Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
25 195128 S53 03 TLAB 25 195135 S45 03 TLAB 25 195139 S45 03 TLAB
Ramaj (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 393
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: February 18, 2026
PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) and subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Owner/Appellant: G. RAMAJ
Applicant(s): KFA ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS
Property Address: 5 DODDINGTON DR
COA File No.: B0022/24EYK, A0228/24EYK and A0229/24EYK
TLAB Case File No.: 25 195128 S53 03 TLAB, 25 195135 S45 03 TLAB, 25 195139 S45 03 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): 02/10/2026
Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings: n/a
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Vice-Chair A. BASSIOS
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
| People Type | First Initial. Last Name | Representative |
|---|---|---|
| Applicant | KFA ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS | |
| Appellant | G. RAMAJ | M. Ramaj |
| Party | CITY OF TORONTO | Y. Nuri |
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1On June 26, 2025, the Toronto Committee of Adjustment (COA) refused an application for a consent to sever, and two applications for variances for the proposed lots, for the property known as 5 Doddington Dr (subject property).
2The purpose of the applications was to sever the existing lot and construct two new detached dwellings with attached garages on the proposed new lots.
3The proposed Part 1 lot required 15 variances and the proposed Part 2 lot required 14.
4The refusals were appealed by legal counsel on behalf of the Owner/Appellant.
5A Notice of Hearing was issued by the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) for a hearing date on November 13, 2025.
6In October 2025, prior to the scheduled hearing date, the TLAB was advised that legal counsel was no longer retained. Ms. M. Ramaj was identified as the Appellant’s representative going forward.
7On October 16, 2025, the Appellant sought an adjournment of the matter as they needed more time to prepare their materials. The City of Toronto, the other Party to this matter, consented to the adjournment. (The Appellant had not filed any Expert Witness Statements and Witness Statements within the deadline set out in the Notice of Hearing).
8A new Notice of Hearing was issued for a hearing date on February 10, 2026.
9I advised those present at the Hearing that, in accordance with Council direction, I had attended at the site and the surrounding area and that I had reviewed the pre-filed materials in preparation for the hearing of their evidence.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
10Provincial 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.
11Provincial 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.
12Consent – S. 53
TLAB must be satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the orderly development of the municipality pursuant to s. 53(1) of the Act and that the application for consent to sever meets the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act. These criteria require that "regard shall be had, among other matters, to the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality and to,
(a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2 of the Planning Act;
(b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;
(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any;
(d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;
(d.1) if any affordable housing units are being proposed, the suitability of the proposed units for affordable housing;
(e) the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy of them, and the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the adequacy of them;
(f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots;
(g) the restrictions or proposed restrictions, if any, on the land proposed to be subdivided or the buildings and structures proposed to be erected on it and the restrictions, if any, on adjoining land;
(h) conservation of natural resources and flood control;
(i) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;
(j) the adequacy of school sites;
(k) the area of land, if any, within the proposed subdivision that, exclusive of highways, is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes;
(l) the extent to which the plan’s design optimizes the available supply, means of supplying, efficient use and conservation of energy; and
(m) the interrelationship between the design of the proposed plan of subdivision and site plan control matters relating to any development on the land, if the land is also located within a site plan control area designated under subsection 41 (2) of this Act or subsection 114 (2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. 1994, c. 23, s. 30; 2001, c. 32, s. 31 (2); 2006, c. 23, s. 22 (3, 4); 2016, c. 25, Sched. 4, s. 8 (2).
13Variance – 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.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
14Three individuals provided Witness Statements as Witnesses for the Appellant. All three were from residents in the area of the subject property. The Witness Statements were short and generally similar in that they supported the severance and resulting development, asserted that they would provide evidence on the basis of their “lived experience” of the immediate neighbourhood and aimed to refute the evidence of the City that the proposed severance does not reflect the prevailing character of the neighbourhood.
15The City’s submissions were detailed and supported by data and analysis of the neighbourhood in accordance with the direction of the Official Plan and addressed all of the criteria set out in the legislation for approval of consents to sever and variances.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
16At the commencement of the Hearing on February 10, 2026, only Ms. Ramaj was in attendance for the Appellant. The City was represented by Ms. Nuri and an Expert Witness1.
17Ms. Ramaj requested an adjournment of the Hearing. She advised that she had sent an email that morning prior to the start time of the Hearing.
18Ms. Ramaj’s reason for the adjournment was that she was recovering from being unwell, as she said could be heard from her voice.
19The TLAB’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules) require that a request for adjournment must be made on Motion and that no Motion can be made later than 15 days before the scheduled Hearing, unless the TLAB directs otherwise. (Rules 17 and 23).
20I was not willing to waive the procedural requirements for requesting an adjournment for a request made the day of the Hearing. I reminded Ms. Ramaj that she had already been granted one adjournment to prepare for this hearing and that considerable resources had been expended by the TLAB and the City to prepare for the Hearing on this day.
21I note that Ms. Ramaj had not provided a Witness Statement and would therefore not have been expected to give evidence herself at the Hearing.
22An adjournment of a full Hearing is not granted lightly. The TLAB is committed to fixed and definite dates. In addition to the cost of preparation and potential prejudice to the opposing party (in this case, the City) of last minute adjournments, there are significant costs to the TLAB for an adjudicator’s attendance as well as the staff costs of case management, reservation of hearing time, Webex platform etc.
23The Hearing of this matter had already been delayed once at the request of the Appellant so that they could prepare their materials. Those materials, once received, consisted of a few short paragraphs reflecting the sentiment of some neighbours.
24I directed that the Hearing would proceed and that an adjournment would not be granted.
25Ms. Ramaj then advised that she would withdraw the Appeal. She sent an email to that effect immediately. Upon confirmation from TLAB staff that the withdrawal request had been received, the Hearing was concluded.
CONCLUSION
26It is unfortunate for Ms. Ramaj that she was not feeling at her best on the day of the Hearing. The right to an appeal, however, is accompanied by duties and obligations. The time, cost and effort of all the Parties involved in preparation for a Hearing, as well as the costs and time expended by the TLAB in setting the forum for the Hearing should not be forfeit except in exigent circumstances.
27Ms. Ramaj chose to withdraw the Appeal rather than proceed with the Hearing.
DECISION AND ORDER
28The Appeal having been abandoned, the Appeal is dismissed. The Committee of Adjustment decision noted above is final and binding, and the file of the Toronto Local Appeal Body is closed.
A. Bassios Panel Chair