S. Gopikrishna

The applicant sought minor variances to construct a rear two-storey addition, a third-storey addition, and a detached garage.

The Committee of Adjustment approved the variances, and the neighbouring property owners appealed to the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

The tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish the prevailing building type in the immediate context and did not demonstrate how the proposal, particularly the requested floor space index, respected and reinforced the existing physical character of the neighbourhood.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were refused.

The applicants filed a Review Request of a Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) decision that refused their application for nine minor variances to build a two-storey dwelling.

The applicants alleged the adjudicator made errors of fact regarding the variance dimensions, erred in law by treating the failure of one variance as the failure of all, misapplied Official Plan policies regarding neighbourhood character, failed to make mandatory findings on Provincial Policy, and provided insufficient reasons.

The TLAB dismissed the Review Request, finding that the adjudicator's path to refusal was clear, the alleged factual errors were not determinative, and the adjudicator reasonably concluded that the failure of the critical front yard setback and FSI variances resulted in the failure of the entire application.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to permit zero on-site parking spaces for 12 new residential units in an existing building.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the variance satisfied the four tests under the Planning Act.

The tribunal relied on expert transportation evidence demonstrating sufficient available street parking in the neighbourhood and imposed conditions requiring the applicant to notify tenants of the lack of parking and provide pre-loaded transit cards.

In an appeal concerning minor variances for a property on Riverside Drive, the Toronto Local Appeal Body issued an interim order to manage written submissions.

The parties had agreed on most conditions but disputed one.

Due to tight timelines and a lack of a prior authorizing order, the panel member extended the deadlines, allowing the applicants until June 8, 2023, to respond to the disputed condition, and the opposition until June 15, 2023, to reply.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body issued an interim decision and order adjusting the deadlines for written submissions and argument in a minor variance appeal.

The adjustment was made to accommodate a statutory holiday and to allow the appellant to review the applicant's submissions before filing their own argument.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding a minor variance application for the property at 3753-3755 Lake Shore Blvd.

W. Following a hearing where expert witnesses testified on potential conditions of approval, the Toronto Local Appeal Body issued an interim order.

The applicant was directed to submit a finalized list of requested variances, updated recommendations for conditions, and corresponding plans and elevations by May 10, 2023.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances for the subject property.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body issued a show-cause notice due to the applicants' failure to prosecute their case.

At the hearing, the applicants requested that obtaining a required Toronto Regional Conservation Authority permit be made conditional on the appeal's success to save costs.

The Tribunal refused this request, finding that public interest and procedural fairness outweighed the applicants' personal financial concerns.

Given the lack of a valid permit and uncertainty regarding the variances, the Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision regarding a property.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body issued a 'Show Cause' notice requiring the appellant to attend a hearing.

The appellant failed to respond to the notice, failed to attend the hearing, and failed to provide any submissions or witness statements despite numerous adjournments over a one-and-a-half-year period.

Given the lack of cooperation and progress, the appeal was dismissed without a hearing, and the Committee of Adjustment decision was confirmed.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body issued an interim decision setting deadlines for the parties to submit an updated list of variances, plans, elevations, and recommendations for conditions of approval following a hearing on a minor variance appeal.

The parties were given until May 1, 2023, to complete discussions and submit joint recommendations, with a final deadline of June 1, 2023, for separate submissions if an agreement could not be reached.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to legalize and maintain a one-storey addition and a new loading space at an industrial property.

A neighbouring resident opposed the appeal, raising concerns about noise, fumes, and stormwater runoff.

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

The tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the proposal, which included new landscaping strips, would improve the existing conditions and provide appropriate buffering between the employment and residential zones.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances for a two-storey laneway suite.

The appellant failed to appear at the hearings but subsequently signed a settlement agreement with the applicant, withdrawing their opposition.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body waived the requirement for further notice of minor changes to the variances under section 45.18.1.1 of the Planning Act.

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

The Toronto Local Appeal Body issued an interim decision addressing procedural questions from the parties in opposition regarding written submissions.

The Tribunal clarified that the opposition parties could submit a combined written argument.

It also explained the traditional sequence of submissions, noting that while the applicant has a right of reply, the opposition typically does not.

However, the Tribunal permitted the opposition to submit a reply to the applicant's reply by a specified date, with the caveat that it may not be considered in making findings.

The Tribunal also admonished the opposition for failing to copy the applicant on communications with the Tribunal.

In an appeal concerning minor variances, the appellants sought to introduce two expert documents regarding front yard setbacks and the Ontario Building Code one day before the hearing.

The applicant objected to the Building Code document on the basis of prejudice due to late disclosure.

The Tribunal noted that both parties had failed to adhere to the prior procedural order's disclosure deadlines.

Consequently, the Tribunal admitted the documents onto the record to ensure a fulsome discussion and scheduled an additional hearing day to allow the applicant sufficient time to prepare for cross-examination on the new evidence.

The applicant appealed a minor variance decision regarding a property on Major Street.

During the hearing, the applicant's counsel advised that the requested floor space index (FSI) variance needed to be increased based on a recent zoning notice, and discussed the impact of a new city by-law on the parking variance.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body issued an interim order directing the applicant to submit an updated list of variances and plans, set a schedule for written arguments, and cancelled the next scheduled hearing date.

The parties reached a settlement regarding minor variances for a laneway suite.

At the hearing, the applicant indicated minor changes to the variances and agreed to submit updated plans and a motion for a hearing in writing.

When the applicant failed to submit the required documents by the agreed deadline, the Tribunal issued an interim order directing the submission of the materials by a final deadline, failing which a decision would be made based on available information.

The moving party filed a request to review a previous TLAB decision regarding the property at 160 Teddington Park Ave.

The TLAB found the review request compliant with its Rules and issued an interim order setting deadlines for the appellants and other parties to file responses, and for the moving party to file a reply.

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

At the hearing, the Tribunal found the witness statements submitted by all parties inadequate, as they failed to address the four tests under the Planning Act and instead focused on neighborhood exemplars and personal grievances.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing to allow the parties to submit proper witness statements and expert witness forms, providing detailed instructions on the procedural requirements for representation and expert evidence.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body issued an interim decision and order to schedule the remainder of an appeal hearing regarding a minor variance application for 194 Rosedale Heights Drive.

After canvassing the parties' availability, the TLAB scheduled a two-day hearing for April 21 and 24, 2023, and outlined the procedural steps to be completed, including the qualification of expert witnesses, completion of evidence, and oral arguments.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body issued an interim decision and show cause notice to the appellant.

The appellant had previously been granted an adjournment to provide specific plans and details regarding their requested severance and variances but failed to do so by the deadline.

Instead, the appellant submitted a confusing email regarding missed deadlines at the Committee of Adjustment.

The Tribunal ordered a show cause hearing to allow the appellant to explain why the appeal should not be dismissed without a hearing for lack of progress.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body issued an interim decision requiring the applicants to produce updated zoning notices, plans, and a TRCA permit.

The applicants failed to provide the documents, citing financial inability and blaming the TLAB for delays.

The TLAB found the applicants' response inappropriate and noted that the proceeding could not continue without the required documents.

Consequently, the TLAB issued a show cause notice to dismiss the application without a hearing, scheduling a hearing for the applicants to explain why the matter should proceed.