Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
2025-01-23
24 155346 S45 12 TLAB
Forest Range Developments Inc (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 299
INTERIM DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
January 23, 2025
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):
FOREST RANGE DEVELOPMENTS INC
Applicant(s):
OPTIONS ARCHITECTS INC
Property Address:
39B BURTON RD
COA File No.:
23 161949 STE 12 MV (A0554/23TEY)
TLAB Case File No.:
24 155346 S45 12 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
Decision Delivered By:
B. Gallaugher
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Appellant
FOREST RANGE DEVELOPMENTS
S. TAHRIRI
Applicant
OPTIONS ARCHITECTS INC
P. NADDAF
Party
J. D ALTMAN
A. STEWART
Party
B. A BLUMENTHAL
A. STEWART
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This Interim Decision pertains to a Motion for Costs submitted by Ms. Amber Stewart (Amber Stewart Law) on behalf of her clients J. D. Altman and B. A. Blumenthal (the Parties).
2The Motion for Costs stems from a Hearing of an Appeal from a decision of the Committee of Adjustment regarding Minor Variance applications for 39 Burton Road, Toronto. This Interim Decision and Order deals specifically with 39B Burton Road, which was one of the two Appeals to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) regarding 39 Burton Road.
3The other Appeal was from a decision of the Committee of Adjustment to refuse variances for 39A Burton Road. However, the Appellant withdrew that Appeal the day before the hearing was to be held. Due to the short notice of the withdrawal of the Appeal, the TLAB held the scheduled Hearing but converted the Hearing into a discussion with the Parties to review and confirm the details of the withdrawal request. Following that converted Hearing, the TLAB issued a Withdrawal Order confirming the withdrawal of the appeal for 39A Burton Road.
4The Motion for Costs for 39B Burton Road was served by Ms. Stewart, the Parties’ authorized legal Representative, on the TLAB and P. Naddaf thirty-one (31) days after the issuance of the Final Decision and Order, resulting in a ‘late filing’ which is in violation of Rule 28.2 of the TLAB’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules). Rule 28.2 states “A request for costs may be made at any stage in a Proceeding but in all cases shall be made no later than 30 Days after a written decision is issued by the TLAB.”
5In addition, the Motion was not initially served on the authorized legal representative of the Appellant, in violation of Rule 3.3 (a) of the TLAB’s Rules. However, in a subsequent identical submission two days later (but still within the 31 days as the original service was on a Saturday), Ms. Stewart attempted to rectify this oversight by serving the Motion on the Appellant’s legal representative.
6The Appellant’s legal representative, S. Tahriri, did not file a Response to the Motion (Response). It is unclear to the TLAB as to why no Response was filed, although the TLAB later became aware that the Appellant perhaps assumed that the Motion was not served within the mandated time frame and therefore would not be admitted into the record by the Tribunal.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
7Rule 4.4 of the Rules provides that “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”. Rule 4.5 states that “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.”
8The TLAB’s Practice Direction No. 7 addresses Late Filings. It provides that “…save for extenuating circumstances, minimal non-prejudicial delay or where consented to by other Parties, the late filed Applicant’s Disclosure will not be admitted into the record. It also notes that “The presiding Member has the discretion under the TLAB’s Rules and under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, to admit or refuse to admit late filed materials.”
9Rules 24.8 and 24.9 of the Rules specify time frames for any Response and Reply to a Response, which have been implemented in my Order below (paragraph 13).
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
10The Motion was not served within the required time frame (30 days) pursuant to the TLAB’s Rules.
11In light of the fact that the Motion was served only one day late, causing a minimal and non-prejudicial delay in the process, I have the discretion under Rule 4.4 of the TLAB’s Rules and Practice Direction 7 to amend the time allowed for the serving of the Motion for Costs to 31 days after the written decision was issued by the TLAB and to accept the Motion.
DECISION AND ORDER
12The Motion is considered to have been served on the Parties and filed with the TLAB within the time allowed and will be admitted into the record.
13To allow this Motion to follow the normal process and the TLAB’s Rules, the deadline for any Notice of Response to the Motion (Form 8), which shall be served on the Parties and filed with the TLAB, shall be twenty (20) days from the date on which this Interim Order is issued by the TLAB. The deadline for any Notice of Reply to Response to Motion (Form 9), which shall be served on the Parties and filed with the TLAB, shall be ten (10) days after any Notice of Response to the Motion is served and filed.
B. Gallaugher
Panel Member