Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
25 116839 S45 14 TLAB
Van Duffelen (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 407
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: April 10, 2026
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER Subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the "Act")
Appellant(s): S. V. DUFFELEN
Applicant(s): CRAIG RACE ARCHITECTURE INC
Property Address: 188 COXWELL AVE
COA File No.: 24 217442 STE 14 MV (A0903/24TEY)
TLAB Case File No.: 25 116839 S45 14 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): Thursday, March 12, 2026
Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings: Tuesday, March 31, 2026
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member R. Kanter
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Applicant
CRAIG RACE ARCHITECTURE INC
Appellant/Owner
S. V. DUFFELEN
S. V. Duffelen
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1On September 24, 2024, Simon van Duffelen (the “Appellant/Owner”) applied to the Committee of Adjustment (the “C of A”) for minor variances to permit interior alterations and a second storey addition to an existing one-story ancillary building (detached garage) to permit the construction of two garden suites containing two units (the “Application”).
2On January 21, 2025, a Toronto Community Planning Staff Report (the “Staff Report”) recommended that the Application be refused. Staff expressed concern primarily with respect to the proposal for two units and the size of the units.
3On February 4, 2025, the C of A refused eight (8) variances to permit the alteration of the existing garage into two garden suites.
4On February 13, 2025, the Appellant/Owner appealed the C of A decision to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the “TLAB”).
5The appeal was originally scheduled to be heard by the TLAB in June 2025 but was adjourned on consent to January 21, 2026.
6The Appellant/Owner retained a witness, who prepared an Expert Witness Statement dated September 23, 2025.
7The hearing was further adjourned on consent to March 12, 2026, when it was heard by TLAB. The hearing was attended by the Appellant/Owner and his witness, Mr. Blair Scorgie. Neither the City nor residents attended the hearing.
8I asked the Appellant/Owner to provide additional documentation, which he did on March 25 and March 31, 2026.
9According to the additional documentation, the Appellant/Owner requested six (6) variances to:
- Permit two (2) garden suites (1 permitted);
- Maintain 29% of the rear yard as soft landscaping (50% required);
- Reduce north side yard setback to 0.30 m, and south side yard setback to 0.23 m (0.83 m required);
- Allow a gross floor area (“GFA”) for the garden suites greater than the residential building on the lot (the GFA of the ancillary building is required to be less than the GFA of the residential building);
- Allow the garden suites to have a maximum GFA of 178.2 m2 (120 m2 permitted); and
- Allow the garden suites to cover 29% of the lot (area of the lot covered by the ancillary buildings not to exceed 20% of the lot area.)
10The additional documentation included Updated site plans and elevations dated March 23, 2026, and documented Council & Mayoral approval of Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) 824 and By-law 849-2025, which amended Zoning By-law 569-2013 (the “ZBL”).
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
11Provincial 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.
12Provincial Policy – S. 3
A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) must be consistent with the 2024 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and conform with any provincial plans for the subject area.
13Variance – 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
14The Owner/Appellant called Mr. Blair Scorgie as a witness. I reviewed Mr. Scorgie’s education and experience and qualified him as an expert witness able to give opinion evidence in the fields of land use planning and urban design.
15Mr. Scorgie reviewed his Expert Witness Statement (the “Statement”) and provided additional oral evidence.
16The Statement described 188 Coxwell Avenue (the Site). The Site currently contains a small one-storey house fronting on Coxwell Avenue. There is a wooden deck to the rear of the house, and a garden shed to the rear of the deck.
17The Site also contains a large garage at the rear of the Site, with an area larger than the house. The garage is also located closer to the north and south side lot lines than the house. The garage has access to Coxwell Avenue via a concrete driveway.
18The Statement described the proposed garden suites. They would be built on the footprint of the existing garage and would retain at least 50% of the existing exterior walls of the garage. Their location would maintain the existing condition with respect to reduced side yard setbacks.
19Mr. Scorgie explained that each garden suite would have an interior floor area of approximately 77 m2. He opined that building two modest-size garden suites rather than the creation of one large dwelling unit would better meet the planning objective of creating more housing.
20Mr. Scorgie stated that the rear deck and garden shed would be removed if the Application was allowed. The amount of rear yard soft landscaping and ancillary lot coverage would be improved by the construction of the garden suites, compared to the existing condition.
21Mr. Scorgie stated that the Site is designated Neighbourhoods in the Toronto Official Plan (“OP”). He noted that a sixplex is now allowed on this Site as of right.
22He emphasized that Coxwell Avenue is identified as a Major Street in the OP. According to Mr. Scorgie, a 6-storey apartment dwelling, up to 19 m in height, containing up to 60 units, is now permitted under the Major Street framework.
23Mr. Scorgie opined that the Application meets the policies set out in the “PPS”) which provides a range and mix of housing types and tenures through all types of housing options, including garden suites.
24Mr. Scorgie reviewed the Toronto Official Plan (“OP”). In February 2022, City Council adopted OPA 554 which permitted garden suites within all areas designated as Neighbourhoods, subject to policies including the following:
- defined as one (1) self-contained unit, subordinate to a primary dwelling;
- will ensure direct and safe fire and emergency service access; and
- will ensure that the interior floor area of the Garden Suite is less than the gross floor area of the residential building on the lot.
25OPA 554 allows an application to increase to the maximum permitted footprint under Section 45 of the Planning Act, if the majority of the rear yard is maintained as open space, and soft landscaping is maximized.
26In June 2024, following consideration of a Garden Suites Monitoring Program – Final Report, (the Garden Suites Report) Council approved a draft OPA, which deleted the requirement that the interior floor area of the Garden Suite be less than the gross floor area of the residential building on the lot.
27Mr. Scorgie opined that the Application maintained the general intent and purpose of the OP. It would provide additional rental housing through gentle intensification on a Major Street. The Application would respect and reinforce the prevailing character of the area, which contains a mix of single family and multi-unit dwellings on the same side of the same block.
28Mr. Scorgie reviewed the Zoning By-law 569-2013 as amended (the “ZBL”) with respect to garden suites.
29He stated that the requested variances for soft landscaping, side yard setbacks and lot coverage would represent an improvement over existing conditions.
30Mr. Scorgie noted that the C of A has approved two (2) garden suites at a number of other locations.
31Mr. Scorgie discussed the variances requested to increase the size of each unit, increase lot coverage and reduce the amount of soft landscaping. In his opinion, the larger size units would maintain generous open spaces, maintain rear yard amenities and avoid undue shadowing or overlook on adjacent properties.
32Mr. Scorgie discussed the size of the proposed garden suites relative to the size of the house on the site. Mr. Scorgie stated that the garden suites would contain 154.8 m2 of interior floor area, which exceeds the gross floor area of the house containing 67.9 m2. While the garden suites would exceed the size of the house, they would remain subordinate to it in form and function and be smaller than potential mid-rise development permitted along Coxwell Avenue.
33Mr. Scorgie opined that the Application would maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL with respect to the relative size of the garden suites, as well as the other variances requested.
34He noted that two variances concerning the angular plane were no longer required, as a result of Amending O. Reg.299/19 and By-law 849-2025.
35I determined that the amendment to the application before the C of A is minor, and I can make a decision on an application for two fewer variances than those before the C of A, pursuant to Section 18.1 and 18.1.1 of the Act.
36I asked Mr. Scorgie to clarify his opinion in view of the recent amendment to the ZBL provision concerning the size of the garden suites. According to the ZBL 569-2013, amended by By-law 849-2025 approved in June 2025:
“The gross floor area of an ancillary building containing a garden suite must be less than the gross floor area of the residential building on a lot.”
37I asked Mr. Scorgie to explain how the Application would maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL with respect to:
(a) the relative size of the garden suites, and (b) the change in calculation of garden suite area from interior floor area to gross floor area (“GFA”).
38Mr. Scorgie responded by elaborating on his Statement that the garden suites should be compared to the anticipated permission for redevelopment of the house on the lot. In his opinion, the ZBL contemplated the potential future development of the house on the lot, as well as its current form. The current small bungalow on the lot is nearing the end of its useful life, and would likely be redeveloped with a larger house, possibly as a fourplex or sixplex. The language of the amended ZBL did not limit the house to its existing size but should consider what is allowed on the Site in the future. Planning should be future oriented rather than static.
39Mr. Scorgie considered the change in measurement from interior floor area to gross floor area largely a technical matter. He estimated that the GFA of the garden suites would be somewhat larger than their interior floor area, perhaps 170 m2. He agreed to file updated site plans showing the GFA of the garden suites.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
40There are two issues requiring my detailed consideration:
(a) the addition of two garden suites rather than one; and (b) the size of the garden suite(s) relative to the house.
41The OP defines a Garden Suite to mean:
“a self-contained living accommodation for a person or persons living together as a separate single housekeeping unit . . . and is in an ancillary.
building not abutting a lane.” (Chapter 800.50 Defined Terms).
42The ZBL provides use requirements as follows:
“an ancillary building may be used for living accommodation in one garden suite.” (Chapter 150.7.20 (1)(A))
43Chapter 150.7 of the ZBL also sets out numerous development standards for garden suites, regulating yards, setbacks, separation from the residential building on a lot, size, lot coverage etc.
44The Garden Suites Report noted that there were four applications for double garden suites in a single ancillary building, two of which were approved by the C of A. It recommended that applications for two garden suites continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
45Mr. Scorgie provided additional examples of applications for two garden suites approved by the C of A. He also provided his opinion that dividing the garden suite into two units avoids an oversize single dwelling with functional layouts that support liveability while maintaining a modest outward form.
46I accept Mr. Scorgie’s unrefuted evidence that two units (suites) constitute good planning in these circumstances and approve the variance to create two garden suites.
47By Closing Submissions filed on March 25, 2026, and Updated Plans filed on March 31, 2026, the Appellant/Owner submitted and illustrated the following:
(a) GFA, existing house: 67.9 m2 (b) GFA, existing garage: 93 m2 (c) GFA, proposed garden suites: 178.2 m2. (GS#1-89 m2; GS#2-89.2 m2)
The proposed garden suites would be approximately 2.6 times as large as the existing house.
48OPA 554 eliminated the requirement that the interior floor area of the garden suite be less than the gross floor area of the primary dwelling. According to the Garden Suite Report:
“The amendment to the current language in the OPA would allow reasonable flexibility for the development of a garden suite when there is an existing small house form on the lot without the need for an Official Plan Amendment” (Page 18).
49By-law 849-2025 replaced the words “interior floor area of an ancillary building” with the words “gross floor area of an ancillary building” but still requires the garden suite to have a smaller area than the residential building on the lot. (s. 150.7.60.50(2)).
50Mr. Scorgie opined that I should interpret the words of the ZBL liberally, so that I take account of the size of the existing garage to be replaced, and the potential future development of the primary residence located on a Major Street, rather than the current size of the primary residence. He also stressed the good urban design of the Application, which would ensure that the building appears subordinate to the primary residence when viewed from surrounding properties and Coxwell Avenue.
51In accordance with the modern approach to statutory interpretation, I will read the words of the Planning Act (the “Act”) concerning the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law in the context of the entire Act, harmoniously with the scheme of the Act.1
52The Act requires the TLAB to have regard to numerous objectives, including:
“the adequate provision of a full range of housing” (Section 2 (j))
53The Act also requires the TLAB to have regard to the Staff Report and the C of A Decision. I have reviewed them but given them less weight since they were not backed up by evidence or submissions at the TLAB hearing. (Section 2.1)
54The Act further requires TLAB’s decision to be consistent with the PPS, which requires planning authorities to support a range and mix of housing options, which specifically includes garden suites (Section 2.4.1 #2 and 8 Housing Options)
55I will accept the uncontested evidence of Mr. Scorgie in this case and allow the Application with respect to the GFA of the garden suites in comparison to the GFA of the primary residence on the Site.
56My decision is limited to the facts of this case. I would not approve garden suites substantially larger than an existing residence without the specific circumstances existing in this case, including but not limited to the existing condition on the Site, and the location of the Site on a Major Street.
57I find that the variances, individually and cumulatively, meet the tests in Section 45 of the Act.
CONCLUSION
58I will allow the appeal, subject to conditions set out below.
DECISION AND ORDER
I will allow the appeal and authorize the variances set out in Schedule 1, attached.
I will impose the following conditions:
- The demolition and the construction of two garden suites shall be completed substantially in accordance with Site Plans and Elevations prepared by Craig Race Architecture Inc. issued for TLAB March 23, 2026, attached as Schedule 2.
- The Appellant shall submit a complete application for a permit to injure or remove a privately owned tree(s), as per City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 813,
Trees Article III Private Tree Protection.
R. Kanter
Panel Member
Schedule 1
Schedule 2