A. Bassios

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of an application for consent to sever a property containing a semi-detached building with two duplexes.

The participants raised concerns regarding the potential loss of rental housing units under Official Plan Policy 3.2.1.6.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal and granted the consent, finding that the severance itself does not propose any new development or demolition, and therefore OP Policy 3.2.1.6 does not apply.

The tribunal concluded that the application met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The Long Branch Neighbourhood Association (LBNA) brought a motion seeking relief from TLAB Rule 16 to admit a late expert witness statement from an urban forestry expert.

The hearing of the merits had been previously adjourned.

The TLAB granted the motion, finding that the proposed evidence regarding tree health was relevant to the proceedings and that the adjournment provided sufficient time for the other parties to prepare.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment's refusal of an application for consent to sever a residential property into two lots and associated minor variances.

The proposal involved retaining the existing dwelling on one lot and constructing a new detached dwelling on the severed lot.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal in part, granting the consent to sever and the variances related to lot area, lot frontage, and the existing dwelling's setbacks and building length.

However, the tribunal refused the variances for lot coverage and floor space index for the proposed new dwelling, finding insufficient evidence that the proposed massing and density respected and reinforced the physical character of the neighbourhood.

The owner appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to permit a second secondary suite in the basement of an existing townhouse.

The proposed variances sought relief from provisions limiting townhouses to one secondary suite, restricting the interior floor area of secondary suites to 45% of the dwelling unit, and requiring an additional parking space.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal in part, finding that the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The tribunal held that the addition of a second secondary suite within the existing building envelope maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and was desirable and minor, as it would provide affordable rental housing without adverse planning impacts.

A party to the proceeding brought a motion to adjourn the hearing scheduled for April 17, 2024.

Although the appellant initially opposed the motion, all parties subsequently consented to the adjournment.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body granted the motion in part, adjourning the hearing to a date in August 2024 to be determined in consultation with the parties.

The respondent brought a motion for costs against the appellant after the appellant withdrew his appeal of a Committee of Adjustment decision two weeks prior to the scheduled hearing.

The respondent argued that the appellant's failure to retain legal counsel, failure to file witness statements, and late filing of revised plans caused her to incur unnecessary expenses.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the motion, finding that while the appellant's conduct was inept and uninformed, it did not meet the statutory threshold of being unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving variances to permit the conversion of an existing duplex into a fourplex.

The parties reached a settlement with a revised set of variances for driveway width and building height.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal, treated as an addition and renovation, met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed in part to authorize the revised variances subject to conditions, including a landscaping plan and tree protection.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of an application to sever a residential property into two lots and for associated minor variances for Floor Space Index (FSI).

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed lot dimensions complied with the Zoning By-law and therefore conformed to the Official Plan.

Although the proposed FSI was high for the neighbourhood, the tribunal found that the massing and scale of the proposed dwellings were compatible with the surrounding area, satisfying the four tests for minor variances.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of variances to permit the continued operation of a ground floor restaurant patio in the rear yard of a semi-detached building.

The primary issue was a variance to the zoning by-law requirement that a patio be separated from a residential lot by at least 10 metres.

While the tribunal accepted expert acoustic evidence that a proposed fence would mitigate noise to ambient levels, it found that the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law was to prevent any additional noise by requiring a permanent distance separation.

As the variance did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law, the appeal was dismissed and the variances were not authorized.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for a consent to sever and minor variances.

At the hearing, the appellant's representative failed to provide any supporting documentation, witness statements, or expert evidence.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed severance and variances met the requirements of the Planning Act, including the four tests for minor variances and conformity with the Official Plan.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of an application for variances to construct a new detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant and the City reached an agreement, reducing the requested variances to a single variance for floor space index (FSI).

The Tribunal evaluated the revised proposal against the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Relying on expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed FSI respected the massing, scale, and density of the neighbourhood, and that the variance maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was minor, and was desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The appeal was allowed in part and the revised variance was authorized.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to widen a driveway.

At the hearing, the appellant's representative requested an adjournment, citing miscommunication and lack of preparation.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, noting the appellant's responsibility to understand the appeal process and comply with the Rules of Practice and Procedure.

As the appellant provided no evidence addressing the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications for two detached houses.

Prior to the Toronto Local Appeal Body hearing, the applicant's expert witness statement introduced a revised proposal for two duplexes to take advantage of new municipal multiplex permissions.

The opposing party objected, as their expert had prepared evidence based on the original disclosure.

Citing procedural fairness, notice requirements under the Planning Act, and the Clergy principle, the Tribunal declined to proceed with the revised proposal without proper notice.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request for an adjournment to allow for proper disclosure and notice of the revised proposal.

The appellant requested the removal of a condition of approval for minor variances that required a $450,000 cash contribution to the City for local park improvements.

The request was made because the City subsequently enacted a Community Benefit Charge (CBC) By-law, under which the appellant paid $891,300.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the intent of the original condition was satisfied by the CBC payment and ordered that the condition be deemed fulfilled.

The parties to an appeal before the Toronto Local Appeal Body requested an extension of document submission deadlines following the rescheduling of the hearing date.

The extension was requested on consent to allow the appellant's counsel to obtain instructions and to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions.

The TLAB granted the request, finding the revised deadlines reasonable and noting that attempts to settle appeals without a contested hearing should be supported.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances for a one-storey addition.

The City of Toronto brought a motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing under section 45(17) of the Planning Act, arguing the appellant failed to disclose any land use planning grounds and failed to comply with TLAB's rules for documentary disclosure.

The self-represented appellant requested an adjournment on the day of the hearing, citing personal and financial difficulties.

The Tribunal granted the City's motion and dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's complete failure to comply with procedural rules and unresponsiveness prejudiced the City and undermined the Tribunal's process.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to construct a new three-storey dwelling.

The requested variances were for maximum floor space index and minimum side yard setback.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the revised proposal respected the prevailing physical character of the neighbourhood and met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed in part and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of an application for consent to sever a property into two residential lots and associated minor variances for two new detached dwellings.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed lot frontages and areas did not respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood as required by the Official Plan.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the neighbourhood association's urban design expert over the applicant's planner, concluding that the requested floor space index variances would result in a built form that did not fit the context.

The applications failed to meet the criteria for consent under the Planning Act and the four tests for minor variances.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to construct a new detached home with an attached garage.

Although the appellant reached a settlement with the City, several neighbours remained opposed.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant, who was self-represented and relied on a designer not qualified as a planning expert, failed to provide sufficient planning evidence to demonstrate that the requested variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appellants requested a review of a TLAB decision that denied their appeal for minor variances to permit rooftop 'doghouse' additions.

The appellants argued the presiding Member violated rules of natural justice and procedural fairness by allowing participants to ask questions and make closing submissions, and made errors of law and fact in interpreting the site-specific zoning by-law.

The reviewing Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the Member's procedural rulings were within his discretion and that his interpretation of the by-law's intent to maintain the roof's open space character was a reasonable exercise of his adjudicative function.