Toronto Local Appeal Body

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

Date: 2026-06-04

25 252530 S53 18 TLAB 25 252532 S45 18 TLAB 25 252533 S45 18 TLAB

Liu (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 417

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date: June 4, 2026

PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) and subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Appellant(s): X.Y. LIU

Applicant(s): CHS CONSULTANTS LTD

Property Address: 369 CUMMER AVE

COA File No.: 24 175174 NNY 18 CO (B0034/24NY) 24 175139 NNY 18 MV (A0436/24NY) 24 175164 NNY 18 MV (A0435/24NY).

TLAB Case File No.: 25 252530 S53 18 TLAB 25 252532 S45 18 TLAB 25 252533 S45 18 TLAB

Hearing Date(s): April 27, 2026

Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:

Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member B. Mullock

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Appellant

X.Y. LIU

CHS CONSULTANTS LTD (C/O ZHIHONG SHA)

Party

CITY OF TORONTO

R. GODLEY

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1This is an Appeal of the City of Toronto (City) Committee of Adjustment’s (COA) refusal of applications for the property located at 369 Cummer Ave (subject property).

2The application for consent to sever was considered by the COA in conjunction with two associated applications for variances, one for each of the proposed resulting lots. The COA denied the applications at its hearing on October 23, 2025.

3A single detached structure, comprising a one storey dwelling with attached garage, currently exists on the property.

4THE CONSENT REQUESTED:

To obtain consent to sever the property into two residential lots and to construct two new dwellings. File numbers B0034/24NY, A0435/24NY & A0436/24NY will be jointly considered.

CONVEYED - PART 2 ADDRESS TO BE ASSIGNED The proposed lot frontage is 9.75m. The proposed lot area is 567.82m². The property will be redeveloped as the site of a new dwelling and garden suite, requiring variances to the Zoning By-law(s), as outlined in application # A0435/24NY.

RETAINED - PART 1 ADDRESS TO BE ASSIGNED The proposed lot frontage is 9.75m. The proposed lot area is 567.82m². The property will be redeveloped as the site of a new dwelling and garden suite, requiring variances to the Zoning By-law(s), as outlined in application # A0436/24NY.

5The subject property is located in the Newtonbrook East neighbourhood of the former municipality of North York. It is located on the south side of Cummer Ave, several lots east of the intersection of Cummer Ave. and Maxome Ave. On Land Use Map 16 of the Official Plan of Toronto (OP), the property is designated Neighbourhoods, and zoned RD under Zoning By-law 569-2013.

6The City of Toronto is a party. Its representative appeared in opposition to the appeal.

[7] I advised those present at the Hearing that, in accordance with Council direction, I had attended at the site and the surrounding area, and that I had reviewed the pre- filed materials in preparation for the hearing of their oral evidence.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

8Provincial 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.

9Provincial 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.

10Consent – S. 53

TLAB must be satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the orderly development of the municipality pursuant to s. 53(1) of the Act and that the application for consent to sever meets the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act. These criteria require that " regard shall be had, among other matters, to the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality and to,

(a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2 of the Planning Act;

(b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;

(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any;

(d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;

(d.1) if any affordable housing units are being proposed, the suitability of the proposed units for affordable housing;

(e) the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy of them, and the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the adequacy of them;

(f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots;

(g) the restrictions or proposed restrictions, if any, on the land proposed to be subdivided or the buildings and structures proposed to be erected on it and the restrictions, if any, on adjoining land;

(h) conservation of natural resources and flood control;

(i) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;

(j) the adequacy of school sites;

(k) the area of land, if any, within the proposed subdivision that, exclusive of highways, is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes;

(l) the extent to which the plan’s design optimizes the available supply, means of supplying, efficient use and conservation of energy; and

(m) the interrelationship between the design of the proposed plan of subdivision and site plan control matters relating to any development on the land, if the land is also located within a site plan control area designated under subsection 41 (2) of this Act or subsection 114 (2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. 1994, c. 23, s. 30; 2001, c. 32, s. 31 (2); 2006, c. 23, s. 22 (3, 4); 2016, c. 25, Sched. 4, s. 8 (2).

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

12Xin (Cindy) Li was qualified by the tribunal as an Expert Witness for the Appellant. She identified herself as a Registered Professional Planner.

13Ms Li asserted her opinion that the proposal should be approved, since it represents appropriate planning. She asserted that its proposed materials and massing were consistent with the neighbourhood.

14Further, in her view, the proposal supports the Province’s objectives with respect to increasing housing supply. Ample community amenities are available, she opined, and the site is located in close proximity to a transit stop on Cummer Ave.

15She gave evidence that the proposal had been revised to better align with the Zoning By-law (ZBL). Only two variance requests, she noted, apply to each one of the two lots proposed to be created. One such variance relates to lot area and one to lot frontage.

16Ms Li asserted her opinion that the existing lot is one of the larger lots in the neighbourhood. It is sufficiently large, she opines, to be severable into two new lots, and still respect the physical character of the geographic neighbourhood.

17The witness made the assertion that the proposal maintains the intent of the Official Plan (OP) and is minor in nature.

18Ms Li gave evidence that, while no similar sized lots exist nearby, similar lots do exist within the broader area. Referring to an aerial photo, she made reference to a lot across Yonge Street on Drewry Ave, some 1.83 km to the west. She made reference also to a 0.7 km to the south, beyond the hydro corridor. Such lots, she opined, could represent the emerging character of the area proximate to the subject site on Cummer Ave.

19In her Expert Witness Statement, Ms Li asserts that a 5 unit residential building could be constructed as of right on the site. She opines, however, that the built form of such a development would involve substantial massing. In her view, such a development would be less characteristic of the physical character of the surrounding neighbourhood, than the two smaller single unit dwellings now proposed in conjunction with this consent.

20Her Expert Witness Statement describes the existing lot as oversized. The assertion is made that severing it, as proposed, would create two new lots which more closely align with the ZBL.

21Overall, Ms Li opined that the proposal represents gentle intensification, while satisfying the four tests. In her view, its approval would constitute good planning, contribute to housing supply and be in the public interest.

22Under cross examination, Ms Li confirmed that the application had been submitted based on a Zoning Waiver, rather than on a Zoning Inspection by a City of Toronto Zoning Examiner.

23Under cross examination, Ms Li was asked why no side yard setback variance was included on the waiver, when one appeared to apply according to the ZBL. She did not reply directly.

24Ms Li noted that on Cummer Ave in the area close to the subject property, she found no lots with frontages or areas as small as those requested in the proposal.

25The proposed lots would therefore be the first of their kind with their smaller dimensions on the block, she noted. She opined that the lots proposed could nevertheless fit appropriately with the way the area could evolve in the future.

26Mr. Wilser Canel identified himself as having five years of experience with the City of Toronto in planning. He was qualified by the tribunal to give evidence in his area of expertise.

27Mr. Canel noted that the Appellant had chosen to submit both the application for consent and those for the associated variances, to the City by way of a Zoning Waiver. He noted the Appellant thereby assumes responsibility for the completeness and correctness of the variances identified, and for any errors they might contain.

28Mr. Canel noted that on the public Notice, only two variances appear, one for lot frontage and one for lot area. He gave evidence based on a review of the proposed building plans that a required variance for side yard set back also applies. It is missing from the proposal, in his view.

29Mr. Canel gave evidence that the area of each of the proposed lots is smaller than the minimum required area under the Zoning By-law. Each lot would be 567.82 m2, where 600 m2 is required.

30He gave evidence that the frontage of each of the proposed lots is smaller than the minimum required frontage under the Zoning By-law. Each lot would have a frontage of 9.75 m, where 15 m is required.

31Mr. Canel gave evidence that the proposal fails to satisfy both s.51(24) and s. 45(1), and should be refused.

32Mr. Canel opined that the consent fails to satisfy the criteria of paragraphs (c) and (f) under Section 51(24) of the Planning Act , as follows:

(c) whether the plan [proposed consent] conforms to the OP and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any; and

(f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots.

33OFFICIAL PLAN - With reference to the definitions given in OP 4.1.5, Mr. Canel explained how he had delineated the immediate context of 369 Cummer and also its broader context. The geographic area includes 383 lots, he noted. He made reference to the resulting lot study, which appears in Appendix E of his Expert Witness Statement.

34In his view, the evidence of Ms Li failed to delineate these contexts precisely with reference to the definitions prescribed in OP 4.1.5. He noted that she had referred to all of Ward One as the “broader context”. However, is his view, this broad reference does not generate reliable comparables, in that it constitutes too wide a net.

35ZONING BY-LAW - Mr Canel gave evidence that the lot size at 45 Northwood Dr., cited by Ms Li as a comparable, was not the result of a consent. Rather, that lot simply stood as originally surveyed, he testified.

36Mr. Canel testified that in neither the immediate context nor the broader context are there lots of less than 10 m frontage. 78% of the lots have frontages of 15 m or more. The existing lot has a 19.51 m frontage. The proposed lots would be narrower than the prevailing frontage. At only 9.75 m frontage, he opined, the two proposed lots would be precedent setting in their narrowness.

37Mr. Canel gave evidence that he had had research done, looking for prior consents in the immediate context, but had found none. In the broader context there were, he noted, only three. These findings, he gave evidence, were indication of a neighbourhood with consistent streetscapes and lot patterns.

38Mr. Canel gave evidence that the comparable lots cited by Ms Li were not located in the Iimmediate context or the broader context, as delineated with reference to the OP. They were located outside both, he asserted.

39Mr. Canel asserted that the proposed lot frontages and areas fail to reinforce or respect the prevailing lot sizes and lot configurations, as called for under Policy 4.1.5 of the OP.

40DESIRABLE - Mr Canel opined that the proposal does not satisfy the test of being desirable, in that its approval would create a precedent which could destabilize the neighbourhood with respect to lot size and pattern. The lot frontages and areas proposed are not found in, and do not align with, those prevailing in the neighbourhood, in his opinion.

41MINOR – Mr. Canel gave evidence that the proposal does not meet the test of being minor, in that the departures requested from the prevailing lot frontage and lot sizes are too large to be considered minor.

42Mr. Canel concluded by voicing his opinion that the tribunal should dismiss the appeal and uphold the COA ‘s decision.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

43I am satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not required, since the application requests a division of one existing lot into two, in a long-established urban neighbourhood with existing municipal services and infrastructure.

44Should the consent be refused, the variances requested on the two associated variance applications retain no practical significance and become moot.

45In considering a consent, TLAB must also determine that "regard shall be had" to a number of general and specific criteria, pursuant to s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.

46In considering this case, my focus will be on whether the application demonstrates regard for two applicable listed criteria:

(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any; and

(f) the dimensions and shapes of existing lots.

47Since the Official Plan contains policy about the dimensions of lots, I have folded consideration of both criteria c) and f) above, into the discussion of the Official Plan.

Official Plan

48Policy 4.1.5 of the OP requires development in established neighbourhoods to respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood, including in particular:

c) prevailing size and configuration of lots; and

g) prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks

49In presenting his evidence, Mr. Canel made careful and continuing reference to the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law. He took this approach, point by point, with the result that his case became consistently more persuasive, as compared to that offered by the Appellant ‘s witness.

50I accept Mr. Canel’s methodology in delineating the immediate and broader context of the subject property, with reference to OP 4.1.5.

51The burden is upon the appellant to provide evidence which substantiates that the proposal meets the requirements of the four tests. With respect to the OP, this substantiation entails presenting evidence to demonstrate that the proposal would respect the BC and the IC.

52The Official Plan and the Zoning By-law represent two of the four tests, against which TLAB is mandated to evaluate proposals. I would like to have seen Ms Li’s argument demonstrate with supporting evidence how the proposal purportedly meets these tests.

53This would have involved foundational evidence, showing that the proposal sufficiently satisfies the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, as the tests demand. This level of evidence was lacking in Ms Li’s testimony. Ms Li’s made broad assertions to this effect. However, broad assertions without detailed substantiation do not carry the weight of evidence. I did not hear persuasive evidence from her to counter the detailed evidence given by the witness opposing the proposal, Mr. Canel.

54Instead, under cross examination, Ms Li offered replies which often deflected to topics other than those at the core of the question asked. She voiced conjecture with respect to the possible future direction of development, but did not substantiate the claims. These tendencies in mind, her contention that the proposal met the four tests failed to gain weight, as the hearing progressed. I encountered no substantiation from Ms Li that this neighbourhood is gradually evolving towards smaller lots.

55Ms Li did not demonstrate familiarity with the ZBL with respect to side yard setbacks, to counter the claim that the zoning waiver, as submitted, appears to lack a required side yard setback variance.

56Ms Li did not offer evidence with reference to s 51(24).

57Neither the evidence presented by Ms Li as verbal testimony nor that contained in her Expert Witness Statement laid sufficient foundational support, in my view, for the tribunal to find that the proposal meets the four tests.

58I prefer the evidence of Mr. Canel, since it better relates to the four tests, item by item. In doing so, however, it demonstrates with evidence that the proposal fails to satisfy the tests.

59I accept his evidence with respect to lot size that the proposal would be precedent-setting, if approved. An approval could create a reference point for other lot severances. This could have undue negative impact on the stability of lot size and pattern in both the immediate and broader context. On the basis of Mr. Canel’s evidence, I agree that he proposal fails to respect the prevailing lot size and frontage conditions.

60Ms Li gave evidence that, in her understanding, no lots existed nearby with frontages or areas the same as those proposed. She had not, however, prepared a detailed lot study. As a result, she could not give evidence supported by data, as to the prevailing lot frontage or lot area within the immediate context or broader context. I relied, therefore, on the data presented by Mr. Canel, as drawn from his lot study.

61I do not find the similar-sized lots which Ms Li cites as comparables can reasonably stand as comparables. In my view, these examples are not indicative of evolving smaller lot frontages and areas on Cummer Ave. The lot at 105 Drury is distant by 1.83 km, a large distance. Further, Yonge Street, a major dividing feature, separates it from 369 Cummer Ave. Similarly, the lot cited on Maxome Ave is 0.7 km distant and separated by the hydro corridor, another major dividing feature. These lots lie neither within the immediate context nor the broader context. Of further note, Ms Li could not state with certainty that these lots had actually been created by consents. Mr. Canel’s evidence was that they had not, instead dating back to original surveys.

62If approved, each of the two proposed new lots would be sub-standard with respect to lot area and lot frontage. I agree with the evidence of Mr. Canel, that were the existing lot to be severed, the frontage and size of the new lots would not align with the prevailing size and configuration of lots in the immediate context.

63No clear evidence of development in the neighbourhood, which might be viewed as amounting to an “emerging trend”, was presented to the tribunal involving consents which created undersized lots. No compelling evidence came forward to suggest the emergence of such a trend, which the proposal could have been said to mirror.

64Beyond conjecture by Ms Li as to how development might evolve in the future, I do not find that a sufficient basis in evidence was provided for TLAB to find that that the creation of two substandard sized lots, each with an undersized frontage, would conform to the criteria set out in s. 51(24), ( c) and (f).

65I agree with the evidence given by Mr. Canel that the proposed development is not in keeping with the neighbourhood character. The neighbourhood is characterized by large lots with frontages equal to or greater than 15 m. By comparison with the general physical character prevailing, the lots proposed would be significantly undersized, setting a precedent with the potential to destabilize the neighbourhood. A consent to sever would not respect and reinforce the integrity of the existing physical character of the neighbourhood or the immediate context.

CONCLUSION

66Overall, I do not find Ms Li’s evidence persuasive. It falls short of providing sufficient basis in evidence for TLAB to conclude that the application meets the four tests set out in legislation.

67I prefer the evidence of Mr. Canel to that of Ms Li. I accept his evidence to the effect that the proposal fails to respect the prevailing shape, size and pattern of lots in both the immediate and the broader context.

68The proposed sub-standard lots would not be materially consistent with the existing lots on Cummer Ave. In my finding, the proposed sub-standard lots would not respect and reinforce the physical character of the immediate context.

69I find that the application for consent to sever fails to meet the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.

70Further, I find that the requested variances fail to meet the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, neither are they desirable for the development of the land nor minor.

DECISION AND ORDER

71The Appeals are dismissed. The Committee of Adjustment decisions noted above are final and binding.

B. Mullock

Panel Member