Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 12, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001720
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Harnek Singh Randhawa
Subject: Consent
Reference Number: HM/B-21:80
Property Address: 182 West 2nd St.
Municipality: City of Hamilton
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001720
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001720
OLT Case Name: Singh Randhawa v. Hamilton (City)
Heard: March 20, 2023 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties Harnek Singh Randhawa
Representative Ajay Randhawa
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED by S. DIXON and W. DANIEL BEST ON March 20, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision arises from a hearing on the merits of an appeal filed by Harnek Singh Randhawa (“Appellant”) pursuant to s. 53(19) of the Planning Act in respect of consent application HM/B-21:80 (“Consent Application”) in the City of Hamilton (“City”) for the lands known municipally as 182 West 2nd Street (“Subject Lands”).
2The Subject Lands are currently occupied by a single-detached dwelling. The Appellant, owner of the Subject Lands, submitted the Consent Application to the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) with a corresponding minor variance application. The purpose of the combined applications was to permit the severance of the Subject Lands into two equal parcels to facilitate the development of two new single-detached dwellings (one on each lot). The existing single-detached dwelling is proposed to be demolished.
3City planning staff recommended that the applications be approved, subject to certain conditions. The COA denied the applications.
4The Appellant subsequently appealed the COA’s decision on the Consent Application to the Tribunal. However, no appeal was filed for the associated minor variance application.
INITIAL HEARING
5The Tribunal held a hearing on the merits of the appeal to the Consent Application on May 3, 2022 (“Initial Hearing”). Prior to the Initial Hearing, the Tribunal was advised that the City would not be taking a position on the appeal and therefore did not intend on participating at the hearing.
6At the Initial Hearing, the Appellant and his representative, Sanjay Dube, advised the Tribunal that their intent was for the Tribunal to also issue a decision with respect to the associated minor variance application. The Tribunal explained that it has no ability or mechanism to create an appeal, and as such the merits of the minor variance application could not be heard by the presiding Panel, nor could a decision be issued with respect to same.
7In an effort to provide an opportunity for a fair hearing of the Consent Application, the Tribunal adjourned the Initial Hearing to provide the Appellant an opportunity to submit a new minor variance application with the COA. If refused, the Appellant would then have an opportunity to file a new appeal of the COA’s decision with the Tribunal and have both the consent and minor variance appeals heard together at a future date.
8The Tribunal issued a Decision and Order for the Initial Hearing on May 26, 2022, in which the Appellant was ordered to be prepared to proceed with a hearing of the appeal(s) by no later than 120 days from the date the Order was issued (i.e., September 23, 2022).
9Following the issuance of the Decision and Order, the Tribunal rescheduled the hearing for March 20, 2023. An updated notice was issued to the Parties.
RESCHEDULED HEARING
10In advance of the rescheduled hearing (“Hearing”) and at the request of the Tribunal for an update from the Parties, the Tribunal received correspondence from the City indicating that new applications had been filed for the Subject Lands but had been tabled by the COA. Accordingly, no decisions had been made by the COA on the new applications and no new appeals had been filed with respect to the Subject Lands. The City further advised the Tribunal that they would once again not be taking a position on the appeal of the Consent Application or attending the Hearing.
11On March 15, 2023, the Tribunal received a request on behalf of the Appellant to adjourn the Hearing on the basis that the Appellant was out of the country and could not provide direction on how to proceed at the Hearing. The adjournment request was filed by an individual other than Mr. Dube, without the written consent of all Parties. The request was denied by the Tribunal pursuant to Rule 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
12At the Hearing, only the Appellant’s son, Ajay Randhawa, was in attendance. Mr. Randhawa advised that his father’s representative, Mr. DeFilippis, was not able to attend the Hearing due to unforeseen circumstances and again requested an adjournment on behalf of the Appellant.
13The Tribunal notes that the individuals intending to represent the Appellant are not lawyers or paralegals, and no Authorization Form has been received by the Tribunal to authorize any representative to act on behalf of the Appellant.
14The Tribunal informed Mr. Randhawa that it is not in favour of further delaying the Hearing, particularly if new applications for both consent and minor variances are before the COA for consideration that may render the matter before the Tribunal redundant.
15The Tribunal reminded Mr. Randhawa that only the Consent Application was before the Tribunal at this time and directed him to confirm the details of the new applications by March 24, 2023. Following the Hearing, the Tribunal received correspondence from the City and Mr. Randhawa confirming that new applications for both consent and minor variances had been submitted to the City and are currently before the COA.
FINDINGS
16Based on the submissions of the Appellant’s son and the City, the Tribunal is aware that new applications have been filed with the City for both consent and minor variances for the Subject Lands.
17The Tribunal finds that hearing an appeal on a past consent application, particularly without the benefit of the associated requested minor variances, and where new applications for both consent and minor variances have been submitted to the City for consideration, establishes an unnecessary redundancy.
18Should the new applications for consent and minor variances be denied by the COA, the Appellant will have the opportunity to file new appeals with the Tribunal and have both applications heard together.
19Based on the foregoing, the Tribunal finds that the appeal should be dismissed.
ORDER
20THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is dismissed.
“S. Dixon”
S. dixon
MEMBER
“W. Daniel Best”
W. DANIEL BEST
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.