1001292121 Ontario Inc (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 401

Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253

Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2026-03-09

25 249060 S45 12 TLAB

1001292121 Ontario Inc (Re), 2026 ONTLAB 401

Issuance Date:

March 9, 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):

1001292121 ONTARIO INC

Applicant(s):

Property Address:

404 GLENHOLME AVE

COA File No.:

25 144716 STE 12 MV (A0280/25TEY)

TLAB Case File No.:

25 249060 S45 12 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

March 6, 2026

Decision Delivered By:

TLAB Panel Member G. SWINKIN

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Applicant

Appellant

1001292121 ONTARIO INC

Party

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1001292121 Ontario Inc. (“the Appellant”) made application to the Committee of Adjustment for a number of heads of variance relief relating to redevelopment of its property municipally known as 404 Glenholme Avenue (“the Property”) as a multiplex dwelling and a garden suite.
The application was heard and refused by the Committee of Adjustment. The Appellant filed an appeal to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (“the Tribunal”) from that decision.
That appeal was scheduled to be heard by the Tribunal on March 6, 2026.
At 6:52 a.m. on March 6th, Ian Flett, counsel to the Appellant, sent an email message to the Tribunal and the other two registered parties to the appeal indicating that he was suffering from a debilitating flu and had lost his voice. Under the circumstances, he was in no position to properly represent his client and he was requesting an adjournment of the proceeding.

THE REGULATORY POLICY AND FRAMEWORK

Rule 23.3 - Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure

Considerations in Granting Adjournment

23.3 In deciding whether or not to grant a Motion for an adjournment the TLAB may, among other things, consider:

a) the reasons for an adjournment;

b) the interests of the Parties in having a full and fair Proceeding;

c) the integrity of the TLAB’s process;

d) the timeliness of an adjournment;

e) the position of the other Parties on the request;

f) whether an adjournment will cause or contribute to any existing or potential harm or prejudice to others, including possible expense to other Parties;

g) the effect an adjournment may have on Parties, Participants or other Persons;

and

h) the effect an adjournment may have on the ability of the TLAB to conduct a Proceeding in a just, timely and cost-effective manner.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

The Tribunal opened the proceeding on March 6th at 9:30 a.m. Present at the virtual session were the Appellant’s expert witness, Christian Chan, and one of the parties, Ms. S. Kessel, the neighbour at 402 Glenholme Ave., as well as the project manager for the Appellant, Ron Sheinin. The other party, K. Spiwak, was not in attendance.
The Tribunal heard from Ms. Kessel that she was not opposed to rescheduling the hearing under the circumstances and actually conveyed her wishes for Mr. Flett’s quick recovery.
The Tribunal was inclined to grant the requested adjournment but wished to ensure that a rescheduled date was fixed.
Mr. Chan communicated with Mr. Flett and determined that they would both be available on Friday, March 13th. Ms. Kessel had no objection to that date

CONCLUSION

The Tribunal is satisfied that the grounds for an adjournment are met in this instance and will grant it. There is no need to adjust any filing dates. A fresh Notice of Hearing will issue from the Tribunal confirming the new hearing date and providing a fresh Webex link.

DECISION AND ORDER

The Tribunal ORDERS THAT the requested adjournment is granted and the hearing will now proceed on March 13, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. One day will be set aside.
The Tribunal further acknowledges being advised by Mr. Chan that he will be filing some Provincial policy excerpts that failed to be included in the original disclosure as well as some relevant data that was subsequently secured from the City.

G. Swinkin

Panel Member