Toronto (City) v. Mohan, 2025 ONTLAB 351

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2025-09-19

25 166536 S45 14 TLAB

Toronto (City) vs Mohan, 2025 ONTLAB 351

Issuance Date:

September 19, 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):

Applicant(s):

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):

September 15, 2025

Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:

Decision Delivered By:

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Applicant/Party

Appellant

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1This was a written settlement hearing before the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the “Tribunal”) pursuant to an Interim Decision released on August 11, 2025.

2The City of Toronto appealed an approval by the Toronto and East York panel of the Committee of Adjustment of a minor variance application to construct an addition to an existing house and an ancillary building containing one laneway suite on the property located at 80 Lamb Avenue (the “Subject Property”).

3The Subject Property is located south of the Danforth, between Mountjoy Ave to the north and Felstead Ave to the south. The Subject Property fronts on Lamb Ave to the east, with a laneway at the rear of the Subject Property. The rear of the Subject Property faces the east side of the laneway, and on the west side of the laneway is a large public park, Felstead Avenue Playground. In other words, the laneway is between the rear of the property and a large public park.

4The Applicant filed an Applicant’s Disclosure that was marked as being received on July 3, 2025. The Applicant’s Disclosure modified the proposal and reduced the number of variances being sought from 3 to 1.

5There 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.

6I have visited the Subject Property and the surrounding neighbourhood in which it is situated.

Late Filing of Applicant’s Written Submissions

7The Interim Decision set a deadline for Applicant to make additional written submissions by August 26, 2025. The Applicant’s written submissions were received September 3, 2025.

8The Tribunal’s Practice Direction 7 deals with Late Filings. It notes that “The presiding Member has the discretion under the TLAB’s Rules and under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, to admit or refuse to admit late filed materials.”

9The Practice Direction further states that “In general, save for extenuating circumstances, minimal non-prejudicial delay or where consented to by other Parties, the late filed Applicant’s Disclosure will not be admitted into the record.”

10The City of Toronto stated in its written submissions that it does not take issue with the late filing of the Applicant’s written submissions. I find that there is minimal non-prejudicial delay in the late filing of the materials which relate to a settlement reached with the Appellant, and I admit the late filed materials.

Requested Minor Variances

11The originally requested three minor variances are being outlined below. However, I want to make it very clear that the only minor variance before the Tribunal is variance 2.

12The originally requested variances are as follows:

Chapter 150.8.60.40.(1)(B), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted height of an ancillary building containing a laneway suite, located 7.5 m or more from the residential building on the same lot, is 6.3 m.

The ancillary building containing one laneway suite will be located 5 m from the residential building on the same lot and will have a height of 6.3 m.

Chapter 150.8.60.40.(6)(A)(B), By-law 569-2013

Equipment, structures or parts of a building used for the functional operation of the building must not cover more than 30% of the area of the roof, measured horizontally and be located closer than 1.5 m to the main walls of the ancillary building.

The enclosed stairwell will be located 0 m from the side (north) main walls of the ancillary building.

Chapter 150.8.60.30.(1)(B), By-law 569-2013

An ancillary building containing a laneway suite must be no less than 7.5 m from a residential building on the same lot if the height of the ancillary building is greater than 4 m.

The ancillary building containing one laneway suite will be located 5 m from the residential building on the same lot and will have a height of 6.3 m.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

13Provincial 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.

14Provincial Policy – S. 3

A Decision of the Tribunal must be consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement for the subject area.

15Variance – 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.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

16The Applicant’s Disclosure received by the Tribunal on July 3, 2025 eliminated two of the requested variances.

17The Applicant submitted further revised drawings dated August 14, 2025, but did not seek any changes to the requested variance as a result of these revised drawings.

18The Applicant provided written submissions on September 3, 2025, which reviewed the requested variance and the section 45(1) test under the Planning Act.

19The City of Toronto provided written submissions dated September 5, 2025, where the City indicated that it is satisfied that the settlement proposal, as reflected in the amended architectural plans dated August 14, 2025, addresses the City’s concerns. The City does not oppose the Tribunal granting the application on the basis of these plans.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

20To be clear, the only variance before the Tribunal is variance 2, which relates to the laneway suite and is as follows:

Chapter 150.8.60.40.(6)(A)(B), By-law 569-2013

The enclosed stairwell will be located 0 m from the side (north) main walls of the ancillary building.

21I find that the proposed variance meets various matters of provincial interest outlined in section 2 of the Planning Act, including: (p) the appropriate location of growth and development; and (q) the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians. I find that the proposal meets matters of provincial interest as outlined in section 2 of the Planning Act.

22I find that the proposed variance is consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement, including policies dealing with the need to achieve complete communities. I will not be reviewing these Policies in further detail. I have considered the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement in the context of this proposal, and I find the proposal to be consistent with this document.

23I will now briefly review the four tests under section 45(1). The Applicant referred to Chapter 4.1.5 of the Official Plan and stated that the proposal is of a similar size, massing, density, and dwelling type of nearby properties. From my site visit, it appeared that this proposal will not be the only laneway suite on this laneway. I agree with the Applicant’s position noted above, and in addition, I have considered other relevant policies under Chapter 4 and the Official Plan as a whole, and find that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

24In terms of the Zoning By-law, the applicant stated that the proposal now locates the enclosed stairwell in the laneway suite 0 metres from the north and east main walls, 3m from the south main wall, and 3m from the west main wall of the ancillary building. All other rooftop equipment (heat pump) will be setback 1.5m from the main walls, which is compliant with the Zoning By-law. In addition, the combined area of the enclosed stairwell and all rooftop equipment does not cover more 30% of the area of the roof. The Applicant takes the position which I accept that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law to limit the amount and visibility of rooftop equipment is maintained.

25The proposal calls for the addition to an existing house and the building of a laneway suite. In addition, there is a public park on the other side of the laneway. The future residents will have close access to this public park. I find that the proposal is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land.

26The test for whether a proposal is considered minor is whether there is an unacceptable adverse impact. I find that there are no built form impacts resulting from the proposal that would rise to the level of being considered to be an unacceptable undue adverse impact. I find that the proposal is minor in nature.

CONCLUSION

27In conclusion, I find that the proposed variance has regard to matters of provincial interest, is consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement, and meets the four statutory tests outlined in section 45(1) of the Planning Act. The proposal meets the requirements to be considered a minor variance.

DECISION AND ORDER

28The Appeal is allowed by denying the originally requested variances 1 and 3, and by allowing variance 2 on the following condition:

a. The proposed development shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the revised Plan dated August 14, 2025.

T. Kezwer

Panel Member