Christian Chan

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 appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances required to construct a three-storey, four-unit multiplex and a two-storey garden suite on a property in Toronto.

The proposed development required variances for height, setbacks, soft landscaping, lot frontage, and lot area.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal accepted the expert planning evidence that the proposal aligned with the City's recent policy initiatives to encourage gentle density and housing options in neighbourhoods, and that the built form, while different from the historic character, was compatible with the evolving planned context.

The Appellant requested an adjournment of a Toronto Local Appeal Body hearing on the morning of the scheduled date because their counsel was suffering from a debilitating flu and had lost his voice.

The Tribunal considered Rule 23.3 of the Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Noting that the opposing party present did not object and actually wished counsel a quick recovery, the Tribunal found the grounds for an adjournment were met.

The hearing was rescheduled to a mutually agreeable date.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of five minor variances required to construct a two-storey garden suite in the rear yard of a property already approved for a fourplex.

The requested variances related to soft landscaping, angular planes, and height.

The tribunal accepted the expert planning evidence that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Official Plan's encouragement of garden suites, and meets the four tests under the Planning Act.

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

Peterborough Action for Tiny Homes (PATH) appealed the City's refusal of a Temporary Use By-law application to permit 24 transitional housing sleeping cabins on a property adjacent to an existing heavy industrial facility.

The central issue was whether the cabins should be classified as 'dwellings' or 'noise sensitive institutional purpose buildings' under provincial noise guidelines (NPC-300) for the purpose of determining land use compatibility.

The Tribunal found the cabins constituted dwellings, requiring more stringent noise mitigation.

Because the proposal introduced a sensitive land use immediately adjacent to a Class II industrial facility without adequate mitigation mechanisms, the Tribunal held it was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not conform to the City Official Plan.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to demolish an existing bungalow and construct a three-storey, four-unit multiplex dwelling.

The requested variances included relief for east yard setback, building height, lot area, and lot frontage.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposal represented gentle intensification consistent with Official Plan policies for missing middle housing.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances, finding they met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Upper Grand District School Board appealed a site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment passed by the City of Guelph that would permit a four-storey mixed-use development adjacent to Central Public School.

The School Board argued the development would cause unacceptable shadow impacts on the schoolyard and rooftop solar panels, interfere with views of the historic Catholic Hill, and create traffic safety issues near the student drop-off area.

The Tribunal found that the proposed height and massing without sufficient stepbacks would cause unacceptable adverse shadowing and cooling impacts on the school, and that access from Dublin Street North would cause traffic safety issues.

However, the Tribunal found no unacceptable adverse impacts on cultural heritage.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the Zoning By-law Amendment in principle subject to modifications requiring a maximum geodetic height of 361m, 3m stepbacks from the third storey up, a 4.5m side yard setback adjacent to the school, and restricting vehicular access and loading to Cork Street West.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing minor variances required to construct a rear deck and utility shed.

The tribunal heard uncontested expert land use planning evidence that the proposed structures were consistent with the neighbourhood's physical character, created no privacy impacts, and satisfied the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The tribunal allowed the appeal and approved the variances subject to conditions.

The appellant sought minor variances to legalize the conversion of a semi-detached dwelling into a 19-room rooming house with a separate rear dwelling unit, which had been constructed without building permits.

The City supported the application on affordable housing grounds, while local residents opposed it due to illegal construction, safety concerns, and overdevelopment.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had engaged in an intentional subversion of the planning process and failed to provide a truthful factual foundation.

The Tribunal held that a proposal of this magnitude should be addressed through a zoning by-law amendment rather than a minor variance.

The applicant sought variances to build a two-storey addition with an integral garage and rear deck on a lakefront property.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the variances, and the applicant appealed to the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

The adjacent neighbour and a neighbourhood association opposed the appeal, raising concerns about neighbourhood character, front yard setbacks, and tree preservation.

The tribunal found that the variances, including those for floor space index and front yard setback, respected the existing physical character of the neighbourhood and 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 appellants appealed the Town of Newmarket's refusal to adopt a Zoning By-law Amendment that would permit the severance of two existing residential lots into three lots for single detached dwellings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the proposed reductions in minimum lot area and frontage represented appropriate 'gentle intensification' consistent with provincial and regional policies.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request for increased maximum lot coverage, finding that the proposed 34% coverage on smaller lots would be an overdevelopment incompatible with the planned built form context of the stable residential neighbourhood.

An interim order was issued pending finalization of the zoning by-law amendment and provisional consent.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision authorizing a minor variance to permit a reduced front yard setback for a proposed 3-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the variance respects the existing streetscape character, supports intensification goals, and meets the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

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

The respondent, Elena Cherny, leased a house to the applicants, 10381187 Canada Inc. and Elias Markos, for a 10-year term, with the understanding that it would be renovated into six units for short-term rentals.

Cherny completed the renovations without proper planning permission or building permits.

After a City of Toronto Order to Comply, Cherny restored the house to a single-family dwelling and locked out the applicants.

The applicants sought specific performance of the lease and damages, registering a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on the property.

Cherny brought a motion to discharge the CPL.

The court found that damages would be an adequate remedy for any breach of the lease, as the property was not unique in the commercial context of short-term rentals, and specific performance was not possible given the unlikelihood of obtaining the necessary zoning variances.

The CPL was discharged with conditions to protect the applicants' potential damages award, and a trial was ordered to determine the legality of the lease and whether Cherny breached it.