Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
2024-02-28
23 212649 S45 20 TLAB
Sjuib (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 192
PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE SUMMARY
Issuance Date:
February 28, 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):
F. F. SJUIB
Applicant(s):
J. DI GIACOMO
Property Address:
6 Kenny Ave.
COA File No.:
23 187294 ESC 20 MV (A0178/23SC)
TLAB Case File No.:
23 212649 S45 20 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
March 5, 2024
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Chair D. Lombardi
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Appellant
F. F. SJUIB
C. Tonks
(PROUSE DASH CROUCH LLP)
Applicant
J. DI GIACOMO
Expert Witness
R. Russel
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This is a matter at the request of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) in respect of an appeal (Appeal) by Fachrizal Fauzi Sjuib (Appellant) of approval by the Scarborough Panel of the City of Toronto (City) Committee of Adjustment, with conditions, of an application for variances requested in respect of 6 Kenny Avenue (subject property).
2An initial Prehearing Conference (PHC Day 1) was held on January 24, 2024, by way of the City’s Webex meeting platform, to address various issues including procedural matters, identifying details of the application, and dealing with other matters to assist the TLAB in conducting a fair, cost-effective and expeditious resolution of the Appeal.
3At the PHC Day 1, the presiding Member also confirmed that the TLAB would be prepared to consider a Notion of Motion on behalf of the Appellant for an extension to the due date for the submission of a revised Expert Witness Statement and to hear that Motion orally on February 7, 2024.
4However, following a further review of the documents pre-filed in this Appeal, the presiding Member determined that additional issues required clarification and that this constituted a compelling reason, as permitted by the TLAB’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules), to schedule another Prehearing Conference.
5Therefore, the TLAB set a date for a second Prehearing Conference for February 23, 2024. On that date, the following Persons attended: Mr. Sjuib and his Legal Representative Chris Tonks and planning expert Rob Russell.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
6The TLAB is committed to fixed and definite hearing dates and its Rules of Practice and Procedure allow the Tribunal to interpret its Rules liberally to secure the just, most expeditious and cost-effective determination of every Proceeding on its merits (Rules 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.12).
7The TLAB’s authority to direct the Parties to attend a Prehearing Conference is permitted by Rule 21.6 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure.
8Furthermore, Rule 21.9 states that:
“The TLAB is committed to reducing the time and cost of Proceedings and it is expected that, in the event a prehearing is held, no other or further prehearing will be held unless there is a compelling reason to do so. In considering whether any further prehearing may be directed the TLAB may weigh, among other things, the time and cost of conducting a further prehearing against the advantages of a further prehearing.”
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
9As this was a Prehearing Conference, the TLAB heard no evidence.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
10There were no issues.
11The presiding Panel Member determined that a second, brief Prehearing Conference would assist in reducing the time needed to hear the Appeal at the Hearing scheduled for March 5, 2024, and, therefore, allow the TLAB to secure the most expeditious and cost-effective determination of the matter.
12The presiding Panel Member addressed additional procedural matters with the Appellant and his representatives and reconfirmed the issues in dispute in the Appeal that the Appellant intends to focus on at the March 5, 2024, Hearing.
13The Appellant established that apart from the question of whether the variances being sought satisfied the four statutory tests in s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, a key issue in dispute in the Appeal remains the Metrolinx Environmental Easement Condition (Condition #2) imposed by the Committee of Adjustment in its September 20, 2023, approval.
14That Condition relates to an environmental easement for operating emissions in favour of Metrolinx required to be registered on the title of the subject property, which the Appellant opposes and which he intends to ask the TLAB to eliminate as a condition in the event that the Tribunal approves the Application before it in this matter.
CONCLUSION
15The TLAB issued no further or additional Orders in this matter following this second Prehearing Conference.
16The presiding Panel Member confirmed that the Appeal would proceed and be heard on Tuesday, March 5, 2024, as scheduled.
D. Lombardi
Panel Member