Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
2025-08-28
25 146087 S45 18 TLAB
2025 ONTLAB 349, Toronto (City) vs Benczkowski
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
August 28, 2025
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):
J. BENCZKOWSKI
Property Address:
164 HOMEWOOD AVE
COA File No.:
25 119587 NNY 18 MV (A0076/25NY)
TLAB Case File No.:
25 146087 S45 18 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
Wednesday, August 27, 2025
Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Panel Member R. KANTER
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
APPLICANT
J. BENCZKOWSKI
APPELLANT
CITY OF TORONTO
U. GAUTAM
S. BARNETT
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This is an appeal by the Applicant from a decision of the City of Toronto (the "City") Committee of Adjustment (the "C of A") approving two variances at 164 Homewood Avenue (24 119587 NNY 18 MV (A0076/25NY).
2On August 6, 2025, the City received a letter from the Applicant. The letter stated that the Applicant intends to withdraw its appeal before the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the "TLAB") without prejudice to any future C of A applications.
3On August 7, 2025 counsel for the City wrote to the TLAB. The City consented to the withdrawal of the appeal "without prejudice to any future development applications." It submitted that the TLAB should convert the oral hearing scheduled for August 27, 2025, to a written hearing.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
4Provincial Interest - S. 2
A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest, enumerated as (a) – (s) in the Planning Act.
5Provincial Policy – S. 3
A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) must be consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan) for the subject area.
6Variance – S. 45(1)
In considering the applications for variances from the Zoning By-laws, the TLAB Panel 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.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
7There was no evidence presented for the written hearing. Consequently, there was no need to consider the legislative and policy framework, since the owners wish to withdraw the application approved by the C of A on the understanding that such withdrawal will not affect their rights to bring an application in the future.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
8The only issue was the effect that the dismissal would have on any future application. It was agreed by both Parties that since no evidence was heard on the merits of the application at this Hearing, rese judicata would not apply to any future application, and that any future application would be the subject of a hearing de novo.
CONCLUSION
9On the consent of both Parties, representing the owners and the City, the appeal should be allowed without prejudice to future applications for development.
DECISION AND ORDER
10This appeal is hereby allowed, the decision of the C of A overturned, and the variances are not approved, without prejudice to future applications for development.
R. Kanter
Panel Member