Michael Barton

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances to facilitate a three-storey rear extension to an existing dwelling.

The requested relief included variances for building length, Floor Space Index (FSI), canopy encroachment, eaves projection, and front yard parking.

The appellant argued the proposed FSI represented overdevelopment out of character with the neighbourhood.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the owners' planner, finding the proposed built form would be compatible with the evolving neighbourhood, particularly given a similar recent approval on the adjacent property.

The appeal was allowed only to approve the modified variances subject to a condition tying development to the revised plans.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of an application for two variances to legalize a rear third-storey addition constructed without a permit and to permit existing external fire escape stairs.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body treated the unauthorized construction as immaterial for planning purposes and evaluated the variances under the four tests of the Planning Act.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal 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 appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

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 proposed to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new three-storey single-detached dwelling, requiring variances for building length and floor space index.

The Committee of Adjustment approved the variances, and the adjacent neighbour appealed to the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

The TLAB allowed the appeal and refused the variances, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the variances respected and reinforced the existing physical character of the immediate neighbourhood, particularly regarding density and massing, and therefore did not meet the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body issued an interim decision and order adjusting the deadlines for written submissions and argument in a minor variance appeal.

The adjustment was made to accommodate a statutory holiday and to allow the appellant to review the applicant's submissions before filing their own argument.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a variance to reduce the required front yard soft landscaping.

The owner retained a planning expert who identified a calculation error in the original application.

The expert testified that the revised variance, proposing 40% of the required front yard landscaping as soft landscaping, respects the prevailing physical character of the neighbourhood.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body accepted the expert evidence, found the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, and allowed the appeal.

The owner's newly retained expert planning witness brought a motion to admit a late-filed expert witness statement in an appeal regarding a front yard landscaping variance.

The late filing was necessitated by the need to correct calculation errors made by the former representative, who had recently withdrawn.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body granted the motion, finding it procedurally fair and necessary to ensure a complete written record given the unique circumstances of the former representative's disengagement.

The Owner requested a review of a TLAB decision that allowed a neighbour's appeal and refused minor variances for a residential rebuild.

The Owner argued the original presiding member failed to consider all evidence, misinterpreted Official Plan policies regarding neighbourhood character, and was deprived of new evidence because a zoning by-law amendment permitting the proposed side wall height was enacted shortly after the hearing.

The reviewing member dismissed the request, finding no error of law or fact in the original decision's qualitative and quantitative analysis.

The member also held that legislative changes enacted after a hearing concludes do not constitute 'new evidence' under the tribunal's review rules.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances for a new dwelling.

Following mediation, the parties reached a last-minute settlement.

The applicant requested an adjournment to finalize minor revisions to the site plan drawings and obtain a new zoning notice.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment on consent to preserve procedural fairness and directed that an expedited settlement hearing be scheduled.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body issued an interim decision regarding an appeal of a minor variance application.

Following an initial hearing day, the TLAB directed the applicants to provide updated sun and shadow studies and further planning justification.

The TLAB acknowledged receipt of these materials and directed the parties to provide their availability to schedule up to two additional hearing days to complete the evidentiary phase of the proceeding.