Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 06, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004065

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: 7420443 Ontario Inc Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit a 28-storey mixed-use building with retail at grade Reference Number: 21 251832 NNY 08 OZ Property Address: 3300 Dufferin Street Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004065 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004065 OLT Case Name: 7420443 Ontario Inc. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: 7420443 Ontario Inc Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit a 28-storey mixed-use building with retail at grade Reference Number: 21 251832 NNY 08 OZ Property Address: 3300 Dufferin Street Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004066 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004065

Heard: September 28, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
7420443 Ontario Inc. (“Appellant”)	Z. Fleisher
City of Toronto	S. Amini U. Gautam
Future Delight Investment Ltd.	A. Heisey

DECISION DELIVERED D. ARNOLD ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was held to prepare for a hearing on the merits of the Appellant’s appeals to the Tribunal of the City of Toronto’s failure to make a decision within the statutory time period on an application for an Official Plan Amendment to the City’s Official Plan and an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment to the City’s Zoning By-law to permit the redevelopment of the lands municipally known as 3300 Dufferin Street in the City of Toronto (the “Subject Property”) with a 28-storey mixed use (residential and commercial retail at grade) building. The Subject Property is located at the southwest corner of Dufferin Street and Bentworth Avenue.

2The Tribunal entered the Affidavit of Service of Linda Roberts sworn August 22, 2022 as Exhibit 1 in evidence to the CMC and is satisfied that same demonstrates proper notice in these proceedings.

PARTY AND PARTICIPANT STATUS

3One person, Future Delight Investment Ltd. (“FDI”), was represented by counsel at this CMC to request Party status in the subject proceedings. FDI is the owner of properties municipally addressed as 3280 Dufferin Street and 12-16 Orfus Road (“FDI’s lands”) and which are located immediately west of, and abutting, the Subject Property. Counsel for FDI further advised that there is a redevelopment proposal, and corresponding development application appeals, in respect of FDI’s lands scheduled for a hearing before the OLT in January 2023. In its written request for Party status, FDI identified that the City of Toronto is proposing a north-south laneway connecting Orfus Road and Bentworth Avenue to be constructed on both the Subject Property and FDI’s lands and, as such, FDI has an interest in the subject proceedings which may affect the design, location, and other matters concerning this laneway. Moreover, counsel for FDI noted that there are other land use planning considerations as between the proposed development of the Subject Property and FDI’s lands including the “face to face” building separation. The Tribunal is satisfied that FDI is raising genuine land use planning issues regarding the proposed redevelopment and, on consent of the other Parties, the Tribunal grants Party status to FDI.

4The following persons also attended the CMC either on their own behalf, or by their representatives, to request Participant Status in the subject proceedings:

a) Mountstone Holdings Inc. (“Mountstone”) - Mountstone is the owner of the property municipally known as 11 Bentworth Avenue which is adjacent to the Subject Property. Miriam Isenberg attended the CMC as the representative of Mountstone, indicating that she is a principal of Mountstone. Mrs. Isenberg stated that Mountstone has concerns regarding the traffic that might be generated by the proposed redevelopment as well as environmental and sewer capacity concerns. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mountstone has genuine land use planning concerns and, on consent of the Parties, Mountstone is granted Participant status.

b) Miriam Isenberg – In her personal capacity, Mrs. Isenberg is the tenant of 11 Bentworth Avenue. Mrs. Isenberg identified substantially similar land use planning concerns as Mountstone at this time; however, in the fulness of time, it may be that the perspectives of Mountstone and Mrs. Isenberg with respect to these land use planning concerns may be different and is seeking separate Participant status for herself. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mrs. Isenberg has genuine land use planning concerns and, on consent of the Parties, Mrs. Isenberg is granted Participant status. It may be that ultimately Mountstone and Mrs. Isenberg may be in a position to file a joint Participant statement but this is not required.

c) 2255695 Ontario Limited and B.J.S. Properties Inc. – Ilia Valitsky, a representative of Dash Urban Inc., appeared as representative for 2255695 Ontario Limited and B.J.S. Properties Inc. (“225 Limited and BJS”) and provided certification on the Participant Request form submitted to the Tribunal that Dash Urban Inc. has written authorization to act as a representative of 225 Limited and BJS. 225 Limited and BJS are the co-owners of the property municipally known as 3309 and 3317 Dufferin Street and these properties are located diagonally to the Subject Property, on the northeast corner of Dufferin Street and Ranee Avenue. Mr. Valitsky identified both in the submitted Participant Request form and at the CMC that 225 Limited and BJS have an interest in the land use planning issues of density and intensification in the subject proceedings and the possible impact on their lands. The Tribunal is satisfied that these are genuine land use planning concerns and, on the consent of the Parties, grants Participant status to 225 Limited and BJS, which would file a joint Participant statement in due course in the subject proceedings.

d) Helen Realista – Ms. Realista is the owner of the residential property municipally known as 22 Bentworth Avenue which is in close proximity to the west of the Subject Property. Ms. Realista has concerns regarding the traffic that may be generated by the proposed redevelopment on the Subject Property, including volume and safety concerns, as well as environmental concerns including the potential shadowing effect of the proposed development. The Tribunal is satisfied that these are genuine land use planning concerns and, on consent of the Parties, grants Participant status to Helen Realista.

e) Joe Montana - Mr. Montana is the owner of the property municipally known as 24 Bentworth Avenue which is in close proximity to the west of the Subject Property. Mr. Montana has concerns regarding the potential traffic that may be generated by the proposed redevelopment on the Subject Property, including volume and safety concerns. In addition, Mr. Montana has concerns regarding the increased density and the impact that the proposed redevelopment may have on the character of Bentworth Avenue. The Tribunal is satisfied that these are genuine land use planning concerns and, on consent of the Parties, grants Participant status to Mr. Montana.

f) Lyndale Investments Inc. – Joe Montana also attended in his capacity as the owner/director/officer of Lyndale Investments Inc. (“Lyndale”), which is the owner of the property municipally known as 23 Bentworth Avenue. This property is also in close proximity to the Subject Property and Mr. Montana raised land use planning concerns on behalf of Lyndale that are similar to those raised in his personal capacity in relation to 24 Bentworth Avenue. Lyndale seeks Participant status separate and apart from the Participant status of Mr. Montana personally, however, as it may be that they have separate and distinct perspectives on the land use planning issues. The Tribunal is satisfied that Lyndale has genuine land use planning concerns that may be articulated from its perspective differently than by Mr. Montana in his personal capacity and, on consent of the Parties, the Tribunal grants Participant status to Lyndale Investments Inc. It may be that ultimately Mr. Montana and Lyndale may be in a position to file a joint Participant statement but this is not required.

PROCEDURAL ORDER

5Counsel for the City advised that they require instructions from the City’s Council in December, 2022 prior to being in a position to provide submissions regarding the draft Procedural Order. Moreover, there is a new Party to the proceedings (FDI) who will be given opportunity to participate in the development of the draft Procedural Order to be submitted to the Tribunal for its consideration. In view of the foregoing, a follow-up CMC is ordered as detailed below.

ORDER

6At the CMC the Tribunal ordered as follows:

(a) The Parties will submit a draft Procedural Order including Issues List to the Tribunal on or before Monday, January 16, 2023.

(b) The second CMC will take place by video on Monday, January 23, 2023 at 10 a.m.

7Parties 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:

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/519389173

Access code: 519-389-173

8Parties 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

9Persons 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) 497-9373 or Toll Free 1-888-299-1889. The access code is 519-389-173.

10Individuals 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.

11The Member is not seized in this matter but may be spoken to for case management purposes.

12No further notice will be given.

“D. Arnold”

D. ARNOLD 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.