Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 211
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
2023-12-17
23 153654 S45 15 TLAB
Cao (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 176
REVIEW REQUEST ORDER
Issuance Date:
January 17, 2024
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):
H. Cao
Applicant(s):
7K Design Ltd.
Property Address:
1PROCTOR CRES
COA File No.:
23 124688 NNY 15 MV (A0164/23NY)
TLAB Case File No.:
23 153654 S45 15 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
November 8, 2023
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB CHAIR: D. Lombardi
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Appellant
H. Cao
H. Zhou
Applicant
7K Design Inc.
REVIEW REQUEST NATURE AND RULE COMPLIANCE TO INITIATE
1On May 11, 2023, the City of Toronto (City) Committee of Adjustment (COA) refused two (2) variances to reduce the rear yard soft landscaping and increase the maximum permitted lot coverage to permit the construction of a cabana in the rear yard of the property at 1 Proctor Crescent (subject property).
2The Applicant, 7K Design Ltd. (Han Zhou), appealed the COA’s decision to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) on behalf of the owner of the subject property, Huiqin Cao (Appellant).
3The TLAB scheduled an electronic Hearing for November 8, 2023, to hear the Appeal.
4On the scheduled date of November 8th, TLAB Panel Member Kezwer assigned to hear the Appeal attended at the scheduled start of the Hearing at 9:30 am. None of the persons listed on the TLAB’s People List were present.
5As a result, the presiding Panel Member stood down the Hearing and remained present for one (1) hour after the commencement of the proceeding.
6In that period, neither the Appellant nor Han Zhou, the Applicant in the matter and the authorized Representative for the owner of the subject property, connected or attended throughout the following hour during which the ‘virtual’ Hearing Room was open.
7As a result, after waiting approximately sixty (60) minutes and with no one showing up, the presiding Member ended the Hearing.
8Subsequently, on November 15, 2023, Member Kezwer issued a Final Decision and Order (Decision) dismissing the Appeal on the basis that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the requested variances met the four statutory tests in the Planning Act (Act).
9On December 15, 2023, Han Zhou filed with the TLAB, on behalf of the Owner, a Request for Review (Request)1 of Member Kezwer’s November 15, 2023, Final Decision as permitted under Rule 31 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules).
10The Request alleges that the decision-maker violated the rules of procedural fairness, made an error of fact, and was deprived of evidence which was not presented at the time of the Hearing which would have likely resulted in a different decision.
11The Requesting Party asks that the TLAB cancel the Final Decision issued by Member Kezwer and order a new ‘de novo’ hearing before a different TLAB Member under Rule 31.16 (c) of the TLAB’s Rules.
12An administrative screening was conducted by TLAB staff, and the Request was deemed to be compliant.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
Rule 3.0 (After December 2, 2020)
- REVIEW OF FINAL DECISION OR FINAL ORDER
A Party may Request a Review
31.1 A Party may request of the Chair a Review of a Final Decision or final order of the TLAB.
Chair May Designate Any Member
31.2 The Chair may in writing designate any Member to conduct the Review and make a decision in accordance with the Rules.
Review Request does not Operate as a Stay
31.3 A Review shall not operate as a stay unless the Chair orders otherwise. A Party requesting that a Final Decision or final order be stayed shall do so at the same time the request for Review is made.
No Motions Except with Leave
31.4 No Motion may be brought with respect to a Review except with leave of the Chair. Deadline for, and Service of, Review Request
31.5 A Review request shall be provided to all Parties and the TLAB by Service within 30 Days of the Final Decision or final order, unless the Chair directs otherwise.
Contents of a Review Request
31.6 A Party’s request for Review shall be entitled “Review Request” and shall contain the following:
a) a table of contents, listing each document contained in the Review Request and describing each document by its nature and date;
b) an overview of the Review Request not to exceed 2 pages that identifies the grounds listed in Rule 31.17 that apply;
c) if the Review Request includes grounds based upon Rule 31.17 (c), a list of all alleged errors of fact or law;
d) a concise written argument contained in numbered