Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 30, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003561 (Formerly PL170366)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: 316 Bloor West Toronto Developments Ltd. Appellant: 334 Bloor West Limited Appellant: Bloor Street United Church Appellant: Bloor-Madison Realty Inc.; and others

Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA 365 Municipality: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003561 Legacy Case No: PL170366 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003561 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL170366 OLT Case Name: Bloor-Madison Realty Inc. v. Toronto (City)

Heard: December 12, 2022 by Video Hearing (“VH”)

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
City of Toronto (“City”)	R. Kallio
Governing Council of the University of Toronto	C. Gibson
Starbank Developments 350 Corporation (“Starbank”)	A. Benedetti
334 Bloor West Limited (“334”)	A. Benedetti
First Capital (Ontario) Corporation (“First Capital”)	A. Benedetti
Bloor-Madison Realty Inc.	A. Benedetti
Bloor Street United Church	M. Barrett
Huron-Sussex Residents Organization	Did not appear
Harbord Village Residents’ Association	S. Dexter*
Annex Residents’ Corporation	H. Wiercinski*

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BLAIR S. TAYLOR AND ROBERT ACKERMAN ON DECEMBER 12, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The Tribunal had received a communication from the City (Exhibit 1) indicating that part of the Tribunal’s Order from Phase 1 of the hearing in 2019 was unclear and requested “…a CMC to seek direction as to how the City should proceed with respect to having OPA 365 approved in its entirety.”

2At the Case Management Conference (“CMC”), the Tribunal heard a request from the City to set a five-day hearing on the merits, and a status update from the parties.

3For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal declined to set a five-day hearing, as the outstanding applications involved with Official Plan Amendment No. 365 all appeared to be moving through the City’s processes and that it would be premature to set a five-day hearing.

DECISION

4In 2017, the City adopted Official Plan Amendments Nos. 365 and 368 (“OPAs 365 and 368”). There were a number of appeals against both.

5For administrative purposes, the two OPAs were processed together, and in April of 2019, at Phase 1 of the hearing, the Tribunal approved a settlement reached by the parties that resulted in a modified OPA 368 being approved and brought into force and effect, and a modified OPA 365 being approved in part, but with some provisions remaining under appeal.

6Fast forwarding to 2022, the City’s request in Exhibit 1 resulted in this CMC.

7In the leadup to the CMC, no Motion for Directions was filed by the City, nor any detail given as to part of the Tribunal’s Order that was “unclear as to its meaning”.

8With no Motion for Directions, the Tribunal proceeded with the CMC as a Status Hearing and heard submissions from all the parties.

9The City made its request for a five-day hearing, the resident associations sought finalization of OPA 365 as the process has been ongoing for some considerable time, and counsel for the appellants indicated the status of their client’s developments and their respective positions concerning a proposed five-day hearing on the merits.

10For the Governing Council of the University of Toronto, counsel advised that it had no outstanding concerns, but wished to continue to monitor the matter in case something did arise.

11Counsel speaking for Starbank and 334 advised that the City Council had in 2022 approved their rezoning, that they were in the process of clearing the outstanding conditions and there was no need to set a hearing date.

12With regard to First Capital and Bloor-Madison, the Tribunal was advised that post the Tribunal hearing in 2019, First Capital had acquired the Bloor-Madison lands. While a development proposal had been made to the City, the Tribunal was advised that a resubmission was expected to be filed imminently with the City (hopefully before the end of 2022), and the fixing of a hearing date would be premature.

13Turning to Bloor Street United Church, the Tribunal was advised that a rezoning had been approved by the City in 2019, that it was working through the City’s site plan process and there was no need to set a hearing date.

14Having heard these submissions from all the parties, the Tribunal agrees with the submissions of a number of counsel that it would be premature to set a hearing date in light of the fact that a number of the rezoning applications had actually been approved by the City, and there was another for which a resubmission to the City was imminent.

15The Tribunal is of the view that the Tribunal’s hearing schedule is a limited public resource that must be carefully managed in order to optimize its utility.

16Accordingly, the Tribunal will not set a hearing date in these circumstances.

17The Tribunal suggests that if there has been no material progress with regard to the outstanding appeals against OPA 365 in the next nine months, the City may, at that time, request a further CMC for a status update.

18This is the Order of the Tribunal.

19Scheduling permitting, I may be available for case management