Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
2025-08-11
25 166536 S45 14 TLAB
2025 ONTLAB 347, Toronto (City) vs Mohan
INTERIM DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
2025-08-11
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):
CITY OF TORONTO
Applicant(s):
K. MOHAN
Property Address:
80 Lamb Ave.
COA File No.:
25 132938 STE 14 MV (A0200/25TEY)
TLAB Case File No.:
25 166536 S45 14 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
Monday, September 15, 2025
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Panel Member T. Kezwer
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
APPLICANT
K. MOHAN
APPELLANT
CITY OF TORONTO
S. MESSINA
Y. NURI
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This is an appeal by the City of Toronto against the approval by the Toronto and East York panel of the Committee of Adjustment of a minor variance application to construct an ancillary building containing one laneway suite on the property located at 80 Lamb Avenue (the “Subject Property”).
2The Applicant filed an Applicant’s Disclosure that was marked as being received on July 3, 2025. Three variances are being sought. The Applicant’s Disclosure modified the proposal in relation to two of these variances, which deal with the height of the ancillary building and the distance between the ancillary building and the main dwelling.
3Prior to releasing this interim decision, I visited the Subject Property and the surrounding neighbourhood in which it is situated. In addition, I reviewed the pre-filed materials.
4There are two parties to this proceeding, the Applicant and the City of Toronto. There are no participants. Both parties notified the Tribunal that they have reached a settlement and have requested a written settlement hearing.
THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND FRAMEWORK
5Provincial Interest - S. 2
A decision of the Tribunal shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest, enumerated as (a) – (s) in the Planning Act.
6Provincial Policy – S. 3
A Decision of the Tribunal must be consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement for the subject area.
7Variance – S. 45(1)
In considering the applications for variances from the Zoning By-laws, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the applications meet all of the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act. The tests are whether the variances:
maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-laws;
are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
are minor.
8Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure – Rule 24.6, Factors Considered for Holding a Written Hearing.
9Rules 24.7 to 24.10, Procedure for Exchange of Documents in Written Hearing.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
10The parties have notified the Tribunal via email that a settlement has been reached and have requested a written settlement hearing.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
11Rule 24.6 outlines the Factors Considered for Holding a Written Hearing. I have reviewed these factors and consider that a written hearing is appropriate in these circumstances. The Applicant has filed an Applicant’s Disclosure which has resolved the issues that the City opposed in raising its appeal. A written hearing will result in a less costly, faster and more efficient process. All parties have requested a written hearing, so no prejudice is involved. No credibility issues have been raised for the proceeding.
12The original dates for filing submissions as outlined in the Notice of Hearing remain fixed. The Applicant shall make any additional required submissions by August 26, 2025, and the Appellant shall respond by September 5, 2025. As part of their submissions, the parties shall notify the Tribunal whether the two variances discussed in paragraph two are still being requested.
CONCLUSION
13For the reasons outlined above, this matter is converted to a written hearing with the above-noted filing deadlines.
DECISION AND ORDER
14The Tribunal ORDERS THAT the Parties shall comply with the directions contained within this interim decision.
15This Member shall remain seized of the hearing of this appeal.
T. Kezwer
Panel Member