Barrister & Solicitor | Integrity Commissioner

Menu

City of Toronto

  1. Chiu v. City of Toronto (Committee of Adjustment)

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Residential Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The Applicants wish to construct a new two-storey dwelling on the subject property. They applied for and received authorization from the Committee of Adjustment. The Committee’s decision was appealed by Carolyn Koziskie and Lucinda Chiu, who are abutting owners to the north and east respectively. The Applicants and the Appellant, Carolyn Koziskie settled their differences and the application was being amended to reflect the agreement reached between them.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed in part.


    Reasons:

    The Board is satisfied that the variances, individually and cumulatively, meet the four tests. The intent of the Official Plan is met, and the proposed variances will result in a dwelling that respects and reinforces the physical character of the neighbourhood. The intent of the zoning by-law is maintained, and the authorization of these variances will have less of an impact than potential “as of right” development concepts. The variances are minor both by order of magnitude and will not cause any adverse impact on anyone. The Appellants are concerned about impact on their existing view, and it is well settled law that there is no right to the protection of a view in Ontario. Authorization of these variances will allow the construction of a dwelling meeting modern needs of creative design that will maintain the high quality of the neighbourhood.


    Document(s):



  2. Nizar Fakirani Professional Corp. v. City of Toronto

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Minor Variances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The Applicant seeks to permit an existing private school to continue to provide full time English as a second language and high school courses on the main floor of the building. A variance is required from Employment Districts Zoning By-law No. 24982 to permit a 140 square metre private secondary school. The Committee of Adjustment refused to authorize the variance and the Applicant has appealed the decision.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The board finds that the variance is desirable for the appropriate use of the land and building, the general intent and purpose of the By-law and of the Official Plan are maintained and it is minor in impact. The Board further states that there were not neighbours who attended the hearing raising issues with the school; it provides employment in an area designated as an Employment Area; and there was no evidence suggesting any adverse impact.


    Document(s):



  3. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 938 v. Wei

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Condominium Development, Industrial Development, Minor Variances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Jane Wei operates the Middlefield Kumon Centre for mathematics and reading in the second floor of an industrial condominium in the City of Toronto. Some years ago, the City advised the applicant to obtain a variance for that use, which she did in 2006 and 2008. She had to reapply again in 2013 as the variance was only valid for two years and upon reapplication, the Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 938 appealed the Committee’s variance decision to the Board, alleging that the centre represented problems for the building management. Two other corporations with factories nearby, appeared to oppose the variance as well: Owens Corning Insulating Systems Canada LP and Trench Canada.


    Held:

    Appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    For the purposes of this appeal, the Board finds no evidence on which to suppose any digression from the four statutory tests at this time. The variance to the applicable Zoning By-law of the City of Toronto is authorized in accordance with the decision of the Committee of Adjustment. The Board found that, if the Motion were granted, the established situation would be compromised primarily on the basis of an apprehension – unproven – that a non-party might have difficulties with MOE at some indeterminate point in the future.


    Document(s):



  4. Menkes Lakeshore Ltd. v. Kraft Canada Inc.

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Commercial Development, Costs, Residential Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    A motion for costs arising from a hearing of the merits that lasted for some 50 hearing days. The central issue in the hearing was whether a mixed use designation, permitting commercial and residential uses, should be placed on any or all of the lands bounded by Park Lawn Road, Lakeshore Road West, Mimico Creek, and CNR lands. The Board held in favour of permitting mixed commercial and residential uses. Kraft’s application for leave to appeal was denied, with costs. Menkes has pursued its motion for costs, but only against Kraft, not the City.


    Held:

    Motion for costs is denied


    Reasons:

    The Board finds insufficient support in the affidavit evidence for the Board to make a finding of bad faith on the part of Kraft; they disagree that Kraft had ignored the Board’s directions and orders; they do not agree that noise and odour were not proper issues; and finds that it has insufficient evidence to make an award of costs against Kraft for failure to retain experts, submit reports, call evidence to challenge Menkes experts or advance an argument in support of issues of design, density and height.


    Document(s):



  5. Robertson v. City of Toronto

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Residential Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The Applicant/Appellant wishes to demolish the existing residence to erect a new residence and requires a number of variances for this purpose. The City’s Committee of Adjustment granted four of the five variances requested to North York Zoning By-law 7635, but refused the fifth. The Applicant/ Appellant is appealing the refusal.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed in part (variance subject to conditions set out by Board)


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the application meets all four tests of Section 45(1) of the Planning Act; meets the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan as well as the Zoning By-law; the application represented appropriate development of the land and was minor in nature; and no adverse impacts will follow from the granting of it.


    Document(s):



  6. Waltman v. City of Toronto

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Residential Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Elise Waltman is requesting a variance from the provisions of the north York Zoning By-law 7625, as amended, to permit the construction of a two storey dwelling at 132 Dunblaine Avenue in the City of Toronto. The existing dwelling will be demolished. The Committee of Adjustment denied the Applicant’s minor variance application. The Applicant appealed the Committee’s decision to the Ontario Municipal Board. An amendment was made at a later date to these variances (see attachment).


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that all of the four tests of subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act have been satisfied regarding the amended variances. The Board finds that the amended variances are minor and that they comply with the general purpose and intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law and is desirable for the development proposed.


    Document(s):



  7. Komeilinejad v. City of Toronto

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Commercial Development, Minor Variances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    An appeal to the Committee of Adjustment of the City of Toronto for a minor variance to create six parking spaces at the rear of her property, however, Zoning By-law 7625 requires eight parking spaces of a specified size and with specified turning circles and aisles for the uses proposed. The appeal is under subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board concludes that the proposal will comply with and conform to the land use documents and represents appropriate planning. The Board allows the appeal and the site plan approval requested be authorized subject to the conditions set out at the hearing.


    Document(s):



  8. D’Urzo v. City of Toronto

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Residential Development, Severances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    An appeal from decisions of the Committee of Adjustment for the City of Toronto, which dismissed two applications for consent and three minor variances for the purpose of the application is to create three single-family building lots where two currently exist. In order for construction to occur, the applicant applied for the following variances from By-law 7625: proposed frontage and width of 12.89 metres whereas minimum is 15 metres; side yard setback of 1.21 metres whereas minimum is 1.54 metres; and proposed dwelling length of 18.9 metres whereas maximum is 18.8 metres.


    Held:

    Appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    It is clear to the Board that this is a very stable single-family area with large lots and is undergoing revitalization with existing lots being purchased and new home being constructed, and is therefore not in a state of decline or transition to a different or more intensive use. It is also clear that the Official Plan policies state that preservation of stable residential area is an important policy direction and that intensification as being proposed should be undertaken with circumspection. The Board finds that this residential area is not in decline or that reduced lot sizes are required as a planning tool to reinvigorate the area.


    Document(s):



  9. Bamberger v. Morgan, Hamilton and Natale

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Residential Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The applicants are seeking to replace their existing one storey rear addition with a new two-storey addition. Zoning By-law 438-86 prescribes a maximum gross floor area of 163.82 square metres or 0.35 times the area of the lot and a west side yard setback of a minimum of 0.9 metres. The owners are seeking relief from these provisions so as to have a gross floor area of the building of 232.06 square metres and a west side yard of 0.76 metres.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed in part


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the four tests required under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act have been met. The objectors were in agreement with the applicants and it has been confirmed that the settlement has been successfully reached. Further, the Board finds that the proposal satisfies that Official Plan policies individually and collectively; it will create reinvestment and regeneration to the neighbourhood; and there are no adverse planning impacts.


    Document(s):



  10. Kay Family Trust v. City of Toronto

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Residential Development, Severances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    An appeal from a decision of the Committee of Adjustment of the City of Toronto that dismissed an application for consent to convey approximately 215.3 square metres of land from the rear yard area of the Kay Family Trust Property to be added to the rear yard area of the Brodie property.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board agrees that there is no adverse impact on the public interest and that the rear yard amenity area function would remain unchanged. Its intended use for soft landscaping and the lot addition, results in a lot depth and area more in keeping with the existing physical character of the vicinity and no resulting adverse impact. The Board finds that consent meets the applicable criteria as set out in subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.


    Document(s):



  11. Muchnik v. Garfield

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Residential Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The applicants are proposing to demolish a small bungalow in order to construct a new two-storey home. To do this, they require four variances from the zoning by-law. They applied to the Committee of Adjustment for the City of Toronto for approval of those variances and were granted approval. The appellants were not satisfied with the decision as the second storey home will exceed the by-law maximum and affect the appellants; therefore they have appealed the decision before the Board.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed in part


    Reasons:

    At the commencement of the hearing, the Board was advised that the parties had achieved a settlement of the issues between them that would result in a reduction in length of the second storey. The Board also finds that the amendment to the variance application is minor, and that no further notice of the variance is required. Further, the Board concludes that the variances meet the four tests under the Planning Act, there will, be no adverse impact on adjacent properties or on the neighbourhood and it meets the general intent of the Official Plan and zoning by-law.


    Document(s):




  12. Pope v. Toronto (City)

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Heritage Conservation


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The matters before the Board consist of appeals under the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act in connection with By-law 115-2003 enacted by Council for the City of Toronto designating a specific area of the City as a heritage conservation district pursuant to Part V of the Act.


    Held:

    Appeals dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board accepts the submissions of Counsel and the evidence of the expert witnesses that the designation of the south Rosedale Area as a Heritage Conservation District represents good planning. The restrictions to individual property owners are minimal as the permitting system is in no way directed at interior renovations or exterior renovations that cannot be seen from the street. The Board further states that ratepayers and volunteers have been desirous of a heritage designation for the area for many years and the action of Council in enacting the By-law has widespread support.


    Document(s):



  13. Mattamy (Rouge) Ltd. v. City of Toronto

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Plan of Subdivision, Residential Development


    Court:

    Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Divisional Court


    Application/issue:

    Application by the Ontario Municipal Board for determination of a stated case as to whether the board had jurisdiction to order a municipality to assume ownership of, and service, a laneway in a subdivision against its wishes. The applicant Mattamy owned 150 acres of land in Toronto; it wished to build a subdivision and submitted plans to the city for approval. The plans included laneways for access, depicted as public streets, which Mattamy intended to be city streets with attendant city services. The city refused to approve the plans on the grounds that the proposed lanes were too narrow, at 10.5 metres, for city streets, whereas the City’s standard width was 18.5 metres. Mattamy argued that, within the subdivision, the proposed width met all needs for access by the city and its services, and that the plan should be approved. It also argued that the city had assumed ownership of other laneways of the same width in the area. Mattamy appealed to the Board, seeking approval of the plan and an order requiring the city to assume the ownership and service of the laneways at the proposed width. The city argued that the Board had no jurisdiction to make such an order.


    Held:

    The OMB did not have jurisdiction to order the city to assume the ownership of the proposed laneways or to service those laneways, even if the OMB approved Mattamy’s subdivision plan.


    Reasons:

    The Board does not have any jurisdiction to order the City to assume roads or services under section 41 or section 51 or the Planning Act, and the Board does not have the jurisdiction to order the City, against its will, to enter into subdivision agreements or site plan agreements that include clauses requiring the municipality to assume roads and services in order to give effect to the Board’s decision approving the plan. It is therefore the Board’s view that they are without jurisdiction to order the City, contrary to its wishes, to do any of the things set out in the stated case submitted to the court.


    Document(s):



  14. York Rose Investments Ltd. v. City of Toronto

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    No categories


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:


    Held:


    Reasons:


    Document(s):



  15. Grivogiannis v. Toronto (City) Committee of Adjustment

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Residential Development, Severances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The appellant seeks permission to create a new lot of 1150 metres squared, primarily by the removal of the three-car garage attached to the southeast side of his bungalow. To address conflictions with two standards of Zoning By-law 6752, the appellant also seeks a variance to the lot frontage and permission to install a front parking pad to the front of the bungalow. His application to the panel of the Toronto Committee of Adjustment having been denied, they have been appealed to the Board.


    Held:

    Appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the proposed lot will adversely affect the physical character of the neighbourhood by introducing an inappropriate lot shape and house form that fails to adequately address item 51(24) of the Planning Act. Also, having found that the application is in conflict with the East York Official Plan policy 2.5.8, it fails to address item 51(24) of the Act.


    Document(s):




  16. Holland and Wong v. City of Toronto

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Residential Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    An appeal from the decision of the Committee of Adjustment of the City of Toronto which refused an application for relief from the provisions of the R1B Zone of East York Zoning By-law No. 1916, to permit construction of a second storey portion of the existing dwelling. There are a number of abutting and adjacent property owners who oppose the application.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the four tests from the authorization of minor variances contained in subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act are met. Further, the proposed development represents good planning without significant adverse impacts on abutting and adjacent properties, and the character and stability of the area are maintained.


    Document(s):



  17. East Beach Community Assn. v. City of Toronto

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Motion to Dismiss, Official Plan Amendments, Residential Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Whether the appeals disclose any apparent planning grounds on which appeals can be given or refused.


    Held:

    Grants motion to dispense with the hearing


    Reasons:

    It is not good enough to simply raise apprehension. It would not constitute apparent planning ground by saying that further expert study is required with the hope that once a hearing is convened, more real issues can come forth. The Board is entitled to examine the reasons stated to see whether they constitute genuine, legitimate and authentic planning reasons. This is not to say that the Board should take away the rights of appeal whimsically, readily and without serious consideration of the circumstances of each case. This does not allow the Board to make a hasty conclusion as to the merit of an issue. Nor does it mean that every appellant should draft the appeal with punctilious care and arm itself with iron-clad reason for fear of being struck down. What these particular provisions allow the Board to do is seek out whether there is authenticity in the reasons stated, whether there are issues that should affect a decision in a hearing and whether the issues are worthy of the adjudicative process.


    Document(s):



  18. Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 12 v. Oshawa Group Ltd.

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    No categories


    Court:

    Assessment Review Board, Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    At issue is the correct business assessment to be assessed against the Oshawa Group Ltd. in Etobicoke. The parties agree that the Oshawa premises should be assessed at 50% pursuant to subsection 7(1)(e) of the Assessment Act. The Regional Assessment Commissioner (RAC) contends that Oshawa should be assessed at 75% in accordance with subsection 7(1)(c) of the Assessment Act. Oshawa contends that they should be assessed at 30% in accordance with the omnibus provisions of subsection 7(1)(k) of the Act.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    It is clear from the evidence presented to the Board that Oshawa does intervene in the business of its divisions. It operates their payroll and pension plan, it approves their annual budget, no major investment can be made by divisions without the approval of Oshawa, and more telling, the manager of each division is appointed and can be fired by Oshawa. In the Board’s opinion, given the facts stated above, it cannot be said that the divisions are operationally completely separate from Oshawa. Further, the Board finds that the Oshawa premises are for “the purpose of” and “in connection with” the business of its divisions and therefore allows the appeal by the Regional Assessment Commissioner.


    Document(s):