Nanu v. Sharma, 2023 ONTLAB 73

Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 211 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2023-04-26

21 132798 S45 01 TLAB

Nanu v. Sharma, 2023 ONTLAB 73

Issuance Date:

April 26, 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):

nanu alexandru ion dragos

Applicant(s):

Peter vozikas

Property Address:

6 Benstrow Ave

COA File No.:

20 170209 WET 01 MV (A0274/20EYK)

TLAB Case File No.:

2021 132798 S45 01 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

April 4, 2023

Decision Delivered By:

TLAB Panel Member S. Gopikrishna

People Type

Name

Representative

P. vozikas

owner

S. BHARDWAJ and N. SHARMA

appellant

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1On February 28, 2023, the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) issued a Show-Cause Notice, respecting the Appeal for 6 Benstrow Avenue ( the “Site”), because there were no discernable palpable efforts by the Applicants to prosecute their case. The details of the responses received from the Applicant in responses to earlier Decisions issued by the TLAB are recited in the Interim Decisions issued on February 13, 2023, and February 28, 2023.

2At the Show Cause Hearing held on April 4, 2023, Ms. Sharma, who is one of the Applicants herself, represented the Applicants, while the Appellant, Mr. Nanu represented himself. The Hearing started at 9:48 AM, instead of 9:30 AM, because Ms. Sharma said that she had technical issues logging into the Webex platform used by the TLAB for hosting the Hearing

3In response to questions from me about the lack of progress in processing of the Application, the Applicant repeatedly brought up the issue of the expenses involved in pursuing of the Appeal. She discussed the expenses involved in getting a “Permit from the Toronto Regional Conservation Authority (TRCA), and complained about how the Appeal had “interfered” with her plans to build an extension to the existing house at the Site.

4The Appellant stated it was not his intention to prevent the Applicants from developing their property, and added that his opposition was premised on his lack of satisfaction with the Applicant’s lack of concern about his issues and complaints. I explained to the Parties that under the rules in existence when the Appeal was launched, the neighbours had the ability to launch an Appeal to the TLAB, and explain to the latter about why they objected wholly, or partially to the application- in other words, from the TLAB’s perspective, the Parties were merely “exercising their rights”.

5When I asked the Applicant about their intentions to pursue the Application before the TLAB, I was informed that the Applicants would consider going forward with the Application if their obtaining a permit from the TRCA could be made conditional i.e. they would pay the fees to the TRCA to obtain a permit only if the TLAB approved their Application. I thanked the Parties for their appearances, and gave them time till April 17, 2023, to make other submissions, where appropriate. On the basis of information from the TLAB staff, I understand that no submissions have been received from the Applicants and Appellants.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

6The only question arising out of the Show Cause Hearing is the appropriateness of the TLAB considering the question of allowing the Appeal to proceed to a Hearing, without the Applicant’s obtaining a Permit from the TRCA. The inconvenience of alleged financial burden on the client has to be balanced against the procedural impact of the concept of making the obtaining of permits conditional on the success of the Applicants before the Tribunal.

7The TLAB has traditionally pursued a methodology of approving an Application based on planning merits, and imposing specific conditions on the approval on a successful application, only when the condition in question involves a topic outside the jurisdiction of the TLAB, such as traffic, or wastewater management. The issue of TRCA approvals arises in discussions of Natural Environmental Issues, which is explicitly a planning issue, and are discussed in Chapter 3 of the Official Plan The Applicant’s submissions give me no obvious reason to make an exception on the their obtaining a TRCA permit before the Appeal can be heard by the TLAB- while I am sympathetic to the financial issues raised by the Applicant, I find that they cannot be used for decision making purposes, because personal situations or personal preferences are not to be included in the ratio decidendi.

8I find it also important to state that in the planning hierarchy, any individual’s personal, and private interests, are secondary to the public interest, which has to consider the consequences of making changes to the existing procedure on other appeals and applications.

9A consideration of the reasons presented in Paragraphs [7] and [8] above, result in my finding that there is no plausible reason to grant the wishes of the Applicant, and give them permission to apply for a permit from the TRCA if and only if they win- such a decision would have a significant impact on other Appeals before the TRCA, and more importantly, result in the TLABs eroding its very own jurisdiction.

10As a result, I find that the balance of public interest, and the impact on procedural issues, outweigh the private and personal interests of the Applicant, resulting in my refusal of the Applicant’s preference for proceeding to a Hearing, without having to obtain a permit from the TRCA before the TLAB hears the Appeal.

11It is pertinent to point out that the Applicant did not make any submissions on the status of the Zoning Notice, which was canvassed at an earlier Hearing- in other words, there continues to be uncertainty about what variances are in play, if the Proceeding before the TLAB, were to be continued. I find that given the length of time that has elapsed since the TLAB has taken carriage of this issue, such uncertainty merely delays the Hearing of the matter, with no appreciable procedural benefit.

12As a result of the findings in Paragraphs [10] and [11] above, I find that the Application should be dismissed. It is important to note that when an Appeal is refused, the decision made by the COA is confirmed. However, in this case, there is a material change between the circumstances, when the COA approved the application, and the time when this Final Decision is being made by the TLAB- while the TRCA permit was in place when the matter was first heard by the COA, it is no longer in place, because of the expiry of the same

13As a result, it is important to emphasize that it is the very Application that is being refused, as opposed to a dismissal of the Appeal.

FINAL DECISION AND ORDER

14The Application respecting 6 Benstrow Avenue is refused in its entirety.

So orders the Toronto Local Appeal Body

S. Gopikrishna

Panel Member