Paul Demczak

The appellant appealed the refusal by the Town of Oakville's Committee of Adjustment to grant a minor variance permitting a motor vehicle dealership and related uses on the subject lands.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and jointly requested the Tribunal to approve the variance subject to agreed conditions.

Relying on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024.

The appeal was allowed in part and the variance was authorized subject to conditions.

The applicants appealed the Town of Oakville Committee of Adjustment's refusal to authorize five minor variances required to construct a new two-storey single-detached dwelling.

The requested variances related to maximum driveway width, maximum private garage size, minimum interior side yard setback, minimum front yard setback, and maximum building height.

Based on the uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four-part test under the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and represented good planning.

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

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to construct a nine-storey mixed-use apartment building.

The proposed development included 60 rental units and ground-floor retail, with reduced parking and other zoning deviations.

The Tribunal adopted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the variances satisfied the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal found the proposal represented transit-supportive intensification consistent with provincial and municipal policies, and allowed the appeal subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the Town of Georgina's refusal to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 380-unit, 20-storey residential apartment building and a separate commercial building on waterfront lands.

The Town argued the proposal was out of scale, too dense, and incompatible with the surrounding low-rise neighbourhood.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, preferring the evidence of the applicant's experts.

The Tribunal found the site was uniquely positioned for higher-density development, the design responded thoughtfully to its surroundings, and the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the York Region Official Plan.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of five minor variances required to facilitate the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling.

The parties reached a settlement and requested the Tribunal convert the case management conference into a settlement hearing.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act and represented good planning.

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

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for a 53-unit mixed-use development consisting of stacked townhouses and commercial space.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 and in compliance with section 41 of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal approved the site plan subject to agreed-upon conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Woodstock's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 19-unit townhouse development.

The City did not call any witnesses or submit evidence at the hearing.

Relying on the uncontested expert planning evidence of the applicant, the Tribunal found that the proposed development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Oxford County Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the Zoning By-law Amendment was approved.

Profile (TT) Inc. and Profile Developments Inc. appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a residential development.

The parties reached a settlement revising the proposal to a single 4-storey apartment block with 51 units.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending submission of the final amendment instruments.

The Town of Whitby sought approval to expropriate the entirety of the owner's property to construct a mid-block arterial roadway.

The owner requested a Hearing of Necessity, arguing that only a portion of the property was required and the remnant lands could be developed as employment lands.

The Tribunal found that while the owner's evidence regarding the potential development of remnant lands was compelling, the expropriation of the entire property was fair, sound, and reasonably necessary.

The full taking was justified because the detailed design and conditions for provincial and federal approvals might require additional lands, and the Town needed ownership to apply for those approvals.

The appellants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of minor variances required to construct a second storey and ground floor addition to their detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and presented revised variances with reduced massing and setbacks.

The Tribunal found the amended application minor, requiring no further notice.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and authorized the revised variances subject to conditions, finding they met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a site plan application and appealed certain conditions of a provisional consent to sever a property in an employment area.

The parties reached an agreement on the consent conditions prior to the hearing.

The sole remaining issue was whether two disputed site plan conditions, which required the applicant to monitor private wells on adjacent properties and provide a contingency plan, could be imposed by the City.

The Tribunal found that section 41(7) of the Planning Act provides a finite list of permissible site plan conditions and does not authorize conditions pertaining to works or monitoring outside the boundaries of the subject property.

The Tribunal approved the consent and site plan applications without the disputed conditions.

The appellant appealed the Town of Oakville Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consent and minor variances.

The appellant proposed to relocate an existing heritage dwelling on the subject property and sever the lot to create a new residential building lot.

The Town took no position on the appeals but requested that staff-recommended conditions be imposed if approved.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposal represents appropriate intensification, preserves a heritage resource, and meets the statutory tests under the Planning Act.

The appeals were allowed, the variances authorized, and provisional consent granted subject to conditions.

The appellants appealed the Town of Oakville Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit an increased maximum dwelling depth for a new two-storey detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the requested variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's decision regarding a minor variance application to permit an increased residential floor area ratio for a new single detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to reduce the requested variance.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the amended variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, being minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and maintaining the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the refusal of minor variance and consent applications by the City of Pickering and the Regional Municipality of Durham.

The applications sought to sever a residential lot into four parcels for single-detached dwellings and requested variances for lot frontage, side yard setbacks, and chimney breast projections.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proposal represented appropriate infill development consistent with provincial policies and local official plans.

The Tribunal authorized the variances and granted provisional consents subject to conditions.

The respondent, Elena Cherny, leased a house to the applicants, 10381187 Canada Inc. and Elias Markos, for a 10-year term, with the understanding that it would be renovated into six units for short-term rentals.

Cherny completed the renovations without proper planning permission or building permits.

After a City of Toronto Order to Comply, Cherny restored the house to a single-family dwelling and locked out the applicants.

The applicants sought specific performance of the lease and damages, registering a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on the property.

Cherny brought a motion to discharge the CPL.

The court found that damages would be an adequate remedy for any breach of the lease, as the property was not unique in the commercial context of short-term rentals, and specific performance was not possible given the unlikelihood of obtaining the necessary zoning variances.

The CPL was discharged with conditions to protect the applicants' potential damages award, and a trial was ordered to determine the legality of the lease and whether Cherny breached it.