W. Roberts

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances for a dwelling and laneway suite.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and proposed revised variances along with a list of privately negotiated conditions.

In this interim decision, the Toronto Local Appeal Body indicated it would approve the revised variances but refused to attach the privately negotiated conditions to its order, noting that such conditions should be enshrined in a private agreement rather than enforced by the tribunal.

The parties were directed to confirm their private settlement agreement in writing.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances for a proposed duplex and laneway suite.

At a prehearing conference, the appellant requested a consent adjournment of the first hearing date to allow the parties more time to finalize a settlement.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body granted the adjournment and extended the deadlines for filing reply witness and expert statements, finding no prejudice to the parties.

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 applicants filed a Review Request of a Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) decision that refused their application for nine minor variances to build a two-storey dwelling.

The applicants alleged the adjudicator made errors of fact regarding the variance dimensions, erred in law by treating the failure of one variance as the failure of all, misapplied Official Plan policies regarding neighbourhood character, failed to make mandatory findings on Provincial Policy, and provided insufficient reasons.

The TLAB dismissed the Review Request, finding that the adjudicator's path to refusal was clear, the alleged factual errors were not determinative, and the adjudicator reasonably concluded that the failure of the critical front yard setback and FSI variances resulted in the failure of the entire application.

The Requestors sought a review of a TLAB decision that approved a revised minor variance application for a reduced front yard setback.

The Requestors argued the presiding Member made several errors of law and jurisdiction, including failing to apply the minor variance test regarding the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law, requiring a documented rationale for the by-law, and disregarding expert evidence.

The reviewing Member dismissed the review request, finding that the original Member properly considered the intent and purpose of the zoning by-law, appropriately weighed the competing expert planning evidence, and did not make any reviewable errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome.

The original decision approving the variances was confirmed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to receive updates on the outstanding appeals to the City of Toronto's 2013 comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 569-2013.

The Tribunal reviewed the status of topic-specific and site-specific appeals, noting settlements, withdrawals, and ongoing discussions.

The Tribunal scheduled the next video hearing for June 20, 2023, and directed parties to notify the City's counsel prior to proceedings to maintain an accurate appearances list.

The moving party filed a request to review a previous TLAB decision regarding the property at 160 Teddington Park Ave.

The TLAB found the review request compliant with its Rules and issued an interim order setting deadlines for the appellants and other parties to file responses, and for the moving party to file a reply.

The City of Toronto brought a motion to dismiss appeals of Official Plan Amendment 554 and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 101-2022, which permit the development of Garden Suites across the city.

The City argued that under the Planning Act, specifically sections 17(24.1) and 34(19.1), there is no right of appeal for policies or by-laws that give effect to additional residential unit policies, except by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

The appellants argued against the substantive contents of the amendments, such as setbacks and tree destruction.

The Tribunal agreed with the City's statutory interpretation, finding that the appeals were statute-barred because only the Minister has the right to appeal these specific permissions.

The appeals were dismissed without a hearing.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding multiple appeals of the City of Toronto's comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 569-2013.

The Tribunal received updates on topic-specific and site-specific appeals, noting ongoing settlement discussions and the impact of a new parking by-law.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day settlement hearing for the University of Toronto appeal and a further Case Management Conference to address the status of the draft By-law.