Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: September 09, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-001933

(Formerly PL190596)

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

Appellant: 2130254 Ontario Inc.

Appellant: Amexon Realty Inc.

Appellant: Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited

Appellant: Fima Development (Queensway and North Queen Street); and others

Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA 469

Municipality: City of Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-001933

Legacy Case No.: PL190596

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-001933

Legacy Lead Case No.: PL190596

OLT Case Name: Amexon Realty Inc. v. Toronto (City)

Heard: July 29, 2022 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Amexon Realty Inc.

Mary Flynn-Guglietti

Calloway REIT (Etobicoke) Inc.

David Bronskill (not present)

Calloway REIT (Etobicoke-Index)

Matthew Lakatos-Hayward

2637092 Ontario Inc.

Roslyn Houser

Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited

John Dawson

Matthew Schuman

Cynthia MacDougall (not present)

Brendan Smith (not present)

2130254 Ontario Inc. Fima Development Home Depot of Canada Inc.

Mark Flowers Barry Horosko David Tang Jesse White

City of Toronto

Daniel Elmadany

Laura Bisset

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY T.F. NG ON JULY 29, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This is the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) for these appeals held as a video hearing.

2On October 30, 2019, the City of Toronto (“City”) adopted Official Plan Amendment No. 469 (“OPA 469”), the Sherway Area Secondary Plan by By-law No. 1535-2019 with respect to lands bounded by Highway 427, the Queen Elizabeth Way (“QEW”), the Canadian Pacific Rail line and the Etobicoke Creek ravine for the purpose of bringing forward the Sherway Area Secondary Plan, which contains a series of policies that reflect the outcomes of a comprehensive planning study for the lands in the Sherway Area of Etobicoke. Four existing Site Area Specific Policies (“SASPs”) applicable to the area are proposed to be deleted under the plan. The appeals are by entities and property owners that are affected by the plan. Appeals were filed pursuant to s. 17(24) of the Planning Act against the City’s adoption of OPA 469 through By-law No. 1535-2019.

3The Appellants in this matter and the City have reached a partial settlement to which a Motion to obtain approval for orders desired have been filed. The Motion Record dated July 13, 2022, is marked as Exhibit 1. The Notice of Motion dated July 7, 2022, is marked as Exhibit 1, Tab 1, while Melanie Melnyk’s Affidavit sworn July 7, 2022 is Exhibit 1, Tab 3.

4The Appellants at the motion hearing are: Amexon Realty Inc. (“Amexon”); Calloway REIT (Etobicoke) Inc.; Calloway REIT (Etobicoke-Index) Inc. (together “Calloway REIT”); 2637092 Ontario Inc. (“Toys ‘R’ Us/Fairfax Financial”), Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited (“Cadillac Fairview”); Fima Development (“Fima”); Home Depot of Canada Inc. (“Home Depot”) and 2130254 Ontario Inc. (“Manstor”). Meanwhile, Queens Walk Inc. has withdrawn its appeal by correspondence.

5Before dealing with the Motion, the Tribunal disposed of matters that relate to the case management of these Appeals.

MEDIATION

6The Parties confirmed that they have undertaken mediation, which resulted in the partial settlement. Counsel informed that currently, Parties are only in private discussions and negotiation. Although Fima and Home Depot have settled their appeals, they requested to remain as Parties since the other continued appeals may impact them at a later date. There were no objections when the Tribunal directed that they so remain.

DRAFT ISSUES LIST AND DRAFT PROCEDURAL ORDER

7City’s Counsel requested another CMC date be fixed to finalize the Draft Procedural Order and Issues List for the remaining Appellants after the partial settlement. Counsels collectively requested for a seven (7) week hearing to be fixed in early November 2023, for the remaining appeals.

8The Tribunal directs that the next CMC be fixed on November 14, 2022. The Parties are to be ready at the next CMC to finalize the Procedural Order and update the Tribunal on the outcome of settlement efforts and the status of the respective appeals.

9A seven (7) week hearing is scheduled from October 30, 2023 to December 15, 2023.

HEARING DETAILS

10This matter will be fixed for a one-day CMC on Monday, November 14, 2022, at 10 a.m. by video hearing.

11A seven (7) week hearing is fixed to commence at 10 a.m. by video hearing from Monday, October 30, 2023 to Friday, December 15, 2023.

12The hearings are scheduled to proceed by video as follows:

Monday, November 14, 2022 at 10 a.m. (one-day hearing)

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/638422541

Access code: 638-422-541

Audio-only telephone line: (Toll Free) 1-888-299-1889, +1 (647) 497-9373

Audio-only access code: as indicated above

Monday, October 30, 2023 (seven week hearing)

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/442599157

Access code: 442-599-157

Audio-only line: (Toll Free) 1-888-455-1389, +1 (647) 497-9391

Audio-only access code: as indicated above

13Parties and Participants 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.

14Parties 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: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

15Persons 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.

16Individuals 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.

NOTICE OF MOTION

17The Motion seeks the following orders:

18Order 1: An Order confirming that certain un-highlighted sections, non-policy text, policies and maps of OPA 469 to the City of Toronto Official Plan included in Attachment “A”, came into force and effect on November 29, 2019, by operation of s. 17(27) of the Planning Act.

19Order 2: An Order pursuant to s. 17(50) of the Planning Act:

1. the appeal of Home Depot of Canada Inc., and Fima Development (respecting 200 Sherway Drive), Fima Development (1750 The Queensway) is allowed in part;

2. part of the appeals of Amexon Realty Inc., Cadillac Fairview, Calloway REIT (Etobicoke) Inc., and Calloway REIT (Etobicoke- Index) Inc., and 2130254 Ontario Inc., are allowed in part, with the remaining parts of these appeals as set out in Attachment "B";

3. modifying and approving non-policy text, policies and maps, or parts thereof, as shown in Attachment "A" highlighted in green and confirming that such green highlighted non-policy text, policies and maps, or parts thereof, of OPA 469 included in Attachment “A”, came into effect on July 29, 2022, for all lands subject to OPA 469, except for the lands as identified in Attachment "B" that maintain a site specific or precinct specific appeal;

4. The non-policy text, policies and maps that are highlighted in yellow remain under appeal on a plan-wide basis.

20Order 3: An Order confirming that the purple highlighted sections, non-policy text, policies and maps of OPA 469 included in Attachment “A” to this Order, came into force and effect on November 29, 2019, by operation of s. 17(27) of the Planning Act, except as those parts were appealed on a site specific or precinct specific basis, in accordance with Attachment "B" to this Order.

21Order 4: Notwithstanding Orders 1, 2 and 3 above, the blue highlighted policy, non-policy text and/or maps are asserted as being under appeal by Appellant 4, being Cadillac Fairview, but which assertion is disputed by the City and which dispute will be adjudicated at a later date, if necessary; and such Orders or any other disposition in this matter related to such Orders are without prejudice to such later adjudication and to the positions of the City and Cadillac Fairview in such later adjudication.

22In support of Orders 1, 2 and 3, that the Tribunal provide an Order that the modification and partial approval of OPA 469 shall be strictly without prejudice to, and shall not have the effect of limiting:

1. the rights of all Parties to seek to modify, delete or add to the unapproved portions of OPA 469; and,

2. the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to consider and approve modifications, deletions or additions to the unapproved portions of OPA 469 on a plan- wide, precinct-specific or site-specific basis, as the case may be.

23In support of Orders 1, 2 and 3, that the Tribunal provide an Order that the modification and partial approval of OPA 469 is without prejudice to the positions that may be taken by the remaining Appellants in respect of their appeals as scoped in Attachment "B", so that if those appeals proceed to a hearing, the City will not take the position that the Tribunal ought not to approve site-specific modifications to the affected portions of OPA 469 on the basis that they deviate from or are inconsistent with such approved portions of OPA 469 on a Plan-wide basis (or as approved in respect of other lands). However, this does not affect the City's right to assert that the approved portions of OPA 469 should be applied to the specific sites or precincts without modification on the basis that they are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conform with provincial plans and that they constitute good planning.

24Order 5: An Order adjourning the part of the appeal of OPA 469 as specified in Attachment "B" by Amexon Realty Inc., for lands municipally known as 701 – 703 Evans Road, sine die, until such time as the Ontario Land Tribunal has disposed the Appeal of Official Plan Amendment No. 231 (“OPA 231”), under PL140860, by Amexon Realty Inc., for lands municipally known as 701 – 703 Evans Road and is without prejudice to the rights of the City or the Appellant regarding such appeals.

25Order 6: An Order adjourning the hearing of the remainder of the appeal of OPA 469 as specified in Attachment "B" by 2130254 Ontario Inc., for lands municipally known as 51 Manstor Road sine die and is without prejudice to the rights of the City or the Appellant regarding such appeals.

GROUNDS

26The grounds in support of the Motion are provided by the affidavit in support of Ms. Melnyk, which are summarised as follow:

1. At its meeting on October 29 and 30, 2019, City Council adopted OPA 469, which includes the Sherway Area Secondary Plan (the "Secondary Plan"). The Secondary Plan provides a comprehensive planning framework for the lands bounded by Highway 427, the QEW, Etobicoke Creek and the Canadian Pacific Rail line corridor, which directs anticipated growth to appropriate locations, and includes policies on land use, built form, the public realm, park and open space areas, mobility, transportation, energy, environment, housing, infrastructure and community services and facilities.

2. OPA 469 creates a new Section in Chapter 6 of the Official Plan, being Section 43, Sherway Area Secondary Plan. OPA 469 also deletes Site and Area Specific Policies 12, 13, 19 and 20. Map 15, Land Use Plan was amended by re-designating certain part of the lands from Mixed Use Areas to Natural Areas to align with the Etobicoke Ravine. Schedule 2 was amended to add and delete certain planned, but unbuilt roads.

3. The Notice of Adoption of OPA 469 was given by the City Clerk on November 8, 2019. The last day to appeal in accordance with the Notice of Adoption of OPA 469 was November 28, 2019. Therefore, pursuant to s. 17(27) of the Planning Act, the day after the last day of filing an appeal is November 29, 2019.

4. There were nine appeals of Council's decision to adopt OPA 469 as stated above.

Policies In Force By Operation of Law

27The affidavit referred to Attachment “A” to this Motion, which includes a version of certain sections, non-policy text, policies and maps of OPA 469 that were not subject to an appeal, as no notice of appeal was filed on such parts of OPA 469.

28By operation of s. 17(27) of the Planning Act, the parts of the Decision which are not subject of the appeal, comes into effect after the last date of filing a notice of appeal, which was November 29, 2019.

Policies As Modified to be Brought into Force

29The City requests an Order of the Tribunal that approves, as modified, the green highlighted portions of OPA 469 in Attachment “A” and confirmation that such parts of OPA 469 are in force and in effect, on a plan-wide basis for all lands subject to OPA 469, with exception of lands scoped on a precinct specific or site specific basis identified in Attachment "B", as of July 29, 2022.

30Attachment “A” to this Motion includes a version of certain sections and policies of OPA 469 that are proposed to be modified to resolve some of the Appellants' issues, highlighted in green (the "Proposed Modifications").

31The Proposed Modifications would allow the appeals in part, of the particular listed Appellants in the relevant prospective orders.

32The Proposed Modifications are intended to provide further clarification and/or direction on the following matters:

1. Deletion of a ‘density cap’, or maximum gross floor area expressed as an aggregate figure on an area-wide basis;

2. Clarification on the calculation of gross floor area based on land use designation;

3. Additional policy direction to allow for applications that exceed the density in Section 5 to be accompanied by a development capacity study that takes the existing and planned growth into account;

4. Flexibility for Applicants to propose revised delineations between residential, office and retail land use designations, provided satisfactory mitigation of impacts from adjacent employment uses and highways, including a land use buffer;

5. Clarification of policies related to the expansion of interim uses; the timing of parkland acquisition and dedication; landscaped open space calculated on the net site area, rather than gross; appropriate locations for tall buildings; the status of Council-adopted guidelines and precinct plans; and other minor text edits;

6. Minor mapping changes to accurately reflect the extent of one existing private open space and the outcomes of the approved development application at 1750 The Queensway; and,

7. Addition of certain Site and Area Specific Policies in Section 12, to address specific concerns raised.

33Other modifications were made to reflect the approval of OPA 456, OPA 479 and OPA 480 including deleting Policies 7.2, 7.3.6 and 7.17 with respect to minimizing shadows to preserve utility of sidewalks, parks, open spaces, natural areas, and other outdoor areas. The purpose of this modification is to recognize, and not conflict with, similar Official Plan policies enacted through OPA 479 and 480, which require development to ensure access to sunlight and sky view; limit shadow impacts on the public realm and surrounding properties; and the design and siting of new parks to have wind and sunlight conditions that promote use and enjoyment of the space. Policy 9.1.4 adds wording to refer to the Official Plan in the consideration of private streets that complement the public street network.

34On March 9, 2022, City Council directed the City Solicitor to support the Proposed Modifications before the Tribunal.

35Counsel submitted that s. 17(50) of the Planning Act provides the Tribunal authority to approve the Proposed Modifications to parts of OPA 469 and as such, Proposed Modifications maintain the essential nature and character of OPA 469 as adopted by City Council.

36Should the Tribunal approve, as modified, the green highlighted portions of OPA 469 in Attachment “A”, they would come into force and effect for all the lands subject of OPA 469, save and except any remaining site and precinct specific appeals of such portions of OPA 469 as specified in Attachment "B".

37Counsel stated that the yellow and purple highlighted portions of OPA 469 in Attachment “A” are under appeal as specified to each Appellants in Attachment "B" either on a plan-wide basis or site-specific/precinct specific basis. Therefore, pursuant to s. 17(25) of the Planning Act, the parts of the plan that remain under appeal have been identified in Attachment "B" and are therefore not in force and effect on either a plan-wide basis (yellow highlight) or on a specific site or precinct specific basis (purple highlight).

38The proposed Order, Counsel added, contains language agreed to by all of the Appellants in these proceedings, which ensures that there is no prejudice to the Appellants and that their appeal rights are fully protected.

39The Order sought represents a fair and appropriate balancing of all interests in the land use planning process. It provides some certainty as to the applicable policy framework within the City for the Sherway Area, without prejudicing any appeals of OPA 469.

Policies Under Appeal on a Site Specific or Precinct Specific Basis

40Counsel stated that Attachment “A” to this Motion includes a version of certain sections, non-policy text, policies and maps of OPA 469 that were not subject to a plan-wide appeal, as no notice of appeal was filed on such parts of OPA 469 on a plan-wide basis, but for which there remains a site-specific or precinct specific appeal.

41As the intended scope of the appeal(s) are site-specific or precinct specific, s. 17(27) of the Planning Act provides that where there is an appeal of the decision of Council, but the part of the decision is not subject of the appeal, the Decision is final and comes into effect after the last date of filing a notice of appeal.

Dispute as to Scope of Appeal

42The City and Cadillac Fairview do not agree on the scope of the appeal asserted to be made by Cadillac Fairview.

43The City is not requesting the Tribunal to adjudicate this dispute at this time.

44Order 4 requested and identifies that the blue highlighted policies and as more particularly set out in Attachment "B" identifies the matters of dispute between Cadillac Fairview and the City.

45The City and Cadillac Fairview have agreed that the City's motion and the partial approval of OPA 469 is without prejudice to the City's rights to argue that:

1. Certain sections, non-policy text, policies and maps asserted to be under appeal by Cadillac Fairview are not under appeal and were in-force and in effect as of November 29, 2019, for all lands subject of OPA 469;

2. Certain sections, non-policy text, policies and maps asserted to be under appeal by Cadillac Fairview are not under appeal and where such sections, non-policy text, policies and maps were approved, as modified by the Tribunal, were in-force and in effect as of July 29, 2022, for all lands subject of OPA 469, save and except any site and precinct specific appeals; and/or

3. Certain sections, non-policy text, policies and maps asserted to be under appeal by Cadillac Fairview are not under appeal by Cadillac Fairview but rather under appeal by other Appellants and that pursuant to the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Tribunal’s Rules”), Cadillac Fairview may appropriately shelter under such existing appeals, as that appeal has been identified and scoped as identified in Attachment "B", if necessary.

Official Plan Amendment No. 231

46Counsel stated that City Council adopted Official Plan Amendment No. 231 (“OPA 231”) regarding Employment Areas in December, 2013. OPA 231 was part of the City’s Municipal Comprehensive Review pursuant to s. 26 of the Planning Act, which examined the City's designated areas of employment and assessed the Official Plan policies and designations. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing approved OPA 231, with minor modifications in July, 2014. The Ontario Municipal Board, now the Tribunal, received 178 appeals to OPA 231, including appeals by Amexon and Manstor. The hearing of OPA 231 was phased, with site specific appeals to be dealt with after the City-wide matters.

47Of relevance to this motion, on December 20, 2016, in PL140860, the Tribunal approved the land use designations for Core Employment Areas and General Employment Areas as well as the associated policy and non-policy text on a City-wide basis, as set out in that Decision and Order.

48As set out in that Decision and Order of the Tribunal, the site specific appeals related to 701-703 Evans Avenue and 51 Manstor Road were maintained as part of the OPA 231 appeal process. These are shown as Appeal 57 and Appeal 27 on Map 5 of 9, in Appendix 4 of the December 20, 2016, Decision and Order.

49Both 701-703 Evans Avenue and 51 Manstor Road, due to the outstanding site-specific appeals of OPA 231, are currently designated Employment Areas in the former Official Plan (prior to the adoption of OPA 231), and shown on the former Map 2, Urban Structure as Employment Districts.

50Through OPA 231, both 701-703 Evans Avenue and 51 Manstor Road are intended to remain on Map 2, Urban Structure renamed as Employment Areas, and such lands are intended to be designated as Core Employment Areas.

51The OPA 231 appeals are subject to O. Reg 305/19 under the Planning Act, which transitions the determination of such appeals against the 2006 Growth Plan.

City's Current Municipal Comprehensive Review

52The City is currently undergoing its municipal comprehensive review of its Official Plan. The municipal comprehensive review and provincial plan conformity ("MCR") are being completed together pursuant to s. 26 of the Planning Act.

53Manstor submitted a conversion request of its Core Employment Area lands to Mixed Use Areas, identified as conversion request 063 submitted on July 30, 2021, for the City's consideration through the upcoming MCR.

54Calloway Reit submitted a conversion request of its General Employment Areas lands to Mixed Use Areas, identified as conversion request 091 submitted on August 3, 2021, for the City's consideration through the upcoming MCR.

55The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is the approval authority for the City's MCR Official Plan Amendment ("MCR OPA") under s. 26 of the Planning Act.

56There is no appeal to the Tribunal of the Minister's decision to approve, refuse or modify, in whole or in part, the City's MCR OPA under s. 26 of the Planning Act, pursuant to s. 17(36.5) and 21(3) of the Planning Act.

OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 536, CITY-WIDE RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE & PUBLIC SAFETY POLICIES

57Counsel stated that on March 9, 2022, City Council adopted Official Plan Amendment No. 536 ("OPA 536"), which proposes to add a new s. 3.6 to the parent Official Plan in Chapter 3, Building a Successful City.

58The Secondary Plan, as adopted in November of 2019, through Policy 10.4 proposes to establish policy direction regarding rail safety and mitigation.

59Manstor has a plan-wide appeal to Policy 10.4, which the City and Manstor have agreed to maintain under appeal on a plan-wide basis until OPA 536 has been disposed of. This is reflected in Attachment "A" and "B" and is adjourned sine die.

AMEXON’S APPEAL SHOULD BE ADJOURNED

60Counsel explained that on consent with Amexon, certain parts of the Appeal of OPA 469 are adjourned sine die, as specified in Attachment "B". The remaining parts under appeal as specified on site-specific or precinct basis are set out in Attachment "B" remain under appeal and are not adjourned.

61Until such time as the Tribunal has disposed of the OPA 231 proceedings for the Amexon lands, the remainder of the Amexon appeal is intended to remain adjourned sine die.

62The adjournment of the Amexon appeals will not preclude other matters in OPA 469 unrelated to land use being determined or otherwise resolved.

MANSTOR APPEAL SHOULD BE ADJOURNED

63Similarly on consent with Manstor, the remainder of the appeal of OPA 469 is adjourned sine die. The parts under appeal on a site-specific basis are set out in Attachment "B" all of which are adjourned.

64As it specifically relates to Policy 10.4 of OPA 469, until such time as OPA 536 is determined on a City-wide basis, it is appropriate at this time to maintain Policy 10.4 of OPA 469 under appeal and adjourn the determination of the appeal of that specific policy to a later date.

FINDINGS

65The Tribunal finds that the un-highlighted portions of OPA 469 in Attachment “A” are in force and in effect for all the lands subject of OPA 469 as of November 29, 2019, being the date after the last date to file a notice of appeal.

66The Proposed Modifications in the sections, policies and maps in Attachment “A” are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, conform with the A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020), and are consistent with the general intent of the City's Official Plan. The policies have appropriate regard to the relevant matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act, represent good planning and are in the public interest.

67The Tribunal approves, as modified, the green highlighted portions of OPA 469 in Attachment “A” and confirmation that such parts of OPA 469 are in force and in effect, on a plan-wide basis for all lands subject of OPA 469, with exception of lands scoped on a precinct specific or site specific basis identified in Attachment "B", as of July 29, 2022.

68The Tribunal finds that by operation of law, the purple highlighted portions of OPA 469, are in force and in effect for all the lands subject of OPA 469 as of November 29, 2019, being the date after the last date to file a notice of appeal, except for those lands as specified in Attachment "B" on a site-specific or precinct-specific basis.

69The disputed scope of appeal between Cadillac Fairview and the City is maintained as agreed. Matters between the City and the particular Appellants to be adjourned sine die are confirmed.

70The Tribunal agrees with the entirety of the reasons and evidence provided in the affidavit, in support and in respect of the various orders requested, adding that the partial settlement is a result of the voluntary mediation undertaken. Parties are encouraged to continue these positive outcomes in future negotiations and discussions.

71The Tribunal directs, in an additional order, that the City Solicitor shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal and Parties, with respect to the status of the parts of OPA 469 that are unapproved or deferred, which shall include a go-forward strategy on how the City and remaining Appellants intend to finalize those unapproved or deferred policies, on or before October 31, 2022.

ORDER

72The Motion by the City is granted and the Tribunal orders that:

1. The un-highlighted sections, non-policy text, policies and maps of Official Plan Amendment No. 469 to the City of Toronto Official Plan ("OPA 469") contained in Attachment "A" to this Order, came into force and effect on November 29, 2019, by operation of section 17(27) of the Planning Act.

2. Pursuant to section 17(50) of the Planning Act:

a. the appeals of Home Depot of Canada Inc., and FIMA Development (respecting 200 Sherway Drive), Fima Development (1750 The Queensway) are allowed in part;

b. part of the appeals of Amexon Realty Inc., Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited., Calloway REIT (Etobicoke) Inc., and Calloway REIT (Etobicoke-Index) Inc., and 2130254 Ontario Inc., are allowed in part, with the remaining parts of these appeals set out in Attachment "B";

c. the non-policy text, policies and maps, or parts thereof, in Attachment "A" and highlighted in green are modified and approved as shown, and are in force and effect as of July 29, 2022, for all lands subject of OPA 469, subject to the site specific appeals related to certain non-policy text, policies and maps of OPA 469, which will remain under appeal on a site specific or precinct specific basis in accordance with Attachment "B"; and,

d. the non-policy text, policies and maps that are highlighted in yellow remain under appeal on a plan-wide basis.

3. The purple highlighted sections, non-policy text, policies and maps of OPA 469 included in Attachment “A” to this Order, came into force and effect on November 29, 2019, by operation of section 17(27) of the Planning Act, except as those parts were appealed on a site specific or precinct specific basis, in accordance with Attachment "B" to this Order.

4. Notwithstanding Orders 1, 2 and 3 above, the blue highlighted policy, non-policy text and/or maps are asserted as being under appeal by Appellant 4, being the Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited, but which assertion is disputed by the City and which dispute will be adjudicated at a later date, if necessary; and such Orders or any other disposition in this matter related to such Orders are without prejudice to such later adjudication and to the positions of the City and the Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited in such later adjudication.

5. The modification and partial approval of OPA 469 shall be strictly without prejudice to, and shall not have the effect of limiting:

a. the rights of all Parties to seek to modify, delete or add to the unapproved portions of OPA 469; and,

b. the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to consider and approve modifications, deletions or additions to the unapproved or deferred portions of OPA 469 on a plan-wide, precinct-specific or site-specific basis, as the case may be, or to render future decisions or orders that deviate from or that are inconsistent with those portions of OPA 469 that are partially approved by this Order, including on a plan-wide, precinct-specific or site-specific basis, as the case may be.

6. The modification and partial approval of OPA 469 is without prejudice to the positions that may be taken by the Parties in respect of the appeals as scoped in Attachment "B", so that if those appeals proceed to a hearing, the City will not take the position that the Tribunal ought not to approve site-specific modifications to the affected portions of OPA 469 on the basis that they deviate from or are inconsistent with such approved portions of OPA 469 on a plan-wide basis (or as approved in respect of other lands). However, this does not affect the City's right to assert that the approved portions of OPA 469 should be applied to the specific sites or precincts without modification on the basis that they are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conform with provincial plans and that they constitute good planning.

7. Part of the appeal of OPA 469 as specified in Attachment "B" to this Order by Amexon Realty Inc., for lands municipally known as 701 – 703 Evans Road, is adjourned sine die, until such time as the Ontario Land Tribunal has disposed the appeal of Official Plan Amendment No. 231, under PL140860, by Amexon Realty Inc., for lands municipally known as 701 – 703 Evans Road and is without prejudice to the rights of the City or the Appellant regarding such appeals.

8. Part of the appeal of OPA 469 as specified in Attachment "B" to this Order by 2130254 Ontario Inc., for lands municipally known as 51 Manstor Road, is adjourned sine die and is without prejudice to the rights of the City or the Appellant regarding such appeals.

9. The City Solicitor shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal and Parties, with respect to the status of the parts of OPA 469 that are unapproved or deferred, which shall include a go-forward strategy on how the City and remaining Appellants intend to finalize those unapproved or deferred policies, on or before October 31, 2022.

73THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT it may be spoken to in the event any matter or matters should arise in connection with the implementation of this Order.

74THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS THAT:

a. The next Case Management Conference is scheduled to proceed by video on Monday, November 14, 2022 at 10 a.m.

b. The Parties are to finalize the Draft Procedural Order and Issues Lists at the CMC and update the Tribunal on the status of the remaining appeals.

c. The hearing is fixed for seven (7) weeks to proceed by video commencing at 10 a.m. from Monday, October 30, 2023 to Friday, December 15, 2023.

75There will be no further notice.

76The Member is not seized.

“T.F. Ng”

T.F. NG

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.

ATTACHMENT “A”

ATTACHMENT “B”