Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
Date:
2023-04-27
22 238767 S45 03 TLAB
3755 Lakeshore Holding Inc, 2023 ONTLAB 80
INTERIM DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
April 27, 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):
3755 LAKESHORE HOLDING INC.
Applicant(s):
MHBC PLANNING LTD.
Property Address:
3753-3755 LAKE SHORE BLVD. W
COA File No.:
22 177597 WET MV (A0381/22EYK)
TLAB Case File No.:
22 238767 S45 03 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
April 26, 2023
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Panel Member GOPIKRISHNA
Registered Parties:
Legal Representatives
Owner
SPECTRE HOLDINGS INC.
Applicant
MHBC PLANNING LTD.
Appellant
3755 LAKESHORE HOLDING INC.
R. CHEESEMAN
Participant
M. MC. KEON
Participant
E. GOMEZ
Participant
J. MACDONALD
Participant
A. CHOLES
Participant
A. DAVIS
Participant
F. SOAVE
Participant
J. MARSHALL
Participant
J. GIBSON
Participant
C. MERCADO
Expert Witness
D. MCKAY
Expert Witness
R. PERNICKY
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1The Proceeding respecting 3753-3755 Lake Shore Blvd W. ( the “Site’) commenced on April 12, 2023, and was completed on April 26, 2023. The TLAB heard from 6 (six) Witnesses:- Messrs. David McKay, and Richard Pernicky for the Applicant, Messrs . Mark McKeon, John McDonald, Andrew Choles, and Ms. Ester Gomez ( collectively the “Opposition”,) all of whom spoke in opposition to the Appeal. It is important to note that Mr. Choles represented the Long Branch Neighbourhood Association (LBNA), which elected for Participant status, while the other members of the Opposition elected for Participant status in their individual capacity. Ms. Christine Mercado, another member of the LBNA, asked questions of clarification of the Applicants. In addition to the Witnesses who have been named earlier in this paragraph, the Applicant was also represented by Mr. Russell Cheeseman, a lawyer.
2Both Messrs. McKay, and Pernicky, who were qualified as Expert Witnesses in the disciplines of land use planning, and transportation planning respectively, spoke separately to various conditions that could be imposed on the approval of the Application in their Examination-in-chief.
3On the morning of April 26, 2023, the TLAB sent me a list of five different conditions , submitted by the Applicants ( the “Recommendations for Conditions”), that could be imposed on an approval of the variance requested by the Applicants. At the end of the Hearing completed on April 26, 2023, when Mr. Cheeseman reviewed the conditions discussed by Mr. Pernicky with Mr. McKay, the latter was in agreement with various conditions that the former had discussed in his testimony. It also emerged from Mr. McKay’s testimony that some of the Recommendations for Conditions, submitted earlier that morning, could be merged with each other.
4After the completion of Argument, I instructed the Applicants to submit a listing of the variance(s) that the TLAB had to rule on, followed by an updated list of recommended conditions (which combined the recommendations of both the Witnesses for the Applicants, and merged them where appropriate) as a Word Document, along with the corresponding Plans and Elevations. I explained to the Party, and Participants that this was a standard submission that was required of all Applicants in Proceedings that I presided over, and that no inferences about the approval of the Application were to be drawn from my instructions to make the submission in question.
5While Mr. Cheeseman said that he could complete the submission by the “end of tomorrow”, I am giving the Applicants 2( two) weeks, till the end of the day ( 11:59 PM) on May 10, 2023 (Thursday) to complete the submissions discussed in Paragraph [4] above.
INTERIM DECISION AND ORDER
6The Applicants are given time until the end of day ( 11:59 PM) on May 10, 2023 to make the following submissions electronically to the Toronto Local Appeal Body:
Listing of the variance(s) requested
Updated recommendations for conditions to be imposed, should the application be approved by the Toronto Local Appeal Body
Updated ( where appropriate) Plans and Elevations reflecting the requested variance(s)
While (1) and (2) above may be combined, and submitted to the TLAB as a single Word Document, (3) above may be submitted in a PDF format.
So orders the Toronto Local Appeal Body
S. Gopikrishna
Panel Member