Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253

Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2023-05-08

19 227635 S45 02 TLAB

2038791 Ontario Inc v. Toronto (City), 2023 ONTLAB 85

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date:

May 8, 2023

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER Section 45(12), subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the "Act")

Appellant(s):

2038791 Ontario Inc.

Applicant(s):

Hicks Design Studio

Property Address:

21 X Edgehill Rd.

COA File No.:

18 136465 WET 04 MV

TLAB Case File No.:

19 227635 S45 02 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

January 14, 2020; August 30, 2022

Decision Delivered By:

TLAB Panel Member S. Makuch

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Owner/Appellant

2038791 Ontario Inc.

A. Platt

Party

City of Toronto

M. Hardiejowski

Party

6607446 Canada Inc.

M. Joblin

Party

T. Rocca

G. Borean

Party

P. Rocca

Party

E.A. Batten

M. Joblin

Expert Witness

D. McKay

Expert Witness

M. McConville

Expert Witness

J. Elkow

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1This is an appeal, by the owner, of the Committee of Adjustment’s refusal to approve variances for the construction of a detached dwelling with an integral garage and second and third story platform. That hearing was turned into a mediation session. The test for approval of minor variances is under s. 45 (1) of the Planning Act which provides that variances must: maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan; maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-laws; be desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and be minor. Variances must also meet the requirements of the Growth Plan and the provincial Policy statement 2020.

2On February 24, 2020, after the attempted mediation, during which progress was made towards resolving the matter, it was agreed and ordered that the matter be adjourned on the following basis: the applicant /appellant will prepare new plans and obtain a new list of variances. The parties and participants would have at least three business days to examine the plans and variances. If there were a dispute regarding the new plans and variances, I may be spoken to. If a settlement is reached, Minutes of Settlement may be prepared with an affidavit. These may then be submitted to me as a basis for me to issue an order respecting this matter. If no settlement is reached the matter may be set down for a hearing by a different TLAB member, based on the previously set exchange dates for this matter.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

3While fruitful discussions occurred, due to Covid-19 pandemic delays in resolving matters, settlement was formally reached in late 2022. The Minutes of Settlement dated February 16, 2023 reflect this settlement and are attached hereto within Appendix 1. Appendix 1 also contains the affidavit of a planner, David A. McKay, qualified to give opinion evidence before TLAB, in favour of approval of the revised variances. There is no evidence in opposition to the settlement, which is with opposing neighbours. The City, which is also a party, does not oppose the settlement and presents no evidence. Mr. McKay’s affidavit includes: Minutes of Settlement, a revised Zoning Examiner’s Notice, revised plans, and landscape plans.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

4The revised variances, now being sought, are set out in the Zoning Examiner’s Notice attached as Schedule B to the Affidavit of Mr. McKay. I find the revisions to the variances sought are minor and do not require new notice.

5Mr. McKay’s uncontradicted affidavit evidence, contained in Appendix 1, sets out the reasons why the revised variances should be granted. He points out in detail why, in his opinion, the variances meet the requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 and the Growth Plan. He also provides detailed evidence as to why, in his opinion, the variances meet the four tests, for approval of minor variances under s. 45 of the Planning Act. As stated, his evidence is unchallenged, and, having reviewed it carefully, and, having visited the site I find it persuasive and have no need to repeat his affidavit in the body of this decision. I, therefore, find the variances set out in the Examiner’s Notice in Schedule B to his affidavit should be approved. I also find that the approval should be subject to the conditions set out in Schedule C, Conditions of Approval, to the Minutes of Settlement in Appendix 1.

DECISION AND ORDER

6The appeal is hereby granted in part and the variances set out in the Examiner’s Notice, Schedule B to the affidavit of David A. McKay in Appendix 1 are hereby granted subject so the Conditions of Approval set out in Schedule C of that affidavit.

S. Makuch

Panel Member

APPENDIX 1