OTLAB 2025

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances for a residential addition.

Prior to the hearing, all parties consented to allowing the appeal without prejudice to future applications.

As no evidence was heard, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and overturned the variances on consent, noting that res judicata would not apply to future applications.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of five minor variances for a property located at 775 Vaughan Road.

The variances sought to increase the building height from 38 to 45 storeys, increase gross floor area, and adjust setback and amenity space requirements to facilitate a purpose-built rental building with additional community benefits.

The Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were approved subject to conditions securing affordable housing or community cultural space.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to sever two existing lots into three and construct new detached dwellings.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, preferring the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the proposed lots and variances respected and reinforced the existing physical character of the neighbourhood, which was in transition.

The applications were found to meet the criteria under the Planning Act.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing two variances to permit 'as-built' landscape features.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body issued a Notice of Proposed Dismissal because the appellants had not provided written reasons and grounds for the appeal.

The appellants subsequently submitted a letter outlining their reasons.

The TLAB Chair found that the deficiency had been addressed and ordered that the appeal proceed to a hearing.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying minor variances for a property in Toronto.

The applicant sought to convert an existing detached house into a triplex, requiring variances for building length and stairway width to accommodate below-grade excavation for a furnace room and basement units.

The Tribunal found that the amended variances were minor and did not require further notice.

Applying the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and considering the specific policies for multiplexes under SASP 826, the Tribunal concluded the variances maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable, and were minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were approved subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying consent to sever a residential lot and associated minor variances to construct two new two-storey detached duplexes.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed severance and variances met the statutory criteria.

The Tribunal found that the proposal conformed to the Official Plan's gentle intensification policies, maintained the general intent of the Zoning By-law, was desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and was minor in nature.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision that approved nine variances for a mixed-use development at 2 Tecumseth Street.

The appeal was filed to add a technical condition ensuring that visitor parking continues to be provided at the rate contemplated by the site plan, despite site-specific zoning that required no visitor parking.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed to endorse the Committee's approval subject to three conditions, including the new visitor parking requirement.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing a minor variance application.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the appellants withdrew their appeals.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeals and closed the file.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision regarding a minor variance application.

During the hearing, the City of Toronto sought to qualify an assistant planner as an expert witness in land use planning.

The applicant objected, noting the proposed witness lacked a university degree, was not a member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute, and had falsely claimed in his curriculum vitae to have been previously qualified as an expert by the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body refused to qualify the witness, finding his lack of credentials and the false statement damaged his credibility.

The hearing was adjourned on consent to allow the City to retain a new expert witness.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit a children's outdoor play area in the front and side yards and to reduce the required parking to zero for an existing day nursery.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert evidence that the parking reduction would improve safety and pick-up/drop-off operations, and that the play area locations were appropriate and partially recognized by an existing encroachment agreement.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing seven minor variances.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the appellant withdrew their appeal.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal as abandoned, rendering the Committee of Adjustment's decision final and binding.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting an approval to the applicant.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the City withdrew its appeal by email.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal as abandoned, rendering the Committee of Adjustment decision final and binding.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to permit an additional two-bedroom unit in the basement of a heritage apartment building.

The tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide any expert land use planning evidence to support the application.

Furthermore, evidence from the City and residents demonstrated ongoing Building Code violations, unauthorized construction, and significant adverse impacts on existing tenants, including raw sewage leaks and lack of heat.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were not authorized.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing four minor variances required to construct a two-storey south side addition and a rear partial second-storey addition to an existing dwelling.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the requested variances for building length, depth, floor space index, and side yard setbacks met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the variances were consistent with the neighbourhood character and would not create undue adverse impacts on adjacent properties.

The Leaside Residents Association brought a motion requesting that the Applicant be ordered to file a new Zoning Notice or Waiver to include additional variances from a previous Committee of Adjustment decision not under appeal, and to determine the building type.

The Tribunal dismissed most of the motion, holding that it only has jurisdiction over the specific Committee of Adjustment decision under appeal and cannot dictate which variances an applicant must seek.

The Tribunal did order the Applicant to file an amended Applicant's Disclosure outlining the two specific minor variances currently being requested prior to the hearing.

The Summerhill Residents Association requested a review of a TLAB decision that authorized minor variances for a rear three-storey addition to a townhouse.

The Association alleged that the presiding Member violated procedural fairness by plagiarizing the applicant's expert planner, made errors of law regarding Official Plan policies on prevailing density, and acted outside jurisdiction by approving a landscaping variance involving encroachments.

The TLAB Chair dismissed the review request, finding no evidence of bias, plagiarism, or jurisdictional error.

The Chair held that the presiding Member properly exercised discretion in preferring the expert planner's evidence over the Association's submissions and correctly applied the statutory tests.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to permit a 6-storey self-storage warehouse in an Employment zone.

The requested variances included permitting a self-storage warehouse use, increasing the maximum floor space index, and allowing a loading space with vehicle access through a main front wall.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed self-storage warehouse is a hybrid use permitted in a General Employment Area.

The tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, are minor, and are desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The parties brought a motion for costs following an appeal regarding minor variances.

The motion was served one day after the 30-day deadline prescribed by the TLAB Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to extend the time limit, finding the delay to be minimal and non-prejudicial, and admitted the motion into the record.

A schedule for responding to the motion was established.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances for a warehouse.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant amended the application to include a new variance for a front yard loading space.

At a prehearing conference, the appellant requested an adjournment and argued that the amendment was minor, exempting it from further notice requirements under s. 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the addition of a front yard loading space variance was not minor.

The hearing was adjourned sine die and a new notice of hearing was ordered to be issued.

The City of Toronto appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval of minor variances for a proposed mixed-use development at 1306-1310 The Queensway.

The parties reached a settlement that maintained the approved variances but added a condition requiring the applicant to make a $126,291 cash contribution for local capital improvements.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Toronto Local Appeal Body found the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and allowed the appeal to implement the settlement condition.