Madison Raglan Limited v. Toronto (City), 2021 CanLII 118955

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: November 19, 2021
CASE NO.: PL210236

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant(s)/Appellant(s): Madison Raglan Limited

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, 438-86 and 1-83 – Refusal or neglect of City of Toronto to make a decision

Existing Zoning: The properties at 10-12 Raglan Avenue are zoned R (d0.6), which permits a maximum height of 12.0 metres and a maximum floor space index of 0.6

The properties at 14-32 Raglan Avenue are zoned RA (x777)

Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined)

Purpose: To permit a 28-storey residential building with 399 dwelling units

Property Address/Description: 10-32 Raglan Avenue

Municipality: City of Toronto

Municipal File No. 20 155716 STE 12 OZ

OLT Case No.: PL210236

OLT File No.: PL210236

OLT Case Name: Madison Raglan Limited v. Toronto (City)

BEFORE:

C. TUCCI

Member

Friday, the 19th day of November, 2021

THIS MATTER having come on for a public hearing and the Tribunal having directed the parties to submit a revised draft procedural order and issues list;

AND THE TRIBUNAL having received the revised materials provided by the parties on consent;

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Procedural Order set out as “Schedule A” to this Order shall be in full force and effect.

“Euken Lui”

EUKEN LUI

ACTING REGISTRAR

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

Schedule A

1. The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own motion.

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will begin on June 6, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is ten (10) days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible. The procedural order deadlines are generally found in Attachment 1.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 2.

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 4. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

7. Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.

8. Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before February 7, 2022 and in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified. Any challenges to the witness, including qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence in the area of expertise proposed shall be made by motion in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules and notice of same must be served on the other Parties on or before February 28, 2022.

10. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before March 3, 2022, and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before March 18, 2022.

11. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 13 below. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.

12. Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence as in paragraph 13 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 13 below.

13. On or before April 5, 2022, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

14. On or before April 5, 2022, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

15. On or before May 9, 2022, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

16. The Parties may provide to all other Parties, the City Clerk, and the case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before April 22, 2022.

17. Any documents which may be used by a party in cross examination of an opposing party’s witness shall be password protected and only be accessible to the Tribunal and the other parties if it is introduced as evidence at the hearing, pursuant to the directions provided by the OLT case co-ordinator.

18. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. Such a motion shall be in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rule 10, which requires that the moving Party provide copies of the motion to all other Parties at least 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

19. A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

20. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before May 9, 2022 with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

21. All filings shall be submitted electronically and in hard copy. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Rule 7.

22. If the applicant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing, the applicant shall provide copies of the revised proposal, including all revised plans, drawings, proposed instruments, updated supporting documents and reports, to the other Parties on or before January 5, 2022. The applicant acknowledges that any revisions to the proposal after that date without the consent of the Parties may be grounds for a request to adjourn the hearing.

23. The Parties shall prepare a Joint Document Book on or before May 17, 2022, and which one (1) hard copy will be filed with the Tribunal as soon as practicable in advance of the Hearing. All Parties must be served with the Joint Document Book in paper or an accessible electronic format in accordance with Section 22.

24. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

This Member is [not] seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE:

Name of Member:

Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE

EVENT

January 5, 2022

Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans, drawings and reports (if a revised proposal is made)

February 7, 2022

Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)

February 28, 2022

Last date to challenge identification of expert witness

March 3, 2022

Last date for Meeting of Expert Witnesses

March 18, 2022

Agreed upon Statement of Facts

April 5, 2022

Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements

April 22, 2022

Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)

May 9, 2022

Exchange of Visual Evidence and Hearing Plan

May 17, 2022

Joint Document Book

June 6, 2022

Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES/PARTICIPANTS

PARTIES

1. Madison Raglan Limited
   David Bronskill, Goodmans LLP
   dbronskill@goodmans.ca
   416.597.4299

2. City of Toronto
   Marc Hardiejowski, City of Toronto
   marc.hardiejowski@toronto.ca
   416.392.4960

3. 538 St. Clair Avenue West Ltd.
   Raivo Uukkivi/Jennifer Evola, Cassels Brock & Blackwell LP
   ruukkivi@cassels.com/jevola@cassels.com
   416.860.6613/416.860.6753

4. Merkur Realty (1993) Limited
   Andrea Skinner/Matthew Helfand
   askinner@airdberlis.com/mhelfand@airdberlis.com
   416.863.1500/416-865-3423

ATTACHMENT 3

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Madison Raglan Limited

2. City of Toronto

3. 538 St. Clair Avenue West Ltd.

4. Merkur Realty (1993) Limited

5. Madison Raglan Limited (Reply)

ATTACHMENT 4

ISSUES LIST

City of Toronto

10-32 Raglan Avenue

Issues List

1. Is the Proposed Development consistent with Policies 1.1.3.3 and 4.7 of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020?

2. Does the Proposed Development conform with Policies 1.5.1 (b), 2.2.1.4, 2.2.2.3(a), (b), (d) and (f), 5.2.4.5(b) and (c), and 5.2.5.6 of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020?

3. Does the tall building’s proposed setbacks, height, massing and transition as contained in the proposed zoning by-law amendment represent good planning and urban design? In particular:

(a) Does it have appropriate regard for the Tall Building Design Guidelines?

(b) Does the proposed development maintain the intent and purpose of Official Plan Amendment No. 352?

(c) Does it conform with the following sections of the City of Toronto Official Plan:

i. Healthy Neighbourhoods (2.3.1)

ii. Public Realm (3.1.1)

iii. Built Form (3.1.2)

iv. Apartment Neighbourhoods (4.2.2)

v. Height and/or Density Incentives (5.1.1)

vi. Implementation Plans and Strategies for City-Building (5.3.2)

(d) Does it conform to OPA 479 and 480?

(e) Does it have appropriate regard for the St. Clair and Bathurst Street Planning Framework?

4. Does the proposed site organization, layout, building siting and orientation of the buildings represent good planning and urban design? In particular:

(a) Does it have appropriate regard for the Tall Building Design Guidelines?

(b) Does the proposed development maintain the intent and purpose of Official Plan Amendment No. 352?

(c) Does it conform with the following sections of the City of Toronto Official Plan:

i. Healthy Neighbourhoods (2.3.1)

ii. Public Realm (3.1.1)

iii. Built Form (3.1.2)

iv. Apartment Neighbourhoods (4.2.2)

(d) Is the proposed development premature in the absence of the applicant revising the proposed development to show the parkland conveyance in the size, location and configuration that is satisfactory to the City, pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act, and the City’s Parkland Dedication Bylaw (Chapter 415, Article III of the Municipal Code)?

(e) Does it have appropriate regard for the St. Clair and Bathurst Street Planning Framework?

5. Would the approval of the proposed development represent good planning with particular regard to the shadow impacts of the proposed development on the low-rise Neighbourhood to the west? In particular:

(a) Does it have appropriate regard for the Tall Building Design Guidelines?

(b) Does the proposed development maintain the intent and purpose of Official Plan Amendment No. 352?

(c) Does it conform with the following sections of the City of Toronto Official Plan:

i. Healthy Neighbourhoods (2.3.1)

ii. Public Realm (3.1.1)

iii. Built Form (3.1.2)

iv. Apartment Neighbourhoods (4.2.2)

v. Height and/or Density Incentives 5.1.1

vi. Implementation Plans and Strategies for City-Building (5.3.2)

(d) Does it conform to OPA 479 and 480?

6. Would the approval of the proposed development represent good planning with particular regard to the impacts of winds associated with development on adjacent streets, parks and open spaces and proposed on-site outdoor amenity spaces and required parkland? In particular:

(a) Does it have appropriate regard for the Tall Building Design Guidelines?

(b) Does it conform with the following sections of the City of Toronto Official Plan:

i. Healthy Neighbourhoods (2.3.1)

ii. Public Realm (3.1.1)

iii. Built Form (3.1.2)

iv. Apartment Neighbourhoods (4.2.2)

v. Height and/or Density Incentives 5.1.1

vi. Implementation Plans and Strategies for City-Building (5.3.2)

(c) Does it conform to OPA 479 and 480?

7. Does the proposed development’s relationship with the public realm, streetscape and streetscape improvements represent good planning and urban design? In particular:

(a) Does it have appropriate regard for the Tall Building Design Guidelines?

(b) Does the proposed development maintain the intent and purpose of Official Plan Amendment No. 352?

(c) Does it conform with the following sections of the City of Toronto Official Plan:

i. Public Realm (3.1.1)

ii. Built Form (3.1.2)

iii. Apartment Neighbourhoods (4.2.2)

(d) Does it have appropriate regard for the St. Clair and Bathurst Street Planning Framework?

8. Does the proposed development appropriately and sensitively respond and transition to the existing and planned neighbourhood context and character, such that it represents good planning and urban design? In particular:

(a) Does it have appropriate regard for the Tall Building Design Guidelines?

(b) Does the proposed development maintain the intent and purpose of Official Plan Amendment No. 352?

(c) Does it conform with the following sections of the City of Toronto Official Plan:

i. Public Realm (3.1.1)

ii. Built Form (3.1.2)

iii. Apartment Neighbourhoods (4.2.2)

(d) Does it have appropriate regard for the St. Clair and Bathurst Street Planning Framework?

9. Does the proposed development’s provision and configuration of amenity space as contained in the proposed zoning by-law amendment represent good planning? In particular:

(a) Does it provide an adequate amount of indoor and outdoor amenity space?

(b) Is the configuration of proposed amenity space appropriate and represent good design?

(c) Does it conform with the following sections of the City of Toronto Official Plan:

i. Built Form (3.1.2.11 and 3.1.2.13)

ii. Apartment Neighbourhoods (4.2.2 (f) and (h))

(d) Does it have appropriate regard for the Pet Friendly Design Guidelines?

10. Does the proposed development provide appropriate transportation-related design, such as site access, circulation, parking and loading as well as resident, visitor and delivery? Does the proposed development’s provision of these elements represent good planning? In particular:

(a) Does it conform with the following sections of the City of Toronto Official Plan:

i. Healthy Neighbourhoods (2.3.1)

ii. Public Realm (3.1.1)

iii. Built Form (3.1.2)

iv. Apartment Neighbourhoods (4.2.2)

11. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for the Growing Up Guidelines? In particular:

(a) Does it provide an appropriate unit mix, including adequate family-sized units?

(b) Are the proposed 2 and 3-bedroom units within an appropriate size range?

12. In the event that the Tribunal allows the appeal in whole or in part, what are the appropriate benefits under Section 37 of the Planning Act to be secured as a part of the Zoning By-law Amendments?

13. In the event the proposed development is approved in whole or in part, are the following conditions appropriate and should the Tribunal Order be withheld until the City Solicitor has indicated that the following conditions have been satisfied?:

(a) the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendments are satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the City Solicitor;

(b) the owner has submitted an updated Transportation Study and a Transportation Demand Management Plan to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services;

(c) the owner has addressed all outstanding issues raised by Engineering and Construction Services as they relate to the Zoning By-law Amendment Application, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;

(d) the owner has submitted a revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report and associated financial securities, if required, for improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure satisfactory to the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, and the General Manager, Toronto Water;

(e) the community benefits and other matters in support of the development are secured in a Section 37 Agreement executed by the owner and registered on title to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the City Solicitor; and,

(f) the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning has approved the Rental Housing Demolition Application for the demolition of the existing rental housing units on the subject lands.

538 St. Clair Avenue West Ltd

Merkur Realty (1993) Limited

Combined Draft Issues List

538 St. Clair Avenue West Ltd. and Merkur Realty (1993) Limited

1. Does the location and organization of the proposed development fit within the existing and planned context of the subject site and area?

2. Does the proposed development unreasonably limit the development potential of the properties to the south?

3. Are the proposed base building and tower setbacks from the south property lines adequate?

4. Is the size and massing of the tower floorplate, between 786 m2 – 887 m2, appropriate in this circumstance?

5. Are the five two-storey townhouse units facing south toward the adjacent lane, with entrances and patios at grade, appropriate for the development of the subject site?

6. Will the proposed townhouses facing south toward the lane adversely impact the function of the lane and traffic and loading activities of a future building on the properties to the south of the subject site?

7. Is the access through an east-west lane located south of the subject site, and intersecting with an existing north-south lane, sufficient to allow for automobile and truck movements and circulation to the parking garage in the rear of the proposed building?

8. Is the proposed lane widening sufficient?

9. If approved by the Tribunal, are the form and content of the proposed Zoning By-law amendments appropriate and in the public interest?

10. Does the proposed development represent good planning and urban design having regard to:

(a) the City of Toronto Official Plan (sections 3.1.2.3, 3.1.2.4, 3.1.2.5, 3.1.3, 4.2.2(a) and 4.2.3(b).

(b) the City of Toronto Tall Building Guidelines (2013) (sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.3)

Note: The above issues are subject to modification in response to issues raised by others.

7193645