Real Estate Law - OTLAB

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying variances to construct a warehouse in a Core Employment Area.

The requested variances included reduced side yard setbacks, a reduced driveway width, and permission for a front yard loading space.

The Tribunal found that the side yard and driveway variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, as they were appropriate for the narrow lot and consistent with the area's character.

However, the Tribunal refused the variance for the front yard loading space, finding it contrary to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law's intent to limit vehicular access in front of buildings and protect the public realm.

The appellant was directed to submit a revised site plan eliminating the front yard loading space.

The appellant requested a review of a Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) decision that refused a consent to sever and associated minor variances for a property to permit two duplexes.

The appellant argued the presiding member erred in law by applying the wrong Official Plan policies, specifically by relying on Neighbourhoods policies rather than the Multiplex policies in OPA 649.

The reviewing member found no error of law, concluding that the original member properly considered both policies and reasonably preferred the evidence of the City's planner regarding prevailing lot size and configuration.

The request for review was dismissed.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances for an addition and a laneway suite.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement reducing the requested variances to a single variance relating to rooftop equipment coverage and setbacks for the laneway suite.

The Tribunal found the revised proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, had regard for provincial interests, and met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed in part to reflect the settlement, and the single remaining variance was authorized subject to conditions.

The City of Toronto appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment approving two variances.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant indicated an intention to withdraw the application.

On consent of both parties, the Toronto Local Appeal Body converted the matter to a written hearing, allowed the appeal, and overturned the Committee of Adjustment's decision without prejudice to future development applications.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing a minor variance application for the property at 36 Glengowan Road.

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

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

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances required to convert an approved four-unit multiplex into a three-storey, eight-unit rental apartment building on a major street.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body considered the evolving planning context, including recent official plan and zoning by-law amendments aimed at facilitating intensification along major streets.

The tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal has regard for provincial interests, is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and meets the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions, including the provision of a privacy fence and an enclosed waste storage area.

The owner of an existing apartment building appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to convert ground-floor storage locker space into two new dwelling units.

The proposal required relief for parking supply, indoor amenity space, and ground-floor residential use.

Several tenants opposed the appeal, citing existing parking shortages, inadequate laundry facilities, and the loss of storage space.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the variances failed to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and were not desirable for the appropriate development of the land due to the negative impacts on existing tenants.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to construct a new fourplex and garden suite.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant revised the plans to eliminate and reduce several variances, responding to concerns from the City's planner.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found the amendments to be minor and evaluated the revised variances against the four tests under the Planning Act.

Relying on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence of the appellant's planner, the Tribunal found that the variances maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor.

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

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to construct a new detached dwelling.

The proposal required variances for a floor space index of 0.74 (where 0.35 is permitted) and a building height of 9.79m (where 9.5m is permitted).

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed massing and density would create an undue visual impact and fail to respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood.

The tribunal preferred the evidence of the City's planner and local residents, concluding that the application failed all four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a consent to sever and associated minor variances to permit the construction of two duplexes on a single property.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed severance would create lots with frontages and areas significantly smaller than the prevailing character of the neighbourhood.

The tribunal concluded that the severance did not conform to the Official Plan policies requiring new development to respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the geographic neighbourhood, and therefore failed the criteria under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision regarding a property on Barker Avenue.

The parties previously consented to convert the scheduled hearing into a mediation, which remains ongoing.

Following a status hearing, the Toronto Local Appeal Body scheduled a second status hearing to monitor the progress of the mediation.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance to reduce the required percentage of three-bedroom units from 10% to 5% in an eight-storey mixed-use building nearing completion.

The variance was requested because purchasers of five units requested change orders to convert their three-bedroom units to two-bedroom units.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the variance meets the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting it maintains the overall requirement for 25% larger family-sized units.

The appeal was allowed and the variance approved.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to permit the construction of a second-storey addition above an existing detached garage to convert it into a garden suite.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body reviewed the uncontested planning evidence and found that the proposal, which included variances for setbacks, angular planes, and landscaping, met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal authorized the variances, noting that the garden suite would provide an appropriate and compatible built form that expands housing options in the neighbourhood.

The opposing parties brought a motion for costs against the appellant following the appellant's failure to attend a scheduled hearing and its last-minute withdrawal of a related appeal.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the appellant's conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, and in bad faith, as it failed to provide notice of its non-attendance, failed to file evidence, and withdrew the appeal without adequate warning.

The TLAB awarded costs to the opposing parties, reduced by one-third to account for expenses that would have been incurred prior to the deadline for submitting witness statements, resulting in a total award of $15,128.

The appellant requested a review of a TLAB decision that dismissed their appeal and confirmed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of variances for a fourplex development.

The appellant argued the presiding Member breached procedural fairness by disregarding uncontested expert evidence and erred in law by finding the variances failed the four tests.

The reviewing Member dismissed the request, holding that an adjudicator is not bound to accept expert opinion as fact and that the original Member provided reasonable grounds for concluding the height-related variances did not maintain the general intent of the Official Plan regarding low-rise built form.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of five minor variances for a property located at 775 Vaughan Road.

The variances sought to increase the building height from 38 to 45 storeys, increase gross floor area, and adjust setback and amenity space requirements to facilitate a purpose-built rental building with additional community benefits.

The Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were approved subject to conditions securing affordable housing or community cultural space.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting an approval to the applicant.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the City withdrew its appeal by email.

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

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing four minor variances required to construct a two-storey south side addition and a rear partial second-storey addition to an existing dwelling.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the requested variances for building length, depth, floor space index, and side yard setbacks met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the variances were consistent with the neighbourhood character and would not create undue adverse impacts on adjacent properties.

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.