Toronto Local Appeal Body

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment approving minor variances for the subject property.

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

The Toronto Local Appeal Body acknowledged the withdrawal, dismissed the appeal, and confirmed that the Committee of Adjustment decision is final and binding.

The Appellant brought a motion to admit supplementary expert evidence, including two new witnesses and revised witness statements, ahead of a rescheduled hearing.

The Long Branch Neighbourhood Association opposed the motion, citing procedural delays and lack of proper notice.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the administrative delays were largely attributable to tribunal staff and that the proposed evidence was relevant.

The motion was granted, allowing the supplementary materials to be admitted into the record.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision that approved minor variances for exterior stairs and front yard landscaping on the condition that a minimum of 3.0 m2 of soft landscaping be provided.

The appellant sought to remove the condition, citing the presence of two gas lines in the front yard that would be costly to relocate.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the variances, without the condition, met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that many properties in the immediate area also have 0.0% soft landscaping.

The appeal was granted and the variances were approved without the condition.

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 an application for minor variances to convert an ancillary building into a garden suite.

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

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

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying three minor variances required to construct a seasonal pool enclosure in the rear yard of a residential property.

A neighbour opposed the application, citing concerns about lot coverage, loss of light, and views.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, accepting the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the temporary structure would not create undue adverse impacts and that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The variances were approved subject to a condition requiring the planting of a continuous hedge for privacy.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of an application for consent to sever a property containing a semi-detached building with two duplexes.

The participants raised concerns regarding the potential loss of rental housing units under Official Plan Policy 3.2.1.6.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal and granted the consent, finding that the severance itself does not propose any new development or demolition, and therefore OP Policy 3.2.1.6 does not apply.

The tribunal concluded that the application met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to permit the remodeling of an existing two-storey dwelling through interior alterations and an addition.

The parties reached a settlement during the hearing, agreeing that the third-storey attic space would not be habitable.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted the variances subject to conditions ensuring the attic space remains non-habitable, finding that the proposal met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of variances required to build a new three-storey house on a newly severed laneway lot.

The key variance sought was an increase in Floor Space Index from the permitted 1.0 to 1.87.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed density and massing did not respect and reinforce the prevailing physical character of the neighbourhood, failed to meet the Official Plan's material consistency test, and did not maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law regarding laneway housing.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

The applicant missed multiple filing deadlines for disclosure and expert witness statements due to the expert witness's health issues.

At the hearing, the applicant brought motions to admit the late-filed materials and to adjourn the hearing.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding the expert's health issues constituted a legitimate reason, and admitted the late-filed materials into the record, noting the absence of other parties or participants who might be prejudiced.

The Long Branch Neighbourhood Association (LBNA) brought a motion seeking relief from TLAB Rule 16 to admit a late expert witness statement from an urban forestry expert.

The hearing of the merits had been previously adjourned.

The TLAB granted the motion, finding that the proposed evidence regarding tree health was relevant to the proceedings and that the adjournment provided sufficient time for the other parties to prepare.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying four minor variances for a proposed five-storey addition to an approved 29-storey mixed-use development.

The variances sought increases in total and residential gross floor area, increased building height, and a reduction in the minimum amenity space per unit.

Opposing parties argued that the developer should have pursued a rezoning application rather than a minor variance, given the extensive community consultation that led to the site-specific zoning by-law.

The Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal conformed to the Official Plan, maintained the intent of the zoning by-law, was desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and was minor in nature.

The Tribunal declined to exercise its residual power to deny the application and allowed the appeal, subject to a condition requiring a cash contribution for community benefits.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to grant a severance into two lots and associated variances to permit a detached dwelling on each lot.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal in part, finding that the revised plans submitted by the appellant's land use planner demonstrated that the proposed development met the requirements of the Planning Act and provincial policies.

The variances and severance were approved subject to standard conditions.

The applicant requested a review of a TLAB decision that refused applications for consent to sever a property and associated minor variances to construct a new detached dwelling.

The applicant alleged the presiding TLAB Member violated procedural fairness by allowing participants to question witnesses and made errors of law in interpreting the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The TLAB Chair dismissed the review request, finding no violation of natural justice and concluding that the original Member properly interpreted and applied the relevant planning policies and evidence.

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 the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment's refusal of an application for consent to sever a residential property into two lots and associated minor variances.

The proposal involved retaining the existing dwelling on one lot and constructing a new detached dwelling on the severed lot.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal in part, granting the consent to sever and the variances related to lot area, lot frontage, and the existing dwelling's setbacks and building length.

However, the tribunal refused the variances for lot coverage and floor space index for the proposed new dwelling, finding insufficient evidence that the proposed massing and density respected and reinforced the physical character of the neighbourhood.

A party to a minor variance appeal brought a motion to adjourn the scheduled hearing date because their retained planner was unavailable.

No objections were received from the appellant, other parties, or participants.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body granted the adjournment pursuant to Rule 21.7 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure and directed that a new hearing date be scheduled.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment approving nine variances to permit the conversion of an existing three-storey six-unit apartment building to a three-storey 13-unit apartment building by constructing a rear three-storey addition and converting below-grade parking to residential units.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the proposed addition would provide needed rental housing, reinforce the character of the neighbourhood, and have minimal adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the revised variances, subject to conditions including the use of frosted glass to prevent overlook and the installation of permeable pavers.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to authorize minor variances for a townhouse development.

The variances sought to increase the permitted building height and angular plane penetration, which were originally established through a site-specific zoning by-law.

The Tribunal found that it had jurisdiction to consider variances to a site-specific by-law.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence and evolving municipal policy encouraging intensification on main streets, the Tribunal concluded the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

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.