Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: November 04, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000856
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Aman Deep Singh
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit the development of a driveway extension, soft landscaping, and to permit an accessory unit.
Reference Number: A 2024-0235
Property Address: 13 Henna Street
Municipality/UT: Brampton/Peel
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000856
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000856
OLT Case Name: Singh v. Brampton (City)
Heard: October 24, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Aman Deep Singh
A. Bazad (in absentia)
City of Brampton
K. Dias
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. GOPIKRISHNA ON OCTOBER 24, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This Appeal arises under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”) from the partial approval of four different variances by the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) of the City of Brampton (“City”), submitted by Aman Deep Singh and Sharanjeet Kaur Thind (“Applicants” or “Appellants”) to permit the development of a driveway extension, soft landscaping and to permit an accessory unit at 13 Henna Street (“Site” or “Subject Lands”), located in the City.
2The Applicants’ original application to the COA, dated June 14, 2024, requested:
- permission for a driveway of 8.5 metres;
- permission for soft landscaping of 0.28 metres; and,
- permission for an existing accessory structure having setbacks of 0.51 metres and 0.3 metres to the nearest property line.
3The City alleged that the Application intended to legalize an expanded driveway that had been completed without obtaining planning approvals, as well as maintain an existing accessory structure located in the rear yard with reduced setbacks, which had also been built without prior planning approval. After the City’s Zoning Plans Examiner conducted a Zoning Review, the following variances were identified, and were the subject of a COA hearing completed on July 16, 2024:
- To permit an accessory structure (existing shed) located in the rear yard having a setback of 0.51 metres to the rear lot line, whereas the By-law requires a minimum of 0.6 metres to the nearest lot line;
- To permit an accessory structure (existing shed) located in the rear yard having a setback of 0.3 metres to the side lot line, whereas the By-law requires a minimum 0.6 metres to the nearest lot line;
- To permit a driveway of 10.36 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum driveway width of 7.32 metres; and,
- To permit 0.28 metres of permeable landscaping abutting the side lot line, whereas the By-law requires a minimum of 0.6 metres of permeable landscaping abutting the side lot line.
4On July 16, 2024, the COA considered the Application and approved Variances (1) and (2) listed above, modified Variance (3) above, and refused Variance (4) in its entirety. The COA also imposed all the conditions recommended by the Planning and Traffic Staff, and stated that the failure to comply with, and maintain the conditions of the COA would result in the approval becoming null and void.
5The Appellant appealed the COA’s decision to the Tribunal on August 1, 2024, which scheduled a hearing on October 24, 2024. On August 10, 2024, the City indicated its interest in participating in this proceeding respecting 13 Henna Street, by way of an email dated August 30, 2024.
6On October 21, 2024, the Appellant emailed to the Tribunal stating that they had retained Mr. Arun Bazad as their Counsel, before requesting for an adjournment so that they could retain an Expert Witness - it is important to note that the City was not copied on this communication. The Tribunal directed the Appellant to appear at the Hearing with their Counsel, explain why they could not retain an Expert Witness earlier, and request for an adjournment in person.
THE ADJOURNMENT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
7At the commencement of the Hearing, the Appellant reiterated his request for an adjournment in order to retain an Expert Witness. When asked if they were still represented by Mr. Bazad, they answered in the affirmative, and claimed that their Counsel could not be present because he was “busy”. The Tribunal expressed its disappointment at the Appellant’s Counsel being absent notwithstanding a specific direction to be present, before asking the City for its position regarding the requested adjournment.
8Mr. Kevin Dias, Counsel for the City, stated that the City was opposed to the adjournment because it had met all the required deadlines for submitting witness statements, and had brought its planning witness to the Hearing. Counsel pointed out that they were not aware that the Appellant had retained a legal representative, and had no idea that an adjournment would be requested.
9The Tribunal reiterated its disappointment at the absence of the Appellant’s Counsel, and ruled that it would grant the adjournment, “however reluctantly”, because of prejudice to the Appellant’s interests should the Appeal proceed to a hearing in the absence of the Appellant’s Counsel. The Tribunal asked the Appellant how long it would take for them to retain counsel, and prepare for the Hearing, to which he replied that it would take about a month.
10After ascertaining the availability of the Parties and its own availability, the Tribunal stated it would continue with the Hearing of the Merits by video at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, November 27, 2024. It emphasized that the date was peremptory, explaining to the Appellant that when the hearing date is “peremptory” the hearing would proceed on the given date, irrespective of the presence or absence of Parties, and their witnesses. The Tribunal also explained the de novo nature of the hearing, and emphasized how the burden of proof fell on the Applicant as a result of the de novo nature of the Proceeding. The Tribunal noted that no further notice was required.
11Mr. Dias, Counsel for the City, observed that it was important for the Appellant to submit documents that would be relied upon by its Witness at the upcoming hearing ten (10) days before the hearing. The Tribunal agreed with Mr. Dias’ request and ordered the Appellant to ensure that the documents be submitted by Monday, November 18, 2024. It also alerted the Appellants to the importance of sharing information with the City, as well as the Tribunal, in a timely fashion.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
12The Tribunal adjourned the Hearing only because the Counsel retained by the Appellant was not present at the Hearing. The Tribunal reiterates its disappointment at the absence of the Counsel notwithstanding clear instructions asking them to be present at the Hearing to discuss why an adjournment was required, and herewith admonishes Appellant’s Counsel for not following instructions.
13Given the absence of Counsel, the Tribunal found it important to explain the de novo nature of the proceeding to the Appellants, and emphasize how the burden of proof rests with them. The Tribunal finds it appropriate to emphasize to the Parties that the Appellants are required to submit all material that they will rely upon for evidentiary purposes at the Hearing to the Tribunal, as well as to the City, by the end of the day on Monday, November 18, 2024.
HEARING DETAILS
14Parties and/or Participants and/or Observers are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before it begins to test their video and audio connections:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/709076365
Access code: 709-076-365
15Parties and/or Participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoTo Meeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html
16Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to it by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: (Toll-Free) 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The access code is: 709-076-365.
17Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the event to ensure that they are properly connected at the correct time. Questions prior to the event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator.
ORDER
18THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:
(a) the adjournment requested by Aman Deep Singh (“Appellant”) is granted, and that the Hearing of the Merits will proceed on Wednesday, November 27, 2024 by way of a video that will commence at 10 a.m. The date is peremptory, and no further notice will be given. The connection information is included in this Decision.
(b) The Appellant must submit their Witness Statement, and any other documents to be relied upon for evidentiary purposes by the end of the day on Monday, November 18, 2024. The City is given time until the end of the day on Friday, November 22, 2024 to file any Reply Witness Statement where appropriate.
“S. Gopikrishna”
S. GOPIKRISHNA
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.