A. Stewart

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances required to convert an approved four-unit multiplex into a three-storey, eight-unit rental apartment building on a major street.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body considered the evolving planning context, including recent official plan and zoning by-law amendments aimed at facilitating intensification along major streets.

The tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal has regard for provincial interests, is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and meets the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions, including the provision of a privacy fence and an enclosed waste storage area.

The appellant municipality appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval of minor variances to construct additional residential apartments at the subject property.

At a prehearing conference, the municipality and the applicant requested a 30-day adjournment to finalize a settlement involving a tenant assistance plan.

A tenant party opposed the plan, citing ongoing building issues and Landlord and Tenant Board proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, scheduled a new hearing date, and set deadlines for expert witness statements, noting the appeal could be withdrawn if a settlement is reached.

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

The tribunal considered the emerging policy framework, including the Yonge-Sheppard Protected Major Transit Station Area and the City's multiplex policies (SASP 826).

While acknowledging that the duplex built form is supported by these policies, the tribunal found that the proposed lot frontages and areas were not within the prevailing range of existing lot sizes in the geographic neighbourhood.

Consequently, the tribunal held that the severance and variances did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and failed to meet the statutory criteria.

The appeal was dismissed and the Committee of Adjustment's decisions were confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision regarding a property on Barker Avenue.

The parties previously consented to convert the scheduled hearing into a mediation, which remains ongoing.

Following a status hearing, the Toronto Local Appeal Body scheduled a second status hearing to monitor the progress of the mediation.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to sever two existing lots into three and construct new detached dwellings.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, preferring the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the proposed lots and variances respected and reinforced the existing physical character of the neighbourhood, which was in transition.

The applications were found to meet the criteria under the Planning Act.

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 appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing eight variances for a proposed detached house.

The appellant did not attend the hearing.

Neighbours opposed the appeal, presenting expert planning evidence that the proposed building was not in keeping with the neighbourhood's character and would create undue negative impacts regarding overlook and privacy.

The tribunal agreed with the expert and neighbours, finding the proposal represented an overdevelopment that failed to meet the four tests under the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

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 appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to permit the remodeling of an existing two-storey dwelling through interior alterations and an addition.

The parties reached a settlement during the hearing, agreeing that the third-storey attic space would not be habitable.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted the variances subject to conditions ensuring the attic space remains non-habitable, finding that the proposal met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to permit the demolition of an existing house and construction of a new three-storey residential dwelling with an integral garage.

The requested variances included increased lot coverage, floor area, building height, number of storeys, and a large third-floor deck.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, preferring the City's expert planning evidence that the proposal represented an overdevelopment of the site.

The tribunal found that the proposed density and large rooftop platform did not respect and reinforce the prevailing physical character of the neighbourhood, and therefore the variances did not meet the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

An opposing party requested a date to bring a motion to adjourn the scheduled hearing.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body determined that there was insufficient evidence to decide on the adjournment at this time.

The Tribunal ordered that evidence and argument regarding the adjournment would be heard at the commencement of the hearing on May 2, 2024.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances for a property to the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

After eight days of hearings, the presiding member resigned due to health issues before issuing a final decision.

The TLAB Chair issued an interim decision and order under Rule 2.17 of the TLAB Rules of Practice and Procedure, appointing a new member to complete the proceeding and issue a final decision to avoid wasting the significant time and resources already expended.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving a consent to sever and associated minor variances for a residential property.

The owner proposed to sever the existing lot into two and construct two new two-storey detached dwellings.

The City argued the resulting lots and dwellings would not respect and reinforce the physical character of the neighbourhood based on a numerical analysis of prevailing lot sizes.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body preferred the owner's planning evidence, finding that the property's unique location at the edge of the neighbourhood and proximity to a subway station warranted a qualitative assessment.

The appeal was dismissed, the consent was granted, and the variances were authorized.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances for interior alterations and additions to a two-storey dwelling.

The appellants sought permission to file their witness statement late and requested an adjournment of the hearing.

The parties consented to the adjournment and agreed to a revised procedural schedule.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body granted the adjournment and issued a revised schedule for the continuation of the hearing.

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

At the scheduled hearing, counsel for the appellant requested that the hearing be converted to a prehearing conference to allow the parties to continue settlement discussions.

The Tribunal granted the request, stood down to allow discussions, and ultimately adjourned the hearing sine die, providing directions for scheduling a settlement hearing or a contested hearing depending on the outcome of the discussions.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying minor variances required to demolish an existing bungalow and build a new two-storey dwelling.

Prior to the resumed hearing, the appellant and the adjacent neighbour reached a settlement, resulting in modifications to the building plans and the requested variances.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and allowed the appeal, approving the variances subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing applications to sever a property and construct two semi-detached dwellings.

At the commencement of the hearing, the applicant presented revised development options.

The Tribunal noted deficiencies in the applicant's expert planner's context mapping and noted that the participants' witness statements were missing from the record.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing to allow for the submission of revised mapping and the participants' witness statements.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing an application for minor variances to construct a rear three-storey addition and a new integral garage on a heritage property.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant reached a settlement with the opposing parties, resulting in revised plans that reduced the building height and addressed privacy concerns.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the revised plans met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and allowed the appeal in part, approving the variances subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances for a one-storey addition.

The City of Toronto brought a motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing under section 45(17) of the Planning Act, arguing the appellant failed to disclose any land use planning grounds and failed to comply with TLAB's rules for documentary disclosure.

The self-represented appellant requested an adjournment on the day of the hearing, citing personal and financial difficulties.

The Tribunal granted the City's motion and dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's complete failure to comply with procedural rules and unresponsiveness prejudiced the City and undermined the Tribunal's process.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and site plan approval to permit a 7-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part and the zoning by-law amendment was approved in principle, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of conditions.