Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 211 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
24 207111 S53 18 TLAB 24 207113 S45 18 TLAB 24 207116 S45 18 TLAB
Bahoudian (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 359
REVIEW REQUEST ORDER
Issuance Date: October 7, 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): L. BAHOUDIAN
Applicant(s): RUBINOFF DESIGN GROUP
Property Address: 75 GLENDORA AVE
COA File No.: 24 151951 NNY 18 CO (B0023/24NY) 24 151966 NNY 18 MV (A0271/24NY) 24 152008 NNY 18 MV (A0272/24NY)
TLAB Case File No.: 24 207111 S53 18 TLAB 24 207113 S45 18 TLAB 24 207116 S45 18 TLAB
Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings: August 22, 2025
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member R. Kanter
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
| People Type | First Initial. Last Name | Representative |
|---|---|---|
| Applicant | RUBINOFF DESIGN GROUP | |
| Appellant | L. BAHOUDIAN | M. MAZIERSKI |
| Party | CITY OF TORONTO | A. LO-WONG |
REVIEW REQUEST NATURE AND RULE COMPLIANCE TO INITIATE
1On August 15, 2024 the City of Toronto (“City”) Committee of Adjustment issued a decision refusing a consent to sever 75 Glendora Ave. (the “Site”) to permit two lots and 11 variances to permit single-family homes to be built on each of the proposed lots (the “C of A Decision”)
2After refusal of the applications, the Appellant redesigned the proposed buildings to reduce the number of variances to 4 for each of the buildings. The Appellant also proposed that the buildings be used as duplexes, rather than as single detached houses.
3On January 13 and January 22, 2025, the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the ”TLAB”) conducted an oral hearing of an appeal of the C of A Decision.
4On July 22, 2025, Presiding Member B. Gallaugher (the “Member”) issued a Final Decision and Order (the “TLAB Decision”), as the presiding member of the TLAB hearing the appeal. The member refused the consent and stated that the variances were not realizable without the creation of two lots.
5On August 21, 2025, Mr. Martin Mazierski, counsel for the Appellant, requested a review of the TLAB Decision, pursuant to Rule 31 of the TLAB’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Request”)
6Mr. Mazierski requested that the TLAB Decision should be cancelled. He submitted that reasons in the TLAB Decision demonstrated that the TLAB made errors of law which would likely have resulted in a different Final Decision or Final Order.
7On August 28, 2025, the Chair of the TLAB delegated her authority to review the Request to me.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
Rule 31 (After December 2, 2020)
- 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.
Purpose and Parameters of Rule 31
8Before 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
8That the Member made an error of law by failing to evaluate the consent in accordance with the proper Official Plan (“OP”) policies.
9That the Member made an error of law by relying on policies for proposed lots for single family homes, rather than the applicable OP policies for duplexes.
10That the Member made an error of law by failing to consider the Official Plan Policies in their entirety.
EVIDENCE CONSIDERED BY THE MEMBER
11The Member qualified Mr. Franco Romano as an expert witness to provide planning evidence for the Appellant, and summarized Mr. Romano’s evidence concerning the applicable OP policies.
12Mr. Romano noted that the Site was located one property east of the North York Centre Secondary Plan (“NYCSP”), within 800 metres of the Sheppard subway station and within the Sheppard-Yonge Protected Major Transit Station Area (“PMTSA”)
13Mr. Romano opined that the policies in OPA 649 “supersede” those in Section 4.1.5 when a duplex or other form of multiplex rather than a single detached house is being proposed. In Mr. Romano’s view, OPA 649 only required the proposed lots to “maintain the low-rise built form of each geographic neighbourhood”, but not “respect and reinforce” prevailing heights, massing scale and density of existing buildings in the neighbourhood.1
14The Member qualified Ms. Heydayat as an expert witness to provide planning evidence for the City and summarized her evidence concerning the same OP policies.
15Ms. Heydayat opined that Policy 4.1.5 of the OP requires development in areas designated Neighbourhoods to “respect and reinforce the existing physical character of each geographic neighbourhood, including in particular . . .b) prevailing size and configuration of lots.” According to Ms. Heydayat, this requirement is not superseded by, and in fact is confirmed in OPA 649, which allows the development of multiplexes in Neighbourhoods.2
16Ms. Heydayat also provided evidence that in the geographic neighbourhood surrounding the Site, there were:
10 lots with frontages of 7.5 m as proposed by the Appellant, while there were 239 lots with frontages ranging from 9 to 18 metres; and
10 lots with an area of less than 300m2 as proposed by the Appellant, while there were 241 with an area greater than 300m2.
Did the Member err in law by failing to evaluate the consent in accordance with the proper Official Plan policies?
17The Request asserted that the Member only considered Policy 4.1.5 concerning development in Neighbourhoods, while ignoring OPA 649 which contained different policies permitting duplexes and other forms of multiplexes in Neighbourhoods.3
18According to the Request, OPA 649 exempts multiplex development from OP Policy 4.1.5. “The plain text language of OPA 649 does not merely amend some but not all parts of OP Policy 649 – it overrides it.”
19However, in his analysis, the Member referred to both Policy 4.1.5 and OPA 649. The Member found that while OPA 649 allows greater flexibility in observing the prevailing norm for some development criteria when multiplexes are being proposed in Neighbourhoods, it does not provide room for flexibility on lot frontage and area: OPA 649 states that:
“Development of multiplexes will maintain the low-rise built form of each geographic neighbourhood, including in particular . . .
b) prevailing size and configuration of lots.”4
20The Member considered the evidence concerning the applicable provisions of the OP put forward by both expert witnesses and preferred the opinion evidence of Ms. Heydayat. He found that the proposed severance would not respect the “prevailing lot size and configuration” development criteria contained in both OP Policy 4.1.5 and OPA 649.5
21I do not find that the Member made an error of law by failing to evaluate the consent in accordance with the proper OP policies. On the contrary, the member expressly referred to the policy concerning the development of a duplex or other multiplex in OPA 649, as well as the policy concerning development in areas designated Neighbourhoods set out in Policy 4.1.5.
Did the Member err in law by failing to rely on OP policy regarding multiplex rather than single family development?
22The Request states that the Member pays “lip service” to OPA 649 language. It asserts that conclusion about the severance not respecting the prevailing lot size and configuration is “based entirely on importing Policy 4.1.5 definitions and standards into the purported OPA 649 analysis”.6
23The Request quotes a portion of the Decision which states that the proposed severance does not respect (emphasis added) the “prevailing lot size and configuration”.7 According to the Request, the use of the word “respect” shows that the Decision is relying on language found in Neighbourhoods Policy 4.1.5 rather than the Multiplex OPA 649.8
24The Request further criticizes references in the Decision to “the most frequently occurring” and “immediate neighbourhood”9 as further examples of the Member’s reliance on single family rather than multiplex development.10
25OPA 649, which the Requester is relying on, requires that proposed multiplex development will maintain the low-rise built form of each geographic neighbourhood, including, in particular:
b) prevailing size and configuration of lots
26I do not find that the statement in the Decision that the proposed severance does not respect the prevailing lot size and configuration constitutes an error of law by ignoring or being inconsistent with the language found in OPA 649.
27The word “prevailing” is defined in Policy 4.1.5 as “the most frequently occurring”. “Prevailing” is not defined in OPA 649. I do not find that incorporating the definition of “prevailing” from Policy 4.1.5 into OPA 649 constitutes an error of law.
28The Decision refers to lot frontage and area in the geographic as well as the immediate area.11 OPA 649 requires consideration of the built form of each geographic neighbourhood, including prevailing size and configuration of lots. I do not find that reference to lot frontage and area in the immediate as well as the broader neighbourhood constitutes an error of law.
29There is not a significant difference between the first and second grounds for review. I do not find that the Member made an error of law with respect to either ground for review.
Did the Member err in law by not looking at OP Policies in their Entirety?
30The Request asserts that the Decision does not look at the development in the context of the OP as a whole. It considers only lot size in the form of lot frontage and lot area, with no mention of the proposed lot configuration.12
31The Request further asserts that the Decision refers to Mr. Romano’s evidence with respect to other applicable OPA 649 criteria, such as maintaining the low-rise built form, encouraging large units, providing entrances that are safely accessible, and minimizing privacy impacts13, but fails to refer to such criteria in the analysis or conclusion sections of the Decision.
32The Request also asserts that the Decision restricts its analysis only to the consent application and does not evaluate the minor variances.14
33The Decision refers to lot frontage and lot area in its summary of evidence of the Appellant and the City, consideration of the issues and analysis, and in its Conclusion.15 The Decision devotes significant attention to lot frontage and area, which are clearly relevant factors in determining if the consents conform to the OP. I do not find the fact that the Decision refers to two aspects of the OP concerning the creation of new lots (lot frontage and lot area) but does not refer to a third aspect (lot configuration) constitutes an error of law.
34The Request is correct when its states that the Decision focuses on the criteria of lot frontage and area and does not refer in detail to other criteria mentioned by Mr. Romano or contained in OPA 649. However, it is established law that a Decision of a tribunal need not refer to every piece of evidence before it to be sufficient.
35The Request states that the path taken by the Tribunal must be apparent within the written decision. “The Decision does not address how it dealt with any evidence outside of the statistics for lot area and frontages.” The Request cites the case of Clifford v. Ontario, 2009 ONCA 670 (“Clifford”) in support of its position.16
36I have reviewed the evidence considered by the TLAB Decision. The Decision refers to a number of conflicting policy directions affecting the Site, including its location just east of the NYCSP and inclusion in an PMTA, and OPA 649, which relaxes some elements of Policy 4.1.5.17 It also refers to 14 criteria (contained in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act which must be satisfied before a severance can be granted.18
37I have also reviewed Clifford. That case does require that reasons let an individual affected know why the decision was made. However, it goes on to state that a tribunal cannot be faulted for not referring to evidence that could have led it to decide differently:
“Reasons need not refer to every piece of evidence to be sufficient, but must simply provide an adequate basis upon which the decision was reached . . . If the language falls short of legal perfection in speaking to a straightforward issue that the tribunal can be assumed to be familiar with, this will not render the reasons insufficient provided there is still an intelligible basis for the decision.”19
38In my view, the TLAB Decision lets the Appellant know clearly the reason that the severances were denied: because the proposed lot frontage and areas would not conform to the OP.
39The Request cites six tribunal cases in support of its position. As Counsel for the Appellant is aware, the TLAB is not bound by previous decisions before it or other administrative tribunals when considering appeals. In my view, the TLAB should be particularly cautious when a Request for Review relies on previous TLAB decisions.
40As an example, the Request cites the TLAB Decision Re Korkmaz, 2025 ONTLAB 334 (CanII) in support of its position that OPA 649 overrides Policy 4.1.5. In Korkmaz, the Presiding Member20 cited a number of arguments concerning the relationship of OPA 649 and Policy 4.1.5, including several decisions which decided that OPA 649 did not override Policy 4.1.5.
41I do not agree that Korkmaz or other TLAB decisions provide a precedent that should be followed in this Request.
42As pointed out above in the Purpose and Parameters of Rule 31, the task of the Reviewer is not to assess the “correctness” of the Decision, nor to take into consideration what I or another Adjudicator may or may not have decided having been presented with the same evidence in this case. My task 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.
43I also understand that the Decision in Korkmaz is currently the subject of a request for Review by the TLAB, a request for judicial review, and a request for leave to appeal pursuant to Section 115 (9) of the City of Toronto Act. In view of the ongoing review and potential appeal, which could lead to a different result, there is no reason to rely on Korkmaz as the basis for review of the TLAB Decision.
CONCLUSION
44I conclude that the Request for Review is not granted.
45The Member did not err in law by failing to evaluate the consent in accordance with the proper Official Plan policies; failing to rely on OP policy regarding multiplex rather than single family development; or not looking at OP Policies in their Entirety.
DECISION AND ORDER
46I confirm the Decision of the TLAB issued on July 22, 2025.
R. Kanter Panel Member
Footnotes
- TLAB Decision par. 26
- TLAB Decision par. 48.
- Request par. 14-15
- TLAB Decision par. 67-68
- TLAB Decision par. 75
- Request par. 29
- TLAB Decision par. 75
- Request par. 31
- TLAB Decision par. 71 and 72
- Request par. 32
- TLAB Decision par. 71 and 72
- Request par. 40 - 42
- Request par. 43
- Request par. 44
- TLAB Decision par. 28, 29, 45, 46, 55, 69-72 and 76
- Request par. 43
- TLAB Decision par. 56 and 58
- TLAB Decision par. 63
- Clifford v. Ontario par. 40 and 43
- By coincidence, I was the Presiding Member in Korkmaz