Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
2025-10-01
25 140772 S45 15 TLAB
Eden Engineering and Design Inc (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 356
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
October 1, 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):
EDEN ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC
Applicant(s):
VMO HOLDINGS INC
Property Address:
44 DONEGALL DR
COA File No.:
25 105367 NNY 15 MV (A0058/25NY)
TLAB Case File No.:
25 140772 S45 15 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
August 25, 2025
Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Panel Member B. Mullock
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Applicant
VMO HOLDINGS INC
Appellant
EDEN ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC
VMO HOLDINGS INC (VINCENT ORLANDO)
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1On March 20, 2025, the North York York Panel of the City of Toronto (City) Committee of Adjustment (COA) refused one (1) variance to permit a front yard parking space at 44 Donegall Dr, Toronto (subject property).
2The dwelling on the property is a recent two-storey, single detached dwelling.
3At COA, the Applicant, VMO Holdings Inc., had proposed to construct a parking space in the front yard. The property is on the west side of Donegall Drive in the Leaside neighbourhood. It and its neighbouring west side properties are serviced by a rear public laneway. The laneway is shared with mixed-use properties to the west, which front Bayview Ave.
4VMO Holdings Inc. appealed the COA’s decision to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB), which heard the Appeal matter on August 25, 2025.
5What is at issue before the TLAB is this: Does the variance which was required by Zoning in order to approve the proposal, meet the four tests set out in the Planning Act?
The Background
6The Appellant wishes to expand the property’s parking capacity by constructing a front yard parking space, accessed by the mutual drive shared with 46 Donegall Dr.
7Three letters of objection had been received. Two of these letters objected to the proposal, on the basis that the rear of the property already allowed for one, or potentially two, parking spaces, accessed by a public laneway. With this option,no front yard space was warranted, they argued. Tree removal would be necessary, they predicted. Resulting hardscape coverage, they estimated, would amount to 75% of the front yard. One such letter came from the Leaside Residents Association Incorporated, the other from Agnes Vermes of 4 Donegall Dr.
8The third letter was from the next-door neighbour, Mr K.R. Wantz, of 46 Donegall Dr. He expressed concern about winter snow clearing and snow storage. He foresaw that the parking space would not leave sufficient space on the property on which to pile shovelled snow. He felt that his property had already been impacted enough by the variances previously allowed for the new dwelling to his south.
9The obligation is on the Appellant to demonstrate to the decision maker that the four tests of Section 45(1) are met. It rests upon the Appellant to provide a sufficient basis in evidence, in order for TLAB to reach the conclusion that the application meets the tests.
10The Property is designated Neighbourhoods on Map 17 of the City Official Plan (OP) and zoned Residential Detached (RD) under city-wide Zoning By-law 569-2013.
The Neighbourhood Context
11The surrounding area to the north, south and east consists of low density, single detached residential development. The geographic neighbourhood is zoned RD. To the west are the rear entrances and parking areas of the buildings, generally two-storey, located in the mixed- use zone on Bayview Ave.
The Redevelopment Proposal
12The relief sought from the provisions of the Zoning By-law requests one variance in total for the front yard parking space:
REQUESTED VARIANCE(S) TO THE ZONING BY-LAW:
- Chapter 10.5.80.10.(3), By-law 569-2013
A parking space may not be located in a front yard or a side yard abutting a street.
The proposed parking spot is located in the front yard.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
1Provincial 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.
2Provincial Policy – S. 3
A Decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) must be consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement for the subject area.
3Variance – 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 variance:
maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-laws;
is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
is minor.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
13I have reviewed all of the evidence and testimony related to this matter. The following summary of evidence is included to provide context for the Decision. If any point of evidence appears to have been omitted in this summary, its omission should not be taken to mean that such evidence was not considered. It indicates, rather, that I determined the recitation of such evidence was not material to my reasoning, which is outlined in the Issues and Analysis section.
14Pre-hearing, I made a site visit to the subject site’s immediate context area and walked in the surrounding area.
15At the Hearing, Mr. Albert Yerushalmi identified himself as the Appellant’s Representative. He is the owner of Eden Engineering and Design.
16Yerushalmi was, in fact, the one and only person present at the hearing. No other parties or participants attended.
17I note for the record that Mr. Yerushalmi had submitted neither a Form 4 (Election to be a Party or Participant) nor a Form 12 (Party Witness Statement), as required. The Appellant had not provided any disclosure documents to support the application. He had not retained Legal Counsel or an Expert Witness to provide evidence.
18In order, however, to advance the appeal matter effectively on its appointed hearing date, I decided to allow him to participate, and to provide oral evidence.
19Mr. Yerushalmi made a solemn affirmation.
20Mr. Yerushalmi identified himself as an engineer. He gave evidence that his company, Eden Engineering and Design, had undertaken the proposal design and drawings on behalf of the owner.
21It was the witness’s opinion that the nature of the single variance sought is consistent with those already approved and occurring along Donegall Dr., near 44 Donegall Dr. To inform comparison, he showed an aerial photograph of the immediate context and several photographs of front yard parking spaces along Donegall Dr.
22He gave evidence that, despite the available parking in the garage at the rear of the lot, it was desirable in the eyes of the owner to have front yard parking, so as not to be obliged to walk so far to and from the garage. Having to do so, Mr. Yerushalmi described as not “practical”.
23Mr. Yerushalmi gave further evidence, opining that that in today’s housing market, buyers generally prefer the convenience of front parking over rear parking.
24Mr. Yerushalmi gave evidence that, by his count, there were 17 existing front yard parking spaces on Donegall Dr. He recounted a list of the related street number addresses. So precedents existed nearby.
25He gave evidence that these other properties, like 44 Donegall Dr, also had access to rear of lot parking giving onto the public laneway. Yet, nevertheless, he observed, they had been allowed front yard parking spaces, while 44 Donegall had been refused.
26The witness further opined that he did not understand the reason for the refusal of the application for 44 Donegall Dr. In his view, that application is similar in nature to the others along the street.
27In my pre-hearing review of the supporting documentation on the Application Information Centre(AIC) , I noted a Transportation Services Memorandum, dated March 13, 2025. Noting that at hearing, Mr. Yerushalmi made no reference to the Transportation Memorandum in his oral evidence, I asked him if he was aware of it.
28He said he was not aware of it. I read the Transportation Services Memorandum to Mr. Yerushalmi for his information. Here I quote the portions which I read:
“… the applicant proposes a permeable paved surface for 1 vehicle to park on the front yard of the property. While the proposal is generally in line with the neighbourhood context, the substandard dimensions and angle of the parking space labelled raises concerns on the functionality of the proposed space. Further information is required to assess the proposal.”
“Transportation Services recommends deferral of the above noted minor variance. The following additional information is required:
Please show the existing shared driveway and sidewalk on the Site Plan and label any changes to the existing curb proposed.
Provide a Vehicular Manoeuvring Diagram (VMD) showing inbound and outbound movement of the proposed design vehicle into the proposed front yard parking space. Please also provide a legend showing the dimensions of the proposed design vehicle.
Please provide a parking space with the following dimensions, 2.6m x 5.6m.”
29I asked Mr. Yerushalmi if the Transportation Memo had come up in the proceedings at the March 20, 2025 COA hearing? Mr. Yerushalmi replied that, no, it had not been considered at COA.
30He added that, had he known about it and had the opportunity to respond to the Transportation Services Memo, he would have done so.
31Although Mr. Yerushalmi did not make reference to it either, a Staff Report from Community Planning, dated March 13, 2025, also exists as part of the supporting documentation on the AIC. The Staff Report recommends refusal of the application, in that the proposal does not meet the intent of the zoning by-law. This stems from the existence of a detached garage at the rear of the subject property, which is accessible by the public lane. This parking option exists on the property.
32Mr. Yerushalmi concluded his evidence by explaining that he had been surprised that his front parking space application had been refused by COA, when similar other ones had been approved nearby. He asked that it now be approved by TLAB, in fairness.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
33This case hinges on the merits of the single variance sought in the light of the four tests. Does the Appellant provide a sufficient foundation of evidence, supporting the proposal in the light of the four tests?
34The Transportation Services Memorandum of March 13, 2025 stands as central to the case. That memo raises Transportation Services’ concerns about the angle and dimensions of the proposed parking space. It identifies both of these elements as sub-standard, as proposed. These deficient elements would be likely to impact the space’s functionality, according to the Transportation memo, making the space difficult to manoeuvre.
35The Transportation Services’ Memorandum advises that additional information is required. It invites submission of clarification and revision. It asks the Appellant to show the existing shared driveway and sidewalk on the Site Plan and to label any changes to the existing curb proposed. The Appellant was unresponsive to this request.
36Further, the Transportation Services’ Memorandum asks the Appellant to provide a proposed parking space larger in dimension, measuring 2.6m x 5.6 m, presumably in the form of a revision to the Site Plan. The Appellant was unresponsive to this request.
37The Transportation Services’ Memorandum asked the Appellant to provide a Vehicular Manoeuvring Diagram, showing inbound and outbound movement of the proposed vehicle into the proposed parking space. The Appellant was unresponsive to this request.
38The Transportation Services’ Memorandum asked the Appellant to provide a legend showing the dimensions of the proposed vehicle design. The Appellant was unresponsive to this request.
39In view of these failures to respond by the Appellant, providing additional information and revisions to Transportation Services, TLAB is considering do novo the same proposal as originally submitted to COA. It stands as unrevised
40As submitted, the appeal proposes a parking space of substandard dimensions on a front yard, where the Zoning By-law does not permit front yard parking spaces.
41The main argument upon which the Appellant basa his oral evidence, is his observation that a number of other properties on Donegall Dr already have front yard parking spaces. He gave evidence that they number seventeen. His oral evidence provides their street address numbers, but does not offer comparative data, such as their lot widths.
42Mr. Yerushalmi argues that the present proposal is similar in nature to those already permitted, in that it too proposes a parking space in the front yard. Accordingly, he is of the opinion that, by way of precedent, it should be allowed also.
43I find this argument of precedent alone unpersuasive. TLAB is not bound by precedent in its determinations. Instead, TLAB judges each proposal based on its merits, as presented in evidence, with specific reference to the four tests.
44In my finding, Mr. Yerushalmi relied nearly exclusively on the basis of precedent in his evidence. He did not build a sufficient foundation of evidence at hearing, to support the case that the proposal satisfies the four tests.
45I was unpersuaded by the precedence argument alone, in that the witness did not relate it to the four tests.
46As a self-represented party, it is the Appellant’s responsibility in general to cultivate a basic understanding of TLAB procedures, and to access the publicly available supporting documentation, in particular. Such documentation may call for certain responsive actions to be taken, as did the Transportation Services’ Memorandum in this instance.
47My finding is that the Appellant was unresponsive to the reasonable additional submission requests, made by Transportation Services.
48TLAB posts reports and witness statements for all to see on the Toronto Application Information Centre (AIC) website. Through this disclosure, everyone concerned has access to them at precisely the same time. During the process, it is up to the parties to check the AIC regularly for newly-posted documentation.
OFFICIAL PLAN
49OFFICIAL PLAN
Mr. Yerushalmi offered the opinion that the proposal is similar to other approvals already allowed on Donegall Dr. He did not, however, describe how the proposal satisfies the general intent and purpose of the City of Toronto Official Plan. He did not build a foundation of evidence for TLAB to rely upon in this regard.
ZONING BY-LAW
50ZONING BY-LAW
Mr. Yerushalmi did not describe how the proposal satisfies the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. He did not build a foundation of evidence, upon which TLAB could rely upon in this regard.
The Site Plan of November 19, 2024, prepared by Eden Engineering and Design Inc., illustrates a proposed front yard parking space measuring 5.03m x 1.91m. In contrast, the Transportation Services Memorandum cites required dimensions of 5.6m x 2.5m. In my finding, to allow this deficiency of dimensions would not meet the test of satisfying the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
DESIRABILITY
51DESIRABILITY
The single variance requested is to permit a front yard parking space, whereas a Zoning By-law prohibition on front yard parking applies. Other front yard parking spaces do exist nearby. However, Transportation Services identified the parking space proposed as substandard in its dimensions.
The Site Plan of November 19, 2024, prepared by Eden Engineering and Design Inc., illustrates a proposed front yard parking space of sub-standard dimensions, measuring only 5.03m x 1.91m, where dimensions of 5.6m x 2.5m. In my finding, to allow this deficiency of dimensions would not be desirable for the appropriate development of the property. It would result in a parking space, probably difficult of both entry and egress. Such poor functionality fails to meet the test of being desirable. I find that the proposal does not satisfy the test of being desirable.
MINOR
52MINOR
Front yard parking spaces must meet specific minimum length and width requirements, in the interests of manoeuvrability. According to the Site Plan of November 19, 2024 prepared by Eden Engineering and Design Inc., the proposal calls for a front yard parking space of 5.03m x 1.91m. The Transportation Services Memorandum, however, cites that the required dimensions are to be 5.6m x 2.5m. In my finding, this deficiency of length and width dimensions is not minor in nature. Its impact would be the creation of an constrained parking space, offering poor functionality. Due to this significant negative impact, the proposal fails to satisfy the test of being minor in nature, in my finding.
53Parties are responsible for accessing the Toronto Application Information Centre for all supporting documentation, such as disclosure documents and staff reports. This ensures all parties have access to the same information at the same time. By the date of the TLAB hearing on August 25, 2025, the Transportation Services’ Memorandum had been available to all on the Application Information Centre for over five months.
54An Appellant is not required by TLAB Rules of Practice and Procedure to be represented by legal counse. Self-represented Appellants, however, are required to inform themselves about TLAB practices and procedures. See Rule 15.2 of TLAB Rules of Practice and Procedure:
All Parties and Participants Required to Regularly Consult Website
15.2 All Parties and Participants are required to regularly consult the TLAB’s Website during the course of a Proceeding.” (TLAB Rules of Practice and Procedure, online, p. 22/45, May 6, 2019)
55Further, Section 2 of the “TLAB Public Guide”, a plain language public user guide available online, informs the public that, if a lawyer is not retained, the appellant should be prepared to:
“Find the documents and information you need for your case.” (P. 15/18, TLAB User Guide)
56Even if, presumably, Mr. Yerushalmi and the Appellant owner were unaware of these responsibilities, ignorance of TLAB practices and procedures is not a valid excuse for failing to follow them. Nor is ignorance a valid excuse for being unresponsive to case-related documentation and its requests.
CONCLUSION
57The Appellant did not submit a Party Witness Statement, as required. TLAB had only the witness’ oral evidence. The Site Plan, which was prepared and submitted by Mr. Yerushalmi’s company, Eden Egineering, proposes a problematic front yard parking space of sub-standard dimensions and functionality, in a front yard location where a front yard parking space By-law prohibition applies.
58Mr. Yerushalmi did not address the four tests in his oral evidence. In my finding, his oral testimony failed to build a sufficient foundation basis of evidence for TLAB to be satisfied that the four tests have been met.
59In my finding, the proposal fails to satisfy each one of the four tests of the Planning Act.
DECISION AND ORDER
60The Appeal is dismissed. The Committee of Adjustment decision noted above is final and binding, and the file of the Toronto Local Appeal Body is closed.
B. Mullock
Panel Member