Other Tribunals - OTLAB

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing minor variances to permit the construction of a third-storey rooftop deck on an existing apartment building.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the appellant's counsel submitted a letter withdrawing the appeal.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal as abandoned, confirming the Committee of Adjustment's decision as final and binding, and vacated the scheduled hearing.

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

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the appellant withdrew the appeal.

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

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 the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance required to construct a front yard parking pad and remove an existing rear yard parking space.

The Tribunal found that the amended variance application was minor and did not require further notice.

Relying on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the variance met the four statutory tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized subject to conditions regarding a front yard parking permit and tree removal.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to construct a two-storey garden suite.

At the hearing, the appellant's representative, an architect, provided architectural details but failed to provide any land use planning evidence or address the four statutory tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to meet the burden of proof to demonstrate that the variances maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable, and were minor.

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.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances required to legalize a rear deck construction.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the construction's height and length respected the neighbourhood's physical character.

However, the evidence regarding privacy and overlook impacts on the adjacent neighbour was unclear.

The panel issued an interim order requiring the parties to propose mitigation measures and scheduled a further hearing to resolve the privacy and adverse impact issues.

The appellant sought a minor variance to build a second-floor rear deck that would encroach 5.11 metres into the required rear yard setback.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the variance failed to meet the four tests under the Planning Act.

The panel rejected the appellant's planner's arguments regarding 'eyes on the street' and minimization of the variance, preferring the opposing planner's evidence that the deck would not fit the neighbourhood character and would create unacceptable privacy and overlook impacts on adjacent properties.

At a pre-hearing conference for an appeal of a Committee of Adjustment decision, the Toronto Local Appeal Body noted that the appellant had only appealed one condition of the approval.

Because the appeal triggers a de novo hearing, the appellant's expert planning witness needed to address the four statutory tests for all variances, which the initial expert statement failed to do.

The Tribunal granted the appellant permission to file a motion to amend the expert witness statement and converted the scheduled hearing date into an oral motion hearing.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consent to sever and minor variances.

At the scheduled hearing, counsel for the appellant requested that the hearing be converted to a prehearing conference to allow the parties to continue settlement discussions.

The Tribunal granted the request, stood down to allow discussions, and ultimately adjourned the hearing sine die, providing directions for scheduling a settlement hearing or a contested hearing depending on the outcome of the discussions.

A prehearing conference was held regarding an appeal from the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit alterations to an existing dwelling and the construction of a garden suite.

The Tribunal identified the parties and participants, clarified representation, and directed participants who had not yet filed or served their Participant Witness Statements to do so by a specified date without introducing new issues.

The Tribunal also determined that mediation would not be pursued and directed staff to schedule two additional hearing days.

The owners of a property in the Long Branch neighbourhood applied for minor variances to construct a new two-storey detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment approved the variances, which included an increase in the permitted floor space index and reduced setbacks.

The Long Branch Neighbourhood Association and the City of Toronto appealed the decision, primarily raising concerns about the removal of a mature black walnut tree and the proposed density.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the neighbourhood association's appeal, finding that the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and that the City's urban forestry policies permitted tree removal when an as-of-right building envelope conflicts with a tree.

The City's appeal was allowed strictly to update the date of the approved plans in the conditions.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consents and minor variances to create four lots from two existing lots and construct a two-storey detached dwelling on each.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the amended plans, which reduced the requested variances, met the statutory tests under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal accepted uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the reduced lot frontages and areas were consistent with the neighbourhood's character and would not cause undue adverse impacts.

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.