|
 |
|
|
|
Reported CasesAreas of Law considered in this case: - Administrative Law, Boards and Tribunals; Appeals; Business Law, Corporate & Commercial; Land Use Planning Law; Real Estate Olasz v Toronto, [2016] O.M.B.D. No. 809 Sometimes the challenges in a case arise neither from the facts nor the law. In Olasz v Toronto, I represented the owner-landlord of a small multi-unit residence whose successful minor variance application under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act had been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, by her irate neighbor. It had been a long, toxic, and ongoing, third generation bad neighbor relationship. The Board would likely not want to hear about the toxicity. The designer, the main witness, had recently had a baby girl. His wife had developed complications and was instructed not to lift their baby girl, after a c-section. There was no way for the designer to be at the O.M.B. hearing on time, to be the first and main witness. All possible alternatives were explored. None were satisfactory. The designer would arrive mid to late morning. Late. There were quite a few other multiple unit residential dwellings in the immediate area.Client could give evidence first and walk Board through the neighbourhood, using a Picture Book, approaching planning issues from an owner-layperson's perspective. Not the usual approach to use at the O.M.B. When I introduced the Picture Book, Executive Vice-Chair instructed that pictures were not necessary. So evidence continued without them. In the neighbourhood walkabout client was describing something verbally when EVC asked if she had taken a picture of it. Yes! Was it in the Picture Book? Yes! Walkabout continued with the Picture Book. As the walkabout evidence was finishing the designer arrived, interrupted the client's answer, apologizing for being late, explaining his lateness on having to care for his infant daughter because of his wife's incapacity resulting from complications after c- section. EVC asked designer if this was their first. Was it a boy or a girl? EVC advised that if designer thought that little girls were a lot of trouble now, just wait until she reaches adolescence. EVC then turned and smiled at me, as if to say, now I know why we took the walk about with the pictures. Once in the witness stand, designer answered everyone's technical questions, starting with the EVC's, and expounded our theory about how really minor these variances were. At lunch break, client, her witnesses and designer were jubilant and congratulatory. How did I know what the EVC would ask them all? Picture Book was a great idea. It helped the EVC. Client also understood that I had used the Picture Book to fill in time until the designer arrived. After lunch, I destroyed all of the appellant's technical arguments during my cross- examination of him . Decision reserved. Appeal dismissed. Minor variances requested were indeed minor.
|
OF SPECIAL INTEREST: Linda Kolyn, LL.B. 
|
|
|
Web Site Contents Copyright © 2004-2021 Linda H. Kolyn, LL.B. All Rights Reserved. |
|
WEB SITE PRIVACY POLICY |
|
