T. Yao

The appellant sought to sever a property to build two semi-detached dwellings, requiring variances for lot area, frontage, side yard setbacks, and building height.

The Committee of Adjustment denied the application, and the owner appealed to the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

The Tribunal found that the proposed built form and lot dimensions respected and reinforced the prevailing physical character of the neighbourhood, which included nearby semi-detached dwellings on similarly sized lots.

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

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to construct a new dwelling.

Following a mediation session, the parties reached a partial settlement, agreeing on the floor space index, main wall heights, and certain design elements.

The remaining issues in dispute, including roof design and overall building height, were scheduled for a hearing if a full settlement could not be reached.

The appellant sought to sever a lot into two and requested associated minor variances to construct two detached homes.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed development did not respect and reinforce the physical character of the immediate neighbourhood, which predominantly featured larger lots and lower densities.

Furthermore, the tribunal found that the development would result in the loss of mature trees and a decrease in tree canopy coverage, failing to maintain the tree preservation policies of the Official Plan.

The appellant brought a motion to strike the evidence filed in the responding witness statement of the Long Branch Neighbourhood Association, arguing it constituted improper case splitting.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the motion, finding that the criminal law rule against case splitting did not apply to a respondent in a tribunal proceeding.

The tribunal noted that its rules contemplate the filing of response materials and that the appellant would have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness and call reply evidence, resulting in no prejudice.

The owners appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying minor variances to permit the demolition and replacement of a two-storey house.

The requested variances included increases to the permitted floor space index and building height.

The tribunal found that the proposed design, which included step-backs to minimize impact on adjacent properties, was sensitive to the neighbourhood character and met the four tests under the Planning Act.

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

The Long Branch Neighbourhood Association brought a motion to cure its inadvertent failure to elect to become a party by the deadline in a minor variance appeal.

The appellant opposed the motion, citing technical defects and lack of awareness of the individuals' desire to participate.

The tribunal granted the motion, allowing the association party status and two individuals participant status, to ensure the tribunal had the benefit of their input without delaying the scheduled hearing.

The appellant brought a motion to preemptively restrict a lay witness, the president of the responding neighbourhood association, from giving opinion evidence regarding a severance and minor variance application.

The appellant argued that since their own witnesses were qualified experts, the lay witness should be limited to factual evidence unless she met the test in R v Graat.

The tribunal dismissed the motion as premature, noting that the distinction between fact and opinion can be argued in closing submissions, and emphasized that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act grants the tribunal broad discretion to admit evidence that might be inadmissible in a court.

The applicant sought minor variances to demolish a bungalow and build a new two-storey dwelling, including significant variances for front yard setback and floor space index (FSI).

The Committee of Adjustment approved the variances, and the local residents' association appealed.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed front yard setback and FSI of 0.522 did not respect or reinforce the prevailing physical character of the immediate neighbourhood block.

The panel preferred the appellant's planning evidence and concluded the variances failed the statutory tests under the Planning Act.

During a hearing for a minor variance to permit a doggie daycare, the City brought an oral motion to exclude a newly introduced letter from the appellant's sound engineer detailing a proposed sound barrier.

The panel dismissed the motion to exclude the letter, noting it was requested by the panel and relevant.

However, the panel granted the City's alternative motion for an adjournment to allow the City to retain its own sound engineer to review the letter and prepare for cross-examination.