S. Makuch

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances for a residential addition.

Prior to the hearing, all parties consented to allowing the appeal without prejudice to future applications.

As no evidence was heard, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and overturned the variances on consent, noting that res judicata would not apply to future applications.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to permit the maintenance of an existing rear yard deck.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the deck, which raised the rear yard surface by approximately 50 cm, had no adverse impact on neighbouring properties and improved accessibility for elderly residents.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the tribunal concluded the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act and allowed the appeal.

The City of Toronto requested an amendment to Condition 3 of a previous Toronto Local Appeal Body order that granted minor variances for a triplex.

The original condition required the owner to pay tenant relocation funds in trust to the City.

The City objected to acting as a trustee.

On consent of all parties, the condition was amended to require the owner to enter into an agreement under section 45(9) of the Planning Act to secure a tenant relocation and assistance plan, with funds payable directly to the tenant upon vacant possession.

The parties brought a consent motion to set new filing deadlines ahead of a rescheduled hearing date of January 8, 2025.

The original hearing was delayed to allow the parties to continue settlement discussions.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body granted the motion and amended the notice requirements to prevent the parties from needlessly incurring costs for expert retainers and hearing preparation while settlement discussions are ongoing.

The appellant municipality requested an alteration to a previous tribunal decision that required it to hold tenant relocation funds in trust.

A hearing was scheduled to address the trusteeship issue.

The landlord and tenant requested a late adjournment because they were required to attend an Adjudicative Case Conference at the Landlord and Tenant Board on the same date.

The tribunal granted the adjournment sine die to ensure the affected parties could be heard on the issue.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to permit the remodeling of an existing two-storey dwelling through interior alterations and an addition.

The parties reached a settlement during the hearing, agreeing that the third-storey attic space would not be habitable.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted the variances subject to conditions ensuring the attic space remains non-habitable, finding that the proposal met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to grant a severance into two lots and associated variances to permit a detached dwelling on each lot.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal in part, finding that the revised plans submitted by the appellant's land use planner demonstrated that the proposed development met the requirements of the Planning Act and provincial policies.

The variances and severance were approved subject to standard conditions.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment approving nine variances to permit the conversion of an existing three-storey six-unit apartment building to a three-storey 13-unit apartment building by constructing a rear three-storey addition and converting below-grade parking to residential units.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the proposed addition would provide needed rental housing, reinforce the character of the neighbourhood, and have minimal adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the revised variances, subject to conditions including the use of frosted glass to prevent overlook and the installation of permeable pavers.

An opposing party requested a date to bring a motion to adjourn the scheduled hearing.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body determined that there was insufficient evidence to decide on the adjournment at this time.

The Tribunal ordered that evidence and argument regarding the adjournment would be heard at the commencement of the hearing on May 2, 2024.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to construct a two-storey ancillary building containing a laneway suite.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that revised the variances and plans to increase side yard setbacks, frost windows, and remove a balcony to address privacy concerns.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal and authorized the revised variances, finding that the uncontradicted expert planning evidence demonstrated the proposal met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The City of Toronto appealed the Committee of Adjustment's decision granting minor variances to permit the construction of a triplex, arguing the owner failed to provide an acceptable tenant relocation and assistance plan.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and that the Official Plan policy regarding the loss of rental units did not apply because the development would create two additional rental units.

However, the Tribunal exercised its authority under s. 45(9) of the Planning Act to impose a condition requiring the owner to enter into a Tenant Assistance and Relocation Agreement, with an increased payment to the tenant held in trust by the City.

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

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing three landscaping variances required to permit a new circular driveway and maintain a front yard parking pad.

The opponents sought further limitations on the size of the widened portion of the driveway.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body accepted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, finding that it respected the character of the area and had no adverse impact on neighbouring properties.

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

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances for interior alterations and additions to a two-storey dwelling.

The appellants sought permission to file their witness statement late and requested an adjournment of the hearing.

The parties consented to the adjournment and agreed to a revised procedural schedule.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body granted the adjournment and issued a revised schedule for the continuation of the hearing.

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

They filed their witness statement late due to personal circumstances and requested that the statement be admitted and the hearing proceed or be adjourned.

The opposing parties and the City of Toronto also requested an adjournment to review the late statement.

The Tribunal admitted the late witness statement and adjourned the hearing on the merits to allow the opposing parties adequate time to prepare.

The appellant appealed decisions of the Committee of Adjustment approving a consent to sever and minor variances to create two undersized lots and construct dwellings.

At the hearing, the appellant introduced revised plans that caused confusion among the parties.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing to allow the appellant to clarify the plans and serve the revised materials on all participants.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent to sever a residential lot into two and associated minor variances, primarily concerning reduced lot frontage and area.

The adjacent neighbours opposed the application, arguing the proposed lots would be significantly smaller than the prevailing neighbourhood character.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body agreed with the neighbours, finding that the neighbourhood predominantly featured larger lots and that the proposed severances did not respect or reinforce the physical character of the area.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were refused.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing consent to sever a residential lot into two undersized lots and associated minor variances for lot frontage, area, and setbacks.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed lot frontages and areas were significantly smaller than those in the surrounding neighbourhood.

The Tribunal preferred the City's planning evidence, concluding that the proposal did not respect and reinforce the physical character of the area, and therefore failed to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

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

During the hearing, local residents raised a new issue concerning the alleged unauthorized destruction of trees on the property, which was not previously disclosed in witness statements.

To ensure fairness and allow the City's Urban Forestry Department to address the matter, the Toronto Local Appeal Body adjourned the hearing and set a schedule for the filing of additional materials and witness statements.

The appellant requested a review of a TLAB decision that dismissed an appeal of a Committee of Adjustment refusal for minor variances to legalize an existing rear deck and addition.

The reviewing member found that the original decision-maker's reliance on the applicant's failure to seek mediation, and the assertion that this bypassed community engagement, raised a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The original member's comments were deemed irrelevant to the four tests under the Planning Act.

The review request was granted, the final order was cancelled, and a new hearing before a different TLAB member was directed.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting consent to sever a property and minor variances for lot frontage, lot area, and setbacks to permit two undersized residential lots.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal and refused the consent and variances.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the City's planner, finding that the proposed lots were too narrow and small, and would not respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood, which consisted of large, wide lots with generous front yards.