Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
Date:
2025-12-16
25 201310 S45 09 TLAB
25 201321 S45 09 TLAB
Jovanovic & Kinch (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 379
INTERIM DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
December 16, 2025
PROCEEDING COMMENCED Section 45(12), subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the "Act")
Appellant(s):
K. KINCH
M. JOVANOVIC
Applicant(s):
LANTERN BUILDING DESIGN
Property Address:
204-206 Gladstone Ave
COA File No.:
25 152135 STE 09 MV (A0322/25TEY)
25 152183 STE 09 MV (A0321/25TEY)
TLAB Case File No.:
25 201310 S45 09 TLAB
25 201321 S45 09 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
November 07, 2025
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Panel Member B. Gallaugher
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Applicant
Appellant
LANTERN BUILDING DESIGN
K. KINCH
M. JOVANOVIC
Appellant
Participant
M. JOVANOVIC
P. COSTA
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This appeal is from two decisions of the Committee of Adjustment, issued July 15, 2025, which refused two applications, each for three variances, that would permit the conversion of existing one-storey ancillary buildings (attached garages in the rear yard, abutting the laneway) into two-storey ancillary buildings with a front canopy (containing a one-car garage on the ground level with a laneway suite that would occupy the second level), by constructing a front two-storey addition and a complete second storey addition. This proposal would apply to each of 204 and 206 Gladstone Avenue. The variances are slightly different for each address.
2The Appeals for both applications have been consolidated into one Appeal.
3The variances requested for 204 Gladstone Avenue were:
- Chapter 150.8.50.10.(1)(B), By-law 569-2013
A minimum of 60% (68.88 m²) of the area between all rear main walls of the residential building and the front main wall of the ancillary building containing a laneway suite must be for soft landscaping.
In this case, 50% (57.91 m²) of the area between all rear main walls of the residential building and the front main wall of the ancillary building containing a laneway suite will be maintained as soft landscaping.
- Chapter 150.8.60.30.(5), By-law 569-2013
The maximum permitted length of an ancillary building containing a laneway suite is 10 m.
The ancillary building containing one laneway suite will have a length of 12.64 m.
- Chapter 150.8.60.40.(1)(B), By-law 569-2013
The maximum permitted height of an ancillary building containing a laneway suite is 6.3 m if the ancillary building containing a laneway suite is located 7.5 m or more from the residential building on the lot.
The ancillary building containing one laneway suite will be located more than 7.5 m from the residential building on the same lot and will have a height of 7.32 m.
4The variances requested for 206 Gladstone Avenue were:
- Chapter 150.8.50.10.(1)(B), By-law 569-2013
A minimum of 85% (68.4 m²) of the area between all rear main walls of the residential building and the front main wall of the ancillary building containing a laneway suite must be for soft landscaping.
In this case, 72% (57.9 m²) of the area between all rear main walls of the residential building and the front main wall of the ancillary building containing a laneway suite will be maintained as soft landscaping.
- Chapter 150.8.60.30.(5), By-law 569-2013
The maximum permitted length of an ancillary building containing a laneway suite is 10 m.
The ancillary building containing one laneway suite will have a length of 12.64 m.
- Chapter 150.8.60.40.(1)(B), By-law 569-2013
The maximum permitted height of an ancillary building containing a laneway suite is 6.3 m if the ancillary building containing a laneway suite is located 7.5 m or more from the residential building on the lot.
The ancillary building containing one laneway suite will be located more than 7.5 m from the residential building on the same lot and will have a height of 7.06 m.
5I visited the site in person and familiarized myself with the neighbourhood. The two existing garages are attached to each other and attached to the garage on the property to the south (202 Gladstone Ave.) and to the garage to the north (208 Gladstone Ave.).
6Prior to the hearing, the Appellant, M. Jovanovic, wrote informally to the TLAB asking for an adjournment, as he had changed the plans for these two ancillary buildings to reduce the number and magnitude of the variances.
7He said he had obtained an updated Zoning Review for each property but these documents had not been submitted to the TLAB or other Participants.
8Mr. Jovanovic and Mr. Costa, representing the owners of 208 Gladstone Ave., were present at the hearing. It became clear at the beginning of the hearing that these individuals were not familiar with the procedures or requirements of the TLAB. They had not followed the procedures outlined in the Rules of Practice and Procedure and had not submitted the required documents.
THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND FRAMEWORK
9Provincial 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.
10Provincial 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.
11Variance – 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
12No evidence was submitted.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
13Mr. Costa lives at 208 Gladstone Ave. (the abutting property to the north) and is representing his parents, who are the owners of that property.
14He had submitted a Participant Statement prior to the hearing outlining his concerns. His issues are not of a planning nature, instead they relate to construction matters and minimizing disruptions during construction, should the variances be approved.
15I urged Mr. Jovanovic to meet with Mr. Costa to come to an agreement, in writing, on the issues raised by Mr. Costa.
CONCLUSION
16An adjournment is appropriate to allow the Appellant and Participant to follow the requirements of the TLAB’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
DECISION AND ORDER
17The hearing is adjourned until January 9, 2026.
18TLAB staff are directed to issue a new Notice of Hearing
B. Gallaugher
Panel Member