T. Kezwer

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying minor variances for a two-storey garden suite in the rear yard of a property containing a fourplex.

The Tribunal applied the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and found that the variances maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

The Tribunal noted that the proposal aligned with the City's Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods initiative and provided gentle intensification.

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

The appellants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of minor variances for two properties to construct a semi-detached two-storey ancillary building (garage with second-storey storage).

The Tribunal found that the proposal met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that it functioned similarly to an as-of-right garden suite but could not be classified as such due to emergency access constraints.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized, subject to a condition that the ancillary structures not contain habitable space.

The appellant appealed a denial by the Committee of Adjustment for a consent to sever an existing residential lot into two lots and associated minor variances.

After two initial hearing dates, the hearing was not completed.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision to schedule the continuation of the hearing for May 27, 2026.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body issued an interim decision to fix a new hearing date for an appeal concerning minor variances for properties on Riverdale Avenue.

Following a previous motion decision that adjourned the original hearing, the Tribunal scheduled the new hearing for April 21, 2026, and ordered that the document filing deadlines be proportionately abridged.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a consent application and two minor variance applications to sever an existing parcel and build a detached duplex dwelling on each new lot.

The Tribunal found that the proposed severance met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and that a plan of subdivision was not necessary.

The Tribunal also found that the requested variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed subject to conditions.

The appellant brought a motion to adjourn the scheduled hearing regarding minor variances for an ancillary building, citing exceptional and unforeseen personal circumstances including the death of a close family member and a forced relocation.

The motion was heard in writing.

The Tribunal found minimal non-prejudicial delay and granted the adjournment, noting that life circumstances can make it difficult to meet procedural deadlines.

The hearing was ordered to be rescheduled with a fresh Notice of Hearing.

The appellant and the applicant made a joint motion to adjourn the hearing of an appeal regarding minor variances.

The parties had reached a settlement in principle, but its finalization depended on the outcome of related Landlord and Tenant Board proceedings involving a tenant of the subject property.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment sine die, directing the parties to provide a written update by January 30, 2026, and granting leave for the appellant to withdraw its appeal once the settlement is finalized.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving a property severance and minor variances subject to conditions.

At the prehearing conference, the appellants and the City requested an adjournment sine die to allow them to work towards completing the consent conditions.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and directed the parties to provide a written update by June 30, 2026.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to permit a recreational use (basketball and pickleball courts) in an industrial condominium building zoned for heavy industrial employment uses.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the proposed temporary three-year use would not disrupt the long-term viability of the employment area and met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was approved subject to the three-year condition.

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

Prior to the hearing, the appellant reached a settlement with the opposing neighbour, resulting in a reduction of the requested variances from nine to six.

The Tribunal found the amendments to the application were minor and did not require further notice.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal concluded the revised variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

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

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances for an addition and a laneway suite.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement reducing the requested variances to a single variance relating to rooftop equipment coverage and setbacks for the laneway suite.

The Tribunal found the revised proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, had regard for provincial interests, and met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed in part to reflect the settlement, and the single remaining variance was authorized subject to conditions.

The City of Toronto appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval of a minor variance application for a laneway suite.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a written hearing.

The Tribunal found a written hearing appropriate under Rule 24.6, as it would be more efficient and no prejudice or credibility issues were involved.

The matter was converted to a written hearing with fixed filing deadlines.

The appellant school appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying four minor variances required to construct a two-storey addition to its existing building.

The proposed variances related to rear yard depth, side yard setbacks, and floor space index.

Several neighbours opposed the expansion, citing concerns over traffic, noise, loss of green space, and privacy.

The Tribunal accepted the expert land use planning evidence that the proposal meets matters of provincial interest, is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and satisfies the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were approved.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances for the construction of additional residential apartments.

At the hearing, the parties requested an adjournment as they had reached a settlement in principle, pending the securing of a tenant assistance plan.

A party to the hearing raised concerns about improper notice for the initial Committee of Adjustment hearing.

The Tribunal found that its own hearing was properly constituted and granted an indefinite adjournment to allow the parties to finalize the settlement and for the City to withdraw its appeal.

The appellant municipality appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval of minor variances to construct additional residential apartments at the subject property.

At a prehearing conference, the municipality and the applicant requested a 30-day adjournment to finalize a settlement involving a tenant assistance plan.

A tenant party opposed the plan, citing ongoing building issues and Landlord and Tenant Board proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, scheduled a new hearing date, and set deadlines for expert witness statements, noting the appeal could be withdrawn if a settlement is reached.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance to reduce the required percentage of three-bedroom units from 10% to 5% in an eight-storey mixed-use building nearing completion.

The variance was requested because purchasers of five units requested change orders to convert their three-bedroom units to two-bedroom units.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the variance meets the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting it maintains the overall requirement for 25% larger family-sized units.

The appeal was allowed and the variance approved.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of five minor variances for a property located at 775 Vaughan Road.

The variances sought to increase the building height from 38 to 45 storeys, increase gross floor area, and adjust setback and amenity space requirements to facilitate a purpose-built rental building with additional community benefits.

The Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were approved subject to conditions securing affordable housing or community cultural space.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying minor variances for a property in Toronto.

The applicant sought to convert an existing detached house into a triplex, requiring variances for building length and stairway width to accommodate below-grade excavation for a furnace room and basement units.

The Tribunal found that the amended variances were minor and did not require further notice.

Applying the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and considering the specific policies for multiplexes under SASP 826, the Tribunal concluded the variances maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable, and were minor in nature.

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

The Leaside Residents Association brought a motion requesting that the Applicant be ordered to file a new Zoning Notice or Waiver to include additional variances from a previous Committee of Adjustment decision not under appeal, and to determine the building type.

The Tribunal dismissed most of the motion, holding that it only has jurisdiction over the specific Committee of Adjustment decision under appeal and cannot dictate which variances an applicant must seek.

The Tribunal did order the Applicant to file an amended Applicant's Disclosure outlining the two specific minor variances currently being requested prior to the hearing.

The City of Toronto appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval of minor variances for a proposed mixed-use development at 1306-1310 The Queensway.

The parties reached a settlement that maintained the approved variances but added a condition requiring the applicant to make a $126,291 cash contribution for local capital improvements.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Toronto Local Appeal Body found the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and allowed the appeal to implement the settlement condition.