Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: September 02, 2021
CASE NO(S).: PL200492
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: The Governing Council of the University of Toronto
Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 438-86 - Refusal or neglect of City of Toronto to make a decision
Existing Zoning: Institutional
Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined)
Purpose: To permit a nine (9) storey institutional building
Property Address/Description: 78-90 Queen’s Park
Municipality: City of Toronto
Municipality File No.: 19 118245 STE 11 OZ
LPAT Case No.: PL200492
LPAT File No.: PL200492
LPAT Case Name: University of Toronto v. Toronto (City)
Heard: July 30th, and August 13, 2021 by Video Hearing ("VH")
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| The Governing Council of the University of Toronto (“University”)_ | S. Leisk |
| City of Toronto (“City”) | D. Elmadany |
| Queen’s Park Heritage Precinct Coalition (“Coalition”) | C. Kapelos |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BLAIR S. TAYLOR AND N. P. ROBISNSON ON AUGUST 13, 2021 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The University had applied for a Zoning By-law Amendment ("ZBA") for the lands known municipally as 78-90 Queen’s Park ("Subject Lands").
2The Tribunal had previously held a Case Management Conference ("CMC") at which the Tribunal was advised that the parties were seeking to participate in Tribunal-led mediation.
3The Tribunal set this CMC for a status update on the Tribunal-led mediation with the notation that if the mediation were successful, the CMC might be converted to a settlement hearing.
4In the leadup to the July 30, 2021 hearing, the Tribunal was advised that a settlement had been reached and, in the evening preceding the CMC, a 175 page land use planning affidavit was sent to the Tribunal.
5As the Tribunal had not had the opportunity to consider the affidavit, the Tribunal adjourned the CMC to August 13, 2021.
6At the August 13, 2021 continuation of the CMC, the Tribunal heard the viva voce evidence of the University’s land use planner, heard the submissions of counsel, and gave an interim oral decision allowing the appeal in part, approving in principle the draft ZBA, and adjourning the site Plan appeal sine die, all for the reasons set out below.
DECISION
7There are two matters before the Tribunal: first the ZBA appeal, and secondly the Site Plan appeal.
8The parties have, through Tribunal-led mediation, been able to reach a settlement on the ZBA based on some reduction in height, revised massing, and with heritage considerations.
9The Tribunal had before it the land use planning affidavit of Louis Tinker (Exhibit 1) who was qualified as an expert in land use planning. The Tribunal also heard his oral evidence in support of the settlement proposal in which he opined that the settlement proposal satisfies the matters of Provincial Interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act ("PA"), is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 ("PPS"), conforms to A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 ("Growth Plan"), conforms to the City’s Official Plan, the University of Toronto Secondary Plan, the Downtown Plan, Site and Area Specific Policy No. 334 ("SASP 334") and Site and Area Specific Policy No. 398 ("SASP 398"), and represents good planning.
10Exhibit 1 also contained the Minutes of City Council supporting the settlement.
11Counsel for the parties unanimously supported the settlement and recommended that the Tribunal approve in principle the draft ZBA found at Exhibit 1 Tab M, withhold its Final Order pending satisfaction of the conditions of approval adopted by City Council as found at Exhibit 1 Tab L, and adjourn the Site Plan appeal sine die.
12The Tribunal having considered the land use planning affidavit of Mr. Tinker, having heard his viva voce evidence, having considered the submissions of counsel, and having considered s. 2.1(1) of the PA, finds that all the matters of Provincial Interest have been adequately addressed, that the revised ZBA is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the Growth Plan, conforms to the City’s Official Plan, the University of Toronto Secondary Plan, the Downtown Plan, SASP 334 and SASP 398, and represents good planning.
13Accordingly, the Tribunal will allow the appeal in part, approve the revised ZBA in principle as found at Exhibit 1 Tab M, withhold its Final Order pending completion of the conditions of approval found in Exhibit 1 Tab L, and adjourn the Site Plan appeal sine die.
14The Tribunal directs that counsel for the University will provide a written status update on both the ZBA and the Site Plan to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator on or before six months from the issuance date of this Decision, with copies to all parties. The Tribunal also requests the co-operation of the City to post the University’s status update on the City’s website, so all the participants to this hearing can be apprised of the on-going status of the ZBA and Site Plan.
15Finally, the Tribunal congratulates the parties for their willingness to participate in Tribunal-led mediation that has resulted in a settlement that is far more timely and certainly less expensive than a lengthy, contested hearing.
16We remain seized of both the ZBA and the Site Plan appeals.
17Scheduling permitting, we may be spoken to for case management purposes.
18This is the Interim Order of the Tribunal.
"Blair S. Taylor"
BLAIR S. TAYLOR
MEMBER
"N. P. Robinson"
n.p. robinson
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 ("Tribunal"). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.