M. Manett

The respondent brought a motion for costs against the appellant after the appellant withdrew his appeal of a Committee of Adjustment decision two weeks prior to the scheduled hearing.

The respondent argued that the appellant's failure to retain legal counsel, failure to file witness statements, and late filing of revised plans caused her to incur unnecessary expenses.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the motion, finding that while the appellant's conduct was inept and uninformed, it did not meet the statutory threshold of being unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The owner filed a Review Request of a TLAB decision that allowed an appeal and refused minor variances for a residential addition.

The owner argued the presiding Member violated natural justice by failing to provide adequate reasons and made errors of law and fact in interpreting Official Plan policies regarding 'prevailing type' and neighbourhood character.

The TLAB Chair dismissed the Review Request, finding that the presiding Member provided sufficient reasons for refusing the variances based on their failure to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan, and that the Member's factual findings regarding neighbourhood character were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of an application for consent to sever a property into two residential lots and associated minor variances for two new detached dwellings.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed lot frontages and areas did not respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood as required by the Official Plan.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the neighbourhood association's urban design expert over the applicant's planner, concluding that the requested floor space index variances would result in a built form that did not fit the context.

The applications failed to meet the criteria for consent under the Planning Act and the four tests for minor variances.

In an appeal under the Planning Act, the Toronto Local Appeal Body issued an interim decision regarding the scheduling of the remainder of the hearing.

Following the completion of witness examinations, the parties agreed to proceed with oral arguments on the next scheduled date.

Despite a representative's scheduling conflict, the Tribunal declined to alter the start time, emphasizing the need to complete the proceeding without further delay.

The Tribunal ordered the hearing to resume at 9:30 AM and directed the parties to submit their authorities in advance.