Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
2025-01-17
24 224218 S45 11 TLAB
14792670 CANADA INC (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 296
MOTION DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
January 17, 2025
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 53, subsection 53(19) and section 45(12), subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the "Act")
Appellant(s):
14792670 CANADA INC
Applicant(s):
PM STRATEGIES INC
Property Address:
30 CHARLES ST E
COA File No.:
24 157944 STE 11 MV (A0529/24TEY)
TLAB Case File No.:
24 224218 S45 11 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
January 29, 2025
Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Panel Member Y. Herscher
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Applicant
PM STRATEGIES INC
Appellant
14792670 CANADA INC
M. OZDEMIR
Party (TLAB)
T. OSMOND
Party (TLAB)
J. COWEN
Party (TLAB)
CITY OF TORONTO
M. LAFORTUNE
Participant
L. WAHL
Participant
J. NAULT
Participant
D. HOLYSH
INTRODUCTION
1This motion arises by way of a Notice of Motion filed by Merve Ozdemir on behalf of 14792670 CANADA INC, the appellant and owner of 30 Charles Street East (subject property).
2The motion seeks an order from the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) to dismiss the City of Toronto’s application for party status in the appeal and to direct the City to refrain from further participation in the proceedings.
BACKGROUND
3The appellant applied for two minor variances in order to permit an additional residential dwelling unit in the basement of a multi-residential building located at 30 Charles Street East.
4The Committee of Adjustment (COA) held a hearing on the matter and on October 1, 2024, issued its decision refusing the minor variances. The appellant appealed the decision of the COA to the TLAB.
5The TLAB issued a Notice of Hearing in respect of the appeal on October 25, 2024, and scheduled a hearing of this matter for January 29, 2025, setting a deadline of November 25, 2024 to submit a Notice of Intention to be a Party.
6At the City council meeting of December 17 and 18, 2024, City council directed the City Solicitor to attend at the TLAB hearing in order to oppose the appeal regarding 30 Charles Street East. On December 20, 2024 the City of Toronto, through its legal counsel, submitted its Notice of Intention to be a Party to the TLAB and copied the other parties.
7On January 3, 2025, the appellant filed its Notice of Motion and accompanying affidavit. The City submitted its response on January 10, 2025. The appellant did not file a reply.
RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
8The provisions in the TLAB Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules) pertinent to this motion are:
2.2 These Rules shall be liberally interpreted to secure the just, most expeditious and cost-effective determination of every Proceeding on its merits.
2.11 Substantial compliance with the requirements of these Rules is sufficient.
2.12 The TLAB may grant all necessary exceptions to these Rules, or grant other relief as it considers appropriate, to enable it to effectively and completely adjudicate matters before it in a just, expeditious and cost-effective manner.
4.4 The TLAB may on its own initiative, or, on a Motion by a Party, extend or reduce a time limit provided by these Rules on such conditions as the TLAB considers appropriate.
4.5 The TLAB may exercise its discretion under Rule 4.4 before or after the expiration of a time limit and with or without a Hearing.
12.3 The TLAB may name Persons to be Parties for all or part of a Proceeding on such conditions as it considers appropriate. A Party to a Proceeding is not a Participant to a Proceeding.
12.4 In deciding whether a Person’s status as a Party to a Proceeding should be denied, at any time, the TLAB may consider, among other things:
a) whether the Person’s interests may be directly and substantially affected by the Proceeding or its result;
b) whether the Person has a genuine interest, whether public or private, in the subject matter of the Proceeding; and
c) whether the Person is likely to make a relevant contribution to the TLAB’s understanding of the issues in the Proceeding.
APPELLANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION
9The appellant’s representative filed the Notice of Motion and argued for the order as well as also swearing the affidavit. While I find the affidavit to be an unsettling mix of fact and opinion, I am not prepared to exclude it at this time.
10The basis for the appellant’s motion is that the City’s intention to be added as a party fails to meet the filing deadline without giving reasons, the issues raised in the City’s application to be added as a party are irrelevant to the planning matters under appeal, and granting party status to the City would prejudice the appellant and disrupt the efficiency of the proceedings.
11The appellant goes into further details in its motion materials and I will address each of its points.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
(A) Timelines Under the Rules of Practice and Procedure
12The appellant states that the City has offered no reasoning for its failure to meet the deadline and this undermines the integrity of the TLAB’s procedural framework. However, it appears that there was a clear sequence of events to account for the City’s delay in filing Form 4 in that instructions were not received until the City council meeting.
13In terms of the integrity of the TLAB’s process, the Rules provide a clear and consistent framework by which any unanticipated issues that arise can be considered. Sections 2.12 and 4.4 of the Rules provide the panel member with the discretion to make any exceptions to the Rules or grant any relief that the member considers appropriate, which includes extending a time limit.
14The appellant argues that timeliness is a fundamental requirement to ensure fairness and efficiency in adjudication, and also that allowing the City’s application would encourage disregard for the established timelines. This is a somewhat troubling argument given that the appellant itself has not fully complied with the Rules. The appellant failed to give notice of the motion to Tanya Osmond, one of the parties. Ms. Osmond did obtain the Notice of Motion from a participant to the appeal and filed a Notice of Response to the motion, so she was not ultimately prejudiced (except perhaps receiving the motion materials late). Nevertheless, it is a failure by the appellant itself to adhere to the Rules.
15In addition, and more analogous to the City’s late filing to be added as a party, the appellant submitted its expert witness statement on December 30th, almost a week after the deadline of December 24th. Given that this is the only witness statement filed by the appellant, the TLAB has to assume that the evidence in that witness statement is of critical importance to the appellant in order to make its case at the hearing. Were the TLAB to accept the appellant’s argument that administrative bodies must adhere strictly to procedural deadlines, then the entirety of the appellant’s evidence that is based on the witness statement would likewise have to be excluded.
(B) City of Toronto’s Interest in the Appeal
16The appellant states that the City is interested only in landlord-tenant matters and other unspecified municipal interests, which are not directly related to the proposed variances nor within the scope of the TLAB’s mandate. The appellant argues that the City’s participation would divert attention from the statutory tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act. While I agree with the appellant that the TLAB does not have the jurisdiction to deal with landlord-tenant matters, there is nothing in the City’s Form 4 that would indicate that it intends to deal with landlord-tenant matters and to not focus on land use planning issues.
17The direction from City council is general and does not specify that landlord-tenant or other municipal interests are to be raised at the hearing:
“City Council direct the City Solicitor to seek party status at the Toronto Local Appeal Body, and to attend the Toronto Local Appeal Body hearing, with appropriate City staff, in opposition to the appeal of the Committee of Adjustment’s decision to refuse the Minor Variance application in Application A0529/24TEY respecting 30 Charles Street East.”
18Furthermore, the statement by the appellant in its motion materials that the City’s participation would improperly broaden the scope of the appeal and divert attention from the statutory tests under the Planning Act fails to recognize the role of the presiding panel member to ensure that the evidence that is called at the hearing is properly with the TLAB’s jurisdiction. While I agree with the appellant the tribunal process should not be burdened with extraneous issues, it is the responsibility of the presiding member to manage the process and ensure that the issues at the hearing are relevant to the land use planning issues concerning the variances being sought.
19The appellant’s position that the City has no genuine or specific interest in the variances is questionable, given that the variances are proposed to the City’s own zoning by-law. The City not only has an interest but also a responsibility under the Planning Act to consider and assess aspects of community planning. Clause 2(h) of the Planning Act provides that the council of a municipality shall have regard to matters of provincial interest such as the orderly development of safe and healthy communities.
20Finally, the appellant argues that the City has not provided any substantive justification for its participation. The Rules are meant to facilitate the just, expeditious, and cost-effective determination of every proceeding on its merits. Excluding the City as a party could mean that the TLAB would not have the benefit of having the evidence tested and thus the TLAB might not have all the relevant information before it in order for the TLAB to best adjudicate the matter.
21It is also critical to consider the positions of the two other parties to the appeal. The other parties have requested the City’s assistance in this matter. Those two parties, Tanya Osmond and Justin Cowen, are residents of the subject property and both have filed responses opposing the motion and supporting the addition of the City as a party. Both parties argue that the City has a significant public interest in promoting the orderly development of safe, healthy and sustainable communities.
22Given that it is important that the public have an opportunity to participate in matters related to local land use planning and the fact that these parties have expended considerable time, energy and resources to become parties and file witness statements and to respond specifically to the Notice of Motion, it is incumbent upon the TLAB to take their positions into consideration in arriving at a decision on the motion.
23The appellant states that the variances are minor and party status should be denied to the City on the basis that the impacts of the variances are “localized”. This is a substantive issue for the TLAB to decide in the context of the hearing in terms of whether the proposed variances meet the statutory tests under the Planning Act; this argument is not helpful in determining whether an entity should be added as a party to the appeal.
(C) Assertion of Prejudice
24The appellant argues that allowing the City to participate would prejudice the appellant by introducing new issues that the appellant has not had an opportunity to address and would impose additional costs and delay the resolution of this matter.
25However, the City has not filed any witness statements and has advised that it will not be calling any witnesses so there is no new or unanticipated evidence for the appellant to prepare for. Although the City’s notice of intention to be added as a party was late, it was filed prior to the deadline to file witness statements.
26The City has indicated that, in making its case, it proposes to rely entirely on the written and oral evidence that is put before the TLAB by the other parties and participants. In addition, the City is not seeking an adjournment of the hearing so there would not be any delay in resolving this matter. Therefore, I find that the appellant would not suffer any prejudice by the addition of the City as a party.
DECISION AND ORDER
27The TLAB is satisfied that the City has a legitimate and genuine interest in the appeal and the TLAB grants the City party status in the proceeding.
28The TLAB orders that both grounds of the motion sought by the appellant are refused and that the City of Toronto be granted:
pursuant to Rules 4.4 and 4.5, an extension to the time limit to submit a Notice of Intention to be a Party; and
relief from Rule 12.2 to allow for the late filing of Form 4 (Notice of Intention to be a Party).
Y. Herscher
Panel Member