Other Tribunals - OTLAB

The Toronto Local Appeal Body issued an interim decision requiring the applicants to produce updated zoning notices, plans, and a TRCA permit.

The applicants failed to provide the documents, citing financial inability and blaming the TLAB for delays.

The TLAB found the applicants' response inappropriate and noted that the proceeding could not continue without the required documents.

Consequently, the TLAB issued a show cause notice to dismiss the application without a hearing, scheduling a hearing for the applicants to explain why the matter should proceed.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances for a rear addition to a detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant modified the application, reducing the building length variance and abandoning two other variances.

The City supported the modified proposal subject to conditions protecting a combined sewer.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and approved the modified variances, finding they met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting variances for lot coverage and rear yard soft landscaping to permit the construction of a car port.

The applicant provided no expert planning evidence, relying instead on a representative who argued the existing hardscaping was functional and aesthetically pleasing.

The City's expert planner testified that the proposed soft landscaping variance failed to respect the prevailing neighbourhood character and did not maintain the intent of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law.

The tribunal preferred the City's expert evidence, finding that the applicant failed to satisfy the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were not authorized.

The applicant sought variances to legalize and maintain a new dwelling with a detached rear garage currently under construction.

The Committee of Adjustment had previously refused the variances, which were required after construction deviated from a previously approved addition, resulting in a 'new house by renovation' classification.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that while the proposal met the general intent of the Official Plan, the requested front and side yard setbacks did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

Specifically, the tribunal noted unresolved encroachments into the City's right-of-way and undue adverse privacy impacts on the abutting neighbour from the proposed rear deck.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances for additions to an existing house.

Over a 16-month period, the appellant failed to submit updated plans, elevations, or witness statements, missing multiple deadlines set by the Tribunal.

The City brought a motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the appellant had not established a land use planning case and had failed to meaningfully progress the appeal.

In an appeal under the Planning Act, the Toronto Local Appeal Body issued an interim decision regarding the scheduling of the remainder of the hearing.

Following the completion of witness examinations, the parties agreed to proceed with oral arguments on the next scheduled date.

Despite a representative's scheduling conflict, the Tribunal declined to alter the start time, emphasizing the need to complete the proceeding without further delay.

The Tribunal ordered the hearing to resume at 9:30 AM and directed the parties to submit their authorities in advance.

The presiding Panel Member of the Toronto Local Appeal Body convened a teleconference to address new information discovered during a file review prior to a scheduled hearing.

To maintain the integrity and transparency of the tribunal process, the Member concluded it was necessary to immediately recuse himself from the proceeding.

The Member ordered that the file be reassigned to a different panel member and that the scheduled hearing date be retained if possible.

The appellant brought a motion to preemptively restrict a lay witness, the president of the responding neighbourhood association, from giving opinion evidence regarding a severance and minor variance application.

The appellant argued that since their own witnesses were qualified experts, the lay witness should be limited to factual evidence unless she met the test in R v Graat.

The tribunal dismissed the motion as premature, noting that the distinction between fact and opinion can be argued in closing submissions, and emphasized that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act grants the tribunal broad discretion to admit evidence that might be inadmissible in a court.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances for a west side yard setback and a rear deck setback for a new single-family dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant and the City of Toronto reached a settlement on a revised proposal.

At the settlement hearing, the appellant's land use planner provided uncontested expert evidence that the revised variances met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The tribunal approved the variances, finding they maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were minor, and were desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The moving party, an adjacent property owner, filed a motion to upgrade her status from Participant to Party in an appeal regarding a minor variance application.

She sought the upgrade to call an expert witness, having initially misunderstood the procedural limitations of Participant status.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body granted the motion, finding that her innocent error and the need for a fair adjudication justified waiving the filing deadline and granting Party status.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body issued an interim decision regarding an appeal of a minor variance application.

Following an initial hearing day, the TLAB directed the applicants to provide updated sun and shadow studies and further planning justification.

The TLAB acknowledged receipt of these materials and directed the parties to provide their availability to schedule up to two additional hearing days to complete the evidentiary phase of the proceeding.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to permit alterations to a dwelling.

At the hearing, the solicitor for the owners/applicants advised that the property had been sold and the new owners consented to allow the appeal.

As no evidence was brought in support of the variances, the Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal and denied the minor variances.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to grant a consent to sever and associated minor variances to permit the construction of a semi-detached dwelling on two new lots.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body heard uncontradicted expert planning evidence supporting the applications.

The Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and the consent met the criteria under section 51(24).

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

The appellant appealed a consent decision to the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

Following an adjournment, the TLAB ordered the applicants to provide specific information regarding their intentions for the property, including whether they would proceed with a severance or build a single house, along with relevant plans and availability for a hearing.

When the applicants failed to communicate, the TLAB issued an interim order requiring them to provide the requested information and hearing dates by February 23, 2023.

The TLAB warned that failure to comply would result in a show cause notice as to why the appeal should not be dismissed for delay.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body held a videoconference to discuss scheduling for an appeal regarding a property in Toronto.

The panel member inadvertently omitted to provide a deadline for the parties to submit their availability for the hearing.

This interim decision sets the deadline for February 20, 2023, for parties to provide their availability to the tribunal.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to authorize variances for rear yard alterations, including an inground pool, a rear deck, and a pavilion.

The requested variances related to deck projection, building length and depth, lot coverage, soft landscaping, and pool equipment setbacks.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The applicant sought costs of $41,799.26 against the appellant following a minor variance appeal regarding a residential redevelopment.

The applicant argued the appellant's conduct was unreasonable and frivolous.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion for costs, finding that the appellant had provided reasons for her appeal, retained an expert arborist, did not cause unnecessary delays, and successfully advocated for additional conditions to protect a tree.

The Tribunal concluded the appellant's conduct was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances for maximum lot coverage, exterior main wall height, and floor space index (FSI) to permit the construction of a new two-storey detached dwelling.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's land use planning expert, concluding that the proposed FSI was reasonably deployed within the zoning by-law's performance standards and that the development would respect the character of the neighbourhood.

The applicant sought minor variances to demolish a bungalow and build a new two-storey dwelling, including significant variances for front yard setback and floor space index (FSI).

The Committee of Adjustment approved the variances, and the local residents' association appealed.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed front yard setback and FSI of 0.522 did not respect or reinforce the prevailing physical character of the immediate neighbourhood block.

The panel preferred the appellant's planning evidence and concluded the variances failed the statutory tests under the Planning Act.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consent to sever a residential property into two lots and for associated minor variances to permit the construction of two new detached dwellings.

The City opposed the applications, arguing the proposed lot frontages and areas were too small and out of character with the neighbourhood.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the neighbourhood was evolving toward smaller lots and that the proposal was consistent with provincial intensification policies and fit the emerging physical character of the area.

Provisional consent and the requested variances were granted subject to conditions.