Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 211 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
Date: 2023-03-01
22 161107 S45 08 TLAB
Saber v. Abouchar, 2023 ONTLAB 31
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: March 1, 2023
PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED UNDER section 45(12), subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant(s): J. Abouchar
Applicant(s): A Shams
Property Address: 12 Otter Cres
COA File No.: 22 120565 NNY 08 MV (A0176/22NY)
TLAB Case File No.: 22 161107 S45 08 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): November 10, 2022; February 24, 2023; March 30, 2023
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Chair D. Lombardi
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
Name
Representative
Applicant
A. Shams
Appellant
J. Abouchar
Owner / Party
M. Reza Saber
M. Mazierski
Party
C. Warren
Party
E. Aaron
Elize Hertz
Party
S. Davidson
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1On May 26, 2022, the North York Panel of the City of Toronto (City) Committee of Adjustment (COA) granted, on condition, the application submitted by Ali Shams (Applicant) requesting six (6) variances in total, five (5) from the harmonized City of Toronto (City) Zoning By-law 569-2013 and one (1) from the former City of North York Zoning By-law 7625 (Application), to construct a new dwelling at 12 Otter Crescent (subject property).
2Juli Ann Abouchar (Appellant) appealed the COA decision to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) and the TLAB issued a Notice of Hearing (Form 2) setting a Hearing date for November 10, 2022.
3After reviewing the pre-filed materials in this matter prior to the Hearing, it became apparent to me that dialogue between the Owner (Mr. Saber) of the subject property and the abutting neighbours in opposition to the proposal had been either non-existent or brief and inconsequential, both before and since the application was heard by the COA.
4As the presiding Member and sensing an opportunity to encourage the Owner and neighbours to engage in dialogue regarding the proposal, I asked TLAB staff to direct the Parties to attend non-binding, confidential, TLAB-led mediation pursuant to Rule 20.2 of the TLAB’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules).
5Subsequently, the TLAB set October 27, 2022, to conduct the above-referenced Mediation session.
6In attendance at the ‘virtual’ Mediation were the individuals listed under the ‘Appearance’ section, above, in this Mediation Summary. In addition, Mr. Michael Barton, the Appellant’s Expert Planning Witness attended, as did Lou Radomski.
7Although the discussions that occurred during the mediation session were constructive and positive, the Parties were unable to arrive at a settlement of the issues in dispute and the Mediation session concluded. They did agree to a second Mediation session.
8However, the Parties agreed to exchange additional documentation in order to continue discussions privately in the interim, and a new Mediation date was set for Friday, November 18, 2022.
9At the November 18th Mediation session, which lasted a half day, the Parties were unsuccessful in settling the issues in dispute in the appeal matter.
10Consequently, I recommended that the matter proceed to a contested Hearing, and I directed TLAB staff to schedule a date for that Hearing in the early new year and issue a new Notice of Hearing (Form 2). The TLAB set a Hearing date for February 24, 2023.
11On the morning of February 24th, prior to the commencement of the scheduled Hearing, TLAB staff advised me that the Applicant’s solicitor, Mr. Mazierski, had sent an email to the TLAB on the evening of February 23rd, advising that a ‘last-minute’ settlement had been reached amongst the Parties. That email included a draft Minutes of Settlement (MOS) submitted on behalf of the Applicant as well as a set of associated revised Site Plan drawings.
12In addition, the Applicant had also filed a Revised Expert Witness Statement from Mr. Benczkowski, along with an updated Disclosure Document and Zoning Examiner’s Notice.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
13Under the TLAB’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules), specifically Rules 17 and 23, respectively, I have the authority to adjourn the matter on consent without a Motion.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
14The following individuals attended the February 24, 2023 Hearing: Mr. Mazierski and Mr. Benczkowski, the expert planning witness, on behalf of the Applicant; and Ms. Abouchar, the Appellant, and Ms. Elize Hertz, representing Party Eli Aaron.
15Both Craig Warren and Sharene Davidson, Parties in the matter, did not attend.
16At the commencement of the Hearing, Mr. Mazierski confirmed that the Parties had reached a settlement, which Ms. Abouchar, and Ms. Hertz affirmed.
17However, for transparency, Mr. Mazierski also advised the TLAB that the Applicant had agreed to make a slight adjustment to the north and south elevations in the revised drawings that were not reflected in materials submitted with the draft MOS.
18Furthermore, he clarified that this would require the Applicant to revise the Site Plan drawings and obtain a new Examiner’s Zoning Notice for those minor revisions which, in turn, he suggested could trigger a new or different variance.
19Therefore, given that two of the neighbours who had elected Party status were absent from the Hearing, and with the understanding that all the Parties would require time to review any further possible revisions in the absence of the Applicant obtaining a final Zoning Notice, I concluded that adjourning the Hearing would be the most appropriate and just outcome to preserve the Parties’ right to natural justice and procedural fairness.
20In doing, I agreed that I would ask TLAB staff to expeditiously secure a new date for an Expedited Settlement Hearing no later than March 2023, if possible, and directed Mr. Mazierski to serve any revised drawings and a new Zoning Notice, along with a revised list of Variance, if necessary, with the Parties and serve same with the TLAB at his earliest convenience but prior to the scheduled expedited Settlement Hearing date.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
21There are no issues. The Parties have acknowledged that a settlement has been reached and have agreed to the adjournment on consent to allow the Applicant to determine whether a minor revision to the Application is required and to allow a review prior to the scheduled Settlement Hearing in March.
ORDER
22The Hearing on February 24, 2023, in this appeal matter is adjourned and TLAB staff are directed to canvas the Parties for a date no later than March 2023 for an expedited Settlement Hearing.
23Once a date has been established, TLAB staff will issue a new Notice of Hearing keeping all of the previously established filing due dates unchanged. I will, however, allow the Applicant to file any revised drawings and new Examiner’s Zoning Notice prior to that Hearing.
24The TLAB may be spoken to if issues arise.
EPILOGUE
25Following consultation with the Parties prior to adjourning the February 24th Hearing, I was able to confirm that the Parties were only available on two (2) possible dates, both in March (March 24th or March 30th, 2023). The Parties advised that March 24th was the better date and, therefore, that date was tentatively secured.
26Consequently, I directed TLAB staff to secure March 24th and to advise the Parties accordingly. Unfortunately, immediately following the issuance of this notice, Mr. Mazierski advised the TLAB that he was actually unavailable on March 24th and requested the Hearing be scheduled for March 30th.
27Therefore, the TLAB secured Thursday, March 30, 2023, for this Hearing matter.
D. Lombardi
Panel Member