Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 2, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002182
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: 1161 Kingston Road GP Inc.
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: to permit an 8 storey, 57-unit mixed use building
Reference Number: A0276/21SC
Property Address: 1161 Kingston Road
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No: OLT-22-002182
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002182
OLT Case Name: 1161 Kingston Road GP Inc. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, S.O. 2006, c. 11, as amended.
Subject: Site Plan
Description: to permit an 8 storey, 57-unit mixed use building
Reference Number: 20 230414 ESC 20 SA
Property Address: 1161 Kingston Road
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No: OLT-21-001894
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002182
Heard: July 27, 2022, by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
1161 Kingston GP Inc.
Matthew Lakatos-Hayward
City of Toronto
Nathan Muscat
Bernadette Crowe
Ian Flett
John Hartley
Self Represented*
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY ERIC S. CROWE ON JULY 27, 2022, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The Tribunal convened the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) on an appeal filed by 1161 Kingston GP Inc. (the “Appellant”) against the City of Toronto (the “City”) for the refusal to approve a minor variance application pursuant to s. 45 (12) of the Planning Act (the “Act”) and refusal to make a decision within the prescribed timeframe of a Site Plan Control Area application pursuant to 114 (15) of the City of Toronto Act. The Subject Property is municipally known as 1161 Kingston Road, Toronto.
2The Appellant is requesting 16 minor variances and a site plan control area application to redevelop the Subject Property, which is currently developed with a gas station and auto maintenance shop, with an eight (8)-storey mixed-use building containing a total of 57 dwelling units.
3Counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Lakatos-Hayward provided the Tribunal a brief background and the current status of negotiations. The Parties agree there have been productive discussions which have resulted in a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List. Mr. Lakatos-Hayward advised a revised site plan control application was recently submitted on June 22, 2022, to the City which was provided to all Parties.
4The Tribunal addressed the Issues List of each Party. Each Party was agreeable to the Issues List except for Mr. Hartley. In previous correspondence, Mr. Hartley identified ten (10) Issues which the Applicant objected to. Mr. Lakatos-Hayward made submissions to the Tribunal that the majority of Mr. Hartley’s issues are inappropriate. Mr. Lakatos-Hayward advised that he consolidated Mr. Hartley’s Issues into four main issues relevant to a minor variance and site plan application. Mr. Lakatos-Hayward succinctly set out his reasoning in a letter dated July 22, 2022 to Mr. Hartley. Some issues were inappropriate for a PO or some issues were repetitious or not specific enough for inclusion in a PO.
5The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Lakatos-Hayward that it is the practice of that the Tribunal will only approve an issue if it is genuine, triable, possesses a clear nexus to the matters before the Tribunal, is capable of adjudication within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and rests within the relevant planning framework.
6The Tribunal informed Mr. Hartley that his four (4) issues identified in the draft PO required his cooperation and confirmation specifically issue No. 3 in relation to the City Official Plan. Issue No. 3 of the draft PO states;
- Do the proposed variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the City of Toronto Official Plan, and in particular, policies with respect to the preservation of Neighbourhoods, municipal infrastructure, and servicing?
7Mr. Lakatos Hayward assured the Tribunal he would continue to have discussions with Mr. Hartley to complete the final PO and Issues List.
Mediation
8The Tribunal inquired about the need for Tribunal-led mediation. Mr. Lakatos-Hayward informed he was willing to explore mediation with a possibility of settlement or to settle some or all the outstanding issues. Mr. Muscat advised that the City continues to have ongoing productive discussions with the Appellant and is also open to mediation. Mr. Flett and Mr. Hartley were also both in support of mediation to define the issues.
9Mr. Hartley noted that mediation should be mandatory and to set a hearing date without first exploring the option of mediation is not good use of the Tribunal’s time and resources. The Tribunal explained the Tribunal led mediation is voluntary and not mandatory. In any event, all Parties are committed to work together to define the scope and issues and to determine areas of consensus throughout the process.
10All Parties except for Mr. Hartley proposed that the most efficient way to deal with this matter would be a five (5) day hearing in early December 2022 since Mr. Hartley and Ms. Crowe are now also Parties.
11Mr. Hartley submitted that he still required disclosure of documents from the City and the Applicant and didn’t know how the Tribunal could set a Hearing date if some Parties didn’t have the respective documents. The Tribunal explored this issue with both Counsel. Counsel for the City Mr. Muscat (who was appearing for Ms. Amini who is still on record for this file) advised the City is willing to provide documents especially memorandums from various departments since they are a Public Record. Mr. Muscat advised he would need to know from Mr. Hartley the specific documents he was requesting.
12Mr. Lakatos - Hayward advised he had several discussions with Mr. Hartley defining what specific documents he required and that his request for all documents in possession of the Applicant is inappropriate and unnecessary, especially privileged documents. Mr. Lakatos - Hayward contends Mr. Hartley has received the same level of disclosure as every other Party in this proceeding, which is the same level of disclosure typically afforded to a Party in a proceeding.
13The Tribunal was advised by both Counsel they are willing to provide documents if they know what documents Mr. Hartley is requesting. The Tribunal informed Mr. Hartley to try and define the documents he requires and informed him both Counsel are willing to assist in that respect.
14The Tribunal considered the five (5) day hearing request from the Parties, however, considering this is a minor variance and site plan application with the opportunity of having written closing submissions, the Tribunal, in consultation with the Tribunal Hearing Coordinator set aside a four (4) day hearing in December 2022.
15The Tribunal directs a final draft PO and Issues List on consent to be submitted to the Case Coordinator on or before end of day Friday, August 12, 2022 for the Tribunals consideration. Mr. Lakatos-Hayward as Appellant counsel will coordinate the final draft PO.
16The Tribunal directs that a four (4) day Hearing will be held by video hearing commencing on Monday, December 12, 2022, at 10 a.m.
17Parties 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:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/765631861
Access code: 765-631-861
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 at: 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: +1 (647) 497-9391 or Toll Free 1-888-455-1389. The access code is 765-631-861.
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.
21The Parties raised no further matters for the fair and expeditious resolution of this appeal.
ORDER
22The Tribunal Orders that a four (4) day hearing be held by video commencing on Monday, December 12, 2022, at 10 a.m. with meeting coordinates as set out above.
23No further notice will be given.
24The Member is not seized but may be spoken to for case management purposes subject to the availability of the Tribunal’s calendar.
“Eric S. Crowe”
ERIC S. CROWE
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.