Toronto Local Appeal Body

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment denying 11 minor variances for a proposed residential development on a property in Toronto.

The proposed development involved constructing a new detached dwelling.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body reviewed the uncontradicted expert planning evidence and found that the requested variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions regarding site plan compliance and tree protection.

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 appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's conditional approval of six minor variances for the construction of a front porch, attached carport, and driveway alterations at the neighbouring property.

The parties reached a settlement during the hearing.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and were consistent with provincial policy.

The appeal was dismissed, and the variances were approved subject to conditions reflecting the settlement and tree protection requirements.

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 appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances for a residential addition at the subject property.

The applicant sought an additional variance for floor space index at the hearing, which the tribunal deemed minor.

The tribunal considered concerns regarding privacy, side-yard setbacks, and main wall heights.

Relying on the applicant's expert planning evidence, the tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, as they were consistent with neighbourhood characteristics and would not cause undue adverse impacts.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were approved, subject to conditions including frosting the east-facing windows.

The appellant appealed a minor variance decision regarding the property at 6 Benstrow Ave.

Following a hearing, the Toronto Local Appeal Body issued an interim decision requiring the applicants to submit a new zoning notice, updated plans and elevations, and a permit from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

When the applicants failed to provide the documents or an update by the expected date, the Tribunal issued a further interim order directing the applicants to provide a status update by February 22, 2023.

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

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 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 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 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 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 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 brought a motion seeking to schedule additional hearing days for its appeal of a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances.

The appellant argued that the single scheduled hearing day would be insufficient given the number of parties, participants, and the extensive expert evidence to be called.

The motion was unopposed.

The Tribunal granted the motion and directed staff to schedule three additional hearing days to ensure sufficient time to adjudicate the appeal.