Grand Communities Corporation (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 319
Toronto Local Appeal Body 40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 211 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
24 192162 S45 02 TLAB 24 192163 S45 02 TLAB
Grand Communities Corporation (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 319
REVIEW REQUEST ORDER
Issuance Date: April 3, 2025
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): GRAND COMMUNITIES (KIPLING) CORPORATION
Applicant(s): GOLDBERG GROUP
Property Address: 1090 KIPLING AVE
COA File No.: 24 132613 WET 02 MV (A0157/24EYK) 24 132615 WET 02 MV (A0158/24EYK)
TLAB Case File No.: 24 192162 S45 02 TLAB 24 192163 S45 02 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): January 13, 2025.
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Vice-Chair A. Bassios
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
| People Type | First Initial. Last Name | Representative |
|---|---|---|
| Applicant | Goldberg Group | |
| Appellant | Grand Communities Corporation | R. Cheeseman, S. Fleming |
| Party | M. Snidero | |
| Party | H. Sawick |
REVIEW REQUEST NATURE AND RULE COMPLIANCE TO INITIATE
1On July 18, 2024, the Committee of Adjustment (COA) refused variances to facilitate two fourplex buildings for the property/ properties located at 1090 Kipling Ave.
2The Committee of Adjustment had previously (August 2022) given consent to sever the existing property, creating two new lots (1090A which is the south half of the former lot and 1090B, which is the north half). At that time, the COA also approved variances to lot frontage and lot area that were required for the new lots.
3The Owner of the property appealed the COA’s refusal of the variances to facilitate the two fourplexes. On December 12, 2024, the TLAB issued a Decision dismissing the Appeal and confirming the decision of the COA.
4On January 9, 2024, a Request to Review the final Decision of this Appeal (the Request) was filed on behalf of the subject properties by counsel (the Requestor).
5The other Parties to the Hearing did not file Responses to the Review Request.
6The TLAB Chair has designated me to conduct the Review and make a decision in accordance with the Rules.
7The Owner requests that the Decision of the TLAB be overturned and that a fresh hearing be held to make a full determination in this matter.
8The grounds cited in the Request are that the Presiding Member:
a. Violated the rules of procedural fairness; and
b. made errors of fact and law.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
Variance – S. 45(1) Planning Act
In considering the applications for variances from the Zoning By-laws, the TLAB Panel must be satisfied that the applications meet all of the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act. The tests are whether the variances:
- maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
- maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-laws;
- are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
- are minor
31. REVIEW OF FINAL DECISION OR FINAL ORDER
A Party may Request a Review
31.1 A Party may request of the Chair a Review of a Final Decision or final order of the TLAB.
Chair May Designate Any Member
31.2 The Chair may in writing designate any Member to conduct the Review and make a decision in accordance with the Rules.
Review Request does not Operate as a Stay
31.3 A Review shall not operate as a stay, unless the Chair orders otherwise. A Party requesting that a Final Decision or final order be stayed shall do so at the same time the request for Review is made.
No Motions Except with Leave
31.4 No Motion may be brought with respect to a Review except with leave of the Chair. Deadline for, and Service of, Review Request
31.5 A Review request shall be provided to all Parties and the TLAB by Service within 30 Days of the Final Decision or final order, unless the Chair directs otherwise.
Contents of a Review Request
31.6 A Party’s request for Review shall be entitled “Review Request” and shall contain the following:
a) a table of contents, listing each document contained in the Review Request and describing each document by its nature and date;
b) an overview of the Review Request not to exceed 2 pages that identifies the grounds listed in Rule 31.17 that apply;
c) if the Review Request includes grounds based upon Rule 31.17 (c), a list of all alleged errors of fact or law;
d) a concise written argument contained in numbered paragraphs. The Review Request shall provide, avoiding repetition, the concise written arguments regarding each listed matter from Rule 31.17 in the same order and include the following:
i. the applicable section of the Planning Act or other legislative basis, if any, for the argument advanced;
ii. the wording of the applicable policy, By-law or authority, if any, in support of the argument advanced;
iii. the applicable transcript or other evidence and exhibit attachments, if any, in support of the argument advanced;
iv. a clear demonstration of how in the case of grounds asserted under Rule 31.17 c), d) and e), each would likely have resulted in a different Final Decision or final order;
v. copies of the referenced case law and authorities; and
vi. a statement as to the requested remedy.
Review Request not to Exceed 20 Pages
31.7 Excluding the table of contents, case law and transcripts, by-laws, exhibits and other supporting Documents, the Review Request shall not exceed 20 pages, double spaced, and written in 12-point font.
Transcripts
31.8 If any Party wishes to refer to any oral evidence presented at the Hearing and if that oral evidence is contested and a recording thereof is available, the relevant portion of the proceeding shall be transcribed and certified by a qualified court reporter and provided to all Parties and the TLAB by Service forthwith and at that Party’s sole expense.
Administrative Screening
31.9 The TLAB shall, upon the filing of a request for Review, review it for compliance and advise the Parties if:
a) it does not relate to a Final Decision or final order; or
b) it was not received within 30 Days after the Final Decision or final order was made, unless the Chair directs otherwise; or
c) it failed to provide the requisite fee.
Response to Review Request
31.10 Despite Rule 31.9, if a Party needs to respond to the Review Request the Responding Party shall by Service on all Parties and the TLAB provide a Response to Review Request no later than 20 Days from the Date of Service pursuant to Rule 31.5, unless the Chair directs otherwise.
Contents of a Response to Review Request
31.11 A Responding Party’s response to Review Request shall be entitled “Response to Review Request” and shall contain the following:
a) a table of contents, listing each document contained in the Response to Review Request and describing each document by its nature and date;
b) an overview of the Response to Review Request not to exceed 2 pages that contains specific reference to the Review Request’s overview;
c) a concise written argument contained in numbered paragraphs, giving a response to each argument in the Review Request, and include the following :
i. the applicable transcript or other evidence and exhibit attachments, if any, in support;
ii. any other applicable legislation, policy documents, By-laws or other material that is not provided for in the Review Request; and
iii. any other applicable authorities and copies thereof; and
iv. a statement as to the remedy requested.
Response to Review Request not to Exceed 20 Pages
31.12 Excluding the table of contents, case law and authorities, transcripts, by-laws, exhibits and other supporting Documents, a Response to Review Request shall not exceed 20 pages, double spaced, and written in 12-point font.
Responding Party Not to Raise New Issues
31.13 A Responding Party shall not raise any issues beyond those issues raised in the Review Request.
Reply to Response to Review Request
31.14 If the Requesting Party needs to reply to a Response to Review Request, that Party shall provide by Service on the Parties and the TLAB a Reply to Response to Review Request not to exceed 5 pages, double spaced, and written in 12-point font and no later than 5 Days from the Date of Service pursuant to Rule 31.10, unless the Chair directs otherwise.
Contents of a Reply to Response to Review Request
31.15 A Reply to Response to Review Request shall contain the following:
a) a reply to facts, matters and Documents raised in the Response to Review Request;
b) list and attach the Documents used in the Reply to the Response to Review Request relating to those matters addressed in the Reply, including any case law or authorities raised in support.
Chair Authority
31.16 Following the timeline for the Service on all Parties and the TLAB of any Review Request, Response to Review Request and Reply to Response to Review Request, the Chair may do the following:
a) seek further written submissions from the Parties;
b) confirm the Final Decision or final order and dismiss the Review Request, with reasons;
c) cancel the Final Decision or final order, with reasons, and, where appropriate, direct a de novo Oral Hearing before a different TLAB Member.
Grounds for Review
31.17 In considering whether to grant any remedy the Chair shall consider whether the reasons and evidence provided by the Requesting Party are compelling and demonstrate the TLAB:
a) acted outside of its jurisdiction;
b) violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness;
c) made an error of law or fact which would likely have resulted in a different Final Decision or final order;
d) was deprived of new evidence which was not available at the time of the Hearing but which would likely have resulted in a different Final Decision or final order; or
e) heard false or misleading evidence from a Person, which was only discovered after the Hearing, but which likely resulted in the Final Decision or final order which is the subject of the Review.
No Further Review Permitted
31.18 A Review decision may not be further reviewed by the TLAB.
CONSIDERATION AND COMMENTARY
Purpose and Parameters of Rule 31
9Before commencing a Review of the grounds asserted in the Request, a reminder of the purpose and parameters of Rule 31 are helpful. These comments are general propositions to be kept in mind in consideration of any Review.
- The first and most important reminder is that a Review Request is not afforded as an opportunity to re-litigate or reargue a point that was made but not favourably received in the Decision.
- The task of the Reviewer is not to assess the “correctness” of the Decision, nor to take into consideration what another Adjudicator may or may not have decided having been presented with the same evidence in this case. The task of the Reviewer is to establish whether there are arguable, definable errors, and, as well, whether they are of a nature (i.e., are of such significance) that could meet the threshold established in the Rules.
- In writing a decision, a TLAB Member must consider opinion and evidence, and decide what weight to ascribe to each, in coming to his or her conclusions. The Decision must provide its basis for coming to the conclusion it did, but it does not require an acknowledgement and repudiation of (or concurrence with) every argument made, and not received as desired, by the requesting party.
- The Grounds for Review mandated under TLAB Rule 31 set a consequential standard for findings, that the reasons and evidence are compelling, and specifically under Rule 31.17 c) that an error of law or fact has been made which would likely have resulted in a different order or decision.
- The basis for a decision must be understandable and, preferably, written in plain English. A Decision must reflect a suitable basis for its conclusions, taking into account relevant considerations and applying the law and policy germane to the TLAB’s mandate, including its own deliberations.
Asserted Grounds for Review
10That the Member breached the rules of procedural fairness in disregarding the expert evidence put before him to aid in making his decision.
11That the Member made an error of fact and law in determining that the certain variances he referred to as the “Key Variances” failed to meet the intent of the Official Plan or the Zoning By-law, are not desirable for the appropriate development of the land and are not minor when he had not heard any expert evidence to the contrary.
12That the Member stated that the failure of any requested variances may lead to the failure of an entire development application, which is an error of law.
The weight and standing of Expert Opinion Evidence
13The Requestor contends that the Member made an error of procedural fairness when they did not accept the Expert Witness’s opinion that Official Plan Amendment 649 (OPA 649) superseded the existing policies in the Official Plan. (OPA 649 is an amendment to the Toronto Official Plan to permit multiplexes (up to four units) across the Neighbourhoods designation.)
14The Requestor asserts that “as no contrary evidence was provided to the Member in respect of this, this Decision constituted an error of procedural fairness in that it disregarded the expert evidence put before him.”
15The Requestor has not explained the basis for their assertion that the Member’s non-acceptance of the Expert’s opinion constitutes an error of procedural fairness. In absence of any illustration of a principle of fairness, or a discussion of applicable rules of evidence1, I am left with the simple understanding that the Requestor contends that the Member must accept the interpretation (opinion) of an Expert when there is no contrary evidence put before them.
16To put a fine point on it, the opinion of an Expert Witness is just that, an opinion. The opinion evidence of an Expert should not be assumed, or treated, as fact.
17It is the tribunal’s duty to interpret the Official Plan, and the tribunal itself must be satisfied that the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan has been met. It is ultimately the adjudicator that must carry the responsibility for the decision to approve or refuse the application for variances and it is they that must be satisfied that the tests have been met.
18The trier of fact, the Member, is the person who is charged with the broad responsibility to advance the public interest by hearing evidence and applying law and policy and own experience to matters for dispute resolution.
19In reference to the Member’s findings regarding whether OPA 649 supersedes the existing policies in the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, the Decision does not, in my opinion, disregard the evidence put before the Member.
20The Decision goes to some length to reflect the evidence of the Expert Witness. The Decision made particular note that some of the criteria in Section 4.1.5 of the main Official Plan that are used to define the character of a neighbourhood are not included in the policies of OPA 649.
21Paragraphs 20 to 28 reproduce an extract of the policy.
[20]OPA 649 states that “Despite Policy 4.1.5 [of the main Official Plan] multiplexes are permitted in Neighbourhoods, subject to the following policies:…
21b) Development of multiplexes:
22(i) will maintain the low-rise built form of each geographic neighbourhood,
including in particular…
23(ii) is encouraged to include large units, and should include at least one unit that contains multiple bedrooms;
24(iii) will provide entrances that are safely accessible from the street, which may be located at the front, side or rear of the building;
25(Iv) should not result in the injury or removal of a healthy tree protected under Municipal Code Chapters 608, 658, and 813 on the subject property and adjacent properties;
26(vii) will minimize privacy impacts between adjacent dwelling units;
27(viii) will integrate with existing grades at the property line; and
28(Ix) is encouraged to expand the urban tree canopy through the planting of a new tree on a lot with a multiplex.
22In paragraphs 66 and 67, the Decision reflects on the Expert’s evidence and puts consideration of built form into the context of an explicitly stated condition for the support of multiplexes in all Neighbourhood designations, which is to maintain the low-rise built form of each geographic neighbourhood.
66I am not persuaded by Mr. Layton’s argument that OPA 649 completely supersedes Policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan (OP). OPA 649 still requires multiplex development to “maintain the low-rise built form of each geographic neighbourhood”. Although it lists some criteria which should be observed “in particular,” I find that it does not mandate the elimination of consideration of the other criteria in the main OP, such as respecting and reinforcing prevailing heights, massing, scale, density … of nearby residential properties”.
67I interpret this to mean that multiplexes are to be given more latitude regarding conformity to the existing scale of development than single detached houses but that such proposals should still have regard for the prevailing built form in the area.
23The Member, in the Decision, goes on to describe how the recent Zoning By-law amendment to implement OPA 649 reinforces the continued regulation of height and side walls for multiplexes in order to produce built form in keeping with the other buildings in the area.
24It is not within my remit as the Reviewer of the Decision to comment on the “correctness” of the Member’s finding with respect to whether or not OPA 649 completely supersedes Policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan. Clarification of this policy question will no doubt evolve via tribunal jurisprudence. The task of the Reviewer is to establish whether there are arguable, definable errors in the Decision.
25I find that the contention that procedural fairness was violated, because the Member did not agree with the opinion of the Expert Witness, to be unfounded.
26A Member is entitled, on the standard of reasonableness, to draw inferences and conclusions from the evidence, provided there is relevant reasoning set out to support the conclusion. Having heard the evidence, and having made observations, the Member is entitled to formulate their own opinion on acceptability or disagreement with the professional witness. An adjudicator is to come to a Hearing with an open mind, not an empty one.
Findings that “Key Variances” do not meet the four tests
27The Requestor asserts that the Member made an error of fact and law in determining that the certain variances he referred to as the “Key Variances” failed to meet the four tests when they had not heard any expert evidence to the contrary.
28My response to this assertion of the Requestor is similar to the assertion above. The premise of the assertion is that, in the absence of contrary evidence, the Member has no choice but to adopt the opinion evidence of the Expert and approve the variances if so advised by the Expert. On this presumption, I wonder what the purpose of an adjudication of the matter would even be if the Member were to be so tightly bound to the opinion of the sole expert. In any event, I do not accept the position of the Requestor that the Member erred in fact or law in his determination that the tests were not met.
29The entire raison d’etre for an adjudication is that the matter is resolved through an independent decision by an impartial, qualified, person. The TLAB is charged with the responsibility to approve variances only if the tribunal is satisfied that the four tests articulated in the Planning Act have been met. The burden remains with the Applicant to satisfy the Presiding Member that the tests have been met.
30It is not the mandate of the Member to conform to the evidence/ opinion of the Expert; it is the Member’s duty to evaluate the evidence presented and determine whether they have been presented with sufficient evidence to be satisfied that the four tests have been met. Clearly, in this case, the Member found that they had not.
31The Member is, of course, obligated to provide reasons in their Decision for their determination. In paragraphs 62 to 72, the Decision addresses the reasons for the Member’s determination that three “key” variances do not meet the four tests.
32The “key variances” referred to in the Decision, and in the Request, relate to the height of the building, the height of sidewalls and the height of the first floor above grade.
33The Member’s analysis of the variances was executed in the light of their interpretation of the policy framework as set out in paragraph 67.
67I interpret this to mean that multiplexes are to be given more latitude regarding conformity to the existing scale of development than single detached houses but that such proposals should still have regard for the prevailing built form in the area.
34In paragraphs 68 and 69 of the Decision, the Member notes that the Zoning By-law to specifically implement OPA 649 contains a maximum height limitation (for which a variance is required in this case). Further on the theme of continued regulation of height within the City’s initiative to create more multiplex housing, the Member cites the maximum height regulation which is also embedded in the implementing By-law for another Official Plan Amendment to permit townhouses and 6 storey apartment buildings in Neighbourhoods.
35It is clear that in the Member’s mind, the inclusion of maximum height regulation(s) to implement Official Plan Amendment(s) for multiplex housing conveys a continued concern with built form.
36In paragraph 42, the Decision documents the Expert’s evidence that one of the reasons that gross floor area (GFA) controls were no longer needed was because the standards that control the building envelope (height, setbacks, length) are sufficient to produce built forms which would be appropriate for the development of a property.
37In paragraph 65 of the Decision, the Member notes that the length of the building is within the maximum standard permitted and the proposed buildings substantially meet the setback requirements… “and as such, height becomes the critical development standard for ensuring an appropriate built form”. In other words, the Member did not accept the effective interpretation of the Expert that adoption of OPA 649 sweeps away all policy consideration of built form.
38It was the Member’s finding that the elevated building height, sidewalls and the height of the first floor above grade did not meet the general intent of the multiplex amendment (OPA 649) with respect to maintaining the “low-rise built form” nor the established Official Plan policies regarding built form in OP Policy.4.1.5.
39The Requestor cites three instances, where, in their opinion, the Member erred in law.
i) The Member made an error in fact and law by determining that the new policies of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to address “missing middle” housing were not in effect and did not apply to this matter.
40I find no statement in the Decision to indicate that the Member determined that the new policies of the Official Plan to address “missing middle” housing were not in effect and did not apply in this matter. The Member acknowledged OPA 649 in the Decision and included the operative text beginning at paragraph 20. They explained why they did not agree with the Expert Witness that the new OPA supersedes “completely” the consideration of other criteria in the main Official Plan.
ii) The position of the uncontested Expert Witness is supported by Official Plan policy that provides that site and area specific policies (SASPs) prevail in the case of conflict with the Plan.
41There is no discussion raised in the Decision regarding the primacy of site and area specific policies (SASPs) in situations of conflict with the Official Plan2. The Requestor has not explained the conflict they perceive between the Official Plan and a SASP, except to intimate that evaluation of multiplex development under the new OPA conflicts with/ completely excludes other policies, including those relating to built form. The Member heard the Expert on this opinion and did not fully agree.
42It is not for me, in this exercise, to adjudicate this policy question, which I expect will evolve as more multiplex-related appeals are heard by the TLAB. As the Reviewer, I am to give deference to the findings of the seized Member and provided that the decision-maker has provided replicable and reasonable grounds for the findings, their responsibility is met.
iii) Only general conformity to the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and By-law must be maintained and that holding the applications to a strict interpretation of the permitted height is an error.
43On the assertion that the Applicant need only establish general conformity to the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, the Requestor must be reminded that there is no right to a variance. The obligation rests on the proponents to demonstrate to the decision-maker that the statutory tests are met.
44The Requestor asserts that the Member held the applications to the strict interpretation that no more than 10m in height is permitted, despite evidence proffered which demonstrates that greater height has been previously approved.
45The Requestor asserts that this finding “that only 10-metres may be considered” is overly restrictive given the objectives that lead to the adoption of the multiplex amendments.
46The Decision does not, in actuality, state that only 10m may be considered. The Decision emphasizes in paragraphs 68 and 69 that the freshly enacted implementing Zoning By-laws for multiplexes and townhouses (etc.) in Neighbourhoods specify that the maximum permitted height is 10m. This is accurate and factual.
47I read the discussion in the Decision regarding the recently enacted Zoning By-laws and the reference to maximum height of 10m to be a reinforcement of the Member’s interpretation that enactment of OPA 649 and its implementing Zoning By-law does not eliminate consideration of the other (built form) criteria in the main OP as they immediately follow the statement in paragraph 67, (extracted above in paragraph 21 of this Decision).
48The Appellant, of course, has the legal right to apply for a variance from the maximum height regulation, but must still justify that variance in terms of the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, as well as the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan, be desirable and minor (the four tests).
49In the paragraphs following the statements about the 10m maximum established in the implementing By-law(s), the Member set out their reasons for the finding that the variances did not meet the four tests.
Findings that the failure of a requested variance may lead to the failure of the application
50The Requestor contends that the Member made an error in law in determining that the Key Variances meant that the application as a whole must fail.
51The Requestor contends that the variances for maximum height, side walls and height of the first floor were never identified as being “key” to the project. The Requestor is perhaps misreading the Decision in this respect. The Member has identified the three variances as being key, i.e. most important, to his reasons and Decision.
52The Requestor cites the Member’s acknowledgement that at least one of the variances for maximum gross floor area (GFA) appears reasonable given that “restrictions are no longer appropriate to control building envelopes”.
53This is only a partial representation of what the Decision says. In discussing the three height related variances (paragraph 64), the Member wrote as follows:
[64]…– these variances (the height variances) all relate to the height and built form of the development. I agree with Mr. Layton that GFA restrictions are no longer appropriate to control building envelopes and that the height, length and setback by-law performance standards are adequate.
In effect, the paragraph conveys the importance and emphasis that the Member subsequently placed on the height variances.
54The Requestor makes the following statement with respect to the Member’s statement that the jurisprudence of the Ontario Land Tribunal and the TLAB holds that if any of the requested variances fail, the application may fail with it.
“Furthermore, no jurisprudence was provided or established by the Ontario Land Tribunal or this Board that the failure of a single variance would lead to the failure of the entire application. Even if certain variances fail the test, it should only lead to the failure of those particular variances.
The Member’s determination that this constitutes the failure of the entire application is an error in law.”
55Astonishingly, the Requestor did not, themselves, provide any case law to support their contention that the Member’s statement regarding jurisprudence is incorrect, or that it constitutes an error in law.
56It is the nature of land use planning that context is always important. The consideration of variances, taking place at the scale of an individual property, means that a proposal’s design details are immensely important in assessing potential impacts and balancing the public interest.
57It is for this reason that planning justifications are required to show that the variances, in the very specific context, will not have undue adverse effects. It is also the reason that plans are provided to show how the variances will be deployed on the site so that the effects can be illustrated.
58In this application, for example, the Expert assessed the impact of the proposal’s additional height on the neighbours with regard to light, view and privacy by referring to the limited number of windows on the side walls of the buildings. This example illustrates the reason why when variances are approved, the TLAB usually employs a standard condition that requires the proposed building to be constructed in substantial accordance with plans submitted, tied to the design and justification tendered through the adjudication.
59When refusal of a variance renders the proposal unviable in its submitted form, for example when refusal of variances for gross floor area, or height, makes construction of the proposal impossible without substantial change, the justification and the context for the remaining variances also fall away. The TLAB will approve standalone variances generally only when the variances can stand independently of the general design and features of a proposal. The height variances in this case are fundamental to the realization of the proposal.
60The Requestor has failed to establish that the Member made an error in law in determining that the failure of “key” variances meant that the application as a whole failed.
CONCLUSION
61The standard of review requires that a definable error be identified and established. The Decision itself, provided it is properly reasoned, is not reviewable; the reviewer is not to “second guess” the Member’s findings.
62The task of the reviewer in establishing grounds under Rule 31.17 b) and c) is to establish whether the Member got any of the law wrong or any of the facts wrong. A finding of error of fact must be consequential, i.e. that had the error not occurred, a different decision would have been made.
63I find that the reasons and evidence provided by the Requesting Party have not demonstrated that the TLAB violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness or made an error of law or fact which would likely have resulted in a different Final Decision or final order.
DECISION AND ORDER
64I confirm the Decision of the TLAB issued on December 12, 2024.
A. Bassios Panel Member