Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 211 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
File: 22 182877 S45 11 TLAB
INTERIM DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: May 1, 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): T. Bauer
Applicant(s): P. Carapetian
Property Address: 194 Rosedale Heights Drive
COA File No.: 22 130665 STE 11 MV (A0396/22TEY)
TLAB Case File No.: 22 182877 S45 11 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): April 20, 2023 and April 24, 2023
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member S. Gopikrishna
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
| People Type | Name | Representative |
|---|---|---|
| Applicant | P. Carapetian | M. Kemerer |
| Appellant | T. Bauer | |
| Participant | Y. Gao | |
| Participant | Moore Park Residents Association | G. Bogden |
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1I take this opportunity to acknowledge, and thank the Parties for adhering to the deadlines provided in the Interim Decision and Order, dated March 3, 2023, regarding submissions to be made to the TLAB, before the completion of the Proceeding.
2The Proceeding respecting 194 Rosedale Heights Blvd. was completed, after evidence was obtained from Witnesses Vanessa Fong, Michael Barton, and Thomas Bauer, through a process of an Examination-in-chief, followed by Cross Examination at the Hearings held on April 20, 2023, and April 24, 2023. It is important to note that the Applicants did not Re-examine their Witnesses, nor did they provide Reply evidence.
3At the end of his evidence, I asked Mr. Michael Barton, planning Expert Witness for the Applicants, to submit a list of variances which are mutually interconnected” i.e. where approving one variance, and refusing the other, would be illogical, or prevent the Applicant from building the planned extension, if only some, and not all variances were approved. Mr. Barton said that he would get back to me “later” with the answer to my question.
4Since Argument could not be completed by way of oral submissions due to a paucity of time, the Parties agreed to make written submissions instead. When I asked the Parties if two weeks from the completion of the Proceeding would give them adequate time to make written submissions to complete Argument, they suggested that that three weeks (3) would be required for the Parties to complete their submissions.
5I informed the Parties that May 15, 2023, would be the deadline for the submission of written submissions to complete Argument, and that the Applicants would be given an extra week till May 22, 2023, for Reply.
6I also instructed the Applicants to submit documentation in a “Word” format, a final list of variances to be ruled upon by the TLAB, together with recommendations for conditions to be imposed, if the variances were to be approved. I pointed out to Mr. Kemerer, the lawyer representing the Applicants, that the evidence pointed out that the as-of-right specifications provided by various By-laws had changed, after the Appeal respecting 194 Rosedale Heights Blvd., had been filed with the TLAB, because of decisions released by the Ontario Lands Tribunal (OLT). I informed him that the Applicants had the option of updating the variances before the TLAB, to reflect the new as-of-right specifications.
7I also asked the Applicants to submit Plans and Elevations, reflecting the final list of variances to be ruled upon by the TLAB, in a PDF format. I emphasized to the Parties that the requested documents were a “standard submission”, required of all Applicants in hearings that I preside over, and that no inferences, about the approval or refusal of the variances, were to be drawn from the instructions to submit the aforementioned documents.
8I also reminded the Applicants to submit a list of which variances were interlinked, and interconnected with each other, as discussed in Paragraph [3] above, before stating that an Interim Decision would follow, reflecting these instructions.
9Just before sending off the Interim Decision on the morning of April 26, 2023, reflecting the above discussions, to the TLAB for issuance, I was made aware of communication from the Appellant, Mr. Bauer, explaining the challenges he would face with Oral Argument, with specific reference to his not knowing what the Applicant would say by argument, if all Parties were subjected to the same deadline. He also pointed out that May 22, 2023, the deadline for Reply Argument was a statutory holiday, on account of Victoria Day.
10I was then made aware of communication from the lawyer for the Applicant, Mr. Kemerer, responding to the communication from the Appellant in Paragraph [9]. Mr. Kemerer suggested that the Applicants could send their Argument to the TLAB by May 8, 2023, allowing the Appellant time until May 15, 2023, to email their submissions for Argument. Mr. Kemerer also suggested that May 23, 2023 become the new deadline for Reply Argument, as a result of May 22, 2023, being a statutory holiday.
11I am not aware of any emails from the Appellant in response to the above suggestion.
ANALYSIS AND REASONS
12I would like to thank Mr. Bauer, for checking on the dates, and drawing the Tribunal’s attention to deadlines coinciding with statutory holidays. I understand his position with respect to deadlines for Argument, and take this opportunity to thank Mr. Kemerer, for his suggestions about how these challenges can be addressed- Mr. Kemerer’s flexibility, and willingness to make adjustments are genuinely appreciated.
13As a result of the points raised from Paragraphs [9]-[11] above, I have modified the deadlines discussed at the Hearing completed on April 24, 2023, to new deadlines, which are reflected in the Interim Decision and Order below.
INTERIM DECISION AND ORDER
14The Applicants are instructed to submit the following documents by the end of the day ( 11:59 PM) on May 8, 2023:
(1) A list of the variances to be ruled upon by the TLAB, reflecting the latest changes to what is “as-of-right”, under the existing, and updated By-laws, where appropriate
(2) A listing of which of the variances are mutually interlinked and/or interconnected.
(3) Recommendations for conditions to be imposed, should the requested variances be approved
(4) Copies of the Elevations and Plans of the building to be built at the Site, if approved.
It may be noted that while Documents (1)-(3) above, need to be submitted in a Word format, Document (4) may be submitted in a PDF version. The Applicant is instructed to copy the Appellant on all submissions, when submitting the documents listed above to the TLAB.
15The Appellant is instructed to submit their Argument by way of a written submission to the TLAB, by the end of the day (11:59 PM) on May 15, 2023. The Appellant is instructed to copy the Applicant on all submissions, when submitting documents to the TLAB.
16The Applicant has until the end of day (11:59 PM) on May 23, 2023, for Reply Argument, where appropriate. The Applicant is instructed to copy the Appellant on all submissions, when making submissions to the TLAB
So orders the Toronto Local Appeal Body
S. Gopikrishna Panel Member