D. Lombardi

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of four variances required to construct a new fourplex with an integral garage on a corner lot.

The TLAB found that the proposed fourplex, which is permitted under the City's new multiplex policies (SASP 826), maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The TLAB accepted expert planning evidence that the variances for side and rear yard setbacks, building length, and main wall height were minor and desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions mitigating privacy and overlook concerns.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to permit the construction of a second-storey addition above an existing detached garage to convert it into a garden suite.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body reviewed the uncontested planning evidence and found that the proposal, which included variances for setbacks, angular planes, and landscaping, met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal authorized the variances, noting that the garden suite would provide an appropriate and compatible built form that expands housing options in the neighbourhood.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing two variances to permit 'as-built' landscape features.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body issued a Notice of Proposed Dismissal because the appellants had not provided written reasons and grounds for the appeal.

The appellants subsequently submitted a letter outlining their reasons.

The TLAB Chair found that the deficiency had been addressed and ordered that the appeal proceed to a hearing.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit a children's outdoor play area in the front and side yards and to reduce the required parking to zero for an existing day nursery.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert evidence that the parking reduction would improve safety and pick-up/drop-off operations, and that the play area locations were appropriate and partially recognized by an existing encroachment agreement.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The Summerhill Residents Association requested a review of a TLAB decision that authorized minor variances for a rear three-storey addition to a townhouse.

The Association alleged that the presiding Member violated procedural fairness by plagiarizing the applicant's expert planner, made errors of law regarding Official Plan policies on prevailing density, and acted outside jurisdiction by approving a landscaping variance involving encroachments.

The TLAB Chair dismissed the review request, finding no evidence of bias, plagiarism, or jurisdictional error.

The Chair held that the presiding Member properly exercised discretion in preferring the expert planner's evidence over the Association's submissions and correctly applied the statutory tests.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing four variances to permit the construction of a new one-storey ancillary building.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the appellant formally requested the withdrawal of their appeal.

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

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing minor variances for a proposed two-storey detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant withdrew the appeal, noting that a new provincial regulation overrode the relevant zoning by-law provisions and eliminated the need for the remaining variance.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal as abandoned and closed the file.

The applicant sought minor variances to construct a three-storey addition to an existing detached dwelling, which were refused by the Committee of Adjustment.

The appellant appealed the refusal to the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and closed the file, rendering the Committee of Adjustment's decision final and binding.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing nine variances to permit the construction of a new detached dwelling with an attached garage.

Before a hearing date was set, the appellant's legal representative informed the Toronto Local Appeal Body that the appeal was abandoned.

The appeal was dismissed and the Committee of Adjustment decision became final and binding.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing minor variances to permit the construction of a third-storey rooftop deck on an existing apartment building.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the appellant's counsel submitted a letter withdrawing the appeal.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal as abandoned, confirming the Committee of Adjustment's decision as final and binding, and vacated the scheduled hearing.

The applicant requested a review of a TLAB decision that refused seven variances to permit the construction of a new three-storey detached dwelling.

The applicant alleged that the presiding Member violated the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact, including by providing insufficient reasons, manufacturing evidence, and incorrectly applying policies related to laneway suites and infill development.

The TLAB Chair dismissed the review request, finding that the Member provided sufficient reasons, properly considered the context of the application, and made no errors of law or fact that would warrant cancelling the decision.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a side yard setback variance for a proposed side addition and second-storey deck.

Prior to the hearing, the appellants reached a settlement with the abutting neighbour, resulting in revised plans that increased the side yard setback but required new variances for building length and depth.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body converted the matter to a settlement hearing.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and authorized them subject to conditions.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment regarding minor variances for a residential property.

At a prehearing conference, the parties advised the Tribunal that a settlement in principle had been reached.

The Tribunal ordered that the scheduled contested hearing be converted to a settlement hearing and set deadlines for the filing of the settlement terms, revised plans, and supporting affidavit evidence.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances for two related properties.

Due to an administrative error by the Tribunal, only one of the appeals was scheduled and heard.

To ensure procedural fairness, the TLAB Chair issued an interim order directing that a new hearing be scheduled for the omitted appeal and that the member who heard the related appeal be seized of the matter.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of three variances required to construct a two-storey garden suite in the rear yard of the subject property.

At the hearing, the appellant appeared without an expert land use planner and attempted to provide evidence himself.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide any land use planning evidence to demonstrate that the requested variances met the four statutory tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were not authorized.

The Appellant brought a motion seeking relief from the TLAB's Rules of Practice and Procedure to confidentially submit letters of support from neighbours for the presiding Panel Chair's review only, without disclosing them to opposing parties.

The Appellant alleged that public disclosure could lead to harassment by opposing neighbours.

The opposing parties argued the letters must be shared in accordance with disclosure rules.

The TLAB dismissed the motion, emphasizing the core principles of transparency, open proceedings, and full disclosure, and noted that the Appellant had already inadvertently revealed the identities and one of the letters in previous public filings.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment's refusal of an application for 16 variances to permit the construction of a six-storey apartment building.

At the hearing, the appellant's representative provided only architectural comments and no planning justification or evidence to support the variances.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the appellant failed to satisfy the burden of proof to demonstrate that the variances met the four statutory tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were not authorized.

The applicant requested a review of a TLAB decision that refused applications for consent to sever a property and associated minor variances to construct a new detached dwelling.

The applicant alleged the presiding TLAB Member violated procedural fairness by allowing participants to question witnesses and made errors of law in interpreting the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The TLAB Chair dismissed the review request, finding no violation of natural justice and concluding that the original Member properly interpreted and applied the relevant planning policies and evidence.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to construct a two-storey garden suite.

At the hearing, the appellant's representative, an architect, provided architectural details but failed to provide any land use planning evidence or address the four statutory tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to meet the burden of proof to demonstrate that the variances maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable, and were minor.

The appellant requested a review of a TLAB decision that refused a minor variance to permit a second-floor deck.

The appellant alleged the TLAB acted outside its jurisdiction, violated procedural fairness, made errors of law or fact, ignored new evidence, and heard false evidence.

The TLAB Chair dismissed the review request, finding no compelling evidence of any errors, jurisdictional overreach, or procedural unfairness that would have resulted in a different decision.