Mandrapilias (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 357

Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253

Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2025-10-06

25 128024 S45 15 TLAB

Mandrapilias (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 357

Issuance Date:

October 6, 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):

Applicant(s):

Property Address:

521 DAVISVILLE AVE.

COA File No.:

23 205763 NNY 15 MV (A0560/23NY)

TLAB Case File No.:

25 128024 S45 15 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

October 02, 2025

October 16, 2025

Decision Delivered By:

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type	First Initial. Last Name	Representative
Appellant	S. MANDRAPILIAS	A. SURIANO
Party	CITY OF TORONTO	S. MESSINA
Party	T. QUINN	W. ROBERTS
Party	A. KIVI
Party	A. MORGAN
Participant	C. HILL
Participant	N. YEANDLE
Participant	P. LI
Participant	M. DAVEY
Participant	E. WONG
Participant	A. GENOVESE

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1This is an Appeal from a Committee of Adjustment (COA) decision dated February 20, 2025, refusing an Application for variances in respect of the subject property at 521 Davisville Avenue. The Appellant proposes to demolish an existing dwelling and to construct a dwelling and a laneway suite. The proposed variances have been changed since the Notice of Appeal was originally filed on March 11, 2025. For example, the main building would now be a duplex.

2The Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) issued a revised Notice of Hearing establishing October 2 and October 16, 2025, as the Hearing Dates for this Appeal. Subsequent revisions to the Notice reflected changes to some filing deadlines.

3The TLAB received an email from Mr. Suriano, legal counsel to the Appellant, seeking a consent adjournment of the first day of the hearing (October 2, 2025) over to the next day of the hearing (October 16, 2025). The TLAB directed that the request would be dealt on October 2, 2025.

4Accordingly, the October 2, 2025 Hearing Date was converted to a Prehearing Conference, as permitted by the TLAB Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Prehearing Conference was held by means of the virtual Webex platform.

5The Presiding Member heard from Mr. Suriano, who requested an adjournment on the consent of all Parties. TLAB had previously informed him that he could speak for all the Parties with their consent. Ms. Messina, legal counsel for the City, and Mr. Roberts, legal counsel for Party Quinn, also appeared for their respective clients.

6Mr. Suriano also requested that October 10, 2025 be established as the amended deadline for submission of a Reply to Response to Witness Statement and a Reply to Response to Expert Statement.

7Mr. Suriano stated that the Parties had made progress towards making a settlement and needed some more time to see if that could be completed successfully.

THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND FRAMEWORK

8Provincial 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.

9Provincial 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.

10Variance – 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.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

11A Party is entitled to request an adjournment without a formal notice of motion if the Party has the consent of all parties (Rule 17.2) Mr. Suriano stated that he made all the Parties and Participants aware of his client’s request of an Adjournment (via email). At the PreConference, he confirmed that he had each Party’s consent and was authorized to speak for them. As mentioned, Counsel for the City and for Mr. Quinn appeared at the PreConference and confirmed that they did not oppose the request.

12In my view, an adjournment to October 16, 2025, would not be prejudicial to the Parties or Participants and would allow the Parties more time to settle the outstanding issues in this Appeal.

13The Appellant also seeks an extension of the date for filing a Reply to Response to Witness Statement and a Reply to Response to Expert Statement. Such an extension is permitted by the TLAB Rules of Practice and Procedure.

14As noted above, the Appellant has changed the proposed variances in some respects and it appears that this has necessitated the other Parties having to consider whether to change their original filings at TLAB. Some flexibility of deadlines is therefore in order.

CONCLUSION

15I find that it is appropriate to adjourn the Hearing in this Appeal to October 16, 2025.

16I find that it is appropriate to extend the deadline for filing a Reply to Response to Witness Statement and a Reply to Response to Expert Statement to October 10, 2025.

DECISION AND ORDER

17TLAB staff are directed to issue a New Notice of Hearing giving notice of the adjournment to October 16, 2025 and amending the time for submission of a Reply to Response to Witness Statement and a Reply to Response to Expert Statement to October 10, 2025.

A. Brown

Panel Member