Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
File: 21 189963 S53 10 TLAB
MOTION DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: December 30, 2025
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER Section 53, subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the "Act")
Appellant(s): A. PATEL
Applicant(s): GOLDBERG GROUP
Property Address: 40 MITCHELL AVE
COA File No.: 21 122852 STE 10 CO (B0026/21TEY)
TLAB Case File No.: 21 189963 S53 10 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): January 29, 2026
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Vice-Chair A. Bassios
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
Appellant: A. PATEL
Applicant: GOLDBERG GROUP
Party: CITY OF TORONTO Representatives: M. LONGO, D. ABIMBOLA
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This Appeal has been languishing as an open file with the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) for an inordinately long time. The City of Toronto (City) has filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal.
2At a meeting in July, 2019, Toronto City Council stated its intention to designate 40 and 44 Mitchell Avenue, pursuant to Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.
3On April 19, 2021, the Applicant applied for consent to sever 40 Mitchell Avenue to shrink that lot and increase the size of 44 Mitchell Ave to the west. The Applicant concurrently submitted applications for minor variances for the lots resulting from the proposed severance.
4On July 21, 2021, the Committee of Adjustment deferred hearing the applications for the consent and the minor variances, in view of the anticipated designation.
5On July 26, 2021, the Appellants appealed to the TLAB the failure of the Committee of Adjustment (COA) to make a decision with respect to a severance application within 90 days of the submission of a consent application. The applications for variances, which were filed concurrently with the COA, were not appealed.
6The Hearing of the Appeal was adjourned without a specific adjourn-to date with the agreement of the City. The City agreed that the hearing of the Appeal should be adjourned pending the resolution of the City’s stated intent to designate the properties under the Ontario Heritage Act.
7On October 20, 2021, City Council passed By-law 820-2021 designating 40 and 44 Mitchell Avenue as being of cultural heritage or interest.
8The TLAB has on numerous occasions over the intervening years requested an update from the Appellants in an effort to proceed with the Hearing and dispose of the Appeal.
9The Appellant’s legal representatives at the time consistently requested continuation of the adjournment to take actions and file applications, none of which were achieved within the timelines projected.
10On September 25, 2025, the TLAB held a virtual prehearing to resolve issues so as to bring forward a hearing of this consent appeal. On contacting legal representatives who filed the Appeal on behalf of the owners, TLAB staff were advised that they were no longer retained.
11Notice of the prehearing conference was sent by TLAB staff directly to the owner named in the Appeal and notice was posted on the City’s website in accordance with the TLAB Rules of Practice and Procedure. No representative of the Applicant/ Appellant appeared at the virtual prehearing.
12Following the prehearing, TLAB staff sent an email to the Appellant on behalf of the presiding Member, including as follows:
Your application for a consent to sever the properties and 40 – 44 Mitchell St has been outstanding at the Toronto Local Appeal Board (TLAB) since July 2021. Despite regular correspondence over the last four years from the TLAB to yourselves seeking a timely commencement to the hearing of this Appeal, no action has been taken. The TLAB has been given to understand that the Appellant has desired a delay to the hearing of the consent Appeal pending related applications to the Committee of Adjustment and other tribunals.
You were notified of a prehearing conference that was held on September 25, 2025, to discuss next steps in the proceedings, but failed to attend. TLAB staff have received no response to email queries as to the status of this matter. Any further adjournment of the hearing of this Appeal before the TLAB is no longer tenable given the inordinate delay. If you do not intend to pursue the Appeal, a reply to this email confirming that you are withdrawing the Appeal would be sufficient to end this matter. Failing a response from yourselves, the matter will be set down for a Hearing and you are advised to make yourselves aware of your responsibilities in that event.
13No response was received from, or on behalf of, the Appellant.
14A Notice of Hearing was issued setting January 29, 2026, for the Hearing of this matter. The Notice included the customary filing deadlines. No Applicant Disclosure, Expert Witness Statement or Witness Statement been filed on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant within the filing deadlines.
15On December 5, 2025, the City filed a Motion to dismiss the Appeal that seeks resolution of this Appeal before the TLAB prior to the set Hearing day. The City has requested that the Motion be heard in writing.
16The Appellant has not responded to the City’s motion to dismiss the Appeal.
THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND FRAMEWORK
Provincial 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.
17Provincial 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.
19Consent – Dismissal without hearing – S. 53 (31)
Despite the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, and subsection (30), the Tribunal may, on its own initiative or on the motion of any party, dismiss an appeal without a hearing if,
(a) it is of the opinion that,
(i) the reasons set out in the notice of appeal do not set out any apparent land use planning ground upon which the Tribunal could give or refuse to give the provisional consent . . .
18TLAB Rules of Practice and Procedure
2. INTERPRETATION OF THESE RULES
2.1 The TLAB is committed to fixed and definite dates. These Rules shall be interpreted in a manner which facilitates that objective.
2.2 These Rules shall be liberally interpreted to secure the just, most expeditious and cost-effective determination of every Proceeding on its merits.
2.3 The TLAB may exercise any of its powers under these Rules or applicable law, on its own initiative or at the request of any Person.
2.4 Where any of these Rules or any order issued by the TLAB conflicts with any statute or regulation, the provisions of the statute or regulation prevail.
2.5 The TLAB’s Forms are part of these Rules and to the extent there is any inconsistency, these Rules prevail.
9. 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.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
19The affidavit of S. Lacoste has been submitted by the City in support of the Motion to Dismiss.
20The City’s Motion to Dismiss the Appeal asserts that the one or more grounds set out in section 53(31) of the Planning Act are satisfied and a dismissal of the appeal without holding a hearing on the appeal is warranted.
21The grounds cited for the dismissal of the appeal without a hearing are as follows:
the reasons set out in the notice of appeal do not disclose any apparent land use planning ground upon which the Tribunal could give or refuse to give the provisional consent or could determine the question as to the condition appealed to it.
the appellant has not responded to a request by the Tribunal for further information within the time specified by the Tribunal.
The Appellant has no reasonable prospect of success that the Toronto Local Appeal Body could allow the appeal as the heritage designation of the subject site precludes lot line adjustment.
The Appeal is Premature, given the lack of the accompanying building permit or minor variance application.
The Appellant has Abandoned its Appeal Through Their Conduct.
ISSES AND ANALYSIS
22It is notable that this application for a consent to sever was appealed to the TLAB on the basis that the COA had not made a decision on the severance application within the statutory timeline (pursuant to ss. 53(14) of the Planning Act). What has followed is a more than four-year process of sequential delays on the part of the Appellant in order to first resolve heritage issues and other applications at the COA.
GROUNDS: APPEAL ABANDONED THROUGH CONDUCT
23It is incumbent on the TLAB to secure a just, expeditious and cost-effective determination of this Appeal. TLAB’s Rule 9, set out above, permits the TLAB to dismiss an Appeal without a hearing on specified grounds.
24Over a period of years, the TLAB has made every effort to protect the procedural fairness of the process and afford the Appellant their opportunity to argue the application for consent to sever on its merits.
25The Appellant has not responded to the TLAB’s correspondence, did not participate in a scheduled prehearing conference to address procedural requirements and has not filed the Applicant Disclosure, Expert Witness Statement or Witness Statement by the deadline set in the Notice of Hearing. They have also not filed any response to the City’s motion to dismiss the Appeal.
26The City’s motion materials state that on November 13, 2025, the City contacted the Applicant’s representative, Mr. Punia1 via telephone to inquire whether he intended to proceed with the hearing. The affidavit states that Mr. Punia advised that they did not intend to proceed with a contested hearing and further advised the City that they would withdraw their Appeal of the consent application.
27On November 18, 2025, the City corresponded with Mr. Punia, seeking confirmation that the Appellant would withdraw their Appeal and notifying Mr. Punia that the City would be filing a motion to dismiss and seeking a costs award.
28No response has been received from Mr. Punia or any other representative of the Appellant.
29It is the duty of the TLAB to secure the just, most expeditious and cost-effective determination of every proceeding. The Appellant’s failure to respond to communications from the TLAB, failure to participate in a prehearing to manage procedural issues, failure to submit an Applicant Disclosure, Expert Witness Statement or Witness Statement within the filing deadline set out in the Notice of Hearing, and failure to respond to the City’s motion to dismiss are reasons for me to conclude that the Appellant has abandoned the Appeal.
30The expenditure of the TLAB’s resources on case management of this matter has been ongoing over years. The City wishes to avoid the ongoing waste of public resources and limit the ongoing litigation expense, which will be increased if the City must prepare for and proceed to a hearing event.
31The Appellant’s failure to comply with or respond to instructions from the TLAB, and the failure to meet procedural deadlines required for the conduct of a contested hearing, lead me to the conclusion that the Appellant has abandoned the Appeal.
GROUNDS: PREMATURE, NO APPARENT LAND USE PLANNING GROUND AND NO REASONABLE PROSPECT OF SUCCESS
32The lands and the structures at 40 – 44 Mitchell Ave are designated via City of Toronto By-law 820-2021 and are therefore protected under the Ontario Heritage Act. An application for demolition of the structures was denied by the City. The City’s decision was upheld by the Ontario Land Tribunal. There are no applications to alter or demolish the designated properties.
33The original purpose of the application for consent to sever the properties was to create new lots whereon two new structures would be built. The application seeks to move the existing lot line that runs through the party wall of the existing designated heritage buildings.
34As the owners may not alter or demolish the existing structures, the proposed land severance would place a lot line through an existing, designated, structure and grant an owner of the lot at 44 Mitchell the ability to enter, demolish or mortgage part of the structure at 40 Mitchell.
35The original purpose that the severance would have served has been thwarted by the designation of the properties under the Ontario Heritage Act. Any approval of the severance as proposed would result in complex and undesirable legal and land use planning complexities given the restrictions on alteration and demolition imposed by the heritage designation.
CONCLUSION
36In practical terms, the Appeal of the consent to sever application is a remnant of the original applications to demolish the semi-detached houses located on the subject properties.
37It is difficult to see how the proposed severance, in absence of accompanying applications for variance or applications for alteration (given the heritage status) could remain viable.
38I acknowledge the validity of the City’s assessment of the prospects of the Appeal’s success. I also acknowledge that the Appellant has the right to have their appeal heard and to prepare what evidence they can to justify their application. However, I find that the Appellant has been offered every opportunity to participate in the effective resolution of this Appeal and has not engaged in any way in the Tribunal’s attempts to bring this matter to a close.
39For the reasons outlined above, I find that the Appellant has abandoned the Appeal and that convening a Hearing of this matter would incur wasteful consumption of the TLAB’s resources and unwarranted expense to the City in preparation and conduct of a full hearing.
40In the interests of an expeditious and cost-effective resolution to this matter, the relief requested in the motion is granted.
DECISION AND ORDER
41The City’s motion to dismiss is granted. The Appeal is dismissed without a Hearing. Pursuant to Rule 9.3 of the TLAB’s Rules, TLAB staff is directed to give Notice of Dismissal, using Form 16, per the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.
42The Hearing date set for January 29, 2026 is vacated.
43As per Rule 9.4 of the TLAB’s Rules, those wishing to make written submissions on the proposed Dismissal must do so within 10 Days of the giving of Notice of Dismissal under Rule 9.3.
A. Bassios Panel Member