Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 211 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
2023-02-28
21 206070 S45 03 TLAB 21 206072 S45 03 TLAB
Sisti, Zepco Holdings Inc v. Toronto (City), 2023 ONTLAB 32
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
February 28, 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):
ARIANNA SISTI, ZEPCO HOLDINGS INC
Applicant(s):
C A R DESIGN STUDIO INC.
Property Address:
89 – 91 James St.
COA File No.:
21 114153 WET 03 MV (A0072/21EYK) 21 114165 WET 03 MV (A0073/21EYK)
TLAB Case File No.:
2021 206070 S45 03 TLAB 2021 206072 S45 03 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
February 13, 2023
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Panel Member S. Makuch
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
Name
Representative
Applicant
C A R Design Studio Inc
Appellant (89 James St)
Zepco Holdings Inc
C A R Designs Studio Inc
Appellant (91 James St)
A. Sisti
C A R Designs Studio Inc
Party
B. Carey
Party
P. Carey
Party
J. Gibson
Party
C A R DESIGN STUDIO INC.
Party
CITY OF TORONTO
M. Hardiejowski J. Jakubowski
Participant
A. Donald
Participant
A. Choles
Participant
S. Willsher
Participant
S. Vella
Participant
C. Mercado
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This is an appeal by the applicant of a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing three variances to permit the construction of a detached dwelling. After an adjournment to permit settlement discussions the parties appeared before TLAB with the following result: the appellant/applicant revised the plans so only one variance (related to density) was required, and forestry issues were resolved. The opponents were, however, not satisfied with the revisions and still in opposition to the appeal. They were prepared to proceed with the hearing and to call evidence in opposition. The appellant/applicant, however, was not prepared to proceed with the hearing and to call evidence and sought no adjournment.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AND ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
2No evidence was brought and no adjournment was sought by the appellant/applicant. The appellant /applicant was informed, that this would result in a dismissal of the appeal as the hearing on an appeal is a hearing “de novo” and evidence must be brought in support of an appeal.
CONCLUSION
3The appellant refused to bring forth any evidence or to seek an adjournment. The appeal, therefore, should be dismissed.
DECISION AND ORDER
4The decision of the Committee of Adjustment is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
S. Makuch
Panel Member