Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 211 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
File: 22 227137 S45 11 TLAB
1000020296 Ontario Limited v. Annex Residents Corporation, 2023 ONTLAB 5
MOTION DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: February 9, 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): 1000020296 Ontario Limited
Applicant(s): 1000020296 Ontario Limited
Property Address: 125 KENDAL AVE
COA File No.: 22 156192 STE 11 MV (A0745/22TEY)
TLAB Case File No.: 22 227137 S45 11 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): March 7, 2023
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member G. Swinkin
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
| People Type | Name | Representative |
|---|---|---|
| Applicant/Appellant/Owner | 1000020296 Ontario Limited | A. Stewart |
| Party | T. Marescaux | |
| Party | M. Coulavin | |
| Party | E. Whelan | |
| Party | J. Schofield | |
| Party | Annex Residents Corporation | |
| Party | J. Korman | |
| Party | S. Nutzati | |
| Participant | J. Levenstadt | |
| Participant | A. Tasker | |
| Participant | J. Lawson Shriver-Blake | |
| Participant | K. Hu | |
| Participant | D. Moorhead |
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
11000020296 Ontario Limited (the "Appellant") is the owner of 125 Kendal Avenue (the "Property").
2The Property currently accommodates three dwelling units. The Appellant wishes to undertake renovations to the Property to render it as a semi-detached dwelling accommodating six dwelling units.
3The Appellant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for variances from Zoning By-law 569-2013 for this purpose.
4The Committee refused the Appellant's application.
5The Appellant has appealed to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the "Tribunal").
6In keeping with the Tribunal's practice, the appeal was scheduled for one hearing day, the presently scheduled date of hearing being March 7, 2023.
7Counsel for the Appellant has brought a Motion seeking the scheduling of additional hearing days for the appeal on the basis that one hearing day, in light of the number of Parties and Participants, and the amount of evidence to be heard, will be insufficient.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
8Rule 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure permit a Party to bring a Motion seeking specific relief, which Motion shall set out the reasons and grounds to be argued.
9Rule 2.7 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure authorize the Tribunal to do whatever is necessary and permitted by law to enable it to effectively and completely adjudicate matters before it in a just, expeditious and cost-effiective manner.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
10The Notice of Motion was supported by the affidavit of Leo Kotov, a representative of the Appellant. The Motion material identified the fact that six individuals, the Annex Residents Corporation and the Appellant are seeking Party status in the proceeding, for a total of eight Parties, and that five individuals have filed elections for Participant status.
11The material indicated that counsel for the Appellant communicated by email with all of these persons in order to ascertain their intentions with respect to the calling of evidence and its likely duration. As of filing the Motion material, counsel had received no response from any of those persons.
12A Notice of Response was filed by the Annex Residents Corporation indicating that they did not oppose the Appellant's Motion and also advised that they were in discussions with the Appellant regarding the proposal.
13The Appellant's expert planning consultant has filed an expert witness statement, which the Tribunal has reviewed in a preliminary fashion. It is a very extensive document and makes plain that the expert will deal with complex issues. In fact, in the Motion material, counsel for the Appellant estimates that this witness will likely consume a full day of hearing in connection with the delivery of his testimony.
14In addition to this evidence, material has been filed in opposition to the proposal.
CONCLUSION
15The Tribunal is satisfied that more than one hearing day will be required in order to adjudicate this appeal. Counsel for the Appellant was suggesting that two further days beyond the currently scheduled day be fixed.
16Out of an abundance of caution and to allow for contingencies, this panel believes that it would be prudent to schedule three further days for this appeal hearing beyond the currently scheduled hearing day of March 7, 2023, which will remain as the first day of hearing.
DECISION AND ORDER
17The Tribunal will allow the Motion and directs that Tribunal staff will canvas the Parties as to available dates for three further hearing days subsequent to March 7, 2023, such days to be as nearly proximate to the first hearing day as is possible, preferably contiguous but separated from each other as may be necessary to accommodate attendance by the Parties and their witnesses.
18Once those additional hearing days are settled, a fresh Notice of Hearing with further videoconference links will be forwarded to all persons on the mailing list.
G. Swinkin
Panel Member