Long Branch Neighbourhood Association

Development

When Is a Variance No Longer Minor?

At some point, you probably have seen a notice from the Committee of Adjustment about a development application near you. The reason you are receiving the notice is because, in the application process, an examiner has decided there are elements in the application that exceed what the current bylaws permit.

In legalese, these are called “Minor Variances”.

In our experience at the Committee of Adjustment and TLAB, so-called “minor” variances can often be anything but what most people would consider minor. We’ve seen variances that are double or triple what the bylaws permit. Because the legal framework for minor variances is vague, these minor variances are the underlying source of the most debate in development applications.

A recent example is the proposed development between Long Branch Avenue and Thirty First Street calls for condo towers that are 30 storeys tall – very different from Long Branch’s low-rise character and taller than any other building in the neighbourhood.

Planning and Housing Committee Item – 2024.PH9.13

On January 29th, the councillor for Ward 11 is presenting a proposal for the Planning and Housing Committee to implement a bylaw that defines how far a design element can deviate from the standard before it no longer qualifies as a minor variance. It will be well worth sitting in on the presentation to see if our Planning Department will agree to move forward with a plan to provide clear guideliness to developers on the definition of “minor variance”.

Here’s a link to the agenda item. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2024.PH9.13

The Planning Act allows municipalities to adopt measures to define limits on what can be called minor, so what Councillor Saxe is proposing is consistent with the regulatory framework.

Thus far, Toronto’s Planning Department has apparently decided to take a wait-and-see approach.

Oakville’s Town Council tried to introduce limits on minor variances a few years ago, but this did not go through. It seemed Toronto wanted to see how the concept went over in Oakville before considering it for our City.

Here’s What You Can Do

Maybe now we’ll see some action. But don’t hold your breath. Let our councillor – and Deputy Mayor – Amber Morley know how you feel about minor variances and submit your thoughts and feelings to the Planning and Housing Committee.

The COA Process Needs Fixing

With the passage of Bill 23 in December, 2022, Ontario residents no longer have the right to appeal a Committee of Adjustment (COA) decision.

This presupposes that the COAs deliver well-thought-out decisions based on evidence and application of existing regulations.

Applications that go before the COA generally fall into one of two broad categories. Minor variance applications typically are for new housing or renovations to an existing home. These are by far the majority. The other category is Consent applications – severances of a property into 2 or more parcels of land for some form of new construction.

The COA Process

When a minor variance application is to go before the COA, formal notices are sent out to neighbouring properties within a 60 meter radius. Residents are allowed to voice opposition by writing letters of objection or speaking before the COA panel during the formal hearing on an application. Often, residents’ concerns are about shadowing of their properties, lack of privacy and the style and/or scale of the proposed structure. Sometimes, there is only one minor variance being requested, but we have seen examples with as many as 8 minor variances.

The COA allows 5 minutes to each resident to express their opinions and concerns. The applicant likewise has 5 minutes to present his/her case, but also have the right to 5 minutes to offer a rebuttal to residents’ concerns before the committee renders its decision.

It may sound unfair to limit each resident to 5 minutes of speaking, but the COA has a huge volume of applications to process. In 2017, for example, the COA closed out 4,344 applications across the City – a little over 17 applications per working day. In 2017, COA panels across Toronto approved 3,398 of those applications – approximately 78%.

A Consent application usually ends up being at least 3 applications: one to sever the property and the other applications would centre around minor variances on the construction on the resulting parcels of land. At the COA, all of the sub-applications for a Consent application are heard together as one.

As with a minor variance application, residents are notified, they have the right to submit their concerns in writing and/or orally before the COA. Each resident is still only allowed to speak for 5 minutes, and the applicant has 5 minutes to present and another 5 minutes to rebut.

Obviously, Consent applications are more complex than straight minor variance applications. Applicants must show that the severance fits within the character of the neighbourhood and they also have to present their case for why the structures on the resulting parcels of land require minor variances.

We feel the way the COA currently handles Consent applications does a disservice to Toronto residents by inhibiting their ability to present evidence in opposition to the application.

The LBNA has been involved in over 20 appeals at TLAB – the majority of them consent applications. Unlike the 15 to 30 minutes the COA typically allows for hearing a consent application, some of the appeals have taken several days.

In introducing Bill 23, the Ford government sought to remove some of the roadblocks to construction of new homes. It appears they considered that one of those roadblocks was appeals by residents of COA decisions. They could argue that some of the appeals go on for days or months and seemingly point the finger at the residents as the root cause of lengthy appeals.

But let’s take a closer look at the length of these appeals.

The TLAB Process

At TLAB, the Applicant presents their case first, and the first witness is almost always a professional land use planner – an expert witness. In virtually every case we have participated in, the Expert Planner’s testimony takes up a full working day. They present their analysis of the neighbourhood and arguments about why their client’s proposal fits with The Planning Act, The Official Plan and the Bylaws. It can take up to a full day to cross-examine the evidence presented by these Planners, who often rely on their professional status and experience to present opnions about a proposal that are given weight by an adjudicator. Some of these Planners perform analyses that can only be described as superficial, and it takes time to show the holes in their arguments.

It’s not the residents that determine the content or duration of the presentation of evidence on behalf of an Applicant. It’s the lawyer representing the Applicant.

Sometimes, it feels like the applicants’ lawyers try to intimidate residents with the amount of material they present. The document filings and procedures can also be so intimidating, residents seem driven to find a lawyer to represent them. But not many residents can afford the cost of legal counsel, which can amount to between $20 and $50K depending on how long the hearing runs.

Deputation to the Planning and Housing Committee

In 2019, the LBNA presented some proposed amendments to the COA Process to make it more user-friendly. We saw the process as convenient for COA staff and panel members but onerous for residents. Here are some of the recommendations.

Separate Sessions

COA hearings typically are/were held between 10 am and 4 pm. While the COA posts an agenda noting the applications to be heard and the order in which they will be heard, residents have to commit to setting aside at least a 2-hour window. Because hearings on individual applications vary tremendously in duration, it is next to impossible to guarantee exactly at what time any application will be heard. On top of this, residents have to take time off work to attend COA hearings and this may also add commute times from their place of work. For residents who are hourly paid, attendance at a COA hearing could also mean sacrificing income.

The LBNA suggested holding applications for minor variance hearings during normal business hours, since these usually are the most straightforward cases, and represent the bulk of the COA hearings anyway.

Separate Streams

We also proposed severance applications be handled through a separate stream and process vs. minor vairance applications.

We suggested holding severance hearings during the evening to make it easier for residents to fully participate and express their concerns and also because, in any given month, the number of severance applications usually is relatively small compared to minor variance applications.

Perhaps the City should simply allow severance applications to bypass COA and go straight to TLAB. It’s obvious, by the time they take to argue, that severance applications are far more complex than minor vairance applications. And TLAB takes a more thorough, evidence-based approach to adjudication compared to the COA. Plus, in their written decisions, TLAB hearing chairs explain the reasoning behind their decisions, which the COA does not do, so there is more transparency than with the COA.

Perceived Bias

As noted above, the high approval rate for severance applications in Long Branch between 2014 and 2018 gave residents the impression the COA panel held bias in favour of developers. Here are some of the factors that we feel helped form this impression.

The COA panel during this time period seemed to consist of the same members time after time. While a normal COA panel consists of 5 members, often there were only 3, which Planning deems a quorum.

Frequently, during hearings, we would see the COA panel members huddle to confer. While this may be entirely innocent, it gives the impression of collusion.

The COA decisions are written with what is called “boilerplate” text outlining the reasons – that is, the SAME reasons appear on hundreds of decisions. Not only does this lack transparency, but it also is not in keeping with the spirit, let alone the intent of Section 45.8.1 of The Planning Act, which requires COA to not only describe the reasoning behind the decision, but also to describe the impact of oral and written submissions.

There is a legal principle known as “reasonable apprehension of bias”.

In the Canadian judicial system, a judge must not only be unbiased but also appear unbiased.

It is difficult to prove an adjudicator appears to hold a bias, let alone actually have one. The legal test involves proving that “a reasonable and informed person, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances, viewing the matter realistically and practically, would conclude that the judge’s conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias”. And the burden of proof would fall on the shoulders of the residents.

Note that, in the context of Reasonable Apprehension of Bias, the wording focuses on judges and does not appear to apply to other adjudicatory bodies such as the COA. Perhaps it should. And perhaps panel members should be required to formally swear an oath that they will be impartial in their duties.

Training

While the Long Branch Neighbourhood Character Guidelines were formally introduced in January, 2018, we did not have the impression the COA panel members actually understood how they were to be used. They seemed to accept the applicants’ representations that their proposals conformed with the guidelines in the face of more fact-based analysis by residents.

We also had the impression the COA panel members did not understand there are environmental chapters in the Official Plan – notably about protection of the urban forest – that need to be given weight.

Therefore, we proposed the COA panel members be given more thorough training on the Character Guidelines as well as on the environmental policies in the Official Plan.

Action by Planning

As far as we can tell, City Planning might be giving the COA panel members more training as we recommended, though the curriculum is not shared with us.

However, on issues like reasons for decisions, separation of applications into two streams (Minor Variance and Consent), Planning has done nothing.

What You Can Do

If you think the above arguments make sense, then please consider contacting our City Councillor, Amber Morley to let her know you’d like to see changes in the Planning process with respect to the COA.

Towards Faster Decisions

In our last post, we described how one of the provisions in Ontario Bill 23 would deny residents the right to appeal municipal decisions. The government seems to feel residents’ appeals cause unnecessary delays in getting development proposals approved.

If you would like to read the full text of the Bill, click here.

In this post, we’d like to examine some of the potential sources of the delays in that approval process and some ideas on how the approval process can be shortened.

Large Variances

Consider this, we regularly see developers who ask for variances that are so large they go so far beyond what normal people would consider reasonable. And, in the past, we were seeing the Committee of Adjustment approving many of these. In fact, in 2016, the Etobicoke/York COA panel approved EVERY application to sever a property in Long Branch. Some of these were appealed to the OMB by residents. EVERY OMB decision that year was in favour of the severance.

Given this history, it shouldn’t be hard to see why Long Branch residents are so cynical about our Committee of Adjustment.

The City of Toronto approved changes to its Official Plan in 2018 to clarify policies on how development proposals should fit with neighbourhood character. That year, we also saw approval of the Long Branch Neighbourhood Character Guidelines, which provided clarity on the character elements in Long Branch.

However, while these regulatory changes made standards clearer, they did not stop some developers from making unrealistic demands in their applications.

So, part of the blame for the number of appeals has to be placed on developers – at least those who ask for huge variances. More reasonable variance requests would incite less opposition and likely result in fewer appeals.

When is a Minor Variance No Longer Minor?

Probably the term that generates the most debate in development applications and – especially appeals – is the term “minor variance”. The way The Planning Act defines it, ALL variances are minor by definition, regardless of their magnitude. However, The Planning Act also permits municipalities to provide clearer definitions on when a minor variance becomes too large to be considered minor. To date, no municipality in Ontario has adopted clear guidelines on minor variances.

One of the reasons “minor variance” is so contentious is that lawyers argue about the impact of a variance on neighbouring properties or a neighbourhood. Impact is subjective and therefore subject to interpretation and debate. A numeric standard for minor vs. major would be considerably less subject to interpretation because it is objective.

Developers point to restrictive bylaws as a major regulatory hurdle they face. And there is a degree of truth in that in some areas. But the bylaws are created by legislators, not residents. Only legislators have the power to change bylaws.

So, our legislators have contributed to the volume of appeals by allowing vague standards to be used in evaluating development proposals.

The Hearing Process

A typical COA hearing for an application takes about a half hour. The Applicant, or his/her representative has 5 minutes to outline the merits of the proposal. If anyone objects, they are given 5 minutes each to describe their concerns. Similarly, anyone supporting the proposal has 5 minutes to explain why. The hearing wraps up with the Applicant addressing any resident concerns and re-capping the merits of the proposal.

When we look below at the time involved in an appeal, perhaps the Committee of Adjustment is not the process best suited to adjudicating more complex planning applications. Perhaps we need some other form of primary adjudication that allows more time to examine applications in greater detail.

The Appeal Process

Short of a judicial review, the only recourse for participants in the COA process is to appeal to TLAB – the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

By comparison, when a COA decision is appealed to TLAB, there is no typical timeframe. We have seen hearings go as little as two days up to 14 days. So, why are these hearings so long?

The Applicant is first to present their case. Usually the first witness is an Expert Planning Witness who describes how the proposal meets the requirements of the Official Plan and/or the Bylaws, and how the proposal conforms to Provincial policies. It is not uncommon to see a Planning witness require a full day to present his/her testimony. After the Planner has testified, he or she is then cross-examined by the Residents (or representative) and by the City’s Legal Staff, when the City decides to be a Party to the hearing. The Applicant’s lawyer then is allowed to re-direct – to rebut some of the issues that might have come up during cross-examination. Cross-examination and re-direct can easily represent another full day.

The process is similar if an arborist is involved, though usually this will require a day to complete testimony, cross-examination and re-direct.

Depending on whether the City has taken on Party status, the above process repeats with Residents – and the City – presenting their cases. The biggest difference between the City’s case presentation and the Residents’ is that the Residents are not very likely to have an expert witness and more likely to have several neighbours who wish to have their concerns heard.

The longest TLAB case we participated in was 14 days and, in that case, the Applicant introduced a revised plan in mid-hearing, so the whole case was effectively heard twice.

When a case reaches TLAB, it becomes very high stakes because appealing a TLAB decision may require going to the courts. So there is a tendency to pull out all the stops on evidence to ensure all possible arguments are incorporated into the case. If the Applicant introduces 10 points about why their proposal should be allowed, then there are 10 points to probe on cross-examination.

So how can appeals be made shorter?

Some TLAB adjudicators tend to be more interested in allowing all Parties to present all their arguments than in limiting debate so they can conduct a hearing which all Parties would consider fair and impartial. Some of the arguments are complex (e.g., what is a minor variance), making it a challenge to limit debate.

One factor in the protracted length of TLAB hearings is that TLAB usually one schedules two or three days for hearings at the outset. By the time the adjudicator realizes this is insufficient, the adjudicator has to scramble to schedule additional hearing days so that he or she can find dates when all the Parties can be in the same room at the same time. This can add weeks, if not months to the hearing process. It’s frustrating for everyone involved: lawyers, TLAB staff, residents, and planners – not to mention the Applicants trying to get their proposal approved.

It might be better if TLAB scheduled 5 hearing days, for example, to book availability for all the lawyers and witnesses. If the hearing can be wrapped up in less than 5 days, it’s more likely everyone will see some of their time freed up and therefore a bonus. (Usually the lawyers don’t have any trouble filling their calendars).

TLAB adjudicators have the power to limit the time available for arguments. This is something judges in the court system also do. In the court system, a judge will ask each party how much time they think they need to present their cases and then negotiate a timeframe that allows for the hearing to be conducted expeditiously. A lawyer might be warned, during the presentation of their case, that they are approaching the agreed-upon time limit.

However, we have seen some lawyers who, despite a TLAB panel member suggesting a time limit, have exceeded their allotted time and then argued for the rest of the of the hearing to be expedited on behalf of their clients.

Perhaps a fixed fee for legal representation should be imposed by TLAB, as opposed to the customary hourly billing system most lawyers use. It could be amazing how much faster cases get presented when there is a cap on how much the lawyers can charge their clients. And a cap on legal fees would result in more predictability on the financial outcome for developers.

Parties to Appeals

Bill 23 appears to be aimed at reducing the number of Parties to appeals at TLAB/LPAT, on the assumption that, with fewer parties involved, appeal hearings will be shorter.

While there is truth in this, it means that not all stakeholders in a development proposal are represented at an appeal. When the City is involved in an appeal as a Party, the City’s legal staff represent the interests of the City – not the residents. We have, in the past, seen cases where the City has cut a deal with a developer that the residents have not agreed with. And the reason for that is that, when residents do not have Party status, they are excluded from any negotiations that might avoid the need for a formal appeal.

In our experience, we estimate the cost of a TLAB appeal for a developer can approach $100,000 in legal fees and expert witness fees. Homeowners are at a disadvantage on two counts: 1.) this is beyond the means of most homeowners in the City and 2.) legal fees are not tax-deductible for residents, as they are for developers (as a cost of doing business). So the net effect is to discourage opposition by imposing high costs on participation.

We would like to see the government allow residents to enjoy the same tax deductibility for legal fees that developers now enjoy. It would at least represent equal treatment for residents and developers.

The LBNA has been able to successfully advocate for Long Branch residents at TLAB without having to resort to hiring lawyers. It has been a team of dedicated volunteers with no formal legal training. For residents, this is a valuable service that a resident’s association can provide its members who lack the knowledge or training to work through the bureaucracy and procedures involved. Residents should not have further barriers to appeal by denying them – or resident’s association advocates – the right to be able to appeal.

And the LBNA’s track record on appeals should stand out as a signal that other things in the development approval process are broken. Without our success, these would not be known.

NIMBYism

We should not overlook NIMBYism. There definitely are people out there for whom any kind of development is bad. However, we believe they are a small minority, and extreme NIMBYism is as bad as aggressive overdevelopment.

The majority of residents are prepared to accept changes in their neighbourhoods. But they want to be treated fairly by the process. They want to have a voice in what is done. And the majority accept that some compromises need to be made to bring improvements to their neighbourhoods.

So perhaps what is needed is, when a COA decision is appealed, the first step should be some form of arbitration or negotiation between ALL parties – not just the Applicant, the Municipality and “specified persons”. Negotiation by litigation is neither simple, effective nor efficient. We think most reputable lawyers would tell you the same thing.

At the end of the day, one of the reasons residents protest development so arduously is that they are not consulted to be able to have input on something that will impact them. We’ve heard some developers say, “It’s my property. I can do what I want with it.” That is an attitude that invites conflict, and it makes the assumption that residents have nothing to offer in the way of opinions or flexibility without giving the courtesy of asking for their input. We’ve heard many instances in which the first time a resident hears about a development on their street is when they receive the COA Notice of Hearing.

Negotiation requires ALL parties to show flexibility. It will not meet what either party wants at the outset, but it ends up with something all parties can at least live with.

“A Government for the People”

In his Speech from the Throne on July 12, 2018, our current Premier described “A Government for the People”, stating, “… that every seat in this chamber ultimately belongs to the Ontarians who sent you here.  The privilege of democracy is to temporarily occupy these seats on the people’s behalf. And in so doing, to always be mindful that the power exercised here must always be — and only be — exercised with the people’s best interest in mind.“

What You Can Do

Taking away a resident’s right to appeal a decision is not a fair way to treat taxpayers and arguably demonstrates that elements of this legislation have been hastily put together without thinking through to what the true systemic issues are in getting more homes built faster.

If you share these concerns about Bill 23, please let our MPP, Christine Hogarth, know not only how you feel, but how strongly you feel about it. The LBNA is circulating a template for a letter to Christine Hogarth, but you are also welcome to put your feelings into your own word.

Bill 23 has gone through 2nd reading within two weeks and went for public deputations November 16 and 17th.  If you don’t speak up, the Bill will be in place before the end of the year and retroactive to October 2

Beware Bill 23

On October 25, 2022, the government of Ontario introduced Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 which proposes sweeping changes to the land use approvals system in the province.

We understand the need to create more housing to accommodate population growth in Ontario, but there are some proposed amendments in Bill 23 that are cause for concern.

You have seen in this blog that the LBNA has managed to win a significant number of TLAB appeals of COA decisions on behalf of Long Branch residents. Well, provisions in Bill 23 would strip away the right to appeal COA decisions.

Currently, Section 44, subsection 12 of The Planning Act governs the appeal process, and it states:

“(12)  The applicant, the Minister or any other person or public body who has an interest in the matter may within 20 days of the making of the decision appeal to the Municipal Board against the decision of the committee by filing with the secretary-treasurer of the committee a notice of appeal setting out the objection to the decision and the reasons in support of the objection…”

Previously, the “any other person” meant anyone who had submitted oral and/or written objections to a development proposal to the COA.

Bill 23 proposes to change this clause to “a specified person”, in place of “any other person”.

A casual reader of the proposed Bill 23 might not see the magnitude of what is being proposed here. The government still seems to be allowing persons to be able to appeal.

But take a look at how Bill 23 defines “specified person”

This looks more like organizations, not people.

We understand the need to add to Ontario’s housing stock to accommodate population growth,. And the provincial government argues that Bill 23 removes obstacles to fast-paced construction of new homes, including the approval process for developments.

We agree that eliminating unnecessary red tape is a good way to expedite construction of development projects. But we do NOT agree that taking away residents’ rights to appeal COA decisions is an appropriate way to cut red tape.

If you talk to most residents in Long Branch, you’ll find we’re in favour of seeing improvements to the neighbourhood’s housing stock – some of which dates back to the 1920s to 1940s, when the neighbourhood was more like a cottage community.

I think we all would agree that one of the signs of a fair process is the ability to debate the decision and to appeal it if we disagree.

But the proposed amendments in Bill 23 seem to suggest that the appeal process is the problem. We disagree with this.

What You Can Do

Taking away a resident’s right to appeal a decision is not a fair way to treat taxpayers and arguably demonstrates that elements of this legislation have been hastily put together without thinking through to what the true systemic issues are in getting more homes built faster.

If you share these concerns about Bill 12, please let our MPP, Christine Hogarth, know not only how you feel, but how strongly you feel about it. The LBNA is circulating a template for a letter to Christine Hogarth, but you are also welcome to put your feelings into your own word.

Bill 23 went through 2nd reading within two weeks and went for public deputations November 16 and 17th, The Ministry also took written comments up to Nov 17th.  If you don’t speak up, the Bill will be in place before the end of the year and retroactive to October 25th, 2022.

And Equal Justice for All

The line in the title sounds fair. Who could argue with a principle that everyone should have equal access to justice?

But is this really the case in practice?

Ask a person of colour or an indigenous person if they receive justice equal to what white people realize. They probably will say they’re at a disadvantage.

How about people who emigrated to Canada but whose native language isn’t English? Do they receive equal opportunities for justice when needed? Probably not.

One thing that is common to the people I just described is that a disproportionate number are far from being wealthy, and I believe this also plays a role in how they are served “justice” in our system.

So, how does this relate to living in Long Branch?

For builders and developers, the stakes are high in buying up and redeveloping properties. And sometimes residents oppose their plans. When that happens, litigation can occur – either at a tribunal such as the OMB or TLAB and sometimes at Divisional Court.

In litigation of property disputes, the cards are usually stacked against the residents.

Businesses vs. Citizens

First, the builders are almost always acting as businesses or corporations, and usually have multiple projects on the go. They may not be huge businesses, but they have access to resources far greater than residents.

It is not uncommon to see builders paying up to $100,000 to appeal at COA decision at TLAB. This represents fees for lawyers and expert witnesses in land-use planning and arborists.

Secondly, as businesses, the costs of pursuing litigation are considered a cost of doing business, so are tax deductible. Residents are expected to bear the full cost of litigation from their own savings.

Under Canadian tax regulations, personal legal fees are deductible for most Canadian taxpayers only where they are incurred to recover amounts which they believe are owed to them, and where those amounts involve employment or employment-related income or, in some cases, family support obligations.

Imagine having to pay out $100,000 to defend against a builder. In Toronto, the average household income is $65,829, so that bill for litigation represents 1-1/2 years of pre-tax income. In terms of after-tax income, that bill could represent 2 to 3 years of income.  It’s hardly surprising that most residents just don’t have that amount of cash on hand to mount a legal defense.

Third, as businesses, builders can be expected to have significant cash flow from other projects. That cash flow probably exceeds the salary for most residents and, if the resident is on a fixed income, legal fees represent a significant obstacle to being properly represented at tribunals or in the courts.

Sometimes, unscrupulous lawyers have used this disparity to intimidate ordinary people. They threaten someone who opposes a client with a lawsuit in hopes this will cause the person to withdraw their objections. There is an official term for these – Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPP.

We have seen these being used on residents of Long Branch.

For a resident, the threat of a lawsuit usually creates an enormous amount of stress because, often, a lawsuit is a once-in-a-lifetime event. The uncertainty about the outcome. The uncertainty about how much they will incur in legal fees. The possibility of a significant loss out of their savings if they lose. Awards to residents from pursuing litigation against a corporation do little, if any, to compensate the residents for the emotional stress such litigation imposes on them.

The Legal Framework

According to Section 15.(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin,
colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”

My interpretation is that the focus of the equality rights has more to do with preventing discrimination against minority groups, with a slant towards the criminal justice system.

In its November 2013 report entitled, Equal Justice: Balancing the Scales, the Canadian Bar Association wrote, “We understand essential legal needs to be those arising from legal problems or situations that put into jeopardy the security of a person or that person’s family’s security – including liberty, personal security, health, employment, housing or ability to meet the basic necessities of life…”

Admittedly, the Bar Association’s report was really focused on providing legal aid, but it is noteworthy they mention the security of one’s housing as an essential legal need.

How Do We Get a More Level Playing Field?

First, the government must allow residents who are involved in property disputes to deduct their legal fees from their income taxes – the same as for the builders.

Perhaps this can or should be limited to cases in which a resident is being sued by a corporation or other large business or when a resident is suing a corporation.

In cases where a resident is suing another resident, there would be no need to offer tax protection for legal fees because the residents involved would be on equal footing.

For businesses, legal fees represent a much smaller proportion of their income than for a resident, for whom legal fees alone can represent nearly as much as a year’s earnings. And, in some cases, residents are being forced to go to court just to protect their own rights. This is not what we would call fair.

Second, awards from litigation between businesses and residents should be doubled for the residents, and the business should be responsible for the full amount of legal fees paid by the resident. This would impose a sufficiently significant penalty on the businesses that might act as a deterrent against SLAPP or other arbitrary lawsuits.

Because income Taxes are ultimately administered at the federal level, probably the best way to encourage regulatory change is to write to our MP, James Maloney to make your views known. Or call his constituency office at (416) 251-5510,

If we, as residents, continue to sit silent on this issue, the disparity in legal fees will only widen. If we want to see things change to be fairer, we need to make our voices heard.

Numbers Count: The Power of Data

One of the things we learned from all the COA and TLAB hearings we’ve been involved in is how to counter the arguments the builders’ planners use to suggest their clients’ proposals “fit” with neighbourhood character.

Our first exposure was one planner who regularly trotted out large colour-coded maps of the neighbourhood. The colours on his maps represented lot frontages and sometimes density (or FSI).

The idea is that if what the planner’s client is proposing is similar to a colour coded category that seems prominent, then it is a fit.

Colour coded map created by a professional planner, depicting lot frontages for a section of Long Branch.

While we would have liked to replicate this kind of presentation, we didn’t know how to get the data that allowed these maps to be created.

Where to Find the Data

I asked the Secretary-Treasurer of the COA how I could go about obtaining property data and she referred me to someone in Planning who managed the data. The person I dealt with was very helpful, asking what kind of data I wanted and for which streets in the neighbourhood. She quoted me a price for the data I specified and I had an Excel spreadsheet in a couple of days.

The spreadsheet I received was a single file with the data sorted by street address, and it had not only frontage, but also lot depth, lot area, tax roll number and more.

Once data is in Excel, it can be sorted in many ways – by street, by lot frontage, FSI and combinations thereof.

Numbers vs. “Impression”

The first practical application of data analysis was in the case of 38 Thirty Sixth Street, the first Long Branch case to be heard by the TLAB.

In this hearing, the parties were the City and the Builder, who wanted to sever the property and build two oversized homes. The builder was appealing a decision by the COA to refuse his application and had retained a high-priced lawyer to represent him.

On the first day of the hearing, the builder’s lawyer took up most of the day with her expert planning witness, who brought up and read page after page of policies and regulations. I don’t recall seeing much data. After being cross-examined by the City, it was approaching 3:00 when the Chair announced there would be another day of hearings and sought agreement on the dates from the lawyers. When they decided upon a date, I raised my hand and indicated that I would be out of the country on business on the chosen date and asked if I could present before the hearing was adjourned for the day.

The Chair asked if I could present my evidence in a half-hour and I said I could.

I was sworn in and presented a series of PowerPoint slides that illustrated the analysis I had performed on the neighbourhood. Here’s an example of one of the slides.

Chart showing distribution of densities of homes (FSI) on a street in Long Branch

The slides I presented completely undermined the case the builder’s planner had presented. She only asked me two questions in her cross-examination of me. “You’re not a professional planner, are you?” To which I replied, “No. I’m a professional engineer and an expert in analyzing data”.

The data analysis was cited as a factor in the TLAB decision refusing the application.

I don’t know what exactly transpired on the second day of that hearing, but the City would have presented their case and their planning witness, and I know several neighbours spoke on behalf of the residents.

Since then, we have used the same approach to analyzing property data in every TLAB case in which the LBNA was involved. When I have been a Participant, I’ve presented similar charts. Christine Mercado, our Chair, has presented graphics similar to what the builder’s planning witnesses have prepared. Here’s an example:

Colour coded map of a section of Long Branch illustrating property frontages.

Amalgamation of Data

When we started out, we had to purchase property data piecemeal from the City, and we frequently saw overlaps where we had clusters of severance applications in certain pockets of Long Branch.

We felt it would be helpful to organize all the data we’d purchased into a single database and we set this up in a cloud-based database app called AirTable, so that we could share the data with others. We now have over 1800 properties in our database, covering most of Long Branch.

Are the Data Out of Date?

Something the builders’ Planners sought to do to discredit our data was to claim that the City’s property data are out of date. They claimed they had better quality data that they manually updated through building permits and minor variance applications.

The truth is, the Planners all had to start out by buying data from somewhere – namely the City. The City’s property data comes from MPAC, the provincial body that maintains records on property valuations that municipalities use as the basis for assessment for property taxes. It is highly unlikely the City would want to allow that data to become out of date because it would impact tax revenue.

In addition, the public can access applications for minor variances and the resulting decisions from what is called the Application Information Centre in the City’s website. So we were able to update our AirTable entries as such decisions were made. Similarly, building permit applications are also publicly accessible through the City’s website and, more importantly, we have residents on the ground who are aware of construction activity such as renovations and additions to help us keep our data as current as the Planners’.

Conclusion

Data are facts. Hard evidence. They are more than opinions or “overall impressions” And they allow ordinary residents to present compelling evidence that effectively counters the opinion evidence that professional planners are allowed to present.

They help level the playing field.

Admittedly, analyzing data can be tedious. But, if you are comfortable with Excel and PowerPoint, you can create some compelling charts that can effectively challenge what builders’ planners can present.

And the LBNA is here to help with advice.