Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 211 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
Date: 2023-02-22
2022 118391 S45 19 TLAB
Kurup v. Mallinson, 2023 ONTLAB 20
ORDER
Issuance Date: February 22, 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. Kurup
Applicant(s): Barrett Municipal Consulting
Property Address: 20 Long Crescent
COA File No.: 21 230974 STE 19 MV
TLAB Case File No.: 2022 118391 S45 19 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): February 14, 2023
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Chair D. Lombardi
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type Name Representative
Applicant Barrett Municipal Consulting
Appellant / Owner L. Kurup M. Cara
Party J. Watson
Party M. Mallinson D. Bronskill
Expert Witness F. Romano
Expert Witness D. Igelman
Participant City of Toronto C. Dougherty D. Abimbola
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This is a Teleconference regarding an appeal of an application for the property known as 20 Long Crescent (subject property) - TLAB Case File No. 22 118391 TLAB, S. 45 of the Planning Act.
2I asked TLAB staff to urgently schedule this Teleconference call to address a matter that recently came to my attention as the presiding Panel Member.
3The Application in question is for 6 variances in total, 5 from the City of Toronto’s harmonized Zoning By-law 569-2013, and 1 from the former Zoning By-law 438-86, to permit the Applicant to construct a new three-storey detached residential dwelling with an integral garage, a front porch, a rear deck, a front basement walkout, and third storey front and rear balconies.
4The Committee of Adjustment (COA) refused the Application, as amended, on February 9, 2022, and the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) set a Hearing date for August 3, 2022, to hear the appeal matter.
5In the interim and prior to the Hearing day, Michael Mallinson and Julie Watson, immediate neighbours, respectively, to the subject property and whom I will refer to as the Moving Parties filed Motions to the TLAB requesting relief by way of an Order related to the following three items:
i. to allow the Motions to be served prior to obtaining a Motion date;
ii. to grant relief from the TLAB’s Rules of Practice and Procedure to allow late filings of an Intention to be a Party along with an Expert Witness Statement and Document Disclosure; and,
iii. to grant an extension of the time limit to submit the above documents.
6The City of Toronto (City) also filed a Motion a week later, also prior to the scheduled Hearing date. The City’s Motion similarly requested an Order of the TLAB reflecting the relief sought by the other Moving Parties, cited above.
7For convenience and given that the above-referenced Motions were similar and interrelated, they were consolidated as permitted by the TLAB’s Rules.
8As a result, and as sought by the Applicant, I converted the August 3, 2022 Hearing to an Oral Motion Hearing and I heard testimony and evidence regarding the Combined Motions.
9In attendance at that Hearing were the Appellant/Owner, his legal representative and expert witness, the Moving Parties and their legal representative.
10Subsequently, in a TLAB decision issued on October 14, 2022 (Decision), I granted the Moving Parties’ Combined Motion, in part, permitting Mr. Mallinson, Ms. Watson, and the City to elect Participant status. My Decision also outlined specific filing dates for a Participant Witness Statement from each. I also directed TLAB staff to schedule a new Hearing date (Day 2) for early in the new year.
11Additionally, I also directed that TLAB staff issue a new Notice of Hearing (NOH) keeping the deadline filing due dates previously established in the original Notice of Hearing unchanged but allowing Ms. Watson, Mr. Mallinson, and the City to serve on the Parties and file with the TLAB their Participant Witness Statements by no later than 20 days after the new NOH is issued.
12On January 12, 2023, I was made aware by TLAB staff of the issuance of the new Notice of Hearing setting a Hearing date in this matter for February 17, 2023.
In preparation for the February 17th Hearing, I took the opportunity on February 11th to review the file for 20 Long Crescent on the TLAB’s AIC website. Doing so is quite common for me as it reflects a practice that I follow before any Hearings and after I am assigned a Hearing matter.
After an extensive review of the file on February 11th, I became aware of new information which caused me to step back and reconsider whether I could continue in my role as the Member seized in this appeal proceeding and, more importantly, whether I should continue to hear the matter.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
13Rules 2.1, 2. and 2.3 of the TLAB’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules):
Rule 2.1 – The TLAB is committed to fixed and definite dates. These Rules shall be interpreted in a manner which facilitates that objective.
Rule 2.2 – These Rules shall be liberally interpreted to secure the just, most expeditious and cost-effective determination of every Proceeding on its merits.
Rule 2.2 – The TLAB may exercise any of its powers under these Rules or applicable law, on its own initiative or at the request of any Party.
CONCLUSION
14Given the turn of events described above and the fact that I only became aware of this new information one (1) week before the scheduled Hearing on Day 2, and after careful consideration and serious thought, I concluded that the only appropriate course of action was to immediately recuse myself as the presiding Member in this matter in order to maintain the integrity and transparency of the TLAB process.
15I, therefore, advised the Parties and the Participant in attendance at the Teleconference of my decision.
ORDER
16TLAB staff are directed to immediately reassign this file to a different Tribunal Panel Member. That Member will be seized to hear the matter.
17Hearing Day 2 in this matter scheduled for February 17, 2023, will be retained, if possible, at the Parties’ request unless the Panel Member reassigned to this matter is unable to attend on that Day.
18If the reassigned Panel Member is unavailable, then TLAB staff will secure a new date for Hearing Day 2 and issue a new Notice of Hearing (NOH) for Day 2 to reflect the new Hearing date. All of the previous submission due dates previously established in the original Notice of Hearing will remain unchanged and in place.
19The TLAB may be spoken to if issues arise as a result of this Order.
D. Lombardi
Panel Member