Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
Date: 2023-11-21 File: 23 176682 S45 25 TLAB Citation: Veerasamy (Re), 2023 ONTLAB 155
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: November 21, 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): V. Veerasamy
Applicant(s): V. Veerasamy
Property Address: 689 Morrish Rd.
COA File No.: 23 136139 ESC 25 MV (A0114/23SC)
TLAB Case File No.: 23 176682 S45 25 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): November 15, 2023
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Vice-Chair A. Bassios
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
| People Type | First Initial. Last Name | Representative |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Owner/Appellant/Applicant | V. Veerasamy | K. Abnaz |
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This is an Appeal of the City of Toronto (City) Committee of Adjustment’s (COA) refusal of an application for a variance for the property known as 689 Morrish Rd (subject property).
2The purpose of the application is to widen a driveway and remove the curb from the extended portion of the driveway.
Chapter 10.5.100.(1), By-Law 569-2013 The maximum permitted driveway width is 3.2 m. The proposed driveway width is 7.72 m.
3The subject property is located in the Highland Creek neighbourhood of the former City of Scarborough. It is designated Neighbourhoods in the City Official Plan (OP) and zoned RD under Zoning By-law 569-2013, and S under the former City of Scarborough Zoning By-law 10827 (By-laws).
4A neighbour to the subject property (Ms. Vitro) was in attendance. She had not elected Party or Participant status in this Appeal and I advised that she did not have standing and would therefore not be permitted to speak.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
5Variance – 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
6No evidence had been filed in support of the Appeal in advance of the Hearing (beyond the original filing of the Appeal). Mr. Abnaz appeared on behalf of the Owners and requested an adjournment so that he might have time to prepare a case.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
7The TLAB is committed to fixed and definite dates. The holding of an appeal hearing consumes public resources in preparation of case files, the securing of a Member to hear the matter and the sacrifice of a scheduled opportunity to hear another case that is pending. The scheduled Hearing is offered as the single opportunity for an Appellant to make their case and an adjournment because the Party is unprepared for the Hearing is not an inconsequential request.
8Mr. Abnaz explained that there was a miscommunication between the Owners and the company representing them.
9Mr. Abnaz acknowledged that the Owners received the TLAB’s Notices but explained that these were not passed on to him.
10Mr. Abnaz acknowledged that his clients had been notified of the Hearing and of the requirements for Parties via the Notice of Hearing. It is the responsibility of the Appellant to understand the seriousness of the act of filing an Appeal and to discharge their obligations in accordance with the TLAB Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules).
11In the period between the filing of the Appeal, the receipt of the Notice of Hearing and the convening of the actual Hearing, it was incumbent on the Appellants and/or their representative to inform themselves of the expectations and responsibilities of the TLAB Appeal process.
12I am sympathetic to the Owners of the property and to Mr. Abnaz, who are collectively unfamiliar with the TLAB process and with the requirements that evidence be submitted in order to support the variance request. Nonetheless, the process and obligations are laid out in the Notice of Hearing and in the TLAB Public Guide, the TLAB Rules of Practice and Procedure and the Practice Directions, which are all available on the TLAB website.
13I advised Mr. Abnaz that the Hearing would not be adjourned. I allowed him to speak on behalf of the request for the variance although a Witness Statement had not been filed in accordance with the TLAB’s Rules.
14I explained to Mr. Abnaz the requirement of the Planning Act that a variance may only be approved on the basis of the four tests (set out above). Evidence to support the requested variance must address those four tests.
15Mr. Abnaz advised that a member of the Owner’s household is a senior and disabled. They have a stair elevator and are looking to enlarge the curb so that a mobility machine can go through. Mr. Abnaz did not address the four tests or provide a planning context for his request.
16Persons unfamiliar with the land use planning process and the procedures of the TLAB can, and have been, successful in achieving the outcomes they sought. Success, however, does require a researched understanding of the expectations of the Tribunal, the underlying legislative framework, the policies of the Official Plan and the intent behind the provisions of the Zoning By-law.
17The Owners and their representative did not meet the obligations that come with the filing of an Appeal before the TLAB. Without relevant evidence in support of the request, I have no basis upon which to approve the variance.
CONCLUSION
18No evidence has been submitted addressing the four tests set out in the statute for approving a variance. I have no basis for approving the requested variance.
DECISION AND ORDER
19The Appeal is dismissed. The Committee of Adjustment decision noted above is final and binding, and the file of the Toronto Local Appeal Body is closed.
A. Bassios Vice Chair