(25) Despite the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and subsection (24), the Tribunal may, on its own initiative or on the motion of any party, dismiss all or part of an appeal without holding a hearing if any of the following apply:
1. The Tribunal is of the opinion that:
i. the reasons set out in the notice of appeal do not disclose any apparent land use planning ground upon which the Tribunal could allow all or part of the appeal,
ii. the appeal is not made in good faith or is frivolous or vexatious,
iii. the appeal is made only for the purpose of delay, or
iv. the appellant has persistently and without reasonable grounds commenced before the Tribunal proceedings that constitute an abuse of process.
2. The appellant has not provided written reasons for the appeal.
3. The appellant intends to argue a matter mentioned in subsection (19.0.1) but has not provided the explanations required by that subsection.
4. The appellant has not paid the fee charged under the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, 2017.
5. The appellant has not responded to a request by the Tribunal for further information within the time specified by the Tribunal. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 12, s. 6 (8).
An explanation of the grounds of appeal is required to be set out in a notice of appeal:
Section 4.6 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act allows a tribunal to dismiss a proceeding without a hearing and prescribes notice and other requirements that must be met before a proceeding can be so dismissed.
O. Reg. 174/16 (as amended by O. Reg. 67/18): TRANSITIONAL MATTERS — GENERAL, s.23 Appeal re amendment to zoning by-law where application refused; s.24 Appeal re amendment to zoning by-law where failure to make decision on application; s.25 Appeal re passing of zoning by-law, etc.
Pizzo v Thorold (City), LPAT (10 September 2018) provides a Tribunal order dismissing the appeal without a hearing on the basis of the failure of the appellant to provide an explanation for the appeal in accordance with the legislative requirements set out in subsection 34 (19.0.2) of the Planning Act.
In Gravelle v. Stone Mills (Town), LPAT (13 November 2018), the Tribunal considers a motion brought by the municipality challenging the validity of an appeal. The Tribunal determined the following with respect to the explanation required by s.34(184.108.40.206.4):
 As the Tribunal, at the preliminary screening stage, will only be working from the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, the Tribunal’s focus is essentially confined to seeking evidence of the required explanations and, except perhaps where it is patently lacking, not the sufficiency of the explanations.
 However, given that the Tribunal’s authority for preliminary screening is derived from s. 34(25), it is the statutory standard that a “valid” appeal must meet both of the tests stipulated in the two clauses of s. 34(25)1 of the Act.
 The Tribunal will not elevate form over substance. ... there are no magic words which delineate an acceptable explanation. The exercise involves a judgment which, due to its early stage engagement, will necessarily often proceed on more limited background and therefore call for a perhaps less critical analysis, on the premise that the statutorily compliant superficial assertion should be afforded the subsequent opportunity to be more fully explained and borne out with the benefit of the more expansive evidence and analysis which forms part of the full hearing process.
 This does not mean to say that an appellant will meet the statutory tests merely by mimicking the language of the section and making the bald declarations of consistency and conformity required. These assertions must be connected, in the Notice of Appeal, to facts that will take the Tribunal to a reasonable conclusion that there are live issues of consistency and conformity in the appeal.
 ... Sufficiency, save where there is a patent absence of materiality, will more generally relate to the more deliberative reaches of the appeal hearing process. In making this observation, the Tribunal does not exclude considerations of sufficiency factoring into the validity review stage but will not generally be closely testing the quality of the assertions in the Notice of Appeal.
 On the point of sufficiency, in the instance of a motion to dismiss, such as this, where further documents and evidence are filed, the Tribunal is entitled to review that evidence to shed light on the question of the adequacy of the explanations. With that additional filed material in this instance, the Tribunal was more clearly able to discern the substance of the explanation provided in the Notice of Appeal and confirm the initial validity screening.