Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
Date:
2023-05-30
21 202909 S45 04 TLAB
Slaby, Toronto Condo Plan 1468 v. Terra Firma Homes Corporation, 2023 ONTLAB 96
INTERIM DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
May 30, 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):
STEPHANIA SLABY; TORONTO CONDO PLAN 1468
Applicant(s):
BERNARD H WATT ARCHITECT
Property Address:
307 RIVERSIDE DR.
COA File No.:
21 124504 STE 04 MV (A0291/21TEY)
TLAB Case File No.:
21 202909 S45 04 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
April 17, 2023
Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:
June 15, 2023
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Panel Member S. Gopikrishna
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
Appellant
S. SLABY
W.H. ROBERTS
Appellant
TORONTO CONDO PLAN 1468
P. SMIRNOV
Applicant
BERNARD H WATT ARCHITECT
Party (TLAB)
TERRA FIRMA HOMES CORPORATION
A. STEWART
Expert Witness
T. MILLS
Expert Witness
F. ROMANO
Expert Witness
S. BRAVO
Expert Witness
Z. GEORGIS
Participant
J. HARRISON
Participant
S. CELSI
Participant
M.I. DUDU
Participant
L. DIFRANCESCO
Participant
M. DUKIC
Participant
P. TRINZ
Participant
B. ARCHER
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1After the completion of the Proceeding respecting 307 Riverside Ave, I issued an Interim Order dated April 25, 2023, with deadlines for the Applicants, and the Opposition to have discussions amongst themselves, and submit a joint list of conditions to be imposed, if the requested variances were approved.
2On May 1, 2023, Ms. Amber Stewart, Counsel for the Applicants, submitted the list of variances, accompanied by a list of conditions that the Opposition was in agreement with, as well as the Plans and Elevations, reflecting the requested variances. I take this opportunity to thank the Applicants for their timely submissions.
3In the covering email accompanying the submissions discussed in Paragraph [2] above, Ms. Stewart added that she was also including a condition proposed by the Opposition that the Applicants were not in agreement with- for the purposes of this discussion, I refer to this condition as the “debated condition”. She also requested for time till May 5, 2023, to be able to respond to the debated condition.
4On May 2, 2023, the TLAB staff forwarded me an email sent by Mr. William Roberts, Counsel for the Opposition, in response to the email discussed in [3] above stating that he would like an opportunity to reply to the Response from the Applicants.
5Given the tight timelines between May 1, 2023, and May 5, 2023, and the time required to write an Interim Decision, I did not send out an updated Interim Decision authorizing the Applicants to respond.
6As of the date of release of this Interim Decision, I have not received a Response from the Applicants, regarding the specifics of their disagreement with the debated condition. Given the lack of a Response, it is not surprising that there is no Reply from the Opposition to the debated condition.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
7I note the unorthodox use of the expressions “Response” and “Reply” because the Response in this case is from the Applicants, and not the Opposition. Likewise, there is a reversal in the use of the expression “Reply”, because it is the Applicants who have the Right of Reply, which is however, being given to the Opposition in this case.
8I believe that both the Applicants, and the Opposition should be given the very best opportunity to explain their position in any Appeal before the TLAB, and consequently look forward to the Response, and Reply from the Parties. I am sorry by the possible confusion caused by the lack of an Interim Order authorizing the Response and the Reply, as a result of the reason provided in Paragraph [5] above.
9In the interests of allowing the Parties to make submissions to their satisfaction, I authorize both Parties to submit their Response, and Reply respectively.
10The Applicants are given time till June 8, 2023 for a Response to the debated condition, while the Opposition is given time till June 15, 2023 for their Reply to the Response.
11The Interim Order below supersedes any timelines that may have been mentioned in previous Interim Orders, and may be relied upon by the Parties on a go forward basis for making submissions.
INTERIM DECISION AND ORDER
12With respect to the Appeal concerning 307 Riverside Dr., the Applicants are given time till the end of day on June 8, 2023 ( 11:59 PM), to provide their Response to the “debated condition”, which is defined as the condition proposed by the Opposition, which the Applicants are not in agreement with.
13The Opposition is given time till June 15, 2023 (11:59 PM), to provide their Reply to the debated condition, discussed in Paragraph [12] above.
14No further, or other submissions are required of the Parties other than what is discussed in this Interim Decision and Order. Should the Parties make other submissions, other than what is allowed in Paragraphs [12], and [13] of this Interim Order, there is no guarantee that they will be relied upon by the TLAB for Decision making purposes.
So orders the Toronto Local Appeal Body
S. Gopikrishna
Panel Member