Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
23 170963 S45 14 TLAB
Nicol (Re), 2023 ONTLAB 151
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: November 1, 2023
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER Section 45(12), subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the "Act")
Appellant(s): L. NICOL
Applicant(s): R. KAIMAL
Property Address: 1064 GREENWOOD AVE.
COA File No.: 23 127644 STE 14 MV (A0320/23TEY)
TLAB Case File No.: 23 170963 S45 14 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): October 31, 2023
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member G. SWINKIN
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
| People Type | First Initial. Last Name | Representative |
|---|---|---|
| Owner | L. Koroloff | |
| Primary Owner/Appellant | L. Nicol | R. Banse |
| Applicant | R. Kaimal |
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1An application was brought by the owner of 1064 Greenwood Avenue to the Committee of Adjustment for the purpose of securing variance relief from various provisions of City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013 in order to convert an existing rear yard garage to a garden suite.
2The relief related to reduced rear yard soft landscaping, reduced rear and side yards, elimination of the requirement for an on-site parking space and with respect to significant penetrations of prescribed angular planes around the proposed structure.
3The Committee refused the application.
4The owner appealed to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the "Tribunal"), which triggered this hearing.
5The record reflects that a Notice of Hearing with respect to this appeal was prepared in the prescribed form and transmitted to the owner and others entitled to that notice.
6Absolutely no elections for Party or Participant status were filed in advance of the hearing and absolutely no documents or witness statements were filed.
7The Tribunal convened the proceeding at precisely 9:30 a.m. on October 31, 2023, the scheduled appeal hearing day.
8No person was in attendance at the commencement of the hearing.
9The Tribunal panel remained present for a half hour thereafter and no person connected or attended.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
10Provincial Policy – S. 3
A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) must be consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan) for the subject area.
11Variance – S. 45(1)
In considering the applications for variances from the Zoning By-laws, the TLAB Panel must be satisfied that the applications meet all of the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act. The tests are whether the variances:
- maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
- maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-laws;
- are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
- are minor.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
12As no person was present at the hearing, no evidence was heard by the Tribunal.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
13The Tribunal does not have an explicit rule dealing with failures of attendance by an appellant. However, the Ontario Land Tribunal ("OLT"}, which carries out a similar function to the Tribunal does have an explicit rule dealing with Party non-attendances at the time of hearing commencement.
14The OLT Rule 3.3 stipulates that "the Tribunal will not proceed for at least 30 minutes after the commencement time given in the Notice for an in person hearing event if a party of record or that party's representative has not yet appeared, unless prior notice has been given to the Tribunal that the person will not attend at the scheduled time.
15That Rule then goes on to stipulate that for an electronic hearing event the time period for standing down is 15 minutes.
16As this Tribunal does not have an explicit rule on this circumstance, the Tribunal took guidance from OLT Rule 3.3, and in order to afford a reasonable measure of indulgence to the appellant here, the Tribunal stood down for 30 minutes.
17On an appeal to the Tribunal, there is an obligation on the appellant to call a case in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules which will provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the application meets the four tests in Section 45{1} of the Planning Act.
18As the Tribunal here had no such evidence, the appellant's appeal could not succeed and was therefore dismissed for want of prosecution.
DECISION AND ORDER
19As the Tribunal here had no such evidence, the appellant's appeal could not succeed and was therefore dismissed for want of prosecution.
G. Swinkin Panel Member