Ron Kanter

The Requestors sought a review of a TLAB decision that approved a revised minor variance application for a reduced front yard setback.

The Requestors argued the presiding Member made several errors of law and jurisdiction, including failing to apply the minor variance test regarding the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law, requiring a documented rationale for the by-law, and disregarding expert evidence.

The reviewing Member dismissed the review request, finding that the original Member properly considered the intent and purpose of the zoning by-law, appropriately weighed the competing expert planning evidence, and did not make any reviewable errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome.

The original decision approving the variances was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a consent to sever a residential lot into two and associated minor variances for lot frontage, area, coverage, and setbacks to construct two new detached houses.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed development represented gentle intensification consistent with provincial and municipal policies.

The uncontradicted expert planning evidence demonstrated that the proposed lot sizes and physical characteristics were materially consistent with the existing neighbourhood character, satisfying the criteria for consent under the Planning Act and the four tests for minor variances.

The Owner requested a review of a TLAB decision that allowed a neighbour's appeal and refused minor variances for a residential rebuild.

The Owner argued the original presiding member failed to consider all evidence, misinterpreted Official Plan policies regarding neighbourhood character, and was deprived of new evidence because a zoning by-law amendment permitting the proposed side wall height was enacted shortly after the hearing.

The reviewing member dismissed the request, finding no error of law or fact in the original decision's qualitative and quantitative analysis.

The member also held that legislative changes enacted after a hearing concludes do not constitute 'new evidence' under the tribunal's review rules.

The applicant sought costs of $41,799.26 against the appellant following a minor variance appeal regarding a residential redevelopment.

The applicant argued the appellant's conduct was unreasonable and frivolous.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion for costs, finding that the appellant had provided reasons for her appeal, retained an expert arborist, did not cause unnecessary delays, and successfully advocated for additional conditions to protect a tree.

The Tribunal concluded the appellant's conduct was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.