Toronto (City) v Lopes, 2024 ONTLAB 255

Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253

Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2024-09-05

23 221918 S53 06 TLAB

Toronto (City) v Lopes, 2024 ONTLAB 255

Issuance Date:

September 5, 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):

Applicant(s):

Property Address:

44 EXBURY RD

COA File No.:

23 141114 NNY 06 CO

TLAB Case File No.:

23 221918 S53 06 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

Decision Delivered By:

TLAB Panel Member G. Swinkin

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Applicant

Appellant

Party

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1YMP Investments Ltd. (the "Applicant"), made application to the Committee of Adjustment with respect to 44 Exbury Road (the "Property") to divide it by way of a consent to sever and also made simultaneous application for minor variances in connection with the proposed construction on the severed lands.

2The Committee approved the applications.

3The City of Toronto filed an appeal with respect to the consent approval.

4The Toronto Local Appeal Body (the "Tribunal") fixed a hearing date of August 2, 2024 for the appeal.

5A Notice of Hearing was issued with fixed dates for the disclosure of documents and the filing of witness statements.

6Shortly before the date for filing of witness statements, the Applicant learned of an explanatory memorandum prepared by a staff member of the City's Urban Forestry Division, which memorandum should have been transmitted to the Committee of Adjustment in advance of its hearing and thereby made public, but it was not so transmitted.

7The Applicant understands from counsel for the City that the City will be relying upon the author of this memorandum to give evidence at the Tribunal hearing. That evidence will be based upon arboricultural matters.

8Due to its late discovery of the memorandum and its intended use at the Tribunal hearing, in order to be able to properly address the issues in that memorandum and to call rebuttal evidence, and due to the fixed filing dates in the Notice of Hearing, the Applicant is seeking an adjournment of the August 2nd hearing date and a re-fixing of filing dates.

9The City has consented to the requested adjournment.

THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND FRAMEWORK

10Tribunal Rule 23.3 : In deciding whether or not to grant a Motion for an adjournment the Tribunal may, among other things, consider: a) the reasons for an adjournment; b) the interests of the Parties in having a full and fair Proceeding; c) the integrity of the Tribunals process; d) the timeliness of an adjournment; e) the position of the other Parties on the request; f) whether an adjournment will cause or contribute to any existing or potential harm or prejudice to others, including possible expense to other Parties; g) the effect an adjournment may have on Parties, Participants or other Persons;and h) the effect an adjournment may have on the ability of the TLAB to conduct a Proceeding in a just, timely and cost-effective manner.

11Tribunal Rule 23.4: On a Motion for adjournment the Tribunal may: a) grant the Motion; b) grant the Motion and fix a new date, or where appropriate, the Tribunal may schedule a prehearing on the status of the matter; c) grant a shorter adjournment than requested; d) deny the Motion;

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

12The Applicant's counsel filed a Notice of Motion for the requested adjournment supported by the affidavit of Victoria Peacock, a law clerk in the law firm of counsel for the Applicant.

13The issue was clearly laid out in the filed material and it was apparent that there would be need for additional time for the Applicant to respond to the City's intended evidence.

14Confirmation of the City's consent to the adjournment was provided.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

15The Tribunal is satisfied that the criteria set forth in the Tribunal's Rule 23.3, in this instance, are satisfied so as to warrant the granting of an adjournment and the re-setting of filing dates.

CONCLUSION

16The Motion will be allowed.

DECISION AND ORDER

17The Tribunal ORDERS THAT the hearing of this appeal fixed for August 2, 2024 is adjourned to re-scheduled and that a fresh Notice of Hearing shall issue with new disclosure and filing dates.

G. Swinkin

Panel Member