G. Swinkin

The Appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances for a new dwelling.

Due to a failure to receive the Notice of Hearing, the Appellant retained counsel and an expert planner late, missing the filing deadlines.

The Appellant brought a motion to permit the late filing of the expert witness statement and to convert the scheduled hearing into a prehearing conference.

The Respondent opposed and sought costs.

The Tribunal granted the Appellant's motion, finding no bad faith and noting the importance of a fair hearing on the merits.

The Respondent's motion for costs was dismissed as premature.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit a laneway suite in an excluded area under the zoning by-law.

During the course of the hearing, the provincial legislature passed Bill 23, amending the Planning Act to prohibit municipal councils from passing by-laws that prohibit ancillary dwelling units on urban residential lots.

Consequently, the City issued a clear Zoning Certificate for the proposed laneway suite, rendering the variance relief unnecessary.

The appellant requested to withdraw the appeal, which was allowed by the Tribunal.

The City of Toronto brought a motion seeking party status in an appeal regarding minor variances for a property converted into a rooming house.

The City also sought to file late evidence, admit the appellant's revised plans, and quash summonses for two witnesses.

The appellant supported the motion, while other parties opposed it but proposed a contingent timetable.

The Tribunal granted the City party status, admitted the revised plans, established a timetable for document disclosure, and quashed the summonses.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances for a rear addition to a detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant modified the application, reducing the building length variance and abandoning two other variances.

The City supported the modified proposal subject to conditions protecting a combined sewer.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and approved the modified variances, finding they met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The moving party, an adjacent property owner, filed a motion to upgrade her status from Participant to Party in an appeal regarding a minor variance application.

She sought the upgrade to call an expert witness, having initially misunderstood the procedural limitations of Participant status.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body granted the motion, finding that her innocent error and the need for a fair adjudication justified waiving the filing deadline and granting Party status.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to authorize variances for rear yard alterations, including an inground pool, a rear deck, and a pavilion.

The requested variances related to deck projection, building length and depth, lot coverage, soft landscaping, and pool equipment setbacks.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The appellant brought a motion seeking to schedule additional hearing days for its appeal of a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances.

The appellant argued that the single scheduled hearing day would be insufficient given the number of parties, participants, and the extensive expert evidence to be called.

The motion was unopposed.

The Tribunal granted the motion and directed staff to schedule three additional hearing days to ensure sufficient time to adjudicate the appeal.

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

The City opposed the applications, arguing the proposed lot frontages and areas were too small and out of character with the neighbourhood.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the neighbourhood was evolving toward smaller lots and that the proposal was consistent with provincial intensification policies and fit the emerging physical character of the area.

Provisional consent and the requested variances were granted subject to conditions.