A. Stewart

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 applicants appealed the Regional Municipality of Durham's decision to approve an Official Plan Amendment to the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan.

The Southwest Courtice Landowners Group requested and was granted party status.

The municipality and other parties submitted that the appeal was invalid because the applicants failed to make oral or written submissions to the municipal council prior to the adoption of the amendment, which is a statutory pre-condition under subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal agreed, finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and dismissed it.

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 the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consent to sever a property into two undersized lots and for associated minor variances to construct two new detached dwellings.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body heard expert planning evidence that the property was oversized for the neighbourhood and that the proposed development would be compatible with the evolving physical character of the area.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the severance satisfied the criteria in section 51(24) of the Planning Act and the variances met the four tests in section 45(1).

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 appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances required to alter a detached dwelling into a semi-detached dwelling with six units (two principal units and four secondary suites).

The Tribunal found that the property, while fronting on Kendal Avenue, had a significant presentation to Dupont Street, a Major Street, justifying a more intense form of development under the Official Plan.

The Tribunal accepted the expert planning evidence that the variances for building depth, floor space index, and other standards met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were approved subject to conditions, including privacy screening and tree planting.

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

The City opposed the appeal, arguing the reduced lot frontage and side yard setbacks did not respect and reinforce the physical character of the neighbourhood.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body preferred the applicant's planning evidence, finding that the proposed lot frontage would fit within the existing mixture of frontages on the street and that the revised side yard setbacks would have no negative impact.

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

The Appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances for a new dwelling.

Due to a failure to receive the Notice of Hearing, the Appellant retained counsel and an expert planner late, missing the filing deadlines.

The Appellant brought a motion to permit the late filing of the expert witness statement and to convert the scheduled hearing into a prehearing conference.

The Respondent opposed and sought costs.

The Tribunal granted the Appellant's motion, finding no bad faith and noting the importance of a fair hearing on the merits.

The Respondent's motion for costs was dismissed as premature.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances for additions to an existing house.

Over a 16-month period, the appellant failed to submit updated plans, elevations, or witness statements, missing multiple deadlines set by the Tribunal.

The City brought a motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the appellant had not established a land use planning case and had failed to meaningfully progress the appeal.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to permit alterations to a dwelling.

At the hearing, the solicitor for the owners/applicants advised that the property had been sold and the new owners consented to allow the appeal.

As no evidence was brought in support of the variances, the Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal and denied the minor variances.

The appellant brought a motion seeking to schedule additional hearing days for its appeal of a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances.

The appellant argued that the single scheduled hearing day would be insufficient given the number of parties, participants, and the extensive expert evidence to be called.

The motion was unopposed.

The Tribunal granted the motion and directed staff to schedule three additional hearing days to ensure sufficient time to adjudicate the appeal.

The appellant filed a complaint against a development charge imposed by the City of Toronto.

At the hearing, counsel advised the Tribunal that the matter would likely be resolved and was scheduled to go before City Council.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide a status update after the Council meeting and noted that a three-day hearing would be required if a settlement was not reached.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's failure to pass official plan and zoning by-law amendments for a 29-storey residential building, the Tribunal considered requests for Party and Participant status.

The Tribunal granted Party status to several residents groups and condominium corporations, and Participant status to 30 individuals and groups.

The Tribunal also approved the consolidated Issues List and draft Procedural Order, and scheduled a 17-day hearing for October 2022.

The appellant moved for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment and for leave to amend her certificate respecting evidence.

The delay in filing the appeal was caused by errors made by the appellant's former counsel, not the appellant herself.

The court granted the extension of time on terms, noting that the delay did not deprive the respondent of the ability to respond, but denied leave to amend the certificate respecting evidence.

The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder.

At trial, the Crown cross-examined the appellant on statements he made to police regarding alleged police harassment, which were not introduced in the Crown's case-in-chief.

The trial judge permitted the Crown to call rebuttal evidence to contradict the appellant's answers under section 11 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge erred, as the issues raised were collateral and did not go to the determinative issue of guilt or innocence.

The Crown was bound by the appellant's answers on cross-examination and could not split its case by calling rebuttal evidence.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellants, Swiss nationals residing in Switzerland, were charged in Manitoba with fraud.

Because Swiss law prevents the extradition of its citizens, Canada requested that Switzerland prosecute them pursuant to an 1880 treaty.

Swiss investigating judges sought to take commission evidence in Canada for the pre-trial stage of the Swiss proceedings.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the order granting the commission, finding that section 43 of the Canada Evidence Act should be interpreted liberally to fulfill Canada's international treaty obligations, even if the evidence was for pre-trial use.