Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: December 19, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002507 (Formerly PL210238)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Lamb Sterling Corp.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: To permit an 18 storey, 326-unit mixed-use development
Reference Number: 20 199975 STE 09 OZ
Property Address: 1405, 1407 1409 and 1409A Bloor Street West and 231, 231A and 229 Sterling Road
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No: OLT-22-002507
Legacy Case No: PL210238
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002507
Legacy Lead Case No: PL210238
OLT Case Name: Lamb Sterling Corp. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit an 18 storey, 326-unit mixed-use development
Reference Number: 20 1999975 STE 09 OZ
Property Address: 1405, 1407 1409 and 1409A Bloor Street West and 231, 231A and 229 Sterling Road
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No: OLT-22-002508
Legacy Case No: PL210239
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002507
Legacy Lead Case No: PL210238
Heard: November 4, 2022 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
Lamb Sterling Corp. (“Applicant”)
Eileen Costello
City of Toronto (“City”)
Laura Bisset Derin Abimbola
221 Sterling Road Holdings Inc. (“221 Sterling”)
Natalie Ast
South Junction Triangle Grows Neighbourhood Association (“Association”)
Cara Sweeny* Cristina Costa*
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY DAVID L. LANTHIER ON NOVEMBER 4, 2022, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
BACKGROUND
1This second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was scheduled at the request of Ms. Cara Sweeny, on behalf of the Association, to address scheduling issues raised by her in various emails copied to the Tribunal. It was also necessary to have a revised Procedural Order issued, as this had not been addressed since the previously scheduled hearing was adjourned (as discussed below), and to concurrently provide notice with respect to the already-scheduled hearings.
2Prior to the CMC the Applicant had filed a draft Procedural Order for the consideration of the Tribunal. Ms. Costello confirmed that the Procedural Order was essentially the same as the prior Procedural Order and Issues List (aside from a couple of minor corrections) but was altered to reflect the new pre-hearing filing dates based on the rescheduled hearing.
3The chronology of events relating to the scheduling and case management of these appeals, and relevant to