Minutes: October 29, 2018

TLAB 18.1 Toronto Local Appeal Body - Chair's Update

Panel Decision

Information received by the Panel.

Decision Advice and Other Information

The purpose of the business meeting is to canvass and review the comments on the draft of the rules and proposed revisions.  These set of rules are the first draft to be circulated, which are are not final and concrete, nevertheless all prior contributions have been considered.  The Panel are still looking for additional oversights and contributions from the public which too will be considered.

 

One of the suggestions considered is the need for more time at the beginning of the TLAB process for preparation and exchange of documents in the hopes of advancing settlement discussions.  These suggestions have been considered, and extended time frames have been added to the revised rules, but still keeping the one hundred day fixed hearing dates.

 

Panel Members have discussed that consent matters should be expedited and addressed in an efficacious manner and satisfactory for all stakeholders involved in the process.  Several developments that have taken place during hearings which may be considered at the discretion of the overseeing Panel Member are:

• Participants may have the ability to ask clarifying questions during hearings.

 

In recognizing the exchange of disclosure documents, the draft rules have proposed a formal Right of Reply and Response to disclosure.  This was not prohibited prior, but are now being fully acknowledged and permitted in the revised rules.  Nevertheless, disclosure at the earliest opportunity is better in the overall hearing process.

• Witness Statements and Participant Statements are important elements of the disclosure process and should be delayed closer to the hearing date. TLAB is lengthening the period fo disclosure both Witness and Participant Statements, but are not tying it to anything that inhibits early disclosure of statements.

 

Tribunal would like final public comments October 29, 2018, deal with on Rule 31 (Review of a Decision) which is currently not suggested to be amended at length in terms of draft.  No members of the public have brought Rule 31 into question, but tribunal members have concerns which will be dealt with on November 23^rd, 2018.  On Rule 31, council has been requested to set a standardized fee for review of decisions be imposed. On December 5^th, 2018, tribunal members intends to adopt revisions to the draft rules and set a proclamation date, targeted at Feb 4 2019. Also, on December 5^th, 2018 council given the authority to elect a Vice Chair to the appeal board.   Until the proclamation date of the revised rules is confirmed all hearings set prior to the date are subject to and will be completed under the old rules.

 

Common Document Library

• TLAB is proposing and will prepare a common document library both online and in the hearing rooms for easier access. The library is not contemplating decisions of courts or tribunals. Scheduled to be complete early 2019.

 

TLAB is contemplating a proposed new procedure on written motion requests.  When a motion is requested to provide to the requester a date by which the motion is to be served.  The Panel Member assigned will then deal with the matter when all documentations are in, but not on a specified date.

 

Summary

Toronto Local Appeal Body Chair, Ian Lord, to provide opening remarks and provide the Panel with an update on Tribunal business.

 

Background Information

October 29, 2018 – Chair’s Update

 

Motions

1.  Motion to receive Chair’s updates as information moved by Panel Member D. Lombardi, seconded by Panel Member L. McPherson.  (Carried)

TLAB 18.2 Toronto Local Appeal Body - Deputations on Toronto Local Appeal Body's Revised Rules of Practice and Procedures

Panel Decision

The presentations were received as information by the Panel.

Decision Advice and Other Information

 

• Registrants provided written and oral submissions on the revised rules of practice and procedures.

FONTRA (Federation of North Toronto Resident’s Association) – Registrants: Geoff Kettel, Al Kivi and Robert Brown.

 

Geoff Kettel:

• There was not enough time to review and obtain comments from constituents on the revised rules and provide comments on the revisions.
• Would like the TLAB to have a more collegial approach to speak with the TLAB members.
  • Makuch responded and thinks it’s important to give public more time to review the rules and provide time for feedback, with regards to being more collegial with the public but can be very difficult because the tribunal is a far removed body.
• More needs to be done to create fairness for the constituents, and members should provide active adjudication.
• City of Toronto should provide intervenor programs to constituents to help them navigate the process.
• Revisions to rules fails to address the administrative justice issues such as access to legal and planning resources.
  • Planning issues continue to be unfair and provide an imbalance of power in the proceedings. Residents lack access to expert witness and certain projects in Toronto increases the demand of lawyers and Expert Witnesses.
• Proposed practice directions should be written in plain language which will help improve compliance with the TLAB rules, and will allow for residents to understand the complex procedures.
• Cost considerations should not take precedent over the issues.
  • Lombardi responds and thinks that the public is in fact concerned about cost, and it’s important to residents and does a disservice if not considered by TLAB.

Al Kivi

 

• a minimum level of assistance should be provided to unrepresented persons to ensure meaningful participation before the tribunal
• There is an issue with regards to unpaid representatives only being able to work three times a year.
• Guidelines on evidence and submissions:
  • There needs to be assistance in place for parties in understanding the mode and format of presenting evidence. If the rules are too complex, then a practice direction should be in place for clarification.
    • McPherson suggested that the public guide be updated to inform the public instead of a practice direction. Mr. Kivi indicated that there is too much information in the public guide. It’s too detailed and not compact enough.  A practice direction would be able to succinctly deal with the actual issue.
    • Makuch suggest explaining the process to the public on the hearing date. A written statement should be created and read to the public which can be useful.
    • Lord stated that he sympathizes with the unrepresented party, but if the tribunal introduces this practice direction it can be troublesome, and if one of the several points in the direction is not met then it can augment litigation and bring up the level of risk.
    • Al Kivi indicated that for those parties with no experience with TLAB, they are unsure and unorganized.
    • Gopikrishna wanted to find out what suggestions can be provided when both sides are unrepresented. Mr. Kivi suggested there should be an examination of the facts by the Panel Member.

 

Robert Brown:

 

Definition section in Rules of Practice and Procedures:

• Definition of Representative needs addition clarification and adding to the definition.
• Several reference to serve and exchange and submissions need clarification definitions of those terms; the terms just, expedition and cost effective needs clarifications.
• Rules 2.3, 2.11, 2.2 in the documents would recommend considerations on video documents, not just PDF documents.
• 3 (b) add Appellant because they are not identified.
• 6 implement a library of common legislation and regulations.
• There is a disconnection between Rule 5.2 and 5.3 in terms of paper checks, debit and credit payments.
• 1 should include all persons at the COA hearing.
• 1 second line, add subsequent to the City of Toronto.
• 1 needs to be better worded for persons who have not participated.
• 6 (b) unsure if it’s a rule.
• 6 (g) should say make an oral and/or written statement.
• 2 (b) not quite clear if relying on documents with TLAB by other parties is sufficient for participants.
• 3 need to change reference to 16.2.
• 4 should include participants, not just parties.
• 7 (a) parties and participants should be included.
• 8 should include parties and participants.
• 11 Expert’s Duty, recommends that is should be non-partisan instead of non-bias.
• 2 recommends using a better word than “consent”.
• 2 should read “upon signing the settlement agreement”.
• 3 suggested wording should be considered already in the document provided.
• 22 should read, “if there is a consolidation the nature of the consolidated proceedings should be described in the Notice of Hearing.”
• 29 clarification is needed on whether to entertain oral decisions.

 

City of Toronto – Mr. Muscat, City Solicitor

 

• City has concerns with timing of exchanges and settlement, the introduction of the reply and response to reply of exchanges, and streamlining the process in regards to the rules.
• Disclosure deadlines should be tied to the Notice of Hearing, which encourages settlements and allows the City to work with applicant to revise plans.
• The City does not have immediate direction from council and therefore once determination has been discovered then timelines have passed making the process difficult for solicitors to meet deadlines.
• On settlements, like motions being brought forward on consent, the procedure should also be done for settlements.
  • Settlements (on consent) should be formalized through teleconference on consent with all parties
• Reply to response to witness statements conflict with the timelines related to motion deadlines.
• Would like to know where the Common Document library be located and what will the folder contents be, suggest that the library be reference in the rules.
• Recommends that a rule be added to address global settlement as an exception to a required motion when requesting a settlement hearing.
• Seeking clarification on how adjournment requests can be sought without a motion if on consent.

 

 

Long Branch Neighbourhood Association – C. Mercado and J. Gibson

 

 

• The series of forms have developed a legalist approach that is onerous and costly.
• The number of complex forms that must be completed are time consuming. Form 11, 12 and 13 once complete you are unable to see the typed information. Most of the information is missing and states incomplete when attempting to save the document.
• Adding four more forms is difficult.
• Remove unnecessary fields, fix technical problems with saving and printing forms.
• The deadline times for filing documents should be changed to midnight instead of the current time of 4:30 PM.
• Fees causes barriers to engagement and impacts residents who are appealing an application.
  • Lord stated that the fee structure is set by council and the tribunal has no control over that by-law. It is an extensive fee by-law in place by council.
• Scheduling of hearing is onerous, and recommends liming the number of hearings to no more than on a month for the association.
  • Suggests not scheduling more than two days in a row; if hearing needs two days then ideally Monday’s and Friday’s are better.
• Rule 13.7 is unclear on written participant statements.
• Rule 14.1 and 14.4 unclear on whether an incorporated residents association can be a party.
• Suggest that TLAB provide email alerts on when there are new documents that have been filed.
• Explore other forms of technology for submission of documents.
• Motions are time consuming, suggest to remove the attached affidavit for board and corporations.
• Agreement for adjournments needs to take place among parties no later than 30 days in advance of the hearing.
• Rule 27.4 not in favour of limiting time of participants to speak at a hearing.
• Rule 19.1 if there are informal discussion in mediation then all parties and participants should be informed of the settlement discussions.
• Rules are written not for laypersons, they are convoluted.

 

Amber Stewart

 

• Rule 9 timing is the most problematic which is onerous for residents and applicants. Suggests amending the appeal form and add an additional box that applicants can indicate how many days they think is needed for the hearing.
• Suggest a triage when screening to permit TLAB the ability to scheduling another date based on the stages.
  • Screening of appeals at two states: when first filed then after the people list is completed.
• Rule 11 – increasing the time would be helpful. The rules should not prevent an improvement to an application throughout the process.
• Rule 13.7 the rules have significant flexibility that has been exercised, but some distinctions are important, those being the roles of parties and participants. Permitting participants to make open and closing submission sis not warranted and makes the process lengthier.  Distinct roles should be emphasized and adhered to.
• The response to Reply to Witness Statement should be an exception to the rule.
• Uploading documents should be made available by way of a link.
• Settlement hearings should be expedited if consented to. Suggests writing an expedited one page decision order with full decision order to follow.
• Rules of expert witness and rules of party vs. participant needs to be clarified.
• A rule should be created that emphasizes not being able to qualify as an expert witness.

Background Information

Toronto Local Appeal Body – Revised Rules of Practice and Procedure

City Solicitor

• May 10, 2018 – Toronto Local Appeal Body:  Public Consultation, Review of Rules of Practice and Procedure
• October 22, 2018 – Toronto Local Appeal Body:  Public Consultation, Review of Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”) and Revised Rules

FONTRA Submissions

Attachments to the FoNTRA Feedback on TLAB Rules – Oct 26 2018

FoNTRA Feedback on TLAB Rules Oct 26 2018 – final

LBNA Submissions

av_LBNA Deputation to TLAB_Oct 29 2018 v3

 

Motions

1.  Motion to receive the presentations on the draft revised the Toronto Local Appeal Body’s Rules of Practice and Procedure moved by Panel Member D. Lombardi, seconded by Panel Member S. Makuch. (Carried)

TLAB 18.3 Toronto Local Appeal Body - Panel Member Update

Panel Decision

The Toronto Local Appeal Body received an update concerning a Panel Member.

Decision Advice and Other Information

The Toronto Local Appeal Body recessed at 1:08 pm to meet in closed session as this item relates to the receipt of personal information concerning an identifiable individual..

Summary

The Toronto Local Appeal Body will enter a closed session meeting to receive an update concerning a Panel Member.

(The Toronto Local Appeal Body will go in closed session to discuss this item as the City of Toronto Act, 2006 permits closing a meeting to discuss personal information about an identifiable individual.)

Motions

1. Motion to meet in closed session moved by Panel Member S. Makuch and seconded by Panel Member S. Gopikrishna. (Carried)
   1:08 p.m. – That the Toronto Local Appeal Body recess its public meeting to meet in closed session to consider this item as it relates to the receipt of personal information concerning an identifiable individual.
2. Motion to reconvene in Public Session moved by Panel Member D. Lombardi and seconded by Panel Member S. Gopikrishna. (Carried)

Meeting Sessions & Attendance

Meeting Sessions

Session Date	Session Type	Start Time	End Time	Public or Closed Session
October 29, 2018	Morning	9:40 am	11:26 am	Public
October 29, 2018	Recess	11:26 am	11:38 am
October 29, 2018	Morning	11:38 am	1:08 pm	Public
October 29, 2018	Morning	1:08 pm	1:13 pm	Closed
October 29, 2018	Morning	1:13 pm	1:13 pm	Public

 

Attendance

Members were present for some or all of the time period indicated.

Date and Time	Quorum	Panel Members
September 10 2018 9:43 am to 11:07 am (Public Session)	Present	Present: Ian Lord (Chair), Gillian Burton, Sabnavis Gopikrishna, Stanley Makuch, Laurie McPherson,Ted Yao, Dino Lombardi
September 10, 2018 11:18 am to 11:18 am (Public Session)	Present	Present: Ian Lord (Chair), Gillian Burton, Sabnavis Gopikrishna, Stanley Makuch, Laurie McPherson,Ted Yao, , Dino Lombardi
September 10, 2018 11:18 am to 1:19 pm (Closed Session)	Present	Present: Ian Lord (Chair), Gillian Burton, Sabnavis Gopikrishna, Stanley Makuch, Laurie McPherson,Ted Yao, Dino Lombardi
October 29, 2018 1:19 pm to 1:21 pm (Closed Session)	Present	Present: Ian Lord (Chair), Gillian Burton, Sabnavis Gopikrishna, Stanley Makuch, Laurie McPherson,Ted Yao, Dino Lombardi

 

Staff Attendance

Hsing Yi Chao
Secretary / Supervisor
Toronto Local Appeal Body, Court Services

Angela Bepple
Support Assistant A
Toronto Local Appeal Body, Court Services

Nathalie Forde
Support Assistant B
Toronto Local Appeal Body, Court Services