OTLAB 2024

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to demolish an existing bungalow and construct a three-storey, four-unit multiplex dwelling.

The requested variances included relief for east yard setback, building height, lot area, and lot frontage.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposal represented gentle intensification consistent with Official Plan policies for missing middle housing.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances, finding they met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment regarding minor variances for a residential property.

At a prehearing conference, the parties advised the Tribunal that a settlement in principle had been reached.

The Tribunal ordered that the scheduled contested hearing be converted to a settlement hearing and set deadlines for the filing of the settlement terms, revised plans, and supporting affidavit evidence.

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 parties brought a consent motion to set new filing deadlines ahead of a rescheduled hearing date of January 8, 2025.

The original hearing was delayed to allow the parties to continue settlement discussions.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body granted the motion and amended the notice requirements to prevent the parties from needlessly incurring costs for expert retainers and hearing preparation while settlement discussions are ongoing.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances for two related properties.

Due to an administrative error by the Tribunal, only one of the appeals was scheduled and heard.

To ensure procedural fairness, the TLAB Chair issued an interim order directing that a new hearing be scheduled for the omitted appeal and that the member who heard the related appeal be seized of the matter.

The applicant brought a motion requesting the Tribunal determine that the servicing conditions imposed on a previously granted provisional consent had been fulfilled, allowing for the issuance of a certificate of consent.

The conditions required a Functional Servicing Report to the satisfaction of the City's engineering department.

The City refused to clear the conditions, citing deficiencies in the proposed lateral connections and separation widths in the narrow public lane.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that while the applicant's engineering evidence on feasibility was credible, the City had not approved the servicing arrangements, and the Tribunal lacked the authority to deem the conditions satisfied or to determine the City's statutory duty regarding servicing.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of three variances required to construct a two-storey garden suite in the rear yard of the subject property.

At the hearing, the appellant appeared without an expert land use planner and attempted to provide evidence himself.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide any land use planning evidence to demonstrate that the requested variances met the four statutory tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were not authorized.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances for a proposed residential dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant revised the application to seek only one variance for an increase in maximum lot coverage from 30 percent to 32 percent.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient planning evidence to demonstrate that the requested variance maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was desirable for the appropriate development of the land, or was minor in nature.

The appeal was dismissed and the variance was not authorized.

The Appellant brought a motion seeking relief from the TLAB's Rules of Practice and Procedure to confidentially submit letters of support from neighbours for the presiding Panel Chair's review only, without disclosing them to opposing parties.

The Appellant alleged that public disclosure could lead to harassment by opposing neighbours.

The opposing parties argued the letters must be shared in accordance with disclosure rules.

The TLAB dismissed the motion, emphasizing the core principles of transparency, open proceedings, and full disclosure, and noted that the Appellant had already inadvertently revealed the identities and one of the letters in previous public filings.

The applicant requested a review of a TLAB decision that refused applications for consent to sever and associated minor variances.

The original hearing was reassigned to a new Member after the presiding Member became incapacitated.

The applicant argued that the reassignment process denied them procedural fairness and that the new Member made errors of law and fact in assessing neighbourhood character and prevailing lot size.

The TLAB Vice Chair dismissed the review request, finding no breach of procedural fairness and concluding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate contested issues without establishing any definable errors of law or fact.

The appellant municipality requested an alteration to a previous tribunal decision that required it to hold tenant relocation funds in trust.

A hearing was scheduled to address the trusteeship issue.

The landlord and tenant requested a late adjournment because they were required to attend an Adjudicative Case Conference at the Landlord and Tenant Board on the same date.

The tribunal granted the adjournment sine die to ensure the affected parties could be heard on the issue.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing an application for minor variances.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the appellant withdrew the appeal.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal as abandoned, confirming the Committee of Adjustment's decision as final and binding, and vacated the scheduled hearing.

The appellant requested by email to convert a scheduled hearing for a minor variance appeal into a mediation.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body treated the request as an unopposed motion.

Noting that no document disclosure had occurred, the Tribunal inferred the parties were attempting to avoid a contested hearing and found merit in directing a mediation.

The scheduled hearing was cancelled and converted to a non-binding mediation.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to reduce the minimum front and rear yard soft landscaping requirements for a residential property.

The applicant had previously installed hardscaping and a subterranean stormwater management system.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the stormwater system effectively managed run-off, fulfilling the intent of the soft landscaping by-law, and that the hardscaping was compatible with the evolving neighbourhood character.

The appellant brought a motion seeking to abridge the time for service of the notice of motion, permit the late filing of several documents including an Applicant's Disclosure and an Arborist Report, issue a summons for a City of Toronto planner, and schedule additional hearing dates.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that extenuating circumstances, including late-arriving comments from City staff, justified the late filings.

The Tribunal also abridged the service time due to the urgency of the matter, authorized the issuance of the summons, and directed the scheduling of two additional hearing days.

The Applicant brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of an appeal regarding a consent to sever and minor variances.

The adjournment was requested due to the late discovery of an explanatory memorandum prepared by the City's Urban Forestry Division, which the City intended to rely upon at the hearing.

The City consented to the adjournment.

The Tribunal found that the criteria under Rule 23.3 were satisfied and granted the motion, ordering a new hearing date and fresh disclosure deadlines.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances for a new detached dwelling.

At the outset of the hearing, counsel for the appellant requested an adjournment due to a scheduling conflict with another tribunal matter, and requested that the hearing be scheduled for two days instead of one.

All parties consented to the request.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body granted the adjournment, finding it would not prejudice the parties and that two days were necessary given the number of parties and expert witnesses.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances required to legalize a rear basement addition and convert an existing detached garage into a two-storey garden suite.

The proposal required relief for building length, depth, setbacks, height, and angular planes.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's planner, finding that the revised proposal conformed with Official Plan policies and that strict application of the 45-degree angular plane was unnecessary given the site context.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment's refusal of an application for 16 variances to permit the construction of a six-storey apartment building.

At the hearing, the appellant's representative provided only architectural comments and no planning justification or evidence to support the variances.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the appellant failed to satisfy the burden of proof to demonstrate that the variances met the four statutory tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were not authorized.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment regarding a minor variance application for the property at 89 Chester Ave.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the appellant withdrew the appeal.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the abandoned appeal, rendering the Committee of Adjustment's decision final and binding.