B. Gallaugher

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing fourteen variances required to bring a dwelling into compliance with the Zoning By-law.

In an earlier interim decision, the Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal subject to a condition that privacy screening be installed on the rear platform.

The appellant submitted affidavit evidence confirming the installation of the required privacy screens.

The tribunal found the condition was fulfilled and issued a final order authorizing the variances.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances required to legalize an existing dwelling that was constructed contrary to its building permit.

The application was amended to 14 variances based on updated as-built drawings.

The City of Toronto and a neighbourhood association opposed the appeal, arguing the dwelling's height, flat roof, and high floor space index (FSI) were out of character and set a negative precedent.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the FSI was inflated by the lot's shoreline hazard area and that the dwelling's articulation mitigated its massing.

The Tribunal concluded the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized them subject to a privacy screening condition.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision that partially approved variances for a new two-storey detached house but refused a variance for driveway location.

Following an interim decision, the applicant submitted revised plans that altered the garage and driveway to preserve a mature tree.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found the revised plans fulfilled the interim condition and authorized the variances subject to conditions.

The appellants appealed two decisions of the Committee of Adjustment refusing applications for variances to permit the conversion of existing attached garages into two-storey ancillary buildings containing laneway suites.

At the hearing, it became clear that the self-represented appellant and the participant were unfamiliar with the tribunal's procedures and had not submitted required documents, including updated zoning reviews reflecting revised plans.

The tribunal adjourned the hearing to allow the parties to comply with the Rules of Practice and Procedure and encouraged them to resolve construction-related concerns.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision that partially approved variances for a new two-storey detached house but refused a variance for the driveway location.

The appellant amended the plans to preserve a mature tree, addressing previous concerns.

The Tribunal applied the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and found that the variances for the side yard setback and driveway location maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable, and were minor.

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

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of twelve minor variances intended to permit a four-storey townhouse complex.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the appellant withdrew the appeal.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body acknowledged the withdrawal, vacated the hearing, and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of four minor variances intended to permit the construction of a garden suite above an existing detached garage.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the applicant withdrew the appeal.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body acknowledged the withdrawal, vacated the hearing, and dismissed the appeal.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving seven variances to permit the construction of a new two-storey detached house at 23 Beechwood Avenue.

The variances related to building length, depth, height, and setbacks.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal and confirmed the approval of the variances, finding that they met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's land use planner, concluding that the proposed house would respect and reinforce the physical character of the neighbourhood, which includes large, irregularly shaped ravine lots, and that the variances were minor in nature with little to no negative impact on neighbours.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a consent to sever and associated minor variances to permit the construction of two duplexes on a single property.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed severance would create lots with frontages and areas significantly smaller than the prevailing character of the neighbourhood.

The tribunal concluded that the severance did not conform to the Official Plan policies requiring new development to respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the geographic neighbourhood, and therefore failed the criteria under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The opposing parties brought a motion for costs against the appellant following the appellant's failure to attend a scheduled hearing and its last-minute withdrawal of a related appeal.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the appellant's conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, and in bad faith, as it failed to provide notice of its non-attendance, failed to file evidence, and withdrew the appeal without adequate warning.

The TLAB awarded costs to the opposing parties, reduced by one-third to account for expenses that would have been incurred prior to the deadline for submitting witness statements, resulting in a total award of $15,128.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision regarding a minor variance application.

During the hearing, the City of Toronto sought to qualify an assistant planner as an expert witness in land use planning.

The applicant objected, noting the proposed witness lacked a university degree, was not a member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute, and had falsely claimed in his curriculum vitae to have been previously qualified as an expert by the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body refused to qualify the witness, finding his lack of credentials and the false statement damaged his credibility.

The hearing was adjourned on consent to allow the City to retain a new expert witness.

The parties brought a motion for costs following an appeal regarding minor variances.

The motion was served one day after the 30-day deadline prescribed by the TLAB Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to extend the time limit, finding the delay to be minimal and non-prejudicial, and admitted the motion into the record.

A schedule for responding to the motion was established.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to permit the construction of two fourplex buildings on a severed lot.

The applicant requested variances primarily related to gross floor area, building height, side wall height, and first floor height above grade.

The Tribunal found that while recent Official Plan amendments permit multiplexes, they still require development to respect the prevailing built form of the neighbourhood.

The Tribunal concluded that the requested height variances would result in a built form incompatible with the surrounding area, failing the four tests under the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The City of Toronto requested an amendment to Condition 3 of a previous Toronto Local Appeal Body order that granted minor variances for a triplex.

The original condition required the owner to pay tenant relocation funds in trust to the City.

The City objected to acting as a trustee.

On consent of all parties, the condition was amended to require the owner to enter into an agreement under section 45(9) of the Planning Act to secure a tenant relocation and assistance plan, with funds payable directly to the tenant upon vacant possession.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to permit the construction of a new three-storey detached dwelling.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the appellant's legal representative notified the Toronto Local Appeal Body that the appeal was being withdrawn.

The appeal was dismissed as abandoned, making the Committee of Adjustment's decision final and binding.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing eight variances for a proposed detached house.

The appellant did not attend the hearing.

Neighbours opposed the appeal, presenting expert planning evidence that the proposed building was not in keeping with the neighbourhood's character and would create undue negative impacts regarding overlook and privacy.

The tribunal agreed with the expert and neighbours, finding the proposal represented an overdevelopment that failed to meet the four tests under the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed.