Graig Uens

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances required to demolish a single-family dwelling and garage and replace them with a new dwelling and a two-storey garage.

The appellant amended the application to reduce the requested variances.

The Tribunal found the amended variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and respected the physical character of the neighbourhood, particularly given the unique context of the adjacent laneway.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to facilitate a mixed-use development with three towers and 1,754 dwelling units.

The parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with provincial policy, aligns with the City's Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the fulfillment of several conditions, including securing affordable housing and addressing airport flight path restrictions.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to facilitate the development of two 14-storey mixed-use buildings.

Following an interim decision that allowed the appeals in part based on a settlement, the parties advised that the pre-requisite conditions had been satisfied.

Relying on supplemental expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in the public interest.

The Tribunal issued a final order amending the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances for a duplex and laneway suite.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and the appellant submitted revised variances that reduced the overall number of requests and eliminated an extended basement.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning and arboriculture evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with provincial policies, maintains the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, is desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and is minor.

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

Several property owners brought motions seeking party status and orders pursuant to subsection 34(31) of the Planning Act to deem Zoning By-law No. 608-2024 in force for their respective properties.

The by-law, along with Official Plan Amendment No. 727, was adopted by the City of Toronto to permit gentle residential intensification along major streets but was appealed city-wide by 2856973 Ontario Inc. Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that scoping the appeals to exclude the moving parties' lands would not create conformity issues and would facilitate timely redevelopment.

The Tribunal granted the motions, deemed the by-law in force for the specified properties, and permitted the moving parties to withdraw from the proceedings.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to permit a 6-storey self-storage warehouse in an Employment zone.

The requested variances included permitting a self-storage warehouse use, increasing the maximum floor space index, and allowing a loading space with vehicle access through a main front wall.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed self-storage warehouse is a hybrid use permitted in a General Employment Area.

The tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, are minor, and are desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The City of Toronto appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval of a consent to sever and minor variances to permit the construction of two detached multiplex buildings.

During the hearing, the applicant proposed minor amendments to the variances and agreed to a tenant relocation and assistance plan.

The City withdrew its opposition.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body accepted the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, found the amendments to be minor requiring no further notice, and approved the consent and variances subject to the agreed-upon conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use development at 2500 Don Mills Road.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised proposal featuring two towers of 49 and 44 storeys, 1,196 residential units, and a new public park.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the instruments in principle, withholding its final order until the City confirms several conditions are satisfied.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying 21 minor variances for a proposed three-storey, 9-unit apartment building and two laneway suites.

The proposal included one affordable rental unit.

The Tribunal found that the amended application was minor and required no further notice.

Applying the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, the Tribunal accepted the expert planning evidence 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 appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit a temporary motor vehicle sales, leasing, and/or rental facility on a vacant lot.

The Tribunal found that the requested variances, including a change of use, reduced rear yard setback, lack of a building, and gravel parking surface, met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act when applied on a temporary basis.

The Tribunal authorized the variances for a period of two years, subject to conditions regarding site layout and entrance paving, noting the surrounding area's current state of transition and ongoing LRT construction.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 20-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendment consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part on an interim basis, withholding its final order until the City confirms several pre-requisite matters, including functional servicing, infrastructure agreements, and revised plans.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit two 14-storey mixed-use buildings.

The parties reached a settlement proposal, which the City Council approved in principle.

The Tribunal reviewed the settlement, supported by uncontroverted expert planning evidence, and found it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the settlement proposal in principle, withholding its final order pending the fulfillment of several conditions.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit an accessory dwelling unit in a townhouse and to reduce the required parking spaces from three to two.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances, finding that they were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, are minor in nature, and are desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

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.