C. Wong

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing 12 minor variances required to demolish an existing house and build a new three-storey dwelling.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body reviewed the requested variances against the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The tribunal found that the appellant's land use planner failed to demonstrate that the proposed building height, length, depth, and side yard setbacks were prevailing or substantially occurring in the immediate neighbourhood context.

Concluding that the proposal did not respect and reinforce the neighbourhood's physical character, the tribunal held that the variances did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan or Zoning By-laws.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were refused.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a consent to sever and associated minor variances to permit the construction of two new detached dwellings on a property in Toronto.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed lot frontages and areas were smaller than any in the immediate context and failed to respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood.

Consequently, the proposal did not meet the criteria for severance under the Planning Act, and the requested variances failed to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment regarding a minor variance application for the property at 89 Chester Ave.

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

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the abandoned appeal, rendering the Committee of Adjustment's decision final and binding.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

The applicant missed multiple filing deadlines for disclosure and expert witness statements due to the expert witness's health issues.

At the hearing, the applicant brought motions to admit the late-filed materials and to adjourn the hearing.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding the expert's health issues constituted a legitimate reason, and admitted the late-filed materials into the record, noting the absence of other parties or participants who might be prejudiced.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying variances for a two-storey rear addition.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body considered whether the requested building depth variance of 22.77m met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal found that the proposal did not respect and reinforce the prevailing physical character of the neighbourhood, failing to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances for lot area and frontage to permit the construction of two detached dwellings.

After multiple adjournments and a failure to file document disclosure and witness statements until the night before the scheduled hearing, the applicant brought a motion to admit the late-filed materials.

The City of Toronto brought a cross-motion to dismiss the appeal.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body refused to admit the late materials, finding that the delay was prejudicial to the other parties and not in good faith.

The tribunal granted the City's motion and dismissed the appeal without a hearing on the merits, concluding that the applicant's conduct constituted an abuse of process.

The Long Branch Neighbourhood Association and the City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to permit the construction of a new detached two-storey dwelling and detached garage.

The variances related to floor space index and side yard setbacks, and the proposal required the removal of a mature black walnut tree.

The City withdrew its opposition after confirming the tree was on private property.

The TLAB found that the applicant met disclosure requirements and provided sufficient evidence.

The TLAB held that the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal respected the neighbourhood's physical character and that the applicant had made reasonable efforts to address tree canopy protection.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The applicant proposed to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new three-storey single-detached dwelling, requiring variances for building length and floor space index.

The Committee of Adjustment approved the variances, and the adjacent neighbour appealed to the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

The TLAB allowed the appeal and refused the variances, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the variances respected and reinforced the existing physical character of the immediate neighbourhood, particularly regarding density and massing, and therefore did not meet the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to legalize an as-built rear ground-floor deck and basement addition.

The appellant amended the variance requests during the appeal to increase the deck length and add a side-yard setback variance.

The Tribunal found the amendments were not minor and would require new notice if approved.

On the merits, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's planning evidence, finding the variances did not respect the existing physical character of the neighbourhood and created significant privacy and overlook impacts on the abutting neighbour.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were refused.