G. Swinkin

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances for a residential property.

The parties consented to convert the scheduled hearing into a mediation session.

The mediation did not result in a settlement, partly due to active litigation between the owner and neighbours regarding a right-of-way.

The Tribunal directed the appellant's representative to advise whether a settlement is subsequently reached or if a contested hearing date needs to be scheduled.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to approve consent and minor variance applications to divide a property into three residential lots.

The proposed lots required variances for minimum lot frontage, minimum lot area, and maximum floor space index.

Relying on expert planning evidence and a detailed visual analysis of the neighbourhood, the Tribunal found that the proposed lots would respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the geographic neighbourhood.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, approved the variances, and granted provisional consent subject to conditions.

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

At the scheduled hearing, counsel for the appellant requested that the hearing be converted to a prehearing conference to allow the parties to continue settlement discussions.

The Tribunal granted the request, stood down to allow discussions, and ultimately adjourned the hearing sine die, providing directions for scheduling a settlement hearing or a contested hearing depending on the outcome of the discussions.

The owners of a property in the Long Branch neighbourhood applied for minor variances to construct a new two-storey detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment approved the variances, which included an increase in the permitted floor space index and reduced setbacks.

The Long Branch Neighbourhood Association and the City of Toronto appealed the decision, primarily raising concerns about the removal of a mature black walnut tree and the proposed density.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the neighbourhood association's appeal, finding that the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and that the City's urban forestry policies permitted tree removal when an as-of-right building envelope conflicts with a tree.

The City's appeal was allowed strictly to update the date of the approved plans in the conditions.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying minor variances required to demolish an existing bungalow and build a new two-storey dwelling.

Prior to the resumed hearing, the appellant and the adjacent neighbour reached a settlement, resulting in modifications to the building plans and the requested variances.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and allowed the appeal, approving the variances subject to conditions.

The Long Branch Neighbourhood Association (LBNA) brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of its appeal regarding a minor variance application.

The motion was brought because LBNA's forestry expert witness suffered a sudden medical emergency and was hospitalized shortly before the hearing.

The applicant opposed the adjournment, citing financial prejudice from the delay.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the prejudice to the applicant from a short delay was outweighed by the necessity to afford all parties an opportunity to fully and fairly present their case, in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness and the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consent to sever and associated minor variances to permit the construction of two new single-family dwellings.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body reviewed expert planning and arboricultural evidence, noting the proposal's compatibility with the evolving neighbourhood character and the adjustments made to preserve existing trees.

The Tribunal found that the consent application satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1).

The appeals were allowed, provisional consent was granted, and the variances were approved subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variance relief to convert a rear yard garage to a garden suite.

At the scheduled hearing, neither the appellant nor any other party attended.

After waiting 30 minutes in accordance with the Tribunal's practice, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, as no evidence was presented to demonstrate that the application met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances to facilitate a three-storey rear extension to an existing dwelling.

The requested relief included variances for building length, Floor Space Index (FSI), canopy encroachment, eaves projection, and front yard parking.

The appellant argued the proposed FSI represented overdevelopment out of character with the neighbourhood.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the owners' planner, finding the proposed built form would be compatible with the evolving neighbourhood, particularly given a similar recent approval on the adjacent property.

The appeal was allowed only to approve the modified variances subject to a condition tying development to the revised plans.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances required to construct a garden suite in the rear yard of a residential property.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant reduced the height of the proposed structure, eliminating the need for five of the seven original variances.

The City did not oppose the modified proposal.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the remaining variances for rear yard soft landscaping and parking space width met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were approved, subject to a condition regarding tree removal permits.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying variances required to replace a single-family dwelling with a new, larger dwelling.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement that reduced the proposed dwelling from three storeys to two and modified the requested variances for floor area, height, and platforms.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and allowed the appeal, authorizing the variances subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consent to sever and minor variances to permit the construction of two new two-storey dwellings.

Following revisions to the proposal that resolved urban forestry concerns and mitigated neighbour impacts, the Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the modified variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and the severance satisfied the statutory criteria.

The appeals were allowed, provisional consent was granted, and the modified variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The owners appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances required to construct a new single detached dwelling.

The requested variances related to front yard setback, building length, building height, number of storeys, balcony area, and front stair projection.

The Tribunal found that the proposed dwelling would respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood and that the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act.

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

The owner applied for a minor variance to convert the second storey of a commercial building into residential units.

The property is located in an Employment Industrial Zone where residential uses are prohibited.

The Committee of Adjustment approved the application, and the City of Toronto appealed to the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

The owner did not appear at the hearing.

Relying on expert planning and economic development evidence from the City, the Tribunal found that introducing a sensitive residential use would destabilize the employment area and potentially impact the Environmental Compliance Approvals of nearby industries.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and denied the variance, finding it failed all four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appellant in a zoning and severance appeal to the Toronto Local Appeal Body died shortly before the scheduled hearing.

At a pre-hearing conference, the appellant's counsel requested that the matter be held in abeyance to allow the estate to determine whether to withdraw the appeal.

The tribunal granted the request, ordering the appellant's counsel to communicate the estate's decision by June 15, 2023, failing which the tribunal noted its statutory authority to dismiss the appeal without a hearing.

The appellant sought minor variances to legalize the conversion of a semi-detached dwelling into a 19-room rooming house with a separate rear dwelling unit, which had been constructed without building permits.

The City supported the application on affordable housing grounds, while local residents opposed it due to illegal construction, safety concerns, and overdevelopment.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had engaged in an intentional subversion of the planning process and failed to provide a truthful factual foundation.

The Tribunal held that a proposal of this magnitude should be addressed through a zoning by-law amendment rather than a minor variance.

The appellant filed an appeal to the Toronto Local Appeal Body regarding a Committee of Adjustment refusal.

The Tribunal issued an Administrative Screening Notice identifying non-conformities in the appeal form.

The appellant failed to file a corrected Form 1 by the specified date.

The Tribunal ordered the appellant to make the required corrections and file a corrected Form 1 within 7 days, failing which the appeal may be dismissed without a hearing.

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

The Toronto Local Appeal Body heard expert planning evidence that the property was oversized for the neighbourhood and that the proposed development would be compatible with the evolving physical character of the area.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the severance satisfied the criteria in section 51(24) of the Planning Act and the variances met the four tests in section 45(1).

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances required to alter a detached dwelling into a semi-detached dwelling with six units (two principal units and four secondary suites).

The Tribunal found that the property, while fronting on Kendal Avenue, had a significant presentation to Dupont Street, a Major Street, justifying a more intense form of development under the Official Plan.

The Tribunal accepted the expert planning evidence that the variances for building depth, floor space index, and other standards met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were approved subject to conditions, including privacy screening and tree planting.

The appellant sought variance relief to permit outdoor storage of building materials on a property zoned Prestige Employment, where such use is explicitly prohibited.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that authorizing a completely prohibited use constitutes an amendment to the zoning by-law rather than a minor variance.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the proposal failed to maintain the general intent and purpose of both the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law.