Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
Date:
2024-01-23
23 199445 S53 03 TLAB 23 199446 S45 03 TLAB 23 199447 S45 03 TLAB 23 199448 S45 03 TLAB
Morreale (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 180
INTERIM DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
January 23, 2024
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER Section 53, subsection 53(19), Section 45(12), subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the "Act")
Appellant(s):
L. C. MORREALE
Applicant(s):
LEMCAD CONSULTANTS
Property Address:
175 LAKE SHORE DR
COA File No.:
23 116886 WET 03 CO (B0012/23EYK) 23 116897 WET 03 MV (A0176/23EYK) 23 116898 WET 03 MV (A0177/23EYK) 23 116899 WET 03 MV (A0178/23EYK)
TLAB Case File No.:
23 199445 S53 03 TLAB 23 199446 S45 03 TLAB 23 199447 S45 03 TLAB 23 199448 S45 03 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
January 22, 2024
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Panel Member G. Swinkin
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Applicant
LEMCAD CONSULTANTS
Appellant
L. C. MORREALE
A. STEWART
Party (TLAB)
C. RUSSELL
Party (TLAB)
R. B. RUSSELL
M. COOK
Party (TLAB)
A. GIRAUDY
Participant
P. D GIRAUDY
Participant
M. JAVIER
Participant
E. E. CARL
Participant
E. PUNISKA
Participant
C. BUCKLEY-FERGUSON
Participant
K. ADAMS
Participant
E. A. CARL
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1Applications were brought before the Committee of Adjustment on behalf of L. C. Morreale (the "Appellant") with respect to her property at 175 Lake Shore Drive (the "Property"). The applications were for consent to sever the Property into three parcels of land and seeking a variety of variances for dwellings to be constructed on those parcels.
2Those applications were refused by the Committee of Adjustment. The Appellant appealed those refusal decisions, and the disposition of those appeals is thus before the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the "Tribunal").
3The hearing of those appeals by the Tribunal was scheduled to be held on January 22, 2024.
4Prior to the hearing date, counsel for the Appellant communicated with Tribunal staff to the effect that she was engaged in discussions with the Parties to these appeals with a view toward settlement of the issues and the presentation to the Tribunal of a consent proposal.
5As those discussions had not resolved into a final settlement by the hearing date, Ms. Stewart sent a further note to Tribunal staff that at the return date for the hearing, she would be seeking time for further discussion amongst the Parties, the provision of a status report to the Tribunal and directions for the management of these appeals.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
6Rule 21.2 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Tribunal regarding Prehearing Conferences permits the Tribunal to conduct Prehearing Conferences if there is good reason to do so.
7Rule 21.6 empowers the Tribunal to, amongst other matters, provide directions to the Parties.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
8In addition to Ms. Stewart, Michael Cook was in attendance as counsel on behalf of Catherine and Robert Russell, the next-door neighbours at 173 Lake Shore Drive.
9Both counsel confirmed Ms. Stewart's prior communicated intent for this day's session and consented to the conversion of the day's intended hearing into a Prehearing Conference.
10Counsel requested the indulgence of the Tribunal to stand down and withdraw from the proceeding in order to enable them to continue the settlement discussions on the Tribunal's hearing platform. The panel did so.
11Upon the panel's return, Ms. Stewart indicated that she was cautiously optimistic that a settlement could be achieved with some additional time to pursue those discussions, which would occur outside of this hearing session.
12Ms. Stewart urged the Tribunal to fix a settlement hearing date sometime in late February or early March. However, as it appeared to the Tribunal that this was not yet at a settlement in principle state, with material details yet to be worked out, and as Ms. Stewart still adverted to the possibility of a contested hearing if the Parties could not come together in agreement, the Tribunal was reluctant to fix a hearing date at this stage as there would be filing ramifications depending upon which way it goes.
CONCLUSION
13Assuming that a settlement is reached, the Tribunal directed Ms. Stewart to canvas the other Parties as to available dates for a settlement hearing and to then contact staff at the Tribunal for the purpose of fixing a fresh hearing date, whereupon a fresh Notice of Hearing would issue.
14Ms. Stewart also confirmed to the panel that if a settlement was achieved, evidence would be put before the Tribunal on a consent basis through an expert land use planner, presumably the planner retained by the Appellant. The Tribunal directs that that evidence should take the form of an expert witness statement, which should be filed and served no later than one week before the rescheduled hearing date. That expert witness statement should be served on all Parties and Participants.
15In the event that a settlement has not been achieved within a reasonable time (being a time generally no more than three months from this date) and if the Appellant has not elected to withdraw her appeals, and a contested hearing will be required, Ms. Stewart should again canvas the other Parties as to available dates for a rescheduled hearing and then communicate with staff at the Tribunal for the purpose of fixing a rescheduled hearing date (or dates. If counsel are of the view that more than one day may be required).
16In the event that a contested hearing is to take place, Tribunal staff will fix an appropriate date (or dates, as the case may be) and issue a fresh Notice of Hearing. The Notice of Hearing will set fresh dates for document disclosure, the filing of witness statements, replies and the usual matters addressed in a standard Notice of Hearing in keeping with the usual timelines followed by the Tribunal. Any witness statements filed by Parties or Participants to date may continue to be used in any rescheduled hearing.
DECISION AND ORDER
17The Tribunal ORDERS THAT the hearing of the appeals relating to the Property are adjourned sine die, to be brought back on the basis as set forth in the preceding paragraphs.
18Subject to the exigencies of the calendar and life, this Member will remain seized.
G. Swinkin
Panel Member