Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: June 18, 2021

CASE NO(S).: PL200541

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: 1319283 Ontario Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of the City of Toronto to adopt the requested amendment Existing Designation: Neighbourhoods Proposed Designated: Mixed Use Areas Purpose: To permit a 10-storey residential condominium Property Address/Description: 4161-4169 Dundas Street West, 18-26 Earlington Ave. Municipality: City of Toronto Approval Authority File No.: 20 119591 WET 03 OZ LPAT Case No.: PL200541 LPAT File No.: PL200541 LPAT Case Name: 1319283 Ontario Inc. vs. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: 1319283 Ontario Inc. Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. (569-2013) - Refusal or neglect of the City of Toronto to make a decision Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined) Purpose: To permit a 10-storey residential condominium Property Address/Description: 4161-4169 Dundas Street West, 18-26 Earlington Ave. Municipality: City of Toronto Municipality File No.: 20 119591 WET 03 OZ LPAT Case No.: PL200541 LPAT File No.: PL200543

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

Applicant and Appellant: 1319283 Ontario Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Etobicoke Zoning Code - Refusal or neglect of the City of Toronto to make a decision Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined) Purpose: To permit a 10-storey residential condominium Property Address/Description: 4161-4169 Dundas Street West, 18-26 Earlington Ave. Municipality: City of Toronto Municipality File No.: 20 119591 WET 03 OZ LPAT Case No.: PL200541 LPAT File No.: PL200542

Heard: June 9, 2021 by Video Hearing (“VH”)

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

1319283 Ontario Inc. (Dunpar Homes)

Luke Johnston, Michael Nemanic

City of Toronto

Kasia Czajkowski

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY K.R. ANDREWS ON JUNE 9, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This is the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) of the Ontario Land Tribunal for Case No. PL200541, concerning an appeal by 1319283 Ontario Inc. (“Dunpar”).

2Dunpar is proposing to redevelop a site located at 4161-4169 Dundas Street West and 18-26 Earlington Avenue, Etobicoke, with a 10-storey residential condominium containing 134 units and four back-to-back, three-bedroom townhouse units.

3This appeal arises after the governing authority failed to make a decision within the statutory timelines.

4The application seeks an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) to align the "Mixed-Use" Designation with the neighbouring properties and include the proposed back-to-back townhouses within the development site.

5The application requires a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the development of a residential condominium with townhouses.

6At the outset of the CMC, counsel for Dunpar confirmed that there was a typo in the Notice of Appeal, and that the OPA being sought in the case is being brought pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Planning Act, not s. 17(40).

7Counsel for Dunpar also advised the Tribunal that his client has recently acquired additional lands adjacent to the original proposed development, and that these lands will form part of a revised development proposal. Counsel indicated that the original development plan would remain largely intact, and that the revised plan would not trigger any additional Planning Act matters. Dunpar requested that it be permitted to proceed with its revised development proposal as part of these existing proceedings. The City had no objections to proceeding in this manner.

8Given that these proceedings are at a very early stage, the parties have not presented a Procedural Order, Issues List or any other material contributions to these proceedings, and the revisions will not trigger any additional Planning Act issues, and given that any participants of these proceedings will also have plenty of time to review and comment on any revised plans as part of their submissions, there is practically no prejudice caused to anyone, including the Tribunal, by allowing a revised development plan to be the subject of these proceedings. The Tribunal accordingly found that the Appellant may amend its appeal as necessary to include related development of the new lands.

Service of Notice of CMC

9There was no issue with service of the Notice of this CMC, and so no further notice is required. The Tribunal was in receipt of the Affidavit of Service, which was marked as Exhibit 1.

Requests for Status

10The Tribunal received a written request for Party status from Carmen Colangelo. When she was addressed by the Tribunal, to make submissions in support of her request, she clarified that she was seeking Participant status instead. The Tribunal drew her attention to the difference between the relative involvement of a party versus a participant in these proceedings, including the limitation on participants providing written submissions only. Ms. Colangelo confirmed that she understood the difference and she wished to be added as a participant. Ms. Colangelo stated that she lives at 5 Brownstone Lane, which is adjacent to the proposed development. Upon consent from the parties, Ms. Colangelo was granted participant status.

11No other persons or entities were present at the CMC requesting party status.

12The Tribunal also received a written request for Participant status from Stephen Massiah. Mr. Massiah explained that he owns property directly adjacent to the proposed development and has various concerns about the development. Upon consent from the parties, Mr. Massiah was granted participant status.

13The Tribunal received a written request for Participant status from a group calling themselves “Brownstone Lane Task Group”. Julia Ptasznyk addressed the Tribunal on the group’s behalf. She confirmed that the group is unincorporated and consists of 36 townhouse owners living immediately adjacent to the proposed development. They propose to draft and submit one written statement on behalf of the group setting out their joint concerns. Upon consent from the parties, the group calling themselves “Brownstone Lane Task Group” was granted participant status, with Ms. Ptasznyk acting as the primary contact person for the purpose of any notice or other correspondence.

14The Tribunal notes that it is not essential for a group to be legally incorporated to be granted participant status, as it might be for a group seeking party status. With participant status, the entity’s only obligation is to provide written submissions in a timely manner (i.e. according to a timeline set out by the Tribunal). By contrast, party status enables people or incorporated groups to participate fully in a proceeding, which requires a significant amount of coordination with the other parties and the Tribunal; which, from a practical standpoint, necessitates the formal structure of an incorporated body to properly execute the expected role and obligations of a party (see Rule 8.01 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure for examples).

15The role and obligations of participants comparatively require very little coordination with the parties or with the Tribunal, and the Tribunal encourages groups of people with common interests to make joint submissions for efficiency purposes. There is no foreseeable prejudice caused to anyone by granting participant status to a non-incorporated group and, for this reason, the Tribunal granted participant status to this non-incorporated group, known as “Brownstone Lane Task Group”.

16At the hearing, upon the Tribunal canvassing if there were any other persons seeking Participant status, the Tribunal received an oral request from Vanessa Alsop. Ms. Alsop stated that she lives just up the road from the proposed development at 6 Earlington Avenue, and her concerns include issues related to traffic, light pollution and noise. Upon consent from the parties, Ms. Alsop was granted participant status, and the Tribunal asked that she submit the standard request form for participant status to provide the Tribunal with her information for future communications.

17Upon the Tribunal canvassing further if there were any other persons seeking Participant status, the Tribunal received an oral request from Gordon MacKay. Mr. MacKay stated that he lives just up the road from the proposed development at 5 Earlington Avenue, and his concerns are similar to Ms. Alsop’s. Upon consent from the parties, Mr. MacKay was granted participant status, and the Tribunal asked him to submit the standard request form for participant status to provide the Tribunal with his information for future communications.

18No other persons or entities were present at the CMC requesting participant status.

MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT

19The Tribunal explored the possibility of mediation and settlement with the Parties. All of the parties indicated that they are open to such discussions, but none have happened yet and there are no impending plans for the same presently.

PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST

20The Tribunal was informed by the parties that the proposed development is set to be reviewed by the Etobicoke Community Council on June 22, 2021, and by the City of Toronto Council on July 14-15, 2021. The Appellant confirmed that its submissions to the City will include its revised plans.

21As a result, the parties jointly submitted that it would be prudent to hold off submitting a draft Procedural Order, Issues List and Hearing Plan until after the municipal meetings, and to allow the City to review Dunpar’s revised plans, and to follow up more generally with a second CMC for the purpose of firming up these items in preparation for a hearing on the merits.

22It was suggested, but not ordered by the Tribunal, that the participants serve copies of their written submissions to the parties at least one week before the parties finalize a draft Issues List, so that the participants’ issues may be considered and possibly addressed by the parties in their final draft Issues List to be filed with the Tribunal.

23The Parties indicated that they can provide the Tribunal with a draft Procedural Order, Issues List and Hearing Plan at least one month prior to a second CMC.

SECOND CMC DATE

24A second CMC was requested and granted. The next CMC will likely focus on discussions related to the draft Procedural Order, Issues List and Hearing Plan, and the parties were advised to be ready to set dates for a hearing on the merits.

25The Tribunal set a second CMC for Friday, September 24, 2021, commencing at 10 am by VH.

26Parties and participants are asked to log into the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/116140789

Access code: 116-140-789

27Parties and participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html.

28Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: (Toll Free) 1 888 299 1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The access code is 116-140-789.

29Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the hearing by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

ORDER

30The Notice of Appeal of this matter is amended to confirm that the appeal is being brought pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Planning Act, not s. 17(40).

31This appeal will continue with the appropriate modifications to include the lands recently purchased by Dunpar, located adjacent to their lands that are subject to this appeal, which will form part of the overall development proposal to be considered by the Tribunal as part of these proceedings.

32The date and particulars of a second CMC are set out above.

33The “Brownstone Lane Task Group”, with spokesperson Ms. Ptasznyk assigned for communication purposes of the group, has been granted participant status on consent of the parties. Mr. Massiah, Ms. Colangelo, Ms. Alsop and Mr. MacKay have all also been granted participant status on consent of the parties. Ms. Alsop and Mr. MacKay shall provide the Tribunal with their contact information forthwith as a condition of granting their respective participant status requests.

34Counsel for Dunpar shall be tasked with the co-ordination and preparation of the draft Procedural Order, Issues List and Hearing Plan, to be filed with the Tribunal on consent of the parties at least one month prior to the next CMC.

35The Member is not seized but may be spoken to through the Case Coordinator if any issues arise.

“K.R. Andrews”

K.R. ANDREWS

MEMBER

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.