Administrative Law - OTLAB

The applicant requested a review of a TLAB decision that refused seven variances to permit the construction of a new three-storey detached dwelling.

The applicant alleged that the presiding Member violated the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact, including by providing insufficient reasons, manufacturing evidence, and incorrectly applying policies related to laneway suites and infill development.

The TLAB Chair dismissed the review request, finding that the Member provided sufficient reasons, properly considered the context of the application, and made no errors of law or fact that would warrant cancelling the decision.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a side yard setback variance for a proposed side addition and second-storey deck.

Prior to the hearing, the appellants reached a settlement with the abutting neighbour, resulting in revised plans that increased the side yard setback but required new variances for building length and depth.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body converted the matter to a settlement hearing.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and authorized them subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to construct a new building with a bingo hall, restaurant, and electronic gaming uses on a property designated General Employment Areas.

The tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the proposed uses, including the electronic bingo component, maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The tribunal authorized the variances subject to conditions, including limiting the games arcade permission strictly to electronic bingo.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment regarding minor variances for a residential property.

At a prehearing conference, the parties advised the Tribunal that a settlement in principle had been reached.

The Tribunal ordered that the scheduled contested hearing be converted to a settlement hearing and set deadlines for the filing of the settlement terms, revised plans, and supporting affidavit evidence.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances for two related properties.

Due to an administrative error by the Tribunal, only one of the appeals was scheduled and heard.

To ensure procedural fairness, the TLAB Chair issued an interim order directing that a new hearing be scheduled for the omitted appeal and that the member who heard the related appeal be seized of the matter.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of three variances required to construct a two-storey garden suite in the rear yard of the subject property.

At the hearing, the appellant appeared without an expert land use planner and attempted to provide evidence himself.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide any land use planning evidence to demonstrate that the requested variances met the four statutory tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were not authorized.

The appellant requested by email to convert a scheduled hearing for a minor variance appeal into a mediation.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body treated the request as an unopposed motion.

Noting that no document disclosure had occurred, the Tribunal inferred the parties were attempting to avoid a contested hearing and found merit in directing a mediation.

The scheduled hearing was cancelled and converted to a non-binding mediation.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to legalize an as-constructed rear yard ancillary structure.

The appellant sought to increase the permitted height from 4.0 metres to 5.72 metres.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body heard competing expert land use planning evidence regarding the compatibility of the proposed height with the neighbourhood's physical character.

The panel preferred the City's expert evidence, finding that the proposed height was incompatible and would have a comprehensive visual impact.

The appeal was dismissed as the variance did not meet the four tests under the Planning Act.

The appellant filed a motion seeking relief from the Toronto Local Appeal Body's Rules of Practice and Procedure to permit the late filing of a Reply to a Response to a Review Request.

The appellant argued that he was out of the country and confused by the wording of the forms.

The TLAB dismissed the motion, finding that being out of the country and professing unfamiliarity with the rules are not legitimate reasons to circumvent filing deadlines.

An opposing party requested a date to bring a motion to adjourn the scheduled hearing.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body determined that there was insufficient evidence to decide on the adjournment at this time.

The Tribunal ordered that evidence and argument regarding the adjournment would be heard at the commencement of the hearing on May 2, 2024.

Following the resignation of the TLAB panel member who had presided over an eight-day hearing regarding a consent and minor variance appeal, the TLAB Chair issued an interim decision and order.

Due to the former member's severe health issues preventing him from completing the decision, the Chair invoked Rule 2.17 of the TLAB's Rules of Practice and Procedure to appoint a new member to complete the proceeding and issue a final decision, avoiding the need for a new hearing.

The appellant appealed a condition imposed by the Committee of Adjustment regarding an environmental easement.

The appellant's planner initially filed an Expert Witness Statement addressing only the appealed condition.

Upon learning that a TLAB hearing is a de novo hearing of the entire application, the appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to file a revised Expert Witness Statement addressing all requested variances.

The TLAB granted the motion, finding no prejudice as there were no other parties, and scheduled a new hearing date.

The applicant and appellant failed to attend the scheduled virtual hearing for an appeal of a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances.

The presiding TLAB member stood down the hearing for an hour before dismissing the appeal.

The applicant requested a review of the dismissal, alleging procedural errors and lack of notice.

The TLAB Chair dismissed the review request, finding that proper notice was sent to the representative's provided email address and that no compelling reasons were demonstrated to show a violation of procedural fairness, deprivation of new evidence, or an error of fact.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying variances for a proposed new three-storey house.

At a settlement hearing, the parties presented a revised proposal with reduced variances for building length, depth, and floor space index.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they respected and reinforced the existing physical character of the neighbourhood.

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

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing applications to sever a property and construct two semi-detached dwellings.

At the commencement of the hearing, the applicant presented revised development options.

The Tribunal noted deficiencies in the applicant's expert planner's context mapping and noted that the participants' witness statements were missing from the record.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing to allow for the submission of revised mapping and the participants' witness statements.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent to sever a residential lot into two and associated minor variances, primarily concerning reduced lot frontage and area.

The adjacent neighbours opposed the application, arguing the proposed lots would be significantly smaller than the prevailing neighbourhood character.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body agreed with the neighbours, finding that the neighbourhood predominantly featured larger lots and that the proposed severances did not respect or reinforce the physical character of the area.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were refused.

The Long Branch Neighbourhood Association (LBNA) brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of its appeal regarding a minor variance application.

The motion was brought because LBNA's forestry expert witness suffered a sudden medical emergency and was hospitalized shortly before the hearing.

The applicant opposed the adjournment, citing financial prejudice from the delay.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the prejudice to the applicant from a short delay was outweighed by the necessity to afford all parties an opportunity to fully and fairly present their case, in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness and the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

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

The variances sought to reduce rear yard soft landscaping and increase lot coverage to accommodate an existing patio, pool, and cabana.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the tribunal found the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were approved.

The Applicant requested a review of a TLAB Final Decision that allowed an appeal and refused minor variances for a third-story addition.

The Applicant alleged the presiding Member exhibited bias, violated procedural fairness, and made errors of fact and law, particularly by requiring numerical data to establish 'prevailing' density under the Official Plan.

The reviewing Member dismissed the review request, finding no procedural unfairness or bias.

The reviewing Member also held that the original Member did not err in law by requiring quantitative evidence of floor space index in the immediate context, and that the decision was reasonable overall.

The requestor sought a review of a TLAB decision that allowed an appeal and set aside a Committee of Adjustment decision granting consent to sever and minor variances for two new detached dwellings.

The requestor alleged the Chair made errors of law and fact, including rejecting uncontroverted expert planning evidence, substituting her own opinion, and violating procedural fairness.

The reviewing member found no compelling reasons demonstrating errors of law or fact, concluding the Chair properly evaluated and weighed the evidence against statutory tests.

The review request was denied and the original decision confirmed.