David Riley

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to permit the severance of a corner lot and the construction of semi-detached dwellings with additional residential units.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, granting provisional consent and authorizing variances for lot area, frontage, coverage, exterior side yard setback, and eave height, finding they met the tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and respected the neighbourhood's eclectic character.

However, the Tribunal refused the variance to reduce the required parking spaces from two to one, citing a lack of justification and potential neighbourhood impact.

The Tribunal also upheld a standard municipal condition requiring an acoustical report due to the property's proximity to railway tracks.

The applicants appealed the Town's Committee of Adjustment decisions denying a consent to sever and associated minor variances to facilitate the construction of a semi-detached dwelling.

The parties agreed that the severance was appropriate but disputed a proposed condition requiring the applicants to dedicate a private road portion of their property to the Town as a public highway and construct a turnaround facility.

The Tribunal applied the four-part test for consent conditions and found the condition was reasonable, relevant, necessary, and equitable, as it would resolve long-standing safety and access issues related to an adjacent elementary school and benefit the proposed development.

The Tribunal granted the provisional consent subject to the Town's conditions and adjourned the minor variance appeal to allow the parties to revise the requested variances in light of the road dedication.

The appellant appealed the City of Mississauga Committee of Adjustment's decision to impose certain conditions on a consent application to sever a lot for two semi-detached dwellings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to revise the disputed conditions, including requirements related to noise warnings and environmental protection.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised conditions were reasonable, consistent with provincial policies, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the conditions.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance to increase the maximum dwelling depth to permit a covered rear porch on a single detached dwelling under construction.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and would not cause adverse impacts on adjacent properties.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized subject to a condition requiring an amended site plan agreement.

The Claimant sought compensation for the expropriation of its property by Metrolinx for the Ontario Line transit project.

The Tribunal determined the highest and best use of the property was a high-density two-tower mixed-use development.

The Tribunal screened out the impact of the Ontario Line announcement under section 14(4)(b) of the Expropriations Act.

It rejected Metrolinx's argument for a lease encumbrance deduction due to the common control of the tenant and claimant.

The Tribunal accepted the Claimant's appraiser's market value of $187 per square foot, resulting in a gross value of $88,825,000, and applied a $1,000,000 deduction for environmental remediation costs, awarding a net amount of $87,825,000.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing four minor variances required to convert an existing one-storey garage into a two-storey laneway suite.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the variances regarding height, separation distance, angular plane, and soft landscaping met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The tribunal found the variances were minor, desirable, and maintained the intent of the official plan and zoning by-law, as design features mitigated any potential overlook or privacy impacts.

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

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 20-storey building.

The parties reached a full, uncontested settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal promotes efficient infill development, provides diverse housing options including three-bedroom units, and aligns with provincial and municipal planning policies.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the zoning by-law amendment was approved in principle, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including infrastructure agreements and heritage conservation plans.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 35-storey residential building with 365 dwelling units, including 33 replacement rental units.

The parties reached a full, uncontested settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert land use planning evidence that the proposal promotes efficient infill development and aligns with provincial policy.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the zoning by-law amendment was approved in principle, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including rental housing replacement and heritage impact assessments.

Champagne Centre Ltd. appealed the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 231 to permit a development including retail, personal service, and office space, as well as overnight accommodation for patients using on-site medical facilities.

The City and the appellant reached a settlement proposing a Site and Area Specific Policy (SASP).

Canadian Fuels Association opposed the settlement, arguing that the introduction of sensitive uses near its fuel terminals would negatively impact operations and pose public health and safety risks.

The Tribunal approved the SASP in principle, finding it consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal accepted the appellant's expert evidence that potential risks were mitigated and rejected the opposing expert evidence, which relied on inapplicable foreign guidelines.

The appellant appealed the City of Pickering's Official Plan Amendment 40 and several Zoning By-law Amendments aimed at managing infill and replacement housing in established neighbourhoods.

The appellant argued the instruments were improperly prescriptive, constituted inappropriate downzoning, and failed to conform to provincial and regional planning policies.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the instruments were not improperly prescriptive, the design guidelines were non-statutory, and the new performance standards struck an appropriate balance between public benefit and private interests.

The Tribunal concluded the instruments met all legislative tests and constituted good land use planning.

DGAP Investments Limited brought a motion seeking a declaration that provisions governing shared facilities and reciprocal easement agreements in a reconveyance agreement with Stelco Inc. had been complied with or were unnecessary, or alternatively, for court approval of its proposed easement agreement.

This dispute arose within the ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings involving U.S. Steel Canada Inc. The court dismissed DGAP's motion, rejecting its interpretation that the Reconveyance Date had passed and that easement obligations no longer existed.

The court affirmed its jurisdiction under section 11 of the CCAA to resolve such impasses to ensure the timely completion of the reconveyance.

While acknowledging an impasse, the court declined to impose DGAP's specific easement agreement due to an insufficiently developed record, instead ordering continued negotiations and a future case conference to schedule a motion for a judicial determination of the easement dispute.

The appellant sought variance relief to permit outdoor storage of building materials on a property zoned Prestige Employment, where such use is explicitly prohibited.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that authorizing a completely prohibited use constitutes an amendment to the zoning by-law rather than a minor variance.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the proposal failed to maintain the general intent and purpose of both the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law.

The applicant tenant brought an application for a declaration that her commercial lease was valid and binding, and for an injunction restraining the respondent landlord from interfering with her business.

The landlord had engaged in a campaign of harassment, including destroying common areas and removing the air conditioning unit, in an attempt to force the tenant to vacate so he could carry out construction.

The court found the landlord's allegations of breach to be spurious, dismissed his counter-application for fundamental breach, and granted the tenant's application, ordering specific performance of the lease and requiring the landlord to complete outstanding repairs.