Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
25 247090 S45 11 TLAB
Armstrong (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 392
MOTION DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: February 11, 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): C. A. ARMSTRONG
Applicant(s): WND ASSOCIATES
Property Address: 2 Old George Pl
COA File No.: 25 126308 STE 11 MV (A0190/25TEY)
TLAB Case File No.: 25 247090 S45 11 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): Tuesday, March 24, 2026
Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Vice-Chair A. Bassios
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type Appellant
First Initial. Last Name C.A. ARMSTRONG
REPRESENTATIVE R. UUKKIVI J. EVOLA
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1On October 15, 2025, the Toronto Committee of Adjustment (COA) refused an application for variances for the property known as 2 Old George Pl, the subject property. The Owner of the subject property appealed the COA’s decision to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB).
2A Notice of Hearing has been issued by the TLAB, with a hearing scheduled for March 24, 2026. TLAB Rules of Practice and Procedure direct that “unless the TLAB directs or these Rules provide otherwise, Hearings shall be by Electronic Hearing”. (TLAB Rule 24.2)
3This motion has been filed on behalf of the Owner, and seeks written direction from the TLAB to convert the Remote Hearing to a 1-day Oral Hearing.
THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND FRAMEWORK
4TLAB Rules of Practice and Procedure
- HEARINGS
Form of Hearing
24.1 The TLAB may hold an Electronic Hearing, an Oral Hearing or a Written Hearing.
Hearing to be Oral
24.2 Unless the TLAB directs or these Rules provide otherwise, Hearings shall be by Electronic Hearing.
Objection to an Electronic Hearing
24.3 A Party who objects to an Electronic Hearing shall bring a Motion no later than 5 Days after the due date for Service of the Notice of Intention to be a Party or Participant.
Factors Considered for Holding Electronic Hearing
24.4 The TLAB may consider any relevant factors in deciding to hold an Electronic Hearing, including:
a) the convenience to the Parties and the TLAB;
b) the likelihood of the process being less costly, faster and more efficient;
c) whether it is a fair and accessible process for the Parties;
d) the desirability or necessity of public participation in, or public access to, the TLAB’s process;
e) whether the evidence or issues are suitable for an Electronic Hearing;
f) whether credibility may be an issue or the extent to which facts are in dispute; or
g) whether an Electronic Hearing is likely to cause significant prejudice to any Party or Participant.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
5The Motion materials assert that “the Oral Hearing will be significantly more convenient, fair and efficient in this proceeding than an Electronic Hearing. In light of the fact that there are no other parties, and the Appellant desires an in person Hearing, technical issues such as internet buffering, camera and microphone issues can be avoided without prejudice. Further, there is significant efficiency in introducing documents in person for examination, rather than through screensharing. There are further benefits to being able to present evidence in person, such as the ability to physically present visuals.”
6Further, the Motion materials note that the only Party to, or Participant in, the proceeding is the Appellant and therefore no prejudice would arise as a result of this request.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
7It is the desire of the Appellant to have an in person Hearing. The Motion materials suggest that, in this way, potential technical issues can be avoided without prejudice and that there is “significant efficiency” in introducing documents in person for examination.
8The first operative paragraph in the TLAB Rules of Practice and Procedure states “The TLAB is committed to a paperless process and these Rules have been drafted to give effect to this commitment to the greatest extent possible”. Since its inception, the TLAB has required every document in a TLAB proceeding to be provided and shown in electronic PDF format.
9The maintenance of the TLAB records is entirely electronic and every hearing is recorded electronically. Oral Hearings, which were generally the default format prior to March 2020, rely on the projection of electronic documents within the hearing room and not on paper copies. These requirements remain in force should the Motion relief be granted.
10The experience of the TLAB has generally been that electronic hearings are overwhelmingly preferred by Appellants, Parties, Participants, expert witnesses and counsel.
11The software that is used for web-based hearings offers features such as clear recordings and hearing management tools that have made the conduct of the hearings simpler and more efficient for staff and adjudicators.
12Overall, I find that the assertion of “significant efficiency” in introducing documents in person for examination to be unjustified. Given contemporary reliance on electronic records and the need for electronic systems to support even in person Oral Hearings, potential technical issues are a possibility in all hearing formats.
13In general, the TLAB has found that Electronic Hearings are more convenient for the Parties and the TLAB, and are more efficient.
14Nonetheless, as an exception, I will accommodate the preference of the Appellant as the Hearing is scheduled for a single day, no other party is affected since participation in the Hearing is limited to the Appellant and the TLAB itself, and there would be no limitation of involvement or prejudice to other parties, nor undue inconvenience to the seized member.
CONCLUSION
15The Appellant’s request for an Oral Hearing can be accommodated.
DECISION AND ORDER
16The relief requested by the Appellant to convert the Remote Hearing to a 1-day Oral Hearing on March 24, 2026, is granted.
17TLAB staff are directed to issue a revised Notice of Hearing for this matter, identifying the format of the hearing as an Oral Hearing, and identifying the location of the Hearing.
A. Bassios
Vice Chair, Panel Member