Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
Date:
2026-02-02
25 242260 S45 14 TLAB, 25 242163 S45 14 TLAB
M. Cole, E. Valter (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 388
MOTION DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
February 2, 2026
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):
M. COLE, E. VALTER
Applicant(s):
GTA PERMITS
Property Address:
9-11 RIVERDALE AVE
COA File No.:
25 208768 STE 14 MV (A0605/25TEY)
25 208781 STE 14 MV (A0609/25TEY)
TLAB Case File No.:
25 242260 S45 14 TLAB
25 242163 S45 14 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Panel Member T. Kezwer
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Applicant Appellant Participant Participant
GTA PERMITS M. COLE E. VALTER P. HILTY A. HILTY
E. VALTER
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This disposition relates to a Motion brought by one of the Appellants, Ellen Valter. The matter deals with the properties municipally known as 9 and 11 Riverdale Avenue (the “Properties”). The proposal calls for the construction of a semi-detached ancillary building with a partially cantilevered second storey, which will be placed on each property, and will contain a one car garage on the ground level and storage and loft space (no habitable space) on the second level. The proposal for 11 Riverdale Ave has both front and rear juliette balconies, while the proposal for 9 Riverdale Ave calls for a rear juliette balcony only.
2Each property has a different owner, and has a different set of minor variance relief that is being requested.
3This motion was received by the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the “Tribunal”) on December 29, 2025. It was brought by one of the Appellants, Ellen Valter, who is representing herself, and her neighbour, Matthew Cole, in this proceeding. There are two Participants, and they did not provide comments in response to the motion. The Participants filed Participant Witness Statements within the time period outlined in the Notice of Hearing. I am satisfied that the participants were served the documents via email.
THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND FRAMEWORK
4Provincial Interest - S. 2
A decision of the Tribunal shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest, enumerated as (a) – (s) in the Planning Act.
5Provincial Policy – S. 3
A Decision of the Tribunal must be consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement for the subject area.
6Rule 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure permit a Party to bring a Motion seeking specific relief, which Motion shall set out the reasons and grounds to be argued.
7Rule 17.2 Consent adjournments Excepted Unless TLAB Directs Otherwise
8Rule 2.12 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure authorize the Tribunal to do whatever is necessary and permitted by law to enable it to effectively and completely adjudicate matters before it in a just, expeditious and cost-effective manner.
9Rule 16 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure authorizes the Tribunal to make orders with respect to the disclosure of evidence and documents.
10Rule 23 – Adjournments, including Rule 23.3 Considerations in Granting Adjournment, and Rule 23.4 Powers of the TLAB upon Adjournment Motion.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
11Ms. Valter is seeking an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for February 18th, and for the hearing to be rescheduled at the next available hearing date that will allow her and Mr. Cole to properly prepare for a hearing of this matter. Ms. Valter states that she has experienced a series of exceptional and unforeseen personal circumstances that prevented timely compliance with this Tribunal’s procedural deadlines, such as the filing of documents for the scheduled hearing. These circumstances included the unexpected death of a close family member, and the forced relocation from temporary accommodations on short notice.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
12This motion has been heard in writing pursuant to Rules 2.12, 17.5, 24.1, and 24.6 of the Tribunals’ Rules of Practice and Procedure.
13There are no additional parties to this matter, however, there are two Participants. I find that there is minimal non-prejudicial delay in adjourning the proceeding. The Tribunal has to be mindful that life circumstances do occur which can make it difficult for a Party to meet the deadlines outlined in a Notice of Hearing. The Appellant was responsible in filing the motion with the Tribunal on December 29, 2025. The Participants will have the opportunity to provide their statement to the Tribunal during a rescheduled hearing. The Applicant will still be required to prove its case.
CONCLUSION
14The hearing of this matter will be rescheduled by Tribunal staff for the next available hearing date as early as April. A fresh Notice of Hearing with new timelines for filing the relevant hearing documents will also be issued.
DECISION AND ORDER
15The Tribunal ORDERS THAT the motion is allowed and the February 18, 2026 hearing is adjourned. Tribunal staff will issue a fresh Notice of Hearing with a fresh hearing date, with new filing deadlines.
T. Kezwer
Panel Member