Laura Dean

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment regulating short-term rental accommodations.

The Tribunal addressed the settlement of a motion for the production of documents, finalized the Issues List and draft Procedural Order, and scheduled a seven-day hearing for March 2022.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference for an appeal by the applicant regarding the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 12-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a local resident, scheduled a 10-day hearing on the merits for July 2022, and approved the parties' draft Procedural Order.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised nine-storey mid-rise building.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial and municipal planning policies.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the draft zoning by-law amendments in principle, withholding its final order until specific conditions were met.

The Chief Building Official issued building permits for a body rub parlour in a specific zoning area.

A competing business appealed the decision to the Superior Court, where the appeal judge rescinded the permits, finding the CBO's interpretation of the word 'front' in the zoning by-law to be unreasonable.

The CBO and the permit holder appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the appeal judge misapprehended the evidence and failed to properly apply the reasonableness standard of review.

The CBO's interpretation of the by-law was reasonable.

The applicants appealed the Chief Building Official's decision to refuse a building permit for an already constructed 21-room building, which they labelled as a "single family dwelling" but was designed and previously operated as a hotel.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the CBO was entitled to look beyond the label and consider the building's design, layout, and prior use to determine its intended purpose.

The CBO's conclusion that the building contravened applicable zoning by-laws for a single-family dwelling was deemed reasonable and correct.

The applicant, a body rub parlour operator, appealed the Chief Building Official's (CBO) decision to issue a building permit to a competitor (the respondent) in the same building.

The appeal concerned the interpretation of a zoning by-law that prohibited certain commercial uses on properties "fronting" on the west side of Victoria Park Avenue for a depth of 60m.

The building's main entrance was on a side street, but its side wall ran along Victoria Park Avenue.

The court found the applicant had standing as a business competitor and that the CBO's decision should be reviewed on a reasonableness standard.

Interpreting "front" in the context of the by-law's policy to organize land uses along the main thoroughfare, the court concluded that the building "fronted" on Victoria Park Avenue.

Therefore, the respondent's body rub parlour was not a permitted use in that zone, and the building permit was improperly issued.