Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 12, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001736
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Firmland (Kingston Road) Inc. Subject: Minor Variance Property Address/Description: 4694 – 4696 Kingston Road Variance from By-law: City of Scarborough West Hill Community Zoning By-law No. 10327 Municipality: Toronto Municipal File No.: A00018/21SC OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001736 OLT File No.: OLT-21-001736 OLT Case Name: Firmland (Kingston Road) Inc. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A
Subject: Site Plan Referred by: City of Toronto Property Address/Description: 4694 – 4696 Kingston Road Municipality: Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001736 OLT File No.: OLT-21-001367
Heard: March 25, 2022 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Firmland (Kingston Road) Inc. | Sidonia Tomasella |
| City of Toronto | Gabriela Dedelli |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C. HARDY ON MARCH 25, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This is the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) regarding two appeals brought by Firmland (Kingston Road) Inc. (“Applicant”). The Applicant is appealing the City of Toronto’s (“City”) refusal of a minor variance application (“MV”) under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act. The Applicant is also appealing the City’s failure to decide, within statutory timeframes, with respect to a site plan application (“SP”) under s. 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. Both appeals relate to the property located at 4694-4696 Kingston Road, in the City (formerly, Scarborough) (“Subject Property”).
2The Applicant is proposing to redevelop the Subject Property, which currently contains a three-storey motel. The Applicant is proposing a 12-storey mixed-use mid-rise building with 168 dwelling units, 65 square metres of non-residential gross floor area and 170 underground parking spaces.
3In advance of the CMC, the Tribunal was notified by counsel for the Applicant that the Parties would be requesting a deferral of the SP appeal to allow the City additional time to complete its review of the Applicant’s materials. The Applicant further advised that the City would not be objecting to the MV appeal and that the Parties would be requesting a one-day hearing date for the Tribunal to consider the MV appeal.
4At the CMC, the Tribunal addressed requests for Participant status with respect to the MV appeal, identification of opportunities for settlement discussions, discussion of hearing dates for the MV appeal and the next steps with respect to the SP appeal. The Tribunal did not receive any requests for Party status.
Participant Status
5In advance of the CMC, the Tribunal received one request for Participant Status from Sheila Towgood. Ms. Towgood notified the Tribunal in advance of the CMC that she would be out of town and will not be available to attend the video hearing. The Tribunal Case Coordinator advised that her presence was required in order to have her request considered and that phoning into the CMC was an alternative open to her if she was unable to attend virtually.
6Ms. Towgood did not attend the CMC either by video or telephone call. While not objecting to the Participant status request, Sidonia Tomasella, counsel for the Applicant, had the following concerns regarding Ms. Towgood’s Participant request:
a. Ms. Towgood’s Participant status request form noted that she lived in the condominium complex adjacent to the Subject Property. The condominium is a large complex and it is unclear how close Ms. Towgood is to the Subject Property. Ms. Tomasella shared a map with the Tribunal demonstrating the location and breadth of the condominium complex and wanted to question Ms. Towgood in order to understand her proximity to the Subject Property.
b. Ms. Towgood’s Participant status request form was unclear regarding whether she was requesting status on her own behalf or on behalf of the condominium corporation. Ms. Tomasella submitted that this is a critical distinction and Ms. Towgood’s role needs to be understood.
c. Ms. Tomasella had concerns about whether Ms. Towgood understood that her Participant status request was limited to the MV appeal. The Tribunal shared this concern.
d. Ms. Tomasella advised the Tribunal that the Applicant’s Planner had attempted to contact Ms. Towgood to discuss her concerns but did not receive a response.
7The City did not have any objections to Ms. Towgood’s Participant status request.
8The Tribunal will not grant Participant status to Ms. Towgood. Ms. Towgood’s failure to attend the CMC either by video or telephone did not allow the Parties nor the Tribunal the opportunity to obtain answers to critical questions to assess Ms. Towgood’s suitability and interest with respect to the MV appeal.
Mediation and Settlement
9The Tribunal canvassed the Parties regarding whether mediation would be of assistance.
10Ms. Tomasella advised the Tribunal that there is no need for mediation for either appeal. With respect to the MV appeal, the City is in support of the MV application subject to conditions. With respect to the SP appeal, the Parties are currently engaged in positive discussions.
11The City agreed with Ms. Tomasella’s submissions regarding mediation.
Hearing Dates
12After some discussion at the CMC and at the request of the Parties, the Tribunal scheduled a written hearing to consider the MV appeal. The following timeline was agreed upon by the Parties with respect to submissions for the written MV hearing:
a. The Applicant will provide affidavits and submissions to the City on or before April 29, 2022;
b. The City will provide a response on or before May 19, 2022; and,
c. The Applicant will provide a reply on or before May 30, 2022.
13For clarity, all materials relating to the MV appeal will be filed with the Tribunal on or before May 30, 2022.
Site Plan Appeal Update
14In advance of the CMC, The Tribunal was advised that the Parties wished to adjourn the SP appeal. The adjournment would allow positive discussions to continue and also allow the City to have additional time to review the Applicant’s materials.
15The Tribunal directs that the Parties provide the Tribunal Case Coordinator with a progress update regarding the SP appeal on or before May 30, 2022.
16The Tribunal will adjourn the SP appeal sine die.
ORDER
17The Tribunal orders that Sheila Towgood is denied Participant Status with respect to the MV appeal.
18The Tribunal orders that the hearing in the Minor Variance appeal will be held by written hearing, in accordance with the schedule set out in paragraph 12 above.
19The Tribunal orders that the Site Plan appeal is adjourned sine die. The Parties will provide the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator with an update on the progress of the Site Plan appeal on or before May 30, 2022.
20There will be no further notice.
21This Member is not seized.
“C. Hardy”
C. hardy
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.