Uttra Gautam

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing fourteen variances required to bring a dwelling into compliance with the Zoning By-law.

In an earlier interim decision, the Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal subject to a condition that privacy screening be installed on the rear platform.

The appellant submitted affidavit evidence confirming the installation of the required privacy screens.

The tribunal found the condition was fulfilled and issued a final order authorizing the variances.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances required to legalize an existing dwelling that was constructed contrary to its building permit.

The application was amended to 14 variances based on updated as-built drawings.

The City of Toronto and a neighbourhood association opposed the appeal, arguing the dwelling's height, flat roof, and high floor space index (FSI) were out of character and set a negative precedent.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the FSI was inflated by the lot's shoreline hazard area and that the dwelling's articulation mitigated its massing.

The Tribunal concluded the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized them subject to a privacy screening condition.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and reserved costs, fixed at the agreed amount of $7,500, to the panel hearing the appeal.

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 City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving seven variances to permit the construction of a new two-storey detached house at 23 Beechwood Avenue.

The variances related to building length, depth, height, and setbacks.

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

The tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's land use planner, concluding that the proposed house would respect and reinforce the physical character of the neighbourhood, which includes large, irregularly shaped ravine lots, and that the variances were minor in nature with little to no negative impact on neighbours.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of variances required to construct a new three-storey detached dwelling.

The proposal was revised to reduce the number and extent of the variances.

The City opposed the variances for height and number of storeys, arguing they did not fit the neighbourhood's character.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's planning evidence, finding that the contemporary design, stepbacks, and articulation adequately mitigated the massing and height impacts.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, authorizing the revised variances 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 Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a consent to sever a residential lot into two and associated minor variances to permit the construction of a duplex on each new lot.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the proposal was consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement and the City's new Multiplex Official Plan Amendment, which encourages additional housing supply.

The panel held that the proposed lot sizes and configurations, while smaller than the zoning requirement, were compatible with the neighbourhood's low-rise character and met the statutory tests for consent and minor variances.

The Tribunal received a request, on consent of the parties, to amend procedural timelines contained in a Procedural Order issued on November 21, 2024.

The appeals relate to applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision to permit three new residential apartment towers in the City of Toronto.

The Tribunal granted the request and amended the dates for the exchange of witness lists, expert meetings, witness statements, and other pre-hearing steps leading up to the hearing scheduled for October 20, 2025.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 633 (Jane Finch Secondary Plan), the appellants confirmed their appeals would proceed on a site-specific basis.

The Tribunal ordered that the unappealed portions of OPA 633 are in force and effect.

The parties requested and were granted an adjournment sine die to allow the appellants to file site-specific applications, with a status update required in six months.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision that approved nine variances for a mixed-use development at 2 Tecumseth Street.

The appeal was filed to add a technical condition ensuring that visitor parking continues to be provided at the rate contemplated by the site plan, despite site-specific zoning that required no visitor parking.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed to endorse the Committee's approval subject to three conditions, including the new visitor parking requirement.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision regarding a minor variance application.

During the hearing, the City of Toronto sought to qualify an assistant planner as an expert witness in land use planning.

The applicant objected, noting the proposed witness lacked a university degree, was not a member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute, and had falsely claimed in his curriculum vitae to have been previously qualified as an expert by the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body refused to qualify the witness, finding his lack of credentials and the false statement damaged his credibility.

The hearing was adjourned on consent to allow the City to retain a new expert witness.

The Tribunal held a telephone conference call to receive a status update on the fulfilment of conditions imposed in a previous Interim Order regarding appeals of a failure to adopt an Official Plan amendment and Zoning By-law amendment.

The parties provided updates on the outstanding conditions, including the final form of the instruments, a Transportation Impact Study addendum, and a peer review of a combined noise and vibration study.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Order setting deadlines for further updates and directing the City to request prioritization of the peer review.

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

Prior to a hearing, the appellant withdrew its appeal by email.

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

The Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the hearing of an appeal regarding a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 17-storey mixed-use building at 1930-1938 Bloor Street West and 3, 5 and 21 Quebec Avenue in Toronto.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the issues list, and the order of evidence.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval applications to permit a 45-storey residential building.

The parties reached a settlement, which was endorsed by City Council.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial policy and in conformity with the Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the amendments in principle on an interim basis, and deferred the site plan appeal.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a 35-storey addition to an existing 16-storey heritage building.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised 37-storey addition that retains the heritage building and includes affordable rental units.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested planning evidence that the revised proposal represents good land use planning and allowed the appeals in part on an interim basis, withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of several conditions.

The parties requested a short adjournment of a scheduled settlement hearing regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan approval applications for a 45-storey residential building at 10 Huntley Street.

The adjournment was requested because the draft instruments were not yet available.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and rescheduled the settlement hearing.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan Amendment and refusal to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal with reduced height and density.

The Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan, representing good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the amendments were approved in principle subject to conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by landowners against the City of Toronto's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 633 concerning the Jane Finch Secondary Plan.

The appellants seek higher proposed heights on their lands.

The Tribunal directed the appellants to provide an issues list and confirm if their appeals can proceed on a site-specific basis, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference for February 2025.