Franco Romano

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances for a rear deck addition at a residential property.

The variances related to soft landscaping, deck encroachment into the rear yard setback, and deck height.

A neighbouring property owner also opposed the variances due to privacy and sightline concerns.

During the hearing, the applicant proposed modifications to the deck design, including privacy screens and a reduction in the deck's length.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal in part, approving the variances subject to conditions requiring the deck to be built in accordance with the modified plans, finding that the reduced encroachment and added landscaping met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The applicant appealed the Town of Oakville Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling.

The requested variances related to the number of garages, garage projection, dwelling depth, main wall length, and dwelling height.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed development met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal concluded that the variances maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were minor in nature, and were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance application to facilitate a one-storey industrial addition and recognize the existing size and location of a banquet hall.

The City did not oppose the development.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Ontario Land Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a consent to sever a residential lot into two and associated minor variances for lot frontage, area, coverage, and setbacks to construct two new detached houses.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed development represented gentle intensification consistent with provincial and municipal policies.

The uncontradicted expert planning evidence demonstrated that the proposed lot sizes and physical characteristics were materially consistent with the existing neighbourhood character, satisfying the criteria for consent under the Planning Act and the four tests for minor variances.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment regarding minor variance applications for two newly created lots to permit the construction of two new detached dwellings.

The requested variances included lot frontage, lot area, lot coverage, number of storeys, side yard setbacks, and building height.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body accepted the uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence that the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and that the proposed three-storey dwellings were consistent with the neighbourhood character.

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

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).

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 applicant appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 27-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan, and represents an appropriate level of intensification for the site, which is located in an Urban Growth Centre.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and approved the amendments in principle, subject to conditions including the provision of a 2.0-metre road widening dedication to the City to enhance the public realm.

The Appellant appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make decisions on applications for official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a 27-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development conforms with the City's 2008 Official Plan, the Growth Plan, and the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal held that the proposed height, massing, and urban design were appropriate for the downtown context and provided adequate transition.

The Tribunal also found the proposed parking supply and shadow impacts to be acceptable.

The appeal was allowed in principle, subject to conditions including a holding symbol related to environmental site remediation.

The applicant appealed the City of Guelph's refusal of applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a high-density residential development consisting of 678 dwelling units and a park.

The City argued the proposal was an overdevelopment that did not conform to the Growth Plan or Official Plan, and raised traffic and parking concerns.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, finding that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and represents good land-use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and directed the amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The applicant appealed City Council's decision to approve a zoning by-law amendment for seven townhouses but reject two detached dwellings at the rear of the subject lands.

The neighbouring appellants also appealed the decision.

The Tribunal allowed the applicant's appeal and dismissed the neighbours' appeal, finding that the inclusion of the detached dwellings represented a compact and efficient form of intensification that was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and implemented the City's Bayview Townhouse Design Guidelines.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision that approved ten minor variances for the responding parties' proposed home construction.

The moving party, a neighbour who had 'participant' status at the OMB hearing, argued the OMB's reasons were insufficient and failed to demonstrate it grappled with the issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the OMB's reasons were sufficient given the brief, uncontested expert evidence presented at the hearing.

In obiter, the court noted that a 'participant' at an OMB hearing likely lacks standing to seek leave to appeal.

The applicants sought a declaration that provisions of a site‑specific zoning by‑law prohibiting “adult entertainment establishments as defined by the Municipal Act, 2001” were vague, void for uncertainty, and discriminatory.

The court considered whether the by‑law provided a sufficiently clear delineation of prohibited conduct and whether citizens could reasonably determine when they were in breach.

The court held that the by‑law failed to define key terms such as “goods” and “designed to appeal to erotic or sexual appetites or inclinations,” leaving merchants unable to determine compliance and granting excessive enforcement discretion.

The court further found that the by‑law could produce discriminatory outcomes by permitting identical goods in some retail settings but prohibiting them in others.

The impugned provisions were therefore declared void for uncertainty and the application for declaratory relief was granted.