Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
Date:
2024-09-06
24 129367 S45 20 TLAB
Stewart (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 254
INTERIM DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
September 6, 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):
STEPHEN MUNRO STEWART
Applicant(s):
RICHARD WENGLE ARCHITECT INC
Property Address:
30 LAKESIDE AVE
COA File No.:
23 237129 ESC 20 MV (A0278/23SC)
TLAB Case File No.:
24 129367 S45 20 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
July 16, 2024
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Panel Member J.Tassiopoulos
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Owner
N. L. Macdonald
Applicant
R. Wengle Architect Inc.
Appellant
S. M. Stewart
D. Bronskill
Party (TLAB)
City of Toronto
U. Gautam
Party (TLAB)
G. Lennox
Party (TLAB)
P. W. Passalent
Party (TLAB)
S. Manganaro
Party (TLAB)
Birch Cliff Village Community
M. Marmoreo
Participant
P. A. Harbin
Participant
E. McGee
Participant
P. Garn-Moore
Participant
D. C. Turner
Expert Witness
R. Guetter
Expert Witness
A. Abrazhevich
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This is an Appeal of the City of Toronto (City) Committee of Adjustment’s (COA) March 6, 2024, refusal of the eleven variances sought to construct a new three-storey detached dwelling and a cabana structure.
2The property is located at 30 Lakeside Avenue (subject property) in the former City of Scarborough.
3The property is designated Neighbourhoods and Zoned RD & Single -Family Residential (S) Zone [ZR] under the City of Toronto Zoning Bylaw 569-2013.
4The Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) issued a Notice of Hearing for this matter, setting the Hearing date for July 16, 2024, and setting out the required submission dates for Applicant Disclosure, Expert Witness Statements, Witness Statements, etc.
5At the outset of the Hearing on July 16, 2024, it was noted that the Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant, Mr. Bronskill, had submitted by email a request for the Adjournment of the Hearing due to a conflict in scheduling and requested that the matter be scheduled for two Hearing days instead of only one day.
6Mr. Bronskill, in his email, explained that the adjournment request was by consent with City counsel, Ms. Gautam, and other Parties to the matter and that it was due to a request by the Ontario Land Tribunal that he continue his attendance on another matter, which conflicted with this Hearing date.
7The request for two Hearing days was a result of the number of Parties and Participants that would be heard from in this matter and that two expert witnesses would be providing evidence on the matter.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
8The TLAB may consider adjournments in accordance with Rules 17.2, 23.3 and 23.4 as outlined in the TLAB Rules of Practice and Procedure (December 2, 2020).
9To determine the extent of the consent of the Parties to the adjournment, the following attendees were consulted, during the Hearing, to confirm their concurrence with the request for adjournment:
Ms. U. Gautam, counsel for the City;
Mr. R. Gill, counsel for the Applicant Appellant;
Mr. G. Lennox, Party;
Mr. P. Passalent, Party;
Mr. S. Manganaro, Party; and,
Mr. M. Marmoreo, representative for the Birch Cliff Village Community.
10Each of the Parties confirmed that they agreed with the adjournment and the request that the matter be heard over two Hearing days.
11During the deliberation with each of the Parties, Ms. Gautum indicated her limited availability in the first half of August and early September, while Mr. Lennox also indicated his limited availability in August and September.
12Considering the deliberation on the adjournment request and consideration of TLAB Rules 17.2, 23.3 and 23.4, the request does not pose a concern to the TLAB as it does not prejudice the interests of the Parties in having a full and fair proceeding.
13The request to reschedule the matter for two Hearing days is a reasonable request given the number of registered Parties and Participants in this matter. It will provide the necessary time to hear the evidence of two expert witnesses, presentations and statements from the other Parties and Participants.
CONCLUSION
14Given the above reasons and consensus on the adjournment request by all the Parties to the matter, the Hearing is adjourned.
15The number of Parties and Participants that will be attending would benefit from a rescheduling to two Hearing days. In addition, counsel for the Applicant/Appellant and the City shall provide a timeline / schedule to ensure that appropriate time is allotted for the provision of evidence, examination, cross-examination, presentations and statements from the Parties and Participants and for closing statements by counsel.
16Given the availability constraints of two of the five Parties, the two new Hearing days shall be scheduled after mid-September 2024.
DECISION AND ORDER
17The request for the adjournment of the July 16, 2024, Hearing is granted.
18TLAB staff shall canvas the Parties, and a new Notice of Hearing will be issued for this matter for two Hearing days, no earlier than the week of September 16th, 2024.
J. Tassiopoulos
Panel Member