Times Group Corporation v. Toronto (City), 2021 CanLII 61008

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

July 06, 2021

CASE NO(S).:

PL210014

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

Applicant and Appellant:

1644137 Ontario Inc., 2457182 Ontario Inc. (Times Group Corporation)

Subject:

Application to amend Zoning By-law Nos. 569-2013 and 438-86 - Refusal or neglect of the City of Toronto to make a decision

Existing Zoning:

Mixed Use Commercial Residential

Proposed Zoning:

Site Specific (To be determined)

Purpose:

To permit two residential towers with ground floor commercial

Property Address/Description:

Various Addresses

Municipality:

City of Toronto

Municipality File No.:

20191099 STE 12 OZ

OLT Case No.:

PL210014

OLT File No.:

PL210014

OLT Case Name:

Times Group Corporation v. Toronto (City)

Heard:

June 15, 2021 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative*

2547182 Ontario Inc. and 1644137 Ontario Inc. (Times Group Corporation)

Ira T. Kagan

City of Toronto

Alexander Suriano

Toronto District School Board

Julie Lesage

South Eglinton Ratepayers’ and Residents’ Association

Andy Gort*

1131815 Ontario Limited

Mary Flynn-Guglietti

DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BRAUN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This was a first case management conference (“CMC”) in relation to an appeal brought by 2547182 Ontario Inc. and 1644137 Ontario Inc., also referred to as the Times Group Corporation (“Applicant/Appellant”) regarding the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to make a decision on an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBLA”) within the legislated timeline, pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”).

2The application relates to the following properties: 1913, 1915, 1917-1919, 1923, 1927, 1941, 1951 Yonge Street; 22 Davisville Avenue; and 17 and 21 Millwood Road, which are currently occupied by a large surface parking lot as well as a number of two-storey buildings. The proposed rezoning would permit the redevelopment of the property with a mixed-use development consisting of two towers (30 and 45 storeys in height), containing 821 residential units and approximately 2,570 square metres of commercial space on the ground floor as well as four levels of underground parking.

3The Tribunal received an Affidavit of Service dated May 28, 2021, confirming that Notice of this CMC was properly given, which has been marked as Exhibit 1.

BACKGROUND/HISTORY

4An earlier ZBLA was filed with the City on March 29, 2017, together with an application for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”). Those applications were appealed to the Tribunal on November 2, 2017 (Tribunal File No. PL171228 related to the OPA appeal and Tribunal File No. PL171229 related to the ZBLA appeal). Based on conversations with City Staff, the Applicant/Appellant withdrew the initial ZBLA application on September 23, 2019. The OPA application (PL171228) was not withdrawn and remains under appeal.

5A subsequent ZBLA application was filed to include 1913, 1915, 1919, 1921 and 1923 Yonge Street and to revise the proposed built form to conform to the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan, which was approved by the Province on June 5, 2019. That ZBLA application was appealed in December 2020 (PL210014) and is the matter presently before the Tribunal.

6Previous CMCs have been held in relation to PL171228. At the most recent CMC held on February 9, 2021, a 12-day video hearing was scheduled to commence on March 28, 2022. In addition to the foregoing, a request for party status had been received from Catherine Arniotis. Catherine Arniotis, Peter Arniotis and James Lioutas, had jointly been granted participant status at an April 26, 2018 CMC but Mrs. Arniotis sought an elevation to party status on behalf of this group along with Sophie Lioutas, as the owners of 1909 Yonge Street and 2A Davisville Road (“the Landowners”). The Tribunal deferred the request for party status in order to allow the Landowners to decide if they would retain a land use planner to give evidence at the hearing and/or a legal representative.

CONSOLIDATION

7The parties jointly requested the Tribunal consolidate the present matter with Tribunal File PL171228, in accordance with Rule 16 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure (“OLT Rules”). Rule 16.1 states:

The Tribunal may order that two or more proceedings or any part of them, be consolidated, heard at the same time, or heard one after the other, or stay or adjourn any matter until the determination of another matter, subject to any applicable statutory or regulatory restrictions.

8Given that the ZBLA under appeal in the present file is clearly related to the OPA already under appeal in Tribunal File PL171228, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to consolidate file numbers PL171228 and PL210014. Parties are reminded of Rule 16.2 of the OLT Rules, which provides:

When two or more proceedings are consolidated,

a. statutory procedural requirements for any of the original separate proceedings apply, where appropriate, to the consolidated proceeding

b. parties to each of the original separate proceedings are parties to the consolidated proceeding

c. evidence to be presented in each of the separate proceedings is evidence in the consolidated proceeding

PARTY/PARTICIPANT REQUESTS

9The Tribunal received a written request for party status from the Toronto District School Board (“TDSB”) marked as Exhibit 2. As TDSB is already party to the related OPA appeal (PL171228) and the other parties consented to the request, the Tribunal granted party status in the present matter to TDSB.

10Ms. Flynn-Guglietti advised that she represents the Landowners who had previously been granted participant status in PL171228, now incorporated as 1311815 Ontario Limited. She advised that her client has retained a land use planner to give evidence at the hearing in accordance with direction given at the February 9, 2021 CMC. On that basis, she requested the Tribunal now elevate the participant Landowners (“1311815 Ontario Limited”) to party status in matter PL171228 and grant party status in the present matter as well.

11It was also noted that the South Eglinton Ratepayers’ and Residents’ Association (“SERRA”) is a party to PL171228 and should be a party to the present appeal.

12Hearing no objections, the Tribunal granted the requests for party status in both matters to 1311815 Ontario Limited and to SERRA in PL210014.

13The Tribunal received no other requests for party or participant status.

MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT

14The Tribunal raised the issue of opportunities for settlement, including Tribunal-assisted mediation and was advised that the parties will be participating in Tribunal-assisted mediation in mid-July 2021. The parties were directed to advise the Tribunal in writing should they reach a settlement with respect to some or all of the issues prior to the hearing.

PROCEDURAL ORDER/ISSUES LIST

15The parties submitted a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) in advance of the CMC, but indicated that they required some time to finalize the Issues List. The parties agreed to submit a revised PO, which is appended here as Attachment 1. The Tribunal is satisfied with the PO, which shall govern these proceedings leading up to and including the hearing.

HEARING

16A 12-day video hearing has already been scheduled and will commence at 10 a.m. on Monday, March 28, 2022.

17Parties 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/219288813

Access code: 219 288 813

18Parties 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.

19Persons 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): 1 888 455 1389 or +1 (647) 497-9391. The access code is 219 288 813.

20Individuals 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.

OTHER MATTERS

21The Tribunal inquired as to whether there were any other matters to be addressed which might assist in the fair, just and expeditious resolution of this matter and was advised that there were none.

ORDER

22The Tribunal orders:

a) File numbers PL171228 and PL210014 are consolidated pursuant to Rule 16 of the Ontario Land Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

b) TDSB, SERRA and 1311815 Ontario Limited are parties to this proceeding and 1311815 Ontario Limited is a party to PL171228.

c) A 12-day hearing remains scheduled to begin on March 28, 2022 at 10 am by video hearing.

d) There will be no further notice and this Member is not seized.

“S. Braun”

S. Braun

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.

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire 655 Bay Street, Suite 1500, Toronto, ON M5G 1E5 Tel: 416-212-6349 | 1-866-448-2248 Web Site: olt.gov.on.ca

ATTACHMENT 1

Purpose of the Procedural Order

Case management conferences are scheduled by the Tribunal to organize the hearing. This sample procedural order is provided to identify who may participate in the hearing, the issues in dispute, and the matters that are required to be carried out before the hearing. The attachment to this sample procedural order explains the meaning of a number of terms in the sample procedural order, such as a party or a participant.

The Tribunal recommends that the appellant, municipality, the applicant (if applicable), or those who wish to seek party status in this proceeding, meet, remotely if necessary, to discuss this sample procedural order before the date of the case management conference and try to identify the issues and process they want the Tribunal to order following the conference. The Tribunal will hear submissions on the content of this sample procedural order at the case management conference and issue a procedural order at a later date.

If you are not represented by a lawyer, you should prepare by reviewing the Tribunal’s Video Hearings Guide, and the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), particularly Rule 20, which are available on the Tribunal’s website.

ISSUE DATE: July 06, 2021 CASE NO(S): PL171228/PL210014

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

Applicant and Appellant: 2457182 Ontario Inc. (Times Group Corporation)

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure of the City of Toronto to adopt the requested amendment

Existing Designation: Mixed-Use Areas

Proposed Designated: Mixed-Use Areas

Purpose: To permit the development of a mixed use building containing residential and commercial elements and two towers of 25 and 34-storeys tall

Property

Address/Description: Various Addresses

Municipality: City of Toronto

Municipality File No.: 17 136251 STE 22 OZ

OLT Case No.: PL171228

OLT File No.: PL171228

OLT Case Name: 2457182 Ontario Inc. v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: 1644137 Ontario Inc., 2457182 Ontario Inc (Times Group Corporation)

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law Nos. 569-2013 and 438-86 – Refusal or neglect of the City of Toronto to make a decision

Existing Zoning: Mixed Use Commercial Residential

Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined)

Purpose: To permit two residential towers with ground floor commercial

Property Address/

Description: Various Addresses

Municipality: City of Toronto

Municipality File No: 20191099 STE 12 OZ

OLT Case No.: PL210014

OLT File No.: PL210014

OLT Case Name: Times Group Corporation vs. Toronto (City)

PROCEDURAL ORDER

The Tribunal orders that:

1. The Tribunal may vary or add to this Order at any time either on request or as it sees fit. It may amend this Order by an oral ruling or by another written Order.

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will commence on Monday, March 28, 2022 at 10 a.m. at:

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219288813

Access code: 219 288 813

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is Twelve (12) days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlement on issues where possible.

4. The parties and participants (see Schedule 1 for the meaning of these terms) are listed in Schedule 2 to this Order.

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Schedule 3. Except for scoping or removing issues, there will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits it. A party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6. The order of evidence shall be as listed in Schedule 4 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 consent 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 – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address and 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, the other parties and to the City Clerk a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered by Friday, December 17, 2021, and in accordance with paragraph 23 below. For expert witnesses, a party is to include a copy of the curriculum vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified. Any challenges to the qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence in the area of expertise proposed should 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 December 20, 2021.

10. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Friday, January 14, 2022, and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the parties shall prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Friday, January 28, 2022.

11. An expert witness shall prepare an Expert Witness Statement that shall include: an acknowledgement of expert’s duty form, the area(s) of expertise, any reports prepared by the expert, and any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in item 13 below. Instead of an Expert 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 and his or her area of expertise, as in item 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 Friday, February 4, 2022, the parties shall provide copies of their Witness and/or Expert Witness Statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

14. On or before Friday, February 4, 2022, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 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 Friday, March 4, 2022, the parties shall provide copies of Reply Witness Statements, if any, to the other parties and the OLT case-co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

16. On or before Friday, March 18, 2022, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below. If a model is proposed to be used the Tribunal must be notified before the hearing. All parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

17. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Friday, March 18, 2022.

18. Any documents which may be used by a party in cross examination of an opposing party’s witness shall be password protected and only become accessible to the Tribunal and the other parties if it is introduced as evidence at the hearing. Any such documents on which a cross-examining party intends to rely shall be provided to the Tribunal and all other parties, password-protected, before 10:00 a.m. on the day of that cross-examination.

19. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

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

21. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Friday, March 18, 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.

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 Friday, December 10, 2021. The applicant acknowledges that any revisions to the proposal after that date, which revisions do not narrow or fully settle issue(s) in the appeal, may be grounds for a request to adjourn the hearing.

23. All filings shall be electronic and in hard copy. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic filing 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.

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.

25. A summary of the various filing dates is contained in Schedule 5.

This Member is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE:

Name of Member: S. Braun

Date: July 06, 2021

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

SCHEDULE 1

Meaning of Terms used in the Procedural Order

Party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. If an unincorporated group wishes to become a party, it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer, and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorisation from the party.

NOTE that a person who wishes to become a party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (“CMC”), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

A participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that eb found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.

A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.

Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

A witness statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which he or she will discuss and the witness’ opinions on those issues; and a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons for the opinions and (5) a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the participant’s position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submissions of the participant on those issues;; and a list of reports or materials, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.

Additional Information

A Summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agree to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.

The order of examination of witnesses is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:

• direct examination by the party presenting the witness;

• direct examination by any party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;

• cross-examination by parties of opposite interest;

• re-examination by the party presenting the witness; or

• another order of examination mutually agreed among the parties or directed by the Tribunal.

SCHEDULE 2

PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

Parties

1. 2457182 Ontario Inc. (Times Group Corporation)

Ira T. Kagan and Kristie Jennings

Kagan Shastri LLP

188 Avenue Road

Toronto, ON M5R 2J1

Tel: 416.368.2100 x226/244

Fax: 416.324.4224

Email: ikagan@ksllp.ca / kjennings@ksllp.ca

2. City of Toronto

Alexander Suriano and Kasia Czajkowski

55 John Street West, 26th Floor

Toronto, ON M5V 3C6

Tel : 416-392-4827 / 416-338-5725

Fax : 416-397-4421

Email : alexander.suriano@toronto.ca / kasia.czajkowski@toronto.ca

3. Toronto District School Board

Julie Lesage and Pitman Paterson

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

Bay Adelaide Centre East Tower

22 Adelaide Street West

Toronto, ON., M5H 4E3

Tel: 416-367-6276/ 416-367-6109

Email: jlesage@blg.com / ppatterson@blg.com

4. South Eglinton Ratepayers and Residents Association

Andy Gort

1601 Bayview Avenue

Toronto, ON., M4G 4G8

Tel : (416) 725-3559

Email : agort@sympatico.ca

5. 1131815 Ontario Limited

Mary Flynn-Guglietti and Kailey Sutton

McMillan LLP

Brookfield Place

181 Bay Street, Suite 4400

Toronto, Ontario, M5J 2T3

Tel : 416-865-7256 / 416-945-8008

Email : mary.flynn@mcmillan.ca / kailey.sutton@mcmillan.ca

Participants

1. Oriole Park Association

18 Concorde Place, LP918

Toronto, ON., M3C 3T9

Tel: 416-397-7974

Email: rnmacfarlane@gmail.com

SCHEDULE 3

ISSUES LIST

City of Toronto

Planning Act

1. Does the proposed development have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act?

2. Would approval of the proposed development have regard to the decision of City Council to oppose the appeal and the information and material that City Council considered in making its decision as required by Section 2.1 of the Planning Act?

Provincial Policies

3. Is the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) policies, in particular Sections 1.1.3.3, 2.6.3 and 4.6?

4. Does the proposed development conform to and not conflict with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020), in particular Sections 2.2.1.4 and 4.2.7.1?

Official Plan

5. Does the proposed development conform to the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, including the policies related to:
   1. Healthy Neighbourhoods (Section 2.3.1)
   2. The Public Realm (Section 3.1.1)
   3. Built Form (Section 3.1.2)
   4. Built Form – Tall Buildings (Section 3.1.3)
   5. Heritage Conservation (Section 3.1.5)
   6. Parks and Open Spaces (Section 3.2.3)
   7. Mixed Use Areas (Section 4.5)
   8. Height and/or Density Incentives (Section 37) (Section 5.1.1)
   9. Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan (Chapter 6, Section 21)

Guidelines

6. Does the proposed development maintain the intent of the City of Toronto Design Guidelines, including the Tall Building Design Guidelines?

Built Form

7. Are the height, density, massing, and built form (including such matters as: the location, massing, and height of the towers; location, massing, and height of the base building; tower separation distances; floorplate size; setbacks; and location), of the proposed development appropriate, given:

   1. the policies of the Official Plan and Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan;
   2. the Tall Building Design Guidelines;
   3. the Pet Friendly Design Guidelines and Best Practices for New Multi-unit Buildings;
   4. Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities Urban Design Guidelines;
   5. heritage conservation
   6. principles of good planning and urban design;
   7. shadow impacts;
   8. sky-views and the public realm; and
   9. the proposed development’s relationship with the surrounding context?

8. Does the proposed development represent an overdevelopment of the site?

9. Does the proposed development adequately address privacy and overlook concerns?

10. Does the proposed development provide appropriate transition to adjacent lands and land uses?

Transportation

11. Does the proposed development provide appropriate vehicular access?

Engineering

12. Is there sufficient infrastructure capacity to accommodate the proposed development (including water, sanitary, and stormwater)?

Good Planning and Urban Design

13. Does the proposed development represent good planning and urban design and is it in the public interest?

Draft By-law and Official Plan Amendment

14. Are the form and content, including regulatory standards, of the proposed draft Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendments appropriate?

Section 37

15. 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 Bylaw Amendment?

Conditions of Final Order

16. If the requested Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendments are approved by the Tribunal, should the Tribunal’s final Order be withheld until the Tribunal has been advised by the City Solicitor:
    1. the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendments are satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the City Solicitor;
    2. the owner has submitted an updated Transportation Study and a Transportation Demand Management Plan to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services;
    3. 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;
    4. 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;
    5. 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;
    6. the owner has submitted and received approval from City Council regarding a Rental Housing Demolition Application for the proposed demolition;
    7. the owner agrees to satisfy their required parkland dedication by conveying to the City an appropriate off-site parkland dedication, which shall be transferred to the City prior to the issuance of the first above grade building permit, and such agreement shall be secured in a registered Section 37 Agreement, all to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation and the City Solicitor;
    8. the owner has submitted an updated Revised Heritage Impact Assessment that includes a conservation strategy for the on-site significant heritage resources to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning;
    9. the significant heritage resources noted in the Revised Heritage Impact Assessment are designated under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act;
    10. the owner enters into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City for the significant Heritage resources noted in the Revised Heritage Impact Assessment substantially in accordance with the above noted Revised Heritage Impact Assessment all to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning including execution and registration of such agreement to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor;
    11. the owner provides a detailed Conservation Plan prepared by a qualified heritage consultant that is substantially in accordance with the conservation strategy set out in the Revised Heritage Impact Assessment, all to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning; and
    12. the owner has submitted a Construction Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, the General Manager, Transportation Services and the Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building, in consultation with the Ward Councillor, in consultation with the local community and the Toronto District School Board, and afterward shall implement the plan during the course of construction; the Construction Management Plan will include, but not be limited to the following construction-related details: appropriate measures to address the safety of students and staff at Davisville Public School; noise, dust, size and location of staging areas, location and function of gates, dates of significant concrete pouring, lighting details, vehicular parking and queuing locations, street closures, refuse storage, site security, site supervisor contact information, and a communication strategy with the surrounding community, and any other matters requested by the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the General Manager, Transportation Services, in consultation with the Ward Councillor.

TDSB

The TDSB adopts Issue Nos. 1, 6, 7 (as it relates to shadow impact on Davisville Junion PS and playground) and 9 (as it relates to overlook on Davisville Junior PS and playground) as set out in the City of Toronto Issues List above and further sets out the following issues:

1. Is the proposed development consistent with sections 1.1.1(b) and (g), 1.1.3.2(b), 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.7(b), 1.2.1(d), 1.4.3(c) and 1.6.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020?

2. Does the proposed development conform to sections 1.2.1, 2.1, 2.2.1.2(a) and (c), 2.2.1.4, 3.1, 3.2.1.5 and 3.2.8 of A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (the “Growth Plan”)?

(a) Does the proposed development contribute to the achievement of a complete community, as described under the Growth Plan?

3. Does the proposed development conform to sections 2.3.1.3 (a) to d), 3.1.3.10, 3.2.2, 3.2.3.3, 4.5.2(d) and (g), and 5.1.2 of the City’s Official Plan?

4. Does the proposed development conform to sections 1.1.1, 2.4.1.2, 5.3.31, and 5.6.5 of the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan?

5. Does the proposed development appropriately consider the Midtown Community Service and Facilities Strategy in respect of:

a) the deficit of school space to accommodate current and projected student needs;

b) the physical constraints of existing TDSB sites?

6. Is the approval of the proposed development premature in the context of availability of school space and accommodation?

7. Is it appropriate and good planning to use a holding symbol on the zoning to phase development and ensure that educational facilities are developed and provided in tandem with the pace of growth?

8. Should an “H” holding symbol be imposed on the ZBA until:

(a) the Toronto District School Board has completed a program area review of the Midtown Area, addressing the adequacy of planned public school capacity to accommodate students generated from this development;

(b) sufficient measures recommended in the program area review have been identified and/or implemented pursuant to the timeframe set out therein;

(c) a site plan agreement has been registered on title, which includes as a condition of approval, that the owner shall maintain signage on the site and include warning clauses in all offers of purchase and sale to advise that, despite best efforts, sufficient school accommodation may not be locally available for building occupants and that students may have to be accommodated in schools outside the area until space within the area becomes available.

9. Is it good planning to approve the application without considering the cumulative impact of the other outstanding planning applications in the Midtown area on the ability of school facilities to accommodate growth including the subject development?

SERRA

SERRA adopts Issue Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5a-d, 6 and 11 as set out in the City of Toronto Issues List above and further sets out the following issues:

City of Toronto Official Plan

1. Does the proposed development and Zoning Bylaw Amendment conform to the City’s Official Plan? Including policies related, but not limited to,

a. Community Services and Facilities (3.2.2)

b. The Official Plan Guides City Actions (5.3.1)

c. Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan (OPA 405)

Development Specific Planning Issues – Land Use and Urban Design

2. Are the height, mass and built form (including such matters as: the location, massing and height of towers; location, massing of the podium; tower separation distances; setbacks/step backs and location), of the proposed development appropriate, given:

a. principles of good planning and urban design:

b. its relationship to the surrounding context:

i. to the Davisville Junior Public School

ii. to the low-rise neighbourhood to the NE

iii. to the remaining low-rise stores at 1909 Yonge St. and 2a Davisville Ave.

iv. to the existing and proposed Yonge St. mid-rise developments north of Davisville Ave

v. to the Davisville Ave. Apartment Neighbourhood

vi. to the mixed-use developments along Yonge St. south of Davisville Ave.

c. its context within the city.

3. Does the proposed development provide an appropriate transition in scale to mitigate shadow, overlook, wind effects and privacy to the adjacent areas as listed in the issue above? Is the proposed development required to respect a 45-degree angular plane from the abutting property line to the east and, if so, does it?

4. Is the proposed development required to respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the surrounding neighbourhood and, if so, does it?

5. Does the proposed development represent an overdevelopment of the site, and particularly regarding the existing surrounding context and would the approval of the development create an undesirable precedent?

6. Is an appropriate amount of parkland provided free and clear of encumbrances at a suitable location?

7. Will an appropriate setback of the building at the east border be provided as a privately operated and publicly accessible (POPS) space to accommodate a publicly accessible walkway between Millwood Rd and Davisville Ave?

Transportation Services – Traffic, Access, Parking and Servicing

8. Does vehicular entry and exit to the proposed development appropriately consider the impact on Millwood Rd. and particularly on the adjacent Davisville Jr. Public school?

9. Does the proposed development provide an uninterrupted, safe and accessible network of pedestrian routes connecting the site to the surrounding neighbourhood, the Davisville Jr. Public School and the planned community centre?

10. Does the proposed development appropriately consider the impact of visitor parking on the local streets?

11. Does the proposed development appropriately consider the impact of on-site vehicular traffic on the public realm at the eastern portion of the site (adjacent to the Davisville Jr. Public School property)?

Heritage Conservation

12. When considering the heritage listed buildings on the site, has an appropriate heritage conservation strategy been considered?

13. Does the proposed development have an appropriate relationship with the heritage listed property at 1909 Yonge Street?

1131815 ONTARIO LIMITED

1131815 Ontario Limited adopts Issue Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 8 and 10 as set out in the City of Toronto Issues List above as well as Issue Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 as set out in the SERRA Issues List above. 1131815 Ontario Limited further sets out the following issues:

1. Is the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), including policies 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.2.1, 1.4.1, 1.4.3, 1.5.1, 1.6, 1.6.6, 1.7, 2.2, 4.2,and 4.5 – 4.7?

2. Does the proposed development conform to and not conflict with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019), including sections 1.2.1, 1.2.3, 2.2.1 – 2.2.4, 2.2.6, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.6, 3.2.7, 3.2.8, and 5?

3. Does the proposed development have adequate regard for the Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities Design Guidelines?

4. Are the proposed site access, parking supply and the access to parking adequate?

5. Are the impacts to the laneway, if any, of the proposed development appropriate?

6. Does the proposed development represent good land use planning and urban design having regard to:

(a) the provincial and municipal policy framework identified in this issues list;

(b) the height, mass, tower setbacks, separation distance, scale and density of the proposed development, including the impact of the height and tower setbacks on the following matters, without limiting the generality of the foregoing:

(i) privacy and overlook concerns into the abutting properties;

(ii) fit with the existing and planned built form context;

(iii) sky view and sunlight penetration into the public realm, including streetscape; and

(c) whether the proposed height, massing and scale fit with the existing and/or planned built form context and make appropriate built form transitions in relation to the scale and character of the surrounding area, including existing, proposed and potential future development of abutting lands.

7. Are the proposed development’s setbacks appropriate / adequate:

(a) specifically in considering the light, view, privacy, wind and shadow impacts on the adjacent properties to the north, south and east;

(b) to ensure that the proposed building does not negatively affect adjacent and abutting properties?

8. Does the proposed development provide for an acceptable wind environment?

9. Is the site appropriate for a tall building/tower? In particular, is the site organization, orientation and built form of the proposed development appropriate, including building height, mass, scale, setbacks, separation distances, access location and servicing/loading?

10. Is a context plan and/or a Block Plan required pursuant to the Tall Building Design Guidelines and, if so, have such plans been provided which adequately demonstrate how tall buildings can be accommodated on the site while maintaining a 25 metre tower separation distance even in the event that:

(a) the adjacent site(s) to the south were to be to redeveloped, or

(b) the adjacent site(s) is not redeveloped?

11. Does the proposed development inappropriately limit potential future redevelopment of abutting and nearby lands?

12. Is the proposed development density and height appropriate given the existing and planned context?

13. Does the proposed development represent an overdevelopment of the site, including set- backs, step backs and separation distances as such separation distances relate to existing or potential development on adjacent lands?

14. If approved by the Tribunal, are the form and content of the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment appropriate?

Note 1: Where two or more parties raise the same technical issue, they can co-ordinate and rely upon a qualified independent expert but must call evidence expert evidence in support of that technical issue. Where a single party alone raises a technical issue then that party must call technical evidence in support of that issue from a qualified independent expert.

Note 2: The identification of an issue does not mean that all parties agree that such issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing.

SCHEDULE 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Times Group Corporation

2. City of Toronto

3. Toronto District School Board

4. South Eglinton Ratepayer and Residents Association

5. 1131815 Ontario Limited

6. Times Group Corporation (in reply)

SCHEDULE 5

Summary of Filing Dates

EVENT

DATE

1st Prehearing Conference [PL171228]

Thursday, April 26, 2018

2nd Prehearing Conference (by TCC) [PL171228]

Friday, June 15, 2018

3rd Case Management Conference (by Video) [PL171228]

Tuesday, February 9, 2021

Parties to exchange their Issues List & Witness Disciplines List

Tuesday, May 25, 2021

4th Case Management Conference [PL171228] 1st Case Management Conference [PL2100014]

Tuesday, June 15, 2021

Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any)

Friday, December 10, 2021

Parties to exchange their List of Witnesses

Friday, December 17, 2021

Deadline for Expert Meeting

Friday, January 14, 2022

Parties to file statement of Agreed Facts and Issues

Friday, January 28, 2022

Parties to exchange their Witness and Expert Witness Statements Participants to provide their Participant Statements

Friday, February 4, 2022

Parties to exchange their Reply Witness Statements

Friday, March 4, 2022

Parties to exchange their Visual Evidence Parties to File Joint Document Book Parties to File Preliminary Hearing Plan

Friday, March 18, 2022

Hearing commences

Monday, March 28, 2022