Collins (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 413

Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253

Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2026-05-07

25 217122 S45 19 TLAB

Collins (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 413

Issuance Date:

May 7, 2026

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Appellant(s):

Applicant(s):

Property Address:

156 GLEBEMOUNT AVE

COA File No.:

25 170828 STE 19 MV (A0444/25TEY)

TLAB Case File No.:

25 217122 S45 19 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

January 6, 2026 and April 16, 2026

Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:

Decision Delivered By:

TLAB Panel Member A. Brown

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Appellant

B. C. Collins

M. A. Nemanic

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1This is an Appeal of a decision of the Committee of Adjustment issued on August 19, 2025, refusing the Appellant’s request for variances. The subject property is located at 156 Glebemount Avenue. It currently contains two residential units and a commercial space. The Appellant seeks to convert the commercial space into a third residential unit in the building.

2There are no parties or participants other than the Appellant.

3The Appeal was heard over two days, January 6, 2026 and April 16, 2026, by means of the City of Toronto WebEx virtual platform. On the first day, the matter was adjourned at the request of the Appellant, after due consideration by the Tribunal.

4I advised those present that I had visited the subject property and surrounding area, in accordance with the direction of City Council, and that I had reviewed the pre-filed materials in preparation for the hearing.

5The subject property is zoned Residential Semi-Detached (RS) Zone (f10.5; a325; d0.75(x312) under Zoning By-law 569-2013.

6The Requested variances to the Zoning By-law (as specified by the City Zoning Examiner’s Notice dated June 26, 2025) are:

Chapter 10.5.40.70.(1)(B), By-law 569-2013

The averaged minimum front yard setback is 4.50m.

The proposed front yard setback is 2.56m.

Chapter 10.40.30.10.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

The required minimum lot area is 325 m².

The proposed lot area is 167.23 m².

Chapter 10.40.30.20.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

The required minimum lot frontage is 10.5 m.

The proposed lot frontage is 6.09 m.

Chapter 10.40.30.40.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum lot coverage is 35% of the lot area (58.92 m²).

The proposed lot coverage is 78% of the lot area (131.45 m²).

Chapter 10.40.40.20.(1), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum building length for a residential building is 17.0m.

The proposed building length is 22.75 m.

Chapter 10.40.40.30.(1), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted building depth is 19.0m.

The proposed building depth is 20.41m.

Chapter 10.40.40.40.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013

The permitted maximum floor space index is 0.75 times the area of the lot

(126.26 m²).

The proposed floor space index equal to 1.52 times the area of the

lot (254.65 m²).

Chapter 10.40.40.70.(2)(A), By-law 569-2013

The required minimum rear yard setback is 7.5m.

The proposed rear yard setback is 2.12m.

Chapter 10.40.40.70.(3), By-law 569-2013

The required minimum side yard setback is 0.9m. where the required minimum lot frontage is less than 12.0m.

The proposed north side yard setback is 0.12m.

The proposed south side yard setback is 0.14m.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

7Provincial 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.

8Provincial 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.

9Variance – 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

10Exhibits:

Exhibit #1: Expert Witness Statement of Mathew Halo. The Expert Witness Statement included the Appellant’s proposed site plan, drawings, elevations, tables, maps, photographs, and the City Zoning Examiner’s Notice dated June 26, 2025.

Exhibit #2: Appellant’s Document Disclosure filed with the TLAB.

11Mathew Halo testified on behalf of the Appellant. A Registered Planner, he testified about his experience and qualifications in land use planning. His résumé was included in his Expert Witness Statement. I permitted Mr. Halo to provide expert evidence in the Appeal.

12Mr. Halo testified that the subject property is located within an established residential neighbourhood at the southwest corner of Glebemount Avenue and Sammon Avenue. He stated that the area is characterized by a “range of low-rise built form conditions, including variations in lot size, configuration and built form.” The property has a two-storey detached building. The existing floor plans show a commercial unit and a residential unit on the ground floor, and a residential unit on the second floor. There are two parking spaces.

13Mr. Halo stated that the broader neighbourhood context of the subject property consisted of four sub-areas, totalling 225 lots (the study area). The sub-areas were clearly shown on the aerial maps included in the Expert Witness Statement.

14Mr. Halo also testified that the immediate neighbourhood context is comprised of 21 lots within the same block as the subject property and the block on the opposite side of the street. These lots comprise 9.33% of the broader neighbourhood.

15No changes are proposed to the building’s footprint, height or massing. Limited exterior alterations are proposed to the ground floor facade to facilitate the residential use. The development will not result in any new impacts related to massing, overlook, privacy or shadowing.

16Mr. Halo stated that his study of the data for properties in the study area shows that compliance with By-law requirements for lot area, lot frontage, setbacks, lot coverage, building length, building depth and floor space index is “limited”. Indeed, he stated that “only a small proportion of lots meet the prescribed requirements, while the majority exhibit conditions that fall below the minimum standards or exceed the maximum permissions.” This deviation is the established pattern within the study area.

17According to a Table produced by Mr. Halo in his Witness Statement, 99.11% of the lots in the broader and immediate neighbourhoods do not comply with the minimum lot frontage requirement. 95.56% of the lots in the broader and immediate neighbourhoods do not comply with the minimum lot area and front yard setback requirements. 84.89% of the lots in the broader neighbourhood exceed the maximum lot coverage requirement of 35% (and according to the aerial study, no lots are compliant in the immediate context); 52% do not comply with the rear yard setback requirement; 72.22% and 84.89% do not comply with the “left” and “right” side yard setback requirement respectively.

18Mr. Halo explained that a greater proportion of lots in the broader and immediate neighbourhoods meet the By-law standards for building length (25 lots out of 225 are shown on the aerial photograph as being non-compliant) and building depth (38 lots out of 225 are non-compliant). The existing building does not meet the By-law standards. It is on a corner lot and is an historic mixed-use development. It sits on a lot that is smaller in size compared to other lots in the immediate context. The Floor Space Index (FSI) requirement (0.75) is exceeded by 94.67% of the 225 lots and all of the lots in the immediate Neighbourhood. The subject property was originally built as a mixed-use building, and its length, depth and FSI reflect that history. (The variance for the FSI is still sought because it is listed in the Zoning Examiner’s Notice.)

19Mr. Halo’s expert opinion is that “non-compliance with Zoning By-law performance standards is not only frequent, but represents a prevailing condition within both the broader and immediate neighbourhood contexts, including lots along the same street(s) and within the same block and immediately adjacent blocks.”

20Mr. Halo also testified about properties in the surrounding areas that transitioned to residential uses from their historic commercial or mixed-uses. A review by XCI Design + Architecture and Beiti Inc. (produced by the Appellant) looked at similar lots in the area around the subject property that had experienced a commercial to residential conversion, including 158A Woodmount Avenue, 236A, 254, 305, 346, 348, 393, 470, 471, 472 and 667 Sammon Avenue, 162 and 164 Donlands Avenue, 2A Kimbourne Avenue, and 128 Linsmore Crescent. Mr. Halo testified that these lots share characteristics with the subject property, being low-rise, modest in scale and massing, and integrating well within their neighbourhood. He stated that such conversions are an established pattern and reflect the existing built form and character in the area. Photographs of some of these conversions were included in the Appellant’s Disclosure.

21Planning Act

22Section 2(j) of the Planning Act lists “the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing” as a matter of provincial interest. Mr. Halo stated his opinion that the proposal satisfies the requirements of s.2 in that it will introduce an additional residential unit within an existing building. The property is zoned for residential use. It is not zoned for commercial use.

23Provincial Planning Statement (2024)

24Mr. Halo testified that the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) supports the introduction of additional housing within existing buildings where they are compatible with their surroundings. The proposal represents a modest form of intensification within an existing building, adding a three-bedroom residential unit to the neighbourhood.

25General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan

26The subject property is designated Neighbourhoods on Map 20 of the Official Plan. The Official Plan supports a full range of housing types within Neighbourhoods.

27Mr. Halo explained that OP Policy 4.1.5 requires that development in Neighbourhoods must respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the geographic neighbourhood, “including such matters as prevailing size and configuration of lots, building setbacks, and the height, massing, scale and overall built form of nearby residential lots.” Greater weight is given to the immediate context where differences exist compared to the broader context.

28The building type at 156 Glebemount is an existing condition and according to Mr. Halo, is “generally consistent with built forms found in the immediate context”. The proposal respects and reinforces the physical character of the Neighbourhood. The physical character is not uniform, having a range of lot sizes, frontages, setbacks and lot coverage.

29Mr. Halo also referred the Tribunal to OP Policy 4.1.9 which addresses infill development in established Neighbourhoods. In Mr. Halo’s opinion, the proposed development is consistent with Policy 4.1.9 in that the building will be compatible with the surrounding context and “maintains existing relationships with adjacent lots”. Similar buildings have transitioned from small-scale commercial or mixed-uses to residential uses.

30The Official Plan Site and Area Specific Policy 826 (SASP 826) establishes a policy framework pertaining to multiplex development within Neighbourhoods. Mr. Halo stated that the proposed development (a triplex) aligns with SASP 826 and supports incremental housing intensification within the Neighbourhood. There will be no change to the existing built form.

31In Mr. Halo’s expert opinion, the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

32General Intent and Purpose of Zoning By-law

33As mentioned previously, the subject property is zoned Residential Semi-Detached (RS) Zone (f10.5; a325; d0.75(x312) under Zoning By-law 569-2013. The proposed triplex is a permitted residential building type within the RS zone. The current ground floor non-residential use is not permitted as-of-right in the RS zone.

34Mr. Halo stated that the Zoning By-law establishes performance standards that function as built form controls intended to regulate relationships between buildings and lots. Minor variances can address site-specific conditions. The proposal does not change the building’s footprint, height or massing. There is no new or expanded development of the existing built form. The existing building already reflects the conditions that require the proposed variances. The data pertaining to the broader and immediate contexts demonstrates that the majority of existing lots do not comply with the current By-law.

35In Mr. Halo’s expert opinion, the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

36Desirable for the Appropriate Development or Use of the Land

37Mr. Halo stated that the proposal would add a residential unit within an existing building. It represents a gentle intensification within an established Neighbourhood, aligning with the Official Plan. The building is compatible with the surrounding properties. The proposal is consistent with a pattern of changing commercial uses into residential uses on several lots in the area. There are no new impacts caused by the proposed variances.

38In Mr. Halo’s opinion, the requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land.

39Minor in Nature

40Mr. Halo stated that the test for “minor” is based on its impact, rather than its numerical magnitude. In this Appeal, the variances would not result in adverse impacts on the surrounding area. The physical relationship between the building and adjacent lots remains unchanged. There are no new impacts. Mr. Halo opined that the subject property “does not represent an anomalous condition within the neighbourhood”.

41In Mr. Halo’s expert opinion, the requested variances are minor in nature.

42In summary, Mr. Halo expressed the opinion that the proposed variances meet the four tests in s.45(1) of the Planning Act, are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and have regard for requirements of s.2 of the Planning Act.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

43The Tribunal must determine whether the proposed variances are consistent with Provincial Planning Statement (2024), and whether they have regard for the provincial interests in s.2 of Planning Act. The onus is also on the Appellant to provide evidence to prove that the proposed variances meet all four statutory tests in section 45(1) of the Planning Act. That is, do the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law? Are they desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land? Are they minor in nature?

44A hearing before the TLAB is a hearing “de novo” under s.45(18) of the Planning Act (Act), meaning that the entire application that was before the Committee of Adjustment must be considered anew.

45A variance is a privilege and not a right. A variance will not be approved if it fails to meet all four tests. Although the building at 156 Glebemount Avenue already exists, the owner is neither penalized nor given extra latitude when the Tribunal considers the evidence and determines the outcome of the Appeal.

46Planning Act and Provincial Planning Statement

47I agree with Mr. Halo’s expert opinion that the Proposal is consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement. A general direction of the Provincial Statement is to encourage intensification at appropriate locations that can take advantage of existing services and infrastructure. The Proposal meets this objective. Moreover, I agree with Mr. Halo that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Interest specified in s.2(j) of the Planning Act, namely, the provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing.

48General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan

49The subject property is designated by the Official Plan as “Neighbourhoods”. Chapter 2.3 of the Official Plan states that Neighbourhoods are considered to be physically stable areas but not static:

Some physical change will occur over time as enhancements, additions and infill housing occurs on individual sites." (Ch. 2.3.1)

50Chapter 4 of the Official Plan states that:

While communities experience constant social and demographic change, the general physical character of Toronto’s residential Neighbourhoods endures. Physical changes to our established Neighbourhoods must be sensitive, gradual and “fit” the existing physical character. A key objective of this Plan is that new development respect and reinforce the general physical patterns in a Neighbourhood.

51Mr. Halo referred to Official Plan Policy 4.1.5, which states in part:

4.1.5 Development in established Neighbourhoods will respect and reinforce the existing physical character of each geographic neighbourhood, including in particular:

a. patterns of streets, blocks and lanes, parks and public building sites;

b. prevailing size and configuration of lots;

c. prevailing heights, massing, scale, density and dwelling type of nearby residential properties;

d. prevailing building type(s);

e. prevailing location, design and elevations relative to the grade of driveways and garages;

f. prevailing setbacks of buildings from the street or streets;

g. prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks and landscaped open space;

h. continuation of special landscape or built-form features that contribute to the unique physical character of the geographic neighbourhood; and

i. conservation of heritage buildings, structures and landscapes.

52Site and Area Specific Policy 826 establishes the criteria whereby a proposed multiplex is determined to fit within the existing and planned context of a neighbourhood in which it is located, further to the Neighbourhoods land use designation policies found in Section 4.1 of the Official Plan. The introduction to SASP 826 states:

Low-rise residential buildings that contain more than one unit make more efficient use of land, and provide more ground-related housing choices for all residents at all stages of their lives, supporting the vitality of the city’s Neighbourhoods. Multiplexes – residential buildings containing up to four units – can deliver additional dwellings while integrating with the general physical scale and development patterns of the neighbourhood. To accommodate the modest intensification needed to house more people, regulations for multiplexes may differ from single unit buildings to ensure efficient and livable homes for Toronto’s residents.

53SASP 826 delineates several objectives for multiplex development, including:

b. Development of multiplexes:

i. will maintain the low-rise built form of each geographic neighbourhood,

including in particular:

a) patterns of streets, blocks and lanes, parks and public building sites;

b) prevailing size and configuration of lots;

c) prevailing setbacks of buildings from the street or streets;

d) maximizing contiguous soft landscaping within front and rear yard

setbacks that is supportive of maintaining and expanding the urban tree

canopy;

e) conserving heritage properties and heritage conservation districts; and

f) special landscape or built-form features of the geographic neighbourhood;

ii. is encouraged to include large units, and should include at least one unit

that contains multiple bedrooms;

iii. will provide entrances that are safely accessible from the street, which may be

located at the front, side or rear of the building;

iv. should not result in the injury or removal of a healthy tree protected under

Municipal Code Chapters 608, 658, and 813 on the subject property and

adjacent properties;

v. is encouraged to salvage and/or reuse existing building materials and/or

foundations;

vi. is encouraged to provide green roof areas, solar panels, and low carbon

building materials, and to ensure any parking spaces are designed to permit

future electric vehicle supply equipment;

vii. will minimize privacy impacts between adjacent dwelling units;

viii. will integrate with existing grades at the property line; and

x. is encouraged to expand the urban tree canopy through the planting of a new

tree on a lot with a multiplex.

54The maps, measurements and photographs referred to by Mr. Halo provide a detailed picture of the broader context and the immediate context, in addition to information about the conversion of various properties in the area from commercial or mixed-use to residential use.

55I agree with Mr. Halo’s uncontroverted opinion that the proposal meets the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. Development in this neighbourhood largely predates the coming into force of By-law 569-2013. The prevailing character is established by the low-rise single family detached and semi-detached dwellings built long before the current By-law. As explained above, the data for properties in the study area show that only a small proportion of lots meet the pertinent requirements of Zoning By-law 569-2013. The majority of properties in the broader and immediate contexts fall below the minimum standards or exceed the maximum permissions for compliance for lot area, lot frontage, setbacks, and lot coverage. By-law compliance in the Neighbourhood is greater in respect of building depth and building length. The subject building sits on a corner lot and was originally constructed as a mixed-use development.

56What is required in considering this Appeal is a broad assessment of the relationship to the context, rather than a simple arithmetic calculation. I am satisfied that the proposed development will fit with the existing structures and with the physical character of the area. There are no changes to the existing external dimensions of the building, or to its placement upon the lot.

57The proposal satisfies the general intent and purpose of OP Policy 4.1.5 that development must respect and reinforce the prevailing physical character of the Neighbourhood.

58Moreover, the proposed conversion is consistent with the intent and purpose of SASP 826 (Multiplexes) to create additional housing in existing neighbourhoods. The criteria of this Policy are listed above. I agree with Mr. Halo that the relevant criteria are met by the Proposal. Indeed, many of the criteria in “b.1” of the Policy are met. The building already has 2 residential units. After the conversion, it will contain a third residential unit, with three bedrooms. The proposal will not create new privacy impacts on the neighbours. No trees are affected.

59General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law

60The Zoning By-law implements the City’s Official Plan and is intended (among other things) to permit and regulate multiplex residential buildings within existing neighbourhoods. The By-law is a broad instrument. Therefore variances are permitted by the Planning Act in order to address characteristics of individual lots and to provide flexibility in unique situations. In my view, this is a unique situation. The instant proposal is for a conversion to residential use in an existing building. It will change a legal non-conforming commercial use into a conforming residential use, providing the area with a new three bedroom apartment close to transit, without any noticeable negative impact upon the streetscape or upon the immediate neighbours. There have been several similar conversions in the area.

61Appropriate for the Development or Use of the Land

62I agree with the expert evidence of Mr. Halo that the proposed variances are appropriate for the development of the land, given that the Proposal is consistent with the Official Plan, represents a good fit within the existing context, will create additional housing, and represents a gentle intensification of the Neighbourhood.

63Are the Variances “Minor”?

64The courts have established that the test of “minor” is not that there be no impact, but that the imputed impact rises to the level of being an undue adverse impact of a planning nature. The issue of whether a variance is minor must by determined by the Tribunal in light of the particular facts and circumstances of the case. In my view, the proposed variances are minor in the circumstances of the proposed conversion to a residential use. There is no evidence before the Tribunal of any undue adverse impacts of a planning nature. No one appeared at the Hearing to oppose the variances.

CONCLUSION

65I find that the requested variances, individually and cumulatively, have regard for the s.2 of the Planning Act, are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and meet the four tests mandated by s.45(1) of the Planning Act.

66To secure that the proposal is constructed as described and justified in these proceedings, variances will therefore be approved on condition that the building be constructed substantially in accordance with the plans, elevations and drawings dated June 2, 2025, as submitted to the Tribunal.

DECISION AND ORDER

67I order that the appeal of the Committee of Adjustment Decision be allowed, and that the Variances set out in Appendix “A” be authorized, subject to the conditions contained therein.

A. Brown

Panel Member

APPENDIX “A’

APPROVED VARIANCES