Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
2025-09-02
25 163305 S45 01 TLAB
Toronto (City) vs GPF Design, 2025 ONTLAB 350
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
September 2, 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):
GPF DESIGN
Property Address:
14 Restever Gate
COA File No.:
25 127428 WET 01 MV (A0130/25EYK)
TLAB Case File No.:
25 163305 S45 01 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
28/08/2025
Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Vice-Chair A. Bassios
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Applicant
GPF DESIGN
Appellant
CITY OF TORONTO
MICHELLE LAFORTUNE
Participant L. PERIN
Participant R. ISSAC
Participant D. SINAPOLI
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1On May 1, 2025, the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment (COA) approved variances for the property known as 14 Restever Gate (subject property).
2The purpose of the application was to construct a new detached fourplex.
3The subject property is located in central Etobicoke and is designated Neighbourhoods in the Official Plan and zoned RD.
4On May 24, 2025, the City of Toronto (City) appealed the decision of the COA to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the "TLAB"). The stated reasons for the City's appeal focused on the negative impact to By-law protected trees.
5A TLAB Notice of Hearing was published, identifying August 28, 2025, as the Hearing date and setting out document submission dates in accordance with the TLAB Rules of Policy and Procedure.
6In addition to the two Parties to this matter (the City and the Applicant), three neighbours elected to be Participants in this matter.
7On July 25, 2025, counsel for the City of Toronto forwarded to the TLAB an email from the Applicant which confirmed that the Applicant did not intend to pursue the variances in the matter before the TLAB.
8The City requested that the TLAB allow the City's Appeal on the basis that the Applicant did not intend to provide evidence in support of the previous COA approvals and would not argue the merits of the variances at the Appeal Hearing.
9As the dates for submission of Expert Witness Statements and Witness Statements had passed without submissions from either of the Parties, and testimony in support of the variances would therefore not be heard, the TLAB Hearing was converted from a virtual hearing to a written hearing. Parties and Participants were informed accordingly.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
10Provincial 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.
11Provincial Policy – S. 3
A Decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) must be consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement for the subject area.
12Variance – 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
13Participant statements were received from each of the elected Participants.
14No Applicant Disclosure was received from the Applicant by the due date and no Witness Statement in support of the variances was received by the due date set out in the Notice of Hearing.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
15An Appeal before the TLAB is a hearing de novo, which means that the entire application must be heard anew. The burden falls on the Applicant to prove their case, even when the COA has previously authorized the requested variances.
16The Applicant is required to satisfy the TLAB that its application satisfies the four tests mandated by s. 45(1) of the Act. For the variances to be approved, the Applicant must put before the Tribunal the evidence necessary to enable the Tribunal to make findings required by the Act.
17There was no evidence from the Applicant in this matter, and the Applicant has confirmed to the City that they would not be pursuing the approval of the variances before the TLAB.
CONCLUSION
18In absence of necessary evidence that the variances meet the statutory tests set out in the Planning Act, and in recognition that the Applicant has chosen not to pursue approvals of the variances before the TLAB, I agree with the City that the City's Appeal should be allowed.
DECISION AND ORDER
19The appeal of the Committee of Adjustment Decision is allowed; the decision of the Committee dated May 1, 2025, is set aside and the variances are not granted.
A. Bassios
Panel Chair