T. Yao

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing an application for 13 variances to permit the construction of a new three-storey place of worship.

Following a period of mediation, the appellant withdrew its appeal.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal and closed the file, rendering the Committee of Adjustment's decision final and binding.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision regarding a property on Barker Avenue.

The parties previously consented to convert the scheduled hearing into a mediation, which remains ongoing.

Following a status hearing, the Toronto Local Appeal Body scheduled a second status hearing to monitor the progress of the mediation.

The appellant requested by email to convert a scheduled hearing for a minor variance appeal into a mediation.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body treated the request as an unopposed motion.

Noting that no document disclosure had occurred, the Tribunal inferred the parties were attempting to avoid a contested hearing and found merit in directing a mediation.

The scheduled hearing was cancelled and converted to a non-binding mediation.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of an application for minor variances to convert an ancillary building into a garden suite.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the appellant withdrew the appeal.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal and closed the file, rendering the Committee of Adjustment's decision final and binding.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of variances required to build a new three-storey house on a newly severed laneway lot.

The key variance sought was an increase in Floor Space Index from the permitted 1.0 to 1.87.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed density and massing did not respect and reinforce the prevailing physical character of the neighbourhood, failed to meet the Official Plan's material consistency test, and did not maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law regarding laneway housing.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a severance and minor variances to create two new residential lots at 84 North Drive.

The proponents sought to subdivide the property, requiring variances primarily for lot frontage.

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

The panel found that the proposed development did not respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood, noting a distinctive lotting pattern on the south side of the street that would not be maintained by the reduced frontages.

The moving party brought a motion to strike all or part of the responding party's witness statement.

The request to strike the entire statement due to late filing was withdrawn after the responding party explained the delay.

The request to strike portions of the statement as inadmissible opinion evidence was dismissed as premature.

The tribunal held that issues of admissibility and relevance should be determined during or after the hearing, consistent with the broad discretion to admit evidence under section 15(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The appellants brought a motion to defer the hearing date for their appeal regarding a proposed garden suite to allow for ongoing settlement negotiations.

The opposing party agreed to the deferral.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body granted the motion, cancelled the scheduled hearing, and set a new hearing date with an updated timetable for filings.

The appellant sought a minor variance to extend a second-floor rear deck by 0.5 metres beyond the permitted 1.8 metres.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the variance, and the appellant appealed to the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

Opposing neighbours argued the extension would cause a loss of privacy and devalue their property.

The Tribunal found that the variance maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and zoning by-law, was desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and was minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent to sever a 50-foot lot into two 25-foot lots and associated minor variances for side yard setbacks, lot area, lot frontage, lot coverage, and building height.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed severance and variances met the tests under the Planning Act, respected and reinforced the existing physical character of the neighbourhood, and were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan.

The appellant sought a minor variance to build a second-floor rear deck that would encroach 5.11 metres into the required rear yard setback.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the variance failed to meet the four tests under the Planning Act.

The panel rejected the appellant's planner's arguments regarding 'eyes on the street' and minimization of the variance, preferring the opposing planner's evidence that the deck would not fit the neighbourhood character and would create unacceptable privacy and overlook impacts on adjacent properties.

The owners appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to permit a mixed-use commercial and residential building addition.

The proposal involved adding a third floor and expanding the second floor to create new rental apartments above a ground-floor business.

Neighbours objected primarily to the increased density and rear privacy impacts.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal and authorized the variances, finding that the proposal met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The tribunal noted the Official Plan's broad support for new rental housing and found that the proposed density and built form would fit within the existing varied character of the neighbourhood.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances required to construct a two-storey laneway suite at the rear of their property.

The rear neighbours opposed the variances, primarily citing privacy and overlook concerns due to the proposed building's height and reduced separation distance.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal and authorized the variances with conditions, finding that the proposal met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The tribunal accepted the applicant's expert planning evidence that the site's steep topography mitigated privacy impacts and that the development aligned with provincial and municipal policies encouraging 'missing middle' housing.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance required to build a laneway suite at the rear of their property.

The variance sought a reduced south side yard setback for a portion of the second floor.

A neighbouring participant opposed the variance, citing concerns over loss of sky views, snow deposits, and heat reflection.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal and authorized the variance, finding that it met the four tests under the Planning Act, maintained the intent of the zoning by-law, and supported the City's goals for complete communities and family-oriented laneway housing.

The appellant sought minor variances to demolish a single detached house and build a new two-storey house with an integral garage.

The requested variances included an increase in the permitted floor space index and reduced side yard setbacks.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the proposed design, particularly the two-storey over integral garage, failed to respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood and did not comply with the Long Branch Neighbourhood Character Guidelines.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were not authorized.

The owners of a property requested a review of a TLAB decision that refused their application for minor variances to build a new house.

The owners alleged that the TLAB member made errors of law and violated procedural fairness by relying on a site visit, referencing past committee experience, and misapplying the test for minor variances.

The reviewing member dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact and concluding that the original member properly considered the evidence and applied the correct legal tests.

Following a prior decision granting three minor variances, the applicant sought two additional variances for roof projections and exterior stairs required for a building permit.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found the new variances to be minor, ordered that no further notice was required under s. 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act, and authorized the variances subject to the previously established conditions.

The applicant, Glen Edyth Property Holdings Ltd., requested a review of a TLAB decision that denied its minor variance application for a property backing onto a ravine.

The applicant alleged the Member made errors of law and fact in interpreting Official Plan policies regarding ravine setbacks and prevailing building characteristics, and in assessing privacy impacts.

The reviewing Member dismissed the request, finding that the original Member properly exercised his statutory duty to weigh the evidence and that the review request was largely an attempt to relitigate the issues.

The original decision denying the variances was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit a dog daycare and boarding use in an industrial zone.

The City and neighbours opposed the application due to noise complaints from barking dogs.

The TLAB found it had jurisdiction to authorize a variance for a new use.

Applying the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, the TLAB held that the use maintained the intent of the Official Plan and zoning by-law, and was desirable for the area.

Relying on the appellant's acoustical expert, the TLAB found the noise impacts would be minor if an acoustical barrier was constructed.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized subject to conditions.

The applicants sought minor variances to construct a new, larger dwelling, which were granted by the Committee of Adjustment.

The neighbouring property owner appealed the decision to the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

Prior to the hearing's conclusion, the parties reached a settlement that involved shifting the proposed building's placement to increase the side yard setback.

The Tribunal found the amended variances met the tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized them subject to conditions.