained FMD responses.