OTLAB 2023

The requestor sought a review of a TLAB decision that allowed an appeal and set aside a Committee of Adjustment decision granting consent to sever and minor variances for two new detached dwellings.

The requestor alleged the Chair made errors of law and fact, including rejecting uncontroverted expert planning evidence, substituting her own opinion, and violating procedural fairness.

The reviewing member found no compelling reasons demonstrating errors of law or fact, concluding the Chair properly evaluated and weighed the evidence against statutory tests.

The review request was denied and the original decision confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance for a reverse grade driveway, while approving 10 other variances for a new two-storey detached house.

The tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the proposed development, including the reverse grade driveway, respected the neighbourhood's physical character and met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and all variances were conditionally approved.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to construct a new three-storey dwelling.

The requested variances were for maximum floor space index and minimum side yard setback.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the revised proposal respected the prevailing physical character of the neighbourhood and met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

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

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying variances for a proposed new three-storey house.

At a settlement hearing, the parties presented a revised proposal with reduced variances for building length, depth, and floor space index.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they respected and reinforced the existing physical character of the neighbourhood.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the variances were approved subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed decisions of the Committee of Adjustment approving a consent to sever and minor variances to create two undersized lots and construct dwellings.

At the hearing, the appellant introduced revised plans that caused confusion among the parties.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing to allow the appellant to clarify the plans and serve the revised materials on all participants.

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

At the hearing, the appellant's representative failed to provide any supporting documentation, witness statements, or expert evidence.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed severance and variances met the requirements of the Planning Act, including the four tests for minor variances and conformity with the Official Plan.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent to sever a residential lot into two and associated minor variances, primarily concerning reduced lot frontage and area.

The adjacent neighbours opposed the application, arguing the proposed lots would be significantly smaller than the prevailing neighbourhood character.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body agreed with the neighbours, finding that the neighbourhood predominantly featured larger lots and that the proposed severances did not respect or reinforce the physical character of the area.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were refused.

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 Long Branch Neighbourhood Association (LBNA) brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of its appeal regarding a minor variance application.

The motion was brought because LBNA's forestry expert witness suffered a sudden medical emergency and was hospitalized shortly before the hearing.

The applicant opposed the adjournment, citing financial prejudice from the delay.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the prejudice to the applicant from a short delay was outweighed by the necessity to afford all parties an opportunity to fully and fairly present their case, in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness and the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances for a property.

The variances sought to reduce rear yard soft landscaping and increase lot coverage to accommodate an existing patio, pool, and cabana.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the tribunal found the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were approved.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing minor variances required to construct a rear deck and utility shed.

The tribunal heard uncontested expert land use planning evidence that the proposed structures were consistent with the neighbourhood's physical character, created no privacy impacts, and satisfied the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The tribunal allowed the appeal and approved the variances subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consent to sever and associated minor variances to permit the construction of two new single-family dwellings.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body reviewed expert planning and arboricultural evidence, noting the proposal's compatibility with the evolving neighbourhood character and the adjustments made to preserve existing trees.

The Tribunal found that the consent application satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1).

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

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing eleven variances required to construct a new detached dwelling.

The main issue was whether the proposed height variances maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the proposed development respected and reinforced the existing physical character of the neighbourhood.

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

The Applicant requested a review of a TLAB Final Decision that allowed an appeal and refused minor variances for a third-story addition.

The Applicant alleged the presiding Member exhibited bias, violated procedural fairness, and made errors of fact and law, particularly by requiring numerical data to establish 'prevailing' density under the Official Plan.

The reviewing Member dismissed the review request, finding no procedural unfairness or bias.

The reviewing Member also held that the original Member did not err in law by requiring quantitative evidence of floor space index in the immediate context, and that the decision was reasonable overall.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a variance for a front yard parking pad.

At the hearing, the applicant's representative advised that the proposal had been revised to comply with the zoning by-law, rendering the variance unnecessary.

The applicant indicated an intention to abandon the appeal.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing sine die pending receipt of a formal withdrawal request.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of an application for variances to construct a new detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant and the City reached an agreement, reducing the requested variances to a single variance for floor space index (FSI).

The Tribunal evaluated the revised proposal against the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Relying on expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed FSI respected the massing, scale, and density of the neighbourhood, and that the variance maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was minor, and was desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The appeal was allowed in part and the revised variance was authorized.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing consent to sever a residential lot into two undersized lots and associated minor variances for lot frontage, area, and setbacks.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed lot frontages and areas were significantly smaller than those in the surrounding neighbourhood.

The Tribunal preferred the City's planning evidence, concluding that the proposal did not respect and reinforce the physical character of the area, and therefore failed to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment denying minor variances for a proposed three-storey multi-generational home.

The central issue was a variance to permit a third storey.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's planner, finding that the proposed dwelling, which features dormers in a sloped roof, presents as a two-storey dwelling and fits the prevailing character of the neighbourhood.

The Tribunal concluded that all requested variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and allowed the appeal in part to accommodate minor revisions to the proposal.

The appellant requested a review of a TLAB decision that refused three variances to permit the construction of a new detached dwelling.

The appellant argued the presiding Member violated procedural fairness by failing to provide reasons for two of the variances and made errors of law by applying the wrong legal test, misapplying case law, and ignoring expert evidence.

The TLAB Chair dismissed the review request, finding that the presiding Member correctly determined the application failed the Official Plan test on the key density variance, which rendered the other variances moot.

The Chair also found no errors of law in the Member's application of the neighbourhood character guidelines or his weighing of the evidence.