Other Tribunals - OTLAB

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

At the Toronto Local Appeal Body hearing, the appellant's representative appeared without having filed any expert evidence or witness statements, and requested an adjournment to gather evidence.

The tribunal denied the adjournment request due to the appellant's complete lack of preparation and the resulting prejudice to the elderly participant.

As the appellant failed to provide any evidence to satisfy the burden of proof under the Planning Act, the appeal was dismissed and the original decision refusing the variances was upheld.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances for front and rear yard soft landscaping for a recently constructed dwelling.

The appellant had built extensive hardscaping, including a double-wide circular driveway and a large rear patio with a pool, that did not comply with the Zoning By-law or the site plan approved in a previous variance application.

The Tribunal found that the requested variances did not respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the heavily landscaped neighbourhood.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that the variances did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, were not desirable, and were not minor.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing 12 minor variances required to demolish an existing house and build a new three-storey dwelling.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body reviewed the requested variances against the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The tribunal found that the appellant's land use planner failed to demonstrate that the proposed building height, length, depth, and side yard setbacks were prevailing or substantially occurring in the immediate neighbourhood context.

Concluding that the proposal did not respect and reinforce the neighbourhood's physical character, the tribunal held that the variances did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan or Zoning By-laws.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were refused.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing four minor variances required to convert an existing one-storey garage into a two-storey laneway suite.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the variances regarding height, separation distance, angular plane, and soft landscaping met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The tribunal found the variances were minor, desirable, and maintained the intent of the official plan and zoning by-law, as design features mitigated any potential overlook or privacy impacts.

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

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval of a variance to permit a car rental agency in an Employment Industrial Zone.

The parties reached a settlement proposing conditions to prohibit the sale and lease of vehicles and reserve the majority of the gross floor area for non-retail uses.

The tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the mitigated variance met the four tests under the Planning Act and authorized the variance subject to the agreed conditions.

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

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the appellant withdrew the appeal through their authorized representative.

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 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 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 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 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 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 brought a motion to dismiss the City of Toronto's application for party status in an appeal regarding minor variances for a multi-residential building.

The appellant argued the City failed to meet the filing deadline and its interests were irrelevant to the planning matters.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the motion, finding the City had a genuine interest in the appeal and the appellant would not suffer prejudice.

The City was granted an extension of time and added as a party.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a consent to sever and associated minor variances to permit the construction of two new detached dwellings on a property in Toronto.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed lot frontages and areas were smaller than any in the immediate context and failed to respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood.

Consequently, the proposal did not meet the criteria for severance under the Planning Act, and the requested variances failed to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing four variances to permit the construction of a new one-storey ancillary building.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the appellant formally requested the withdrawal of 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 consent to sever a residential property to create two undersized lots for a semi-detached dwelling.

The City argued the proposal failed to respect the prevailing lot pattern under Official Plan Policy 4.1.5.

The owner argued the property was unique and should be evaluated under the infill criteria of Policy 4.1.9.

The Tribunal agreed with the owner, finding the property's size and shape were distinct from the neighbourhood and the proposed development would fit the existing physical character.

The appeal was dismissed and the consent was upheld.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to permit the maintenance of an existing rear yard deck.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the deck, which raised the rear yard surface by approximately 50 cm, had no adverse impact on neighbouring properties and improved accessibility for elderly residents.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the tribunal concluded the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act and allowed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing minor variances for a proposed two-storey detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant withdrew the appeal, noting that a new provincial regulation overrode the relevant zoning by-law provisions and eliminated the need for the remaining variance.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal as abandoned and closed the file.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment approving a minor variance application.

Prior to a hearing, the appellant withdrew its appeal by email.

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

The appellant sought four variances to permit a two-storey rear addition and platform, which would significantly encroach into the required rear yard setback.

Several neighbours opposed the application, citing loss of privacy, sunlight, and open space.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed encroachment was too large for the small lot and inconsistent with the prevailing physical character of the neighbourhood.

The Tribunal found that the variances failed to meet the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to legalize seven secondary basement suites in a single-family home.

At the hearing, the City of Toronto requested that the appeal be dismissed without a hearing, arguing that the appellant failed to provide adequate disclosure or address the statutory tests for a minor variance.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the appellant's reasons for appeal did not disclose any valid land use planning grounds and that the appellant's agent lacked planning expertise.

The appeal was dismissed without a further hearing pursuant to section 45(17) of the Planning Act.