Refusal

9 Thirty Eighth – Leave to Appeal

In August 2018, I was working in my front yard when someone approached me and asked me if I was Ron Jamieson. He then served me with legal papers indicating that the owner of 9 Thirty Eighth intended to appeal the TLAB Review Decision to Divisional Court. The City of Toronto was also named as a respondent.

The lawyers acting for the owner made a number of claims against me for the manner in which I submitted my Request for Review. Not being a lawyer, I had submitted my Request in the form of a notarized letter, not the formal Affidavit used by lawyers. They claimed I had submitted my Request one day late and that I had continued to file evidence after that.

They also claimed Errors in Law on the part of the TLAB Chair, Ian Lord, in conducting his review. They claimed Mr. Lord had conducted a re-hearing of the case on his own, without inviting input from any of the parties involved.

Finding a Lawyer

At this point, I had to make a decision – to cave in and not oppose this or to continue the fight. I chose the latter, but realized I would need a trained lawyer to represent me because I was not familiar with the processes used in Divisional Court and the lawyers for the builder were arguing points of law that I was not knowledgeable enough to even remotely consider representing myself.

Finding a lawyer was not easy. The required area of expertise was municipal and administrative law, not planning or real estate law and I found the number of lawyers who practice in these areas is small. As I contacted lawyers in these fields, some indicated they had no experience at Divisional Court, so did not feel comfortable taking on my case. Others indicated they tended to represent only builders and did not want to risk alienating their client base.

I probably spoke with more than two dozen lawyers before being referred to one who agreed to meet with me for a free one-hour consultation. He outlined the main issues and risks involved and proposed a retainer agreement. I accepted his retainer agreement.

The Appeal Process

My lawyer described the process of an Appeal to Divisional Court. First, there would be what is called a Motion Hearing at which a judge would hear arguments from both Parties and determine if there was merit in proceeding to the next step, which would be another hearing, but before a panel of three judges, who would make the final decision. If the judge in the motion hearing did not feel there was merit in the builder’s case, that would be the end of the matter.

My lawyer then contacted the builder’s lawyer to confirm he was representing me and requested copies of their filings with Divisional Court. These were sent to him via email and hard copies via courier. I asked if I could get a copy to review and my lawyer sent me the hard copies he had received since he had electronic copies of all the files he had received by email. What I got was a 6-inch-thick stack of documents in 4 volumes.

I went through one of the volumes – the Motion Record, which is basically a compilation of all the documents submitted to TLAB by the builder’s legal team. While the Motion Record contained evidence submitted by the builder’s legal team and the City, it contained none of the evidence presented by the residents. I don’t know if this was because none of the presentation material used by the residents was accepted as Exhibits or because I didn’t know I should have asked for them to be submitted and accepted as exhibits. In any event, the lack of hard evidence presented to the hearing by the residents could be construed as a serious oversight by not providing the Courts all of the evidence considered by Ms. Burton or the TLAB chair in making their decisions.

Going through the Motion Record, I came across a letter to the TLAB dated June 26, 2018 in which the lawyer for the builder asked for my Request for Review be denied. However, in writing his letter to TLAB, the lawyer for the builder did not copy me or the City’s legal team.

I found this letter especially disturbing. I was completely unaware that the builder’s lawyer had formally submitted objections to my Review Request. By failing to copy me on his letter, I was deprived of the opportunity to rebut and defend my actions.

And yet, in their Notice of Leave to Appeal, the document that outlines their statement of claim, they argued that they expected “an opportunity to provide a fulsome response” to my request. Had I received a copy of their letter, I certainly would have elaborated on my Review Request, and the City might also have wanted to submit their views had they been notified.

The Motion Hearing

In a January 31, 2019 Motion Hearing before a judge in Divisional Court at Osgoode Hall, the Judge, Justice Corbett, dismissed all but two of the builder’s claims. He felt there were arguments to be made about whether the manner in which the Review by TLAB was conducted – Procedural fairness is the legal term – and the Standard of Review Mr. Lord applied. This effectively allowed the appeal to move to the next stage, a hearing before a panel of 3 judges.

Subsequent to Justice Corbett’s decision, TLAB applied for and was granted what is called Intervenor status. Because the case centred on a decision made by the TLAB, obtaining Intervenor status allowed TLAB to present arguments at the final hearing so that they could effectively tell their side of the story.

The Appeal Hearing

The full hearing was scheduled for March 19, 2020, but postponed because of the outbreak of COVID-19. Instead, the full hearing took place via videoconference on February 28, 2022.

At this hearing, counsel for the owner reiterated what they had presented at the Motion Hearing; the validity of my Request for Review and Mr. Lord’s alleged re-hearing.

Counsel for the City presented arguments about the process Mr. Lord used to conduct his review, which was a detailed decision and analysis on his part. They also submitted that, while my Request for Review did not follow the format a lawyer would use, it met all the requirements of a Review submission and had been notarized by a lawyer.

Lawyers representing TLAB at the hearing also presented the same arguments and that Mr. Lord was following the process prescribed in TLAB’s rules to determine whether there were any irregularities in the process Ms. Burton followed. Mr. Lord had to listen to the entire recording of the hearing to determine if Ms. Burton had made any procedural errors. This was an appropriate method for a careful review of the hearing, not a re-hearing as alleged by the Builder’s lawyers.

Counsel for Mr. Jamieson defended the Review Request as following TLAB’s rules and that Mr. Jamieson duly notified all other Parties when he submitted his request.

Counsel also informed the Court that the lawyer for the builder had submitted a letter dated June 26, 2018 to the TLAB arguing against my Review Request. The lawyer’s letter was not shared with either of the other Parties – The City or me. My lawyer argued that this letter constituted a Motion and TLAB Rules required that a Party submitting a Motion must inform all other parties.

The Zoom hearing lasted a little over 4 hours.

The Decision

On April 4, 2022, the Divisional Court released a 10-page written decision, ruling that the Chair of TLAB had acted appropriately and within the authority granted to him by the City of Toronto. His Review was thorough and did not treat any of the Parties unfairly.

The Outcome

When people learned about the decision, they usually said to me, “You must be very happy about this”. However, what I actually felt was more like relief. Relief that this was over. Relief that I didn’t have to worry any more about the outcome.

Over the past 4-6 weeks, there was a flurry of activity across the street at #9. A dumpster was there and people were going in and out of the house. The lawn was mowed. (When the owner had rented out to tenants, he hadn’t bothered to provide a lawn mower and told one of the tenants to cut the lawn with a pair of scissors. I took a photo and sent that to his lawyer.) The roof on the garage was repaired.

Two weeks ago, a sign went up in the front yard, indicating the property was up for sale.

Don’t feel sorry for the builder. He’s asking $1.8M and only paid $720K for it in 2014, so he’s made a lot of money while doing nothing to add value to the property.

We’re hoping that the next owner will see that it’s going to be a lot easier to build a single house on this lot than to try to sever and build two.

9 Thirty Eighth – The TLAB Appeal

Because I live immediately across the street from #9 Thirty Eighth, I filed an appeal of the COA’s decision to the Toronto Local Appeal Body, at the time a newly-formed tribunal to replace the Ontario Municipal Board. The City also filed an appeal of the decision. I subsequently learned that the City was appealing the COA decision because it went against the advice of City staff.

This was the first TLAB appeal for a property in Long Branch – although, as it turned out, it was not the first property in Long Branch to be heard by the TLAB. (We’ll discuss this further in a future post)

Party or Participant?

At TLAB, you have to choose to be either a Participant or a Party. Participants can present evidence, but cannot cross-examine other witnesses. Parties have the authority to call witnesses and to cross-examine witnesses called by the City and the Applicant. I chose to be a Party because, although I am not a lawyer, being a Party would give me the same status before the TLAB as a lawyer.

A Call for Accountability

To me, the Committee of Adjustment’s decision to approve 9 Thirty Eighth reflected carelessness and bias. Over the period from 2011 to 2017, (prior to the formation of the LBNA) the COA approved 67% of the severance applications they heard. More concerningly, during this same period, the OMB approved severances in 97% of the appeals they heard. And In 2015, EVERY severance application before the COA and OMB were approved.

I sent a letter to Michael Mizzi, who was, at that time, Director of Zoning and Committee of Adjustment for the City about the process for reviewing a COA decision. I was informed that I could appeal a decision by the COA to TLAB, but that members of a COA panel were immune from prosecution.

So, I sought to summon two members of the Committee of Adjustment to testify at the TLAB hearing. This was one factor in my choosing to be a Party. I wanted them to testify, under oath, about how they reached their decision, the analysis they undertook and to explain why they chose to not follow the recommendations from Planning and Urban Forestry.

However, the Chair of TLAB, Mr. Ian Lord, would not allow me to summon these witnesses. He explained that TLAB hearings were de novo, which means a fresh evaluation of the evidentiary merits of a development proposal as if we were presenting arguments for the first time. The process followed by a Committee of Adjustment was considered irrelevant: only the outcome or decision was relevant.

Prior to the hearing, the lawyer for the City invited me down to her offices at Metro Hall so we could discuss the case. We spent about an hour together. She explained that as a lawyer for the City of Toronto, she represented the interests of the City and should not be considered to represent the interests of residents. That was my role. However, she was helpful and gracious and we agreed the evidence we had strongly pointed to a different decision than what the COA made.

All Parties received TLAB’s Notice of Hearing notice on June 21, 2017, with the TLAB Appeal scheduled for October 17, 2017. However counsel for the Applicant requested an adjournment at the beginning of the hearing to allow him time to find an arborist who could provide expert testimony about the impact of the proposed development on the mature trees located on the property. Both The City’s lawyers and I felt this was a reasonable request and we agreed to an adjournment.

The TLAB Appeal Hearing

The hearing was conducted, with Ms. Gillian Burton presiding, over two days – April 16 and 17 in 2018.

On the first day of the hearing, there was an ice storm. Considering that I would have to get from Long Branch to Yonge and Eglinton, where TLAB has its offices, I decided it made sense to take the TTC rather than risk traffic tie-ups. The subway was slow and service was halted between some stations while TTC crews tried to clear the tracks and switches. I was late for the start of the hearing.

Ms. Burton seemed to have no appreciation that I was a Party and commenced the hearing in my absence. I had no way to let TLAB staff know that I expected I would be delayed because there is no cellphone service in TTC tunnels, where we sat out the delays.

When I finally did arrive, I was seated immediately by her right elbow. Somehow, Ms. Burton seemed oblivious to my presence and passed over me in allowing the lawyers to ask questions of witnesses. Ms. Burton also did not seem to acknowledge that I was a lay person nor did she try to explain to me the procedures used in a hearing and clarify what I could and could not do.

The Applicant’s Expert Planning Witness submitted testimony that was heavy on opinion and short on data to support that opinion. This contrasted with more data-driven analysis from the City’s Expert Planning Witness and from the residents, which clearly showed the proposed severance and oversized homes were inconsistent with the character of Long Branch.

TLAB’s rules on whether or not Parties can give testimony suggested that, as a Party, I could not present evidence. I had done a lot of analysis, but needed a way to be able to bring it forward, So I asked my wife to become a Participant so she could present the data. She underwent cross examination by counsel for the Applicant.

The City’s Expert Forestry Witness described the trees on the property in detail, explaining why they were of protected size and therefore needed to be preserved according to the City’s environmental policies. While the Applicant submitted an arborist report suggesting the trees were not healthy, the arborist failed to appear before the hearing to testify or allow for cross-examination of his submission.

During the hearing, counsel for the Applicant repeatedly made reference to two severances that had been granted on Thirty Eighth Street without opposition, which, in their minds, provided ample justification for their client’s proposal.

However, I knew some reasons why there had been no opposition to these severances. At the time, over 40% of the properties on Thirty Eighth Street were owned by non-residents. Some were triplexes rented out to tenants. Some were detached houses rented out to tenants. But others were homes on 50-foot lots that had been purchased by developers intent of severing. Non-resident owners and tenants have little interest in getting involved in community issues such as development. And, in the case of one of the severances, the original property had been in bad repair, was being occupied by loud, partying tenants and, in the words of one neighbour, “Anything would have been better than to continue to have to put up with that”. So they didn’t object.

My wife didn’t feel comfortable describing this when she was testifying. For starters, the neighbour’s comments above would have been inadmissible as they represented hearsay. And my wife was not in on the conversation, so she would have been testifying about something I had described as having been said by someone else.

I tried to bring this up in closing arguments, but counsel for the Applicant kept objecting on the grounds that I was presenting evidence. So I eventually just gave up.

On May 15, 2018, Ms. Burton issued her decision, which upheld the COA’s approval of the severances and variances.

Next week: The fallout from the TLAB decision.

Record 17th Victory for LBNA at TLAB

On January 19, 2022, TLAB issued a decision on the proposed severance of 65 Fortieth Street, overturning the Committee of Adjustment’s approval in 2019 and thereby refusing the severance and the associated construction ot two oversized homes. . This was the first application in Long Branch that was subject to the Long Branch Neighbourhood Character Guidelines.

This represented the 17th straight victory for the LBNA in opposing severance activity in Long Branch since 2018. All the more impressive, given that the LBNA has advocated at TLAB on behalf of Long Branch residents without engaging a lawyer.

In her 19-page decision, TLAB presiding member Ms. Shaheynoor Talukder commented that the applicant’s team failed to prove that the lot frontage of the proposed dwellings will respect and reinforce the existing character of the neighbourhood.

In addition, this property has a prominent White Fir . This was measured by the Applicant’s arborist to have a trunk diameter of 47 cm, so is of a size that the City’s Tree Protection regulations indicate should be protected. Ms Talukder commented that it is visually impressive and forms part of the character of the neighbourhood. The Applicant had proposed removing this tree, but Ms. Talukder did not feel they were taking sufficient measures to attempt to preserve it, as per the environmental policies in the Official Plan.

The White Fir at 65 Fortieth Street can be enjoyed as a feature tree on the Conifer Walk this summer as part of our series of Long Branch Tree Tours.

Christine Mercado, co-chair of the Long Branch Neighbourhood Association commented, saying, “This is a big win for our Neighbourhood. But it’s a joint effort. It starts with effective city policy, followed with an effective Neighbourhood Association, residents who are prepared to get actively involved and engagement with our Councillor and City Staff. The foundation this all sits on is engaged and active residents electing the right people, pushing for good policy and ensuring the City is enforcing those policies.”

Severance of 90 Ash Cres. Refused at TLAB

An application to sever 90 Ash Crescent into two 25-foot lots, which had been approved by the Committee of Adjustment on May 9, 2019, was appealed and refused at the Toronto Local Appeal Body, TLAB.

In a 24-page decision dated August 12, 2021, the presiding member, Mr. Ted Yao, refused the severance application.

The hearing began on October 2, 2019; with a hiatus in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and, altogether, required 10 days of hearings.

This was a highly contentious dispute.

In his presentation to the Committee of Adjustment, the Planner representing the Applicant described the Long Branch Neighbourhood Association as NIMBY and described his clients’ actions as an ordeal requiring “A Herculean effort” to scale back their original proposal to one that City Planning and the Committee of Adjustment could consider approving.

For the residents of Ash Crescent, this application represented a tipping point. The City’s Official Plan requires that applications must be consistent with prevailing patterns of lot frontage, lot area, and density among other factors. At the time of this application, the number of 50-foot lots on Ash Crescent was roughly equal to the number of 25-foot lots. Approval of this application would mean that 25-foot frontages would become the prevailing frontage, which could lead to accelerated approvals of other lot severances on the street.

The Applicant called two witnesses – their Planner and an Arborist. The City, who changed their position mid-hearing from “Object” to “No Objections”, called only an Arborist. The residents’ team was led by the LBNA and involved 7 residents who testified. In addition, the LBNA summoned the City Planner who wrote the final report submitted to the Committee of Adjustment.

Prior to the Committee of Adjustment hearing, the Applicant revised their proposed FSI 3 times: from 1.04 to 0.92, to 0.67 and finally to 0.61. The bylaw standard for density in Long Branch is 0.35 FSI, so the applicant basically revised their density from 3 times the bylaw standard to 2 times the bylaw standard.

The Applicant pointed to a number of approved severances on Ash Crescent as part of the justification for their proposal for 90 Ash. However, 2 of these severances – at 56 and 58 Ash – have had no building activity since they were granted approval by the OMB in 2016. Both properties are owned by a Brampton-based developer who owns other properties in Long Branch.

Mr. Yao undertook some significant and detailed analysis of the data presented by both Applicant and Appellant and concluded that the proposed lot widths and FSIs did NOT reflect the character of the neighbourhood. The TLAB considers both the immediate context (the block or section of the street) and the broader context (a wider area around the subject property.)

We believe the active involvement of 7 residents contributed much to the outcome. And, once again, the LBNA was able to prevail against professional lawyers despite having no formally-trained legal person on the team.

To read the full text of the decision, please click here.

Severance of 80 Thirty Ninth Refused at TLAB

Over the course of a 12-day hearing, the TLAB heard evidence from the Applicant, the City and Long Branch residents about a proposal to sever 80 Thirty Ninth Street into two 7.62 meter (25-foot) lots and to construct two oversized homes.

The hearing was chaired by TLAB member Stanley Makuch and was conducted through a mix of in-person and virtual sessions, the latter being required due to COVID-19 measures.

Mr. Makuch’s 10-page decision to refuse the application to sever the property at 80 Thirty Ninth was based on the scale of the homes relative to the proposed lot sizes and preservation of trees that exist on the property and along the property line on the south side of the property.

He states the ”… frontages do not maintain the intent of policy 4.5.1 of the Official Plan” and, combined with the scale of the proposed homes, ”… will give the appearance of an overdevelopment of the lots.”

He further states that it was ”… clear that no attempt was made to design the development in a manner to preserve and enhance the urban forest in a neighbourhood where the forest and canopy are part of its character.”

He had high praise for all parties involved in the hearing, including the LBNA, who formally represented the residents during the hearing.

To read the full text of the decision, click here.

Severance of 27 Thirty Ninth Street Refused at TLAB

The proposed severance of 27 Thirty Ninth Street was refused in a May 5, 2021 decision issued by the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB)

The proposal sought to sever a 15.24 meter (50-foot) lot into two undersized lots. The homes the Applicant sought to build were large in scale, coming in at a Floor Space Index of 0.62 versus a bylaw standard of 0.35 for the Neighbourhood of Long Branch. FSI is a term used to define the density of a home on its lot, and is the ratio of the gross floor area to the area of the lot.

The decision was rendered by former Chair of TLAB Ian Lord in a very thorough and meticulously detailed 101-page written decision.

The hearing, which took 6 days to complete, started on January 8, 2020 but did not conclude until March 12, 2021 due to a lengthy adjournment due to COVID-19 restrictions. The first 3 days were conducted in person while the final 3 days were virtual.

Since the City officially adopted Official Plan Amendment 320 and City Council unanimously passed the Long Branch Neighbourhood Character Guidelines, the TLAB has refused 10 severance applications with the LBNA officially participating on behalf of the Neighbourhood in all but one. Another 3 are currently still being reviewed at TLAB.

In the case of 27 Thirty Ninth, six neighbours participated in giving evidence at the hearing. They were praised by Mr. Lord for providing hard fact-based evidence in the absence of a professional planner who could provide expert opinion evidence.

“On these Applications, neighbourhood concern is evident not only in the witnesses and their evidence and presentation efforts, but also in the history of their engagement at the COA and in fulfilling the somewhat onerous Rules of the TLAB that require early and definitive disclosure, in writing, of positions.”

Key Success Factors

The successful outcomes on all of these TLAB appeals would not have been possible without the following:

Active Resident Involvement. In this case, one family elected to get involved as what is termed a Party to the appeal. Doing so gave them the right to call witnesses and to be included in all discussions regarding the application.
Active Resident Participation. As noted above, 6 neighbours provided testimony at the hearing for 27 Thirty Ninth. We have seen more than that and somewhat fewer than that at other hearings, but what is common is that multiple residents chose to have a say and were granted that opportunity by TLAB.
Factual Evidence. Residents amassed the type of data professional planners use to analyze and justify their clients’ development proposals. They studied other decisions from the OMB and TLAB to learn why previous applications had been approved or refused. They dove into the Official Plan, the Bylaws and Provincial policies to see just how well the applicants’ proposals did or did not conform to regulations.

To read the full text of the decision, click here.