Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
2023-03-21
20 209020 S45 11 TLAB
1941120 Ontario Ltd v. Perin, 2023 ONTLAB 49
INTERIM DECISION AND ORDER WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Issuance Date:
March 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):
1941120 Ontario Ltd
Applicant(s):
1941120 Ontario Ltd
Property Address:
57 MAJOR ST
COA File No.:
20 138367 STE 11 MV (A0395/20TEY)
TLAB Case File No.:
20 209020 S45 11 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
Wednesday, March 15, 2023
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Panel Member S. Gopikrishna
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
Applicant/Owner/Appellant
1941120 Ontario Ltd
M. Mazierski
Party
M. Perin
Party
J. Sit
R. Penslar
Expert Witness
R. Brown
Participant
R. Penslar
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1. At the beginning of the Hearing held on March 15, 2023, Mr. Martin Mazierski, the lawyer for the Applicants, stated that the FSI variance requested in the Appeal, had to be increased, because of a Zoning Notice issued to the Applicant by a City of Toronto Zoning Examiner, and submitted to the TLAB on February 3, 2023.
2Mr. Mazierski also discussed the impact of the City of Toronto’s By-Law 89-2022, passed by the City on February 3, 2022, on this Appeal, with specific reference to the how the parking variance could be “eliminated” from the Appeal. Mr. Mazierski advised that notwithstanding the parking of the new By-law, the Applicants looked to retain the Parking variance in the Appeal.
3I instructed Mr. Mazierski to electronically submit an updated list of variances after the completion of the Hearing, reflecting the changes he had discussed at the beginning of the Hearing, together with Plans and Elevations reflecting the updated variances, along with recommendations for conditions to be imposed, if the Application was approved.
4After Ms. Maria Perin and Ms. Robin Penslar gave evidence in opposition to the Appeal, and were cross-examined by Mr. Mazierski, the Applicant, Mr. Xindie Xia, repeated evidence from his Examination-in-Chief by stating that while there may have been a change from a percentages perspective with respect to the FSI variance, the impact of the changes on the built form of the building, as experienced from the street, was not significant.
5I then provided instructions to the Parties for Oral Argument- I gave the Parties time till the end of the day (i.e. 11:59 PM) on March 29, to send in written Oral Argument to the TLAB, while copying each other on their submissions. By way of this Interim Decision and Order, I will also provide the Applicants with time until the end of the day (i.e. 11:59 PM) for Reply by way of Argument. It is important to note that participation by way of Argument is not mandatory, and that new information cannot be introduced by way of Argument.
CONCLUSIONS
6The Instructions provided at the Hearing are highlighted in the Interim Decision and Order Section below.
7In addition to the Instructions provided orally at the Hearing completed on March 15, 2023, the Applicants are given time till the end of the day on April 5, 2023, for Reply Argument. It is also important to note that as a result of the completion of the Proceeding, the Hearing scheduled for 930 AM on March 29, 2023 is herewith cancelled, and appearances are no longer required of the Parties.
INTERIM DECISION AND ORDER WITH INSTRUCTIONS
8The Applicants are instructed to submit an updated list of variances, accompanied by recommendations for conditions to be imposed, if the Application were approved, in the form of a Word Document. This Word Document needs to be accompanied by Plans and Elevations reflecting the updated request for variances, in the form of a PDF document. The deadline for this submission is 11:59 PM on March 29, 2023.
9The Applicants and the Opposition are given time till the end of the day on March 29, 2023, to submit Arguments by way of written submissions. These submissions may be sent electronically to the TLAB while copying all the other Parties. The Applicants are given time till the end of the day on April 5, 2023, for submitting Reply Argument, where appropriate, by way of written submissions to the TLAB. The Reply Argument may be submitted electronically to the TLAB, while the other Parties are copied on the communication.
10The Hearing scheduled for 9:30 AM on March 29, 2022, is cancelled, and no appearances are required of the Parties.
So orders the Toronto Local Appeal Body
S. Gopikrishna
Panel Member