Yeganegi (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 337

Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253

Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2025-06-17

25 150148 S53 12 TLAB

25 150300 S45 12 TLAB

25 150329 S45 12 TLAB

Yeganegi (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 337

INTERIM DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date:

June 17, 2025

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER Section 53, subsection 53(19) and Section Section 45(12), subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the "Act")

Appellant(s):

M. YEGANEGI

Applicant(s):

HIRMAN ARCHITECT INC

Property Address:

11 OSWALD CRES.

COA File No.:

24 220064 STE 12 CO

24 220070 STE 12 MV 24 220074 STE 12 MV

TLAB Case File No.:

25 150148 S53 12 TLAB

25 150300 S45 12 TLAB

25 150329 S45 12 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

Decision Delivered By:

TLAB Vice-Chair A. BASSIOS

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Appellant

M. YEGANEGI

M. Cara

Overland LLP

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1On April 9, 2025, the Committee of Adjustment (COA) refused applications for consent to sever and variances for the property known as 11 Oswald Cres. A Notice of Appeal was filed on behalf of the Owners of the property.

2On May 27, 2025, a Notice of Proposed Dismissal was issued under TLAB Rule 9.3 as the reasons for the Appeals set out in the submission of the Appellant did not disclose any apparent land use planning grounds for the Appeals.

3On June 5, 2025, a response to the Notice of Proposed Dismissal was received from the Applicant/ Appellants’ legal representative.

4The correspondence on behalf of the Appellant provided reasons for the Appeals and requested that the TLAB proceed to schedule the Appeals for a hearing.

THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND FRAMEWORK

5Provincial Interest - S. 2

A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest, enumerated as (a) – (s) in the Planning Act.

6Provincial Policy – S. 3

A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) must be consistent with the 2024 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS).

7Variance – S. 45(1)

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.

8TLAB Rules of Practice and Procedure

9. ADJUDICATIVE SCREENING

Adjudicative Screening by Member

9.1 In the case of an Appeal under subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act the TLAB may propose to, or upon Motion, dismiss all or part of a Proceeding without a Hearing on the grounds that:

a) the reasons set out in Form 1 do not disclose any apparent land use planning ground upon which the TLAB could allow all or part of the Appeal;

b) the Proceeding is frivolous, vexatious or not commenced in good faith;

c) the Appeal is made only for the purpose of delay;

d) the Appellant has persistently and without reasonable grounds commenced Proceedings that constitute an abuse of process;

e) the Appellant has not provided written reasons and grounds for the Appeal;

f) the Appellant has not paid the required fee;

g) the Appellant has not complied with the requirements provided pursuant to Rule 8.2 within the time period specified by Rule 8.3;

h) the Proceeding relates to matters which are outside the jurisdiction of the TLAB;

i) some aspect of the statutory requirements for bringing the Appeal has not been met; or

j) the submitted Form 1 could not be processed and the matter was referred, pursuant to Rule 8.4, for adjudicative screening.

9.2 In the case of an Appeal under section 53 of the Planning Act the TLAB may propose to, or upon Motion, dismiss all or part of a Proceeding without a Hearing on the grounds that:

a) the reasons set out in Form 1 do not disclose any apparent land use planning ground upon which the TLAB could give or refuse to give the provisional consent or could determine the question as to the condition Appealed to it;

b) the Appeal is frivolous, vexatious or is not commenced in good faith;

c) the Appeal is made only for the purpose of delay;

d) the Appellant has persistently and without reasonable grounds commenced Proceedings that constitute an abuse of process;

e) the Appellant did not make oral submissions at a public meeting or did not make written submissions to the Committee of Adjustment for the City of Toronto before a provisional consent was given or refused and, in the opinion of the TLAB, the Appellant did not provide a reasonable explanation for having failed to make a submission;

f) the Appellant has not provided written reasons for the Appeal;

g) the Appellant has not paid the required fee;

h) the Appellant has not complied with the requirements provided pursuant to Rule 8.2 within the time specified by Rule 8.3;

i) the Proceeding relates to matters that are outside the jurisdiction of the TLAB;

j) some aspect of the statutory requirements for bringing the Appeal has not been met; or

k) the submitted Form 1 could not be processed and the matter was referred, pursuant to Rule 8.4, for adjudicative screening.

9.3 Where the TLAB proposes to dismiss all or part of an Appeal under Rule 9.1 or 9.2 it shall give Notice of Proposed Dismissal, using Form 16, in accordance with the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, and to such other Persons as the TLAB may direct.

9.4 A Person wishing to make written submissions on a proposed dismissal shall do so within 10 Days of the giving of Notice under Rule 9.3.

9.5 Upon receiving written submissions, or, if no written submissions are received in accordance with Rule 9.4, the Local Appeal Body may dismiss the Appeal or make any other order.

9.6 Where the TLAB dismisses all or part of an Appeal, or is advised that an Appeal is withdrawn, any fee paid shall not be refunded.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

9The mandate of the TLAB is to decide matters within the jurisdiction of the tribunal on the basis of the tests set out in the legislation. For an appeal to be successful at the TLAB, the Appellant must show that there are planning grounds to overturn the decision of the COA.

10Rule 9 of the TLAB Rules of Practice and Procedure is intended to ensure that the time and resources of the TLAB (and any other Parties with interest) are not expended in a proceeding where there is no prospect of a successful appeal, where the appeal has been filed for improper purposes, or is otherwise incomplete.

11Without the identification of land use planning grounds upon which the TLAB could allow the appeal, there is no basis for the hearing to proceed.

12The Appellants’ response to the Notice of Proposed Dismissal provided a detailed outline of reasons for the Appeal, addressing the four statutory tests for approving a variance as well as the appropriate sections of the Planning Act for the consideration of a consent to sever the property.

CONCLUSION

13I am satisfied that the Appellant has identified sufficient potential land use planning grounds such that the Appeal may proceed to a Hearing.

DECISION AND ORDER

14The Appeal is not dismissed without a Hearing.

15TLAB staff are directed to issue a Notice of Hearing in accordance with the TLAB Rules of Practice and Procedure.