D. Lombardi

The appellant filed a motion seeking relief from the Toronto Local Appeal Body's Rules of Practice and Procedure to permit the late filing of a Reply to a Response to a Review Request.

The appellant argued that he was out of the country and confused by the wording of the forms.

The TLAB dismissed the motion, finding that being out of the country and professing unfamiliarity with the rules are not legitimate reasons to circumvent filing deadlines.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit a marihuana production facility at 47 Crockford Boulevard.

The variance sought to reduce the required separation distance from an Open Space Zone from 70m to 0m.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the facility resembled a Class I industrial use requiring only a 20m separation under provincial guidelines, and that the actual separation distance exceeded 20m.

The Tribunal concluded the variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit a second-storey addition to an existing dwelling and the conversion of a detached rear garage into a garden suite.

The applicant revised the proposal before the tribunal, reducing the height and eliminating some variances.

The tribunal found that the revised proposal, including the garden suite, maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and was minor in nature.

The tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's land use planner, finding that the garden suite represented a compatible infill development that would not create unacceptable adverse impacts on privacy or overlook.

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

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances for a property to the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

After eight days of hearings, the presiding member resigned due to health issues before issuing a final decision.

The TLAB Chair issued an interim decision and order under Rule 2.17 of the TLAB Rules of Practice and Procedure, appointing a new member to complete the proceeding and issue a final decision to avoid wasting the significant time and resources already expended.

The presiding Member of the Toronto Local Appeal Body resigned due to health issues before issuing a final decision on an appeal concerning 57 Major Street.

Pursuant to Rule 2.17 of the TLAB's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the TLAB Chair ordered the appointment of a new Member to complete the proceeding and issue a final decision.

Following the resignation of the TLAB panel member who had presided over an eight-day hearing regarding a consent and minor variance appeal, the TLAB Chair issued an interim decision and order.

Due to the former member's severe health issues preventing him from completing the decision, the Chair invoked Rule 2.17 of the TLAB's Rules of Practice and Procedure to appoint a new member to complete the proceeding and issue a final decision, avoiding the need for a new hearing.

The appellant appealed a condition imposed by the Committee of Adjustment requiring a Metrolinx Environmental Easement to be registered on title for a residential redevelopment.

The Tribunal found that the requested variances met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal removed the easement condition, finding it was an unreasonable burden without planning justification, especially given the absence of Metrolinx at the hearing.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body held a second prehearing conference regarding an appeal of a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances with conditions.

The presiding member determined the conference was necessary to clarify procedural matters and the issues in dispute.

The appellant confirmed that the key issues for the upcoming hearing are whether the variances meet the statutory tests and whether a condition requiring an environmental easement in favour of Metrolinx should be eliminated.

The appellant appealed a condition imposed by the Committee of Adjustment regarding an environmental easement.

The appellant's planner initially filed an Expert Witness Statement addressing only the appealed condition.

Upon learning that a TLAB hearing is a de novo hearing of the entire application, the appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to file a revised Expert Witness Statement addressing all requested variances.

The TLAB granted the motion, finding no prejudice as there were no other parties, and scheduled a new hearing date.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of an application for consent to sever a property into two undersized lots and associated variances to permit the construction of a new three-storey semi-detached dwelling.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the proposal met the criteria for consent under the Planning Act and that the variances met the four tests.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the development respected and reinforced the existing physical character of the neighbourhood and complied with the City's new multiplex policies.

At a pre-hearing conference for an appeal of a Committee of Adjustment decision, the Toronto Local Appeal Body noted that the appellant had only appealed one condition of the approval.

Because the appeal triggers a de novo hearing, the appellant's expert planning witness needed to address the four statutory tests for all variances, which the initial expert statement failed to do.

The Tribunal granted the appellant permission to file a motion to amend the expert witness statement and converted the scheduled hearing date into an oral motion hearing.

A prehearing conference was held regarding an appeal from the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit alterations to an existing dwelling and the construction of a garden suite.

The Tribunal identified the parties and participants, clarified representation, and directed participants who had not yet filed or served their Participant Witness Statements to do so by a specified date without introducing new issues.

The Tribunal also determined that mediation would not be pursued and directed staff to schedule two additional hearing days.

The applicant and appellant failed to attend the scheduled virtual hearing for an appeal of a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances.

The presiding TLAB member stood down the hearing for an hour before dismissing the appeal.

The applicant requested a review of the dismissal, alleging procedural errors and lack of notice.

The TLAB Chair dismissed the review request, finding that proper notice was sent to the representative's provided email address and that no compelling reasons were demonstrated to show a violation of procedural fairness, deprivation of new evidence, or an error of fact.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing applications to sever a property and construct two semi-detached dwellings.

At the commencement of the hearing, the applicant presented revised development options.

The Tribunal noted deficiencies in the applicant's expert planner's context mapping and noted that the participants' witness statements were missing from the record.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing to allow for the submission of revised mapping and the participants' witness statements.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a variance for a front yard parking pad.

At the hearing, the applicant's representative advised that the proposal had been revised to comply with the zoning by-law, rendering the variance unnecessary.

The applicant indicated an intention to abandon the appeal.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing sine die pending receipt of a formal withdrawal request.

The appellant requested a review of a TLAB decision that refused three variances to permit the construction of a new detached dwelling.

The appellant argued the presiding Member violated procedural fairness by failing to provide reasons for two of the variances and made errors of law by applying the wrong legal test, misapplying case law, and ignoring expert evidence.

The TLAB Chair dismissed the review request, finding that the presiding Member correctly determined the application failed the Official Plan test on the key density variance, which rendered the other variances moot.

The Chair also found no errors of law in the Member's application of the neighbourhood character guidelines or his weighing of the evidence.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision that refused two of seven requested variances for a proposed new two-storey detached dwelling.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body considered expert planning evidence and found that the requested variances for side yard setbacks, building length, and lot coverage met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

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

The owner filed a Review Request of a TLAB decision that allowed an appeal and refused minor variances for a residential addition.

The owner argued the presiding Member violated natural justice by failing to provide adequate reasons and made errors of law and fact in interpreting Official Plan policies regarding 'prevailing type' and neighbourhood character.

The TLAB Chair dismissed the Review Request, finding that the presiding Member provided sufficient reasons for refusing the variances based on their failure to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan, and that the Member's factual findings regarding neighbourhood character were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of an application for two variances to legalize a rear third-storey addition constructed without a permit and to permit existing external fire escape stairs.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body treated the unauthorized construction as immaterial for planning purposes and evaluated the variances under the four tests of the Planning Act.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The Long Branch Neighbourhood Association requested a review of a TLAB decision that granted minor variances for a property.

The Association argued that the presiding Member violated procedural fairness by allowing the applicant to call witnesses without filing witness statements in advance, and erred in law by accepting evidence that did not address the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The TLAB Chair granted the review request, finding that the failure to require witness statements prejudiced the Association and that the applicant failed to provide the necessary land use planning evidence.

The original decision was cancelled and a de novo hearing was ordered.