After a seven-year court odyssey and series of hit-and-miss legal arguments, a Toronto family has won the right to keep an illegal addition on their home.

The battle between Shih and Yang Tseng and the city began in 2006, when the couple built a two-storey addition at the back of their Victorian home in Harbord Village. They constructed it without a building permit from the city.

The Tsengs said they didn’t know they needed the permit. The city contended the family knew and pushed ahead despite that.

In July, after rejecting a long list of legal explanations, the Ontario Municipal Board allowed two “minor variances” to the addition, allowing it to stand as is.

This is the rare case in which a family has taken on several levels of bureaucracy and, faced with years of struggle, simply outlasted it. The family lost at several divisional courts, a committee-of-adjustment panel and an earlier OMB hearing, but continued to appeal.

At each stage, the Tsengs were ordered to demolish the addition.

But they fought on, led by Pauling Tseng, who is both a lawyer and the owner of her parents’ home.

In the aftermath, no one appears happy.

Not the Tsengs.

“The city almost killed us,” said Shih Tseng, 76. “We won the case, but we live in great fear of the city.”

Nor the neighbourhood.

“This is such a piss-off after years of fighting this thing,” said Rory “Gus” Sinclair, a former Harbord Village Residents’ Association president.

Nor the politicians who got involved.

“This decision shows how useless the OMB is,” Trinity-Spadina Councillor Adam Vaughan said. “They have opened the door to illegal construction.

“What is to stop a condo developer from building 40 storeys when they’re approved for 30, and just asking for approval later? Now, my goal is to destroy the OMB.”

Vaughan added that the city won’t be fighting the latest decision, as “too much time and money have been spent on this.”

At the OMB hearing, Pauline Tseng was indefatigable in the face of legal rejection. Among her arguments were human-rights abuses and violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The first avenue of rebuttal hinged on the mental health of Shih and Yang Tseng, 70, and the testimony of an American psychiatrist, Barry Roth.

Roth diagnosed both Tsengs with dementia, major depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, the latter two ailments allegedly brought on by the fight over their house.

Roth argued the Tsengs should remain in their house under the current configuration, owing to their mobility problems and the proximity of family members nearby.

The board dismissed this argument as the city wasn’t seeking to remove the family from the house, but instead ordering them to return the house to its pre-renovation condition.

When Shih Tseng became agitated under questioning from the city’s lawyers, proceedings were halted to determine whether he was competent and able to testify.

The psychiatrist, Roth, first said that he would examine Tseng to ascertain his competence. Overnight, he about-faced, claiming he could not assess Tseng because he was not licensed to practise in Ontario.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

The board dismissed Roth, saying his testimony “was filled with lengthy, repetitive, formulaic answers that did not address the questions put to him.”

However, the board did allow Shih Tseng’s testimony to stand. He went on to say that the addition was necessary as an alternate sleeping space, owing to the noise created by a device his wife uses to allay sleep apnea.

The board dismissed this argument as well, saying that four other rooms in the house could be reconfigured to allow both to sleep properly.

Next, Pauline Tseng argued that the house on Brunswick Ave. is close to a long-term care facility that one of the Tsengs may need to move into in the future if the health of either continues to decline.

Another strike. The board waived that contention away on the grounds that, once ill, there was no guarantee either Tseng could move to the proposed site, given the limitations of space, waiting lists and the like.

At this point, Pauline Tseng got creative. She argued that tearing down the addition constituted a violation of her parents’ religious freedoms, citing a successful case in which Orthodox Jews set up sukkahs on their condominium balconies, despite a bylaw forbidding their alteration.

Shih Tseng explained that he prayed in the addition. He later admitted he also prayed in other parts of the house. That was dismissed as well.

They also argued the city violated its human rights and anti-harassment policy — although that was dismissed because it only pertained to employer-employee relationships.

They cited another case involving human-rights violations based on the obligations of a landlord. That was dismissed because the Tsengs’ daughter is, in effect, their landlord, rather than the city.

The board rejected every argument related to human rights, which included several more cases and examples that didn’t apply.

Finally, the Tsengs argued under section 45(1) of the city’s Planning Act that “contemplates the possibility of a minor variance” under the bylaw.

Many houses violate the city’s bylaw for depth of a house, set at 14 metres, because they were built before the law was enacted. Since the Tsengs’ house was already in violation of the bylaw, it seems the OMB allowed this addition to stand.

The OMB can’t explain the rationale because “decisions issued by the OMB are considered ‘res ipsa loquitur’ — the thing speaks for itself,” according to its website.

The board, in effect, said the addition was good enough to fit into the neighbourhood’s look and feel, building permits be damned.