Minto (Mimico) Inc. v. Toronto (City), 2023 CanLII 121515

Ontario Land Tribunal / Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 12, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000545

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(7) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A

Applicant/Appellant: Minto (Mimico) Inc.

Description: Motion for Complete Application

Property Address: Various Addresses

Municipality/UT: City of Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-23-000545

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000545

OLT Case Name: Minto (Mimico) Inc. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(4.6) the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A

Applicant/Appellant: Minto (Mimico) Inc.

Description: Motion for Complete Application

Property Address: Various Addresses

Municipality/UT: City of Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-23-000546

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000545

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6

Request by: Minto (Mimico) Inc.

Request for: Request for Directions

Heard: September 20, 2023 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representatives*
City of Toronto	Michael Mahoney, Jessica Braun
Minto (Mimico) Inc.	Daniel Artenosi, Justine Reyes, Rowan Barron – Student at Law

DECISION DELIVERED BY W. DANIEL BEST AND SHARYN VINCENT AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to the Order

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision arises from a Motion requesting the Tribunal to direct that as of April 27, 2023, Minto (Mimico) Inc. (“Minto” or “Moving Party”) provided to the City of Toronto (“City” or “Respondent”) the required plans, drawings, information, and the application fee in support of applications for site plan approval (collectively the “2023 Applications”) for the property municipally known as 1 Audley Street and 8 Newcastle Street (“Block D Lands”) and for the property municipally known as 2 and 10 Audley Street and 29, 31, and 59 Portland Street (“Block E” Lands) (collectively the “Subject Lands”) and that the Applications were complete as of April 27, 2023.

CONTEXT

2All the following statements are drawn from the sworn affidavits and related transcripts generated to record the cross-examination of the affiants of both Parties in this Motion.

THE FACT SET

3On April 6, 2022, an initial Pre-Application Consultation (“PAC”) occurred for Site Plan Applications (“2022 Applications”) filed to develop the Subject Lands was held between Minto consultants and City staff.

4The 2022 Applications were filed with the City on April 26, 2022, and the required fee was paid on May 10, 2022.

5On July 28, 2022, City staff issued two letters acknowledging the 2022 Applications were deemed complete on May 10, 2022.

6Both files are still active files with the City and Minto still could redevelop the Subject Lands through the 2022 Applications.

7On February 2, 2023, Minto met with City staff to discuss proposed changes to the development. The changes were for the Block D Lands and the Block E Lands in the 2022 Applications as described in Attachment 1.

8No comments or a checklist were issued to Minto following the above meeting.

9It is the sworn evidence of the Appellant’s affiant that the above modifications to the developments proposed in the 2022 Applications would require associated minor variances. During that same meeting, and in subsequent discussions with the land use planner for the applicant, it was suggested that the proposed revisions to the proposed developments for the Block D Lands and the Block E Lands should be filed as revisions to the 2022 Applications with updates to the application materials filed in support. Minto preferred to file new applications for site plan approval.

10On April 11, 2023, a Minto consultant requested a pre-application consultation (“PAC") with the City for potential site plan applications. A PAC was set for May 18, 2023.

11On April 14, 2023, two minor variance applications were submitted to the Committee of Adjustment - Etobicoke Panel, for the Subject Lands (collectively the “MV Applications”).

12The MV Applications proposed variances to the Subject Lands Zoning By-laws (approved by the Tribunal in August 2022), to permit the modifications to the proposed developments that were presented to City Planning at the February 2023 Consultation Meeting and originally found to be complete applications on May 10, 2022.

13On April 17, 2023, two new applications for site plan approval for the Block D Lands and the Block E Lands (collectively the “2023 Applications”) were filed through the City’s online Application Submission Tool.

14On April 19, 2023, a representative of Minto sent an email to City staff advising that the 2023 SPA Applications were filed on April 17, 2023, and requested that fee invoices and payment instructions be issued to pay the applicable submission fees for the 2023 Applications. A follow-up email was sent on April 25, 2023.

15On April 26, 2023, City staff responded to the representative of Minto by email and advised that the City would require a new PAC for the 2023 Applications and that the City would not accept nor process the 2023 Applications.

16No fee invoices were issued by the City. Minto calculated the required application fees in accordance with c. 441 of the City’s Municipal Code and s. 4.3 (Fee Schedules for Community Planning Applications) available on the City’s website. Minto provided payments for the 2023 Applications on April 27, 2023, via Electronic Wire Transfer, which included, out of an abundance of caution, a 5 percent contingency amount (the “Application Fees”).

17On May 5, 2023, legal counsel for Minto, submitted a letter to the City’s Chief Planner and Executive Director requesting that the City provide a Notification of Complete Application for the 2023 Applications on the basis that all required materials and fees for the 2023 Applications had been submitted to the City.

18The scheduled May 18, 2023, PAC meeting for the 2023 Applications did not occur.

19On May 18, 2023, legal counsel for the City issued a letter in response to the Minto letter advising that it was the City’s position that the 2023 Applications were not accepted by the City on the basis that they were premature as they did not comply with the requirements of By-law No. 45-2022 (“PAC By-law”). The letter also advised that the fee payments remitted to the City on April 27, 2023 would not be accepted and would be returned to Minto, although at the time of arguing the Motion, had not.

20Legal counsel for Minto sought clarification that the response of the City constituted a response to the completeness of the 2023 Applications under s. 114(4.5) of the City of Toronto Act (“COTA”). Legal Counsel for the City advised that the response did not constitute a response to the completeness of the 2023 Applications.

21A Motion for Direction - Regarding the Completeness of the 2023 Applications, was filed with the Tribunal on June 19, 2023.

22The following materials were identified as Exhibits in respect of this Motion:

No. 1A - Mimico Motion Record dated June 19, 2023.

No. 1B – Mimico Book of Authorities dated September 20, 2023

No. 2 - City Response to the Motion dated September 12, 2023.

No. 3 – Supplementary Affidavit of Kate Cooper sworn on September 8, 2023.

No. 4 – Reply Motion of Minto dated September 15, 2023.

No. 5 - Cross Examination of Michelle Drylie on her Affidavit dated September 18, 2023.

No. 6 – Cross Examination of Kate Cooper on her Affidavit dated September 18, 2023.

23At the direction of the Tribunal, the Parties filed factums post-hearing. The Minto factum was received on October 4, 2023, and the City factum was received on October 5, 2023.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

24The Motion arises from the legislative changes running parallel to the site-specific approvals subject of this appeal, the origin being in the changes brought into effect through the Bill 109, More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022, wherein the Legislature invoked statutory time limits against municipal approval authorities with a view to driving the processing of development applications to specific timelines, thereby in theory, hastening the delivery of housing, faster.

25Municipalities have responded by codifying pre-application requirements, which had previously functioned admirably as voluntary ‘best practices.’ Municipal councils, save for where the discretion of designated staff is exercised, made it mandatory for all proponents of any form of development application seeking approval under the Planning Act or in this case under By-law No. 45-2022, first be subject of a PAC prior to the filings of the materials and fees prescribed to form a complete application as the basis for starting the clock of the various timelines stipulated in the Planning Act, and in this instance, the COTA, both of which prescribe appeal remedies open to proponents.

ISSUES BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL

26There are two fundamental issues before the Tribunal for determination:

a. Where the Appellant has failed to attend a mandatory PAC pursuant to c. 415, Article II, s.19.2, of the Toronto Municipal Code (the “Code”) does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear a Motion on completeness of Applications; and if so

b. Did Minto file a complete site plan application with required plans, drawings, information and the application fee in support of the application as of April 27, 2023.

ISSUE ONE: JURISDICTION

27Michael Mahoney, legal counsel for the City argued that the Tribunal should not accept the Minto motion or render any decision on it, as any such decision would be outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

28Mr. Mahoney argued that the OLT is a statutorily constituted body with powers to as a decision-maker under the Planning Act and the Ontario Land Tribunal Act 2021 (“OLTA”), and for certain applications and appeals pursuant to s. 114 of the COTA, the Tribunal only has powers under section 114 (4.6), (4.7), (15), and (15.1) with respect to Site Plan approval.

29Mr. Mahoney contended that when s.114(4) of the COTA was amended by the Bill 109, More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022, the City's ability to require a consultation meeting prior to the submission of a site plan application remained in place, and the City, pursuant to Official Plan Amendment No. 550 (“OPA 550”), elected to make such a requirement a mandatory pre-application requirement.

30Mr. Mahoney contends that neither the Planning Act nor the COTA establishes an appeal right of a prospective applicant failing to meet this requirement, to have the Tribunal determine whether a site plan application was effectively submitted or to require the City to accept applications from applicants. In short, it is the position of the City that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to make determinations of a complete site plan application upon appeal, is rendered ultra vires by virtue of a municipal By-law prescribing a mandatory PAC.

31Daniel Artenosi, legal counsel for Minto, reasoned that the Tribunal has the authority to hear and determine the questions of law and fact raised by the parties in respect of the Motion in accordance with s.8 (2) of the OLTA.

32Mr. Artenosi further argued that the Tribunal has jurisdiction on this matter as s.114 (4.7) of the COTA entitles an applicant to bring a motion for directions to the Tribunal under 114(4.6) as to the completeness of an application for site plan approval where no notice has been given by the City under s. 114 (4.5) of the COTA within the prescribed 30-day period.

33Mr. Artenosi maintained that the Minto Motion is supported by the statutory powers of the Tribunal under s.114 (4.6) of the COTA, which states the following:

Motion re dispute

(4.6) Within 30 days after a negative notice is given under subsection (4.5), the applicant or the City may make a motion for directions to have the Ontario Land Tribunal determine,

(a) whether the plans and drawings and the information and material have in fact been provided; or

(b) whether a requirement made under subsection (4.3) is reasonable.

34Mr. Artenosi reasoned the Tribunal has the authority under the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) to hear and determine the questions of law and facts raised by the parties in respect of the Minto Motion in accordance with s. 8(2) of the OLTA.

ISSUE TWO: WERE COMPLETE APPLICATIONS, REQUIRED DRAWINGS WITH FEE FILED ON APRIL 27, 2023

35Mr. Mahoney contended that acceptance of a site plan application is governed by c. 415 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code ("Code"). Section 415-19.2 of the Code establishes the requirement for a mandatory PAC for any site plan applications made pursuant to s. 114 of the COTA. Section 415-19.2 of the Code was enacted and passed by By-law on February 3, 2022, and came into effect on April 3, 2023, before Minto attempted to submit its site plan materials to the City on April 27, 2023.

36Mr. Mahoney argued that Minto does not have a site plan application on file with the Chief Building Official (“CBO”) as it has not undergone a mandatory PAC. He contends that Minto has submitted a motion to the Tribunal for which no originating process has been made under the COTA and no submission or appeal of a site-plan application pursuant to s. 114 of the COTA that the Tribunal may adjudicate in this instance. He contends that the Tribunal lacks any jurisdiction to make an order in respect of the Code and any such order would be ultra vires of its powers.

37Mr. Artenosi advised that all the required materials and fee for the subject site plan applications were provided to the City as of April 27, 2023. No such response has since been received from the City under s. 114 (4.5) of the COTA.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

38The Tribunal has carefully considered the evidence before it, as well as the submissions of counsel and finds that the Motion is allowed for the reasons that follow.

39The Tribunal as a creature of statute, is aware of the provisions within s. 114(4.6), (4.7) (15) and (15.1) of the COTA regarding jurisdiction. In this instance, the issue before the Tribunal is whether Minto filed a complete site plan application, required plans, drawings, information and the application fee in support of the application as of April 27, 2023.

40Section 114(4.6) of the COTA reads as follows:

Motion re dispute

(4.6) Within 30 days after a negative notice is given under subsection (4.5), the applicant or the City may make a motion for directions to have the Ontario Land Tribunal determine,

(a) whether the plans and drawings and the information and material have in fact been provided; or

(b) whether a requirement made under subsection (4.3) is reasonable. 2022, c. 12, Sched. 1, s. 1 (1).

41Section 114(4.3) of the COTA states that:

Other information

(4.3) The City may require that an applicant provide any other information or material that the City considers it may need, but only if the official plan contains provisions relating to requirements under this subsection. 2022, c. 12, Sched. 1, s. 1 (1).

42Mr. Mahoney argued that “… section 114(4) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 permits the City to mandate, by By-law, that applicants are to consult with the City before submitting plans and drawings for approval.” He goes on to state:

When section 114(4) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 was amended by the More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022, the City's ability to require a consultation meeting prior to the submission of a site plan application remained in place. Separately, newly added sections 114(4.2) - (4.8) created a scheme regarding the process for adjudicating completeness of an application for site plan. Section 114(4) (regarding consultation meetings) is separate and distinct from section 114(4.2) - (4.8) (regarding complete applications). Notably, neither in the Planning Act nor in the City of Toronto Act, 2006 establishes an appeal right given to a prospective applicant to have the Tribunal determine whether a site plan application was effectively submitted or to require the City to accept applications from applicants [sic].

43Mr. Artenosi requested clarification from the City on June 9, 2023, if previous correspondence on May 18, 2023 constituted a response in accordance with s. 114(4.5) of the COTA. Jessica Braun, counsel for the City responded as follows:

No, we do not believe the letter you refer to constitutes a response pursuant to Section 114 (4.5) of the City of Toronto Act. Your client's fees pursuant to s. 69 of the Planning Act have never been paid. They were not accepted because your client has yet to fulfill its obligation under Section 114 of the City of Toronto Act.

44The letter from the City dated May 18, 2023 reads as follows:

The City has received your letter dated May 5, 2023 (the "Letter") regarding Minto (Mimico) Inc.'s ("Minto's") site plan applications for the properties municipally known as 1 Audley Street and 8 Newcastle Street (“Block D”), and 2 and 10 Audley Street and 29, 31 and 59 Portland Street (“Block E”) in the City of Toronto.

Minto acknowledges in its Letter that it submitted site plan applications for developments on Block D and Block E within the Mimico-Judson area on April 26, 2022 which applications were deemed complete as of May 10, 2022. Minto then attempted to submit new materials to the City on April 26, 2022 for its site plan applications for Blocks D and E. The newly submitted materials have not been accepted by the Buildings Counter because there has been no Pre-Application Consultation or PAC, as required by the City.

Both new and old planning applications are now subject to the City's PAC by-law. City staff also retain discretion to apply the PAC process to planning applications that were in processing prior to the City's PAC by-law coming into force. In this case, Minto may proceed with its existing site plan application on the basis of previously submitted materials, absent a PAC. However, Minto's proposed modifications to the zoning will require a PAC. Moreover, if the checklist from the PAC in 2022 requires changes, a new PAC must be held.

Minto may seek approval from the City of its desired development on Blocks D and E by submitting the planning applications it believes it requires. If Minto wishes to obtain approval for a desired development that requires modifications to existing zoning and/or site plan materials, it must abide by its choice to submit new applications and the timelines prescribed for their review in the Planning Act, Official Plan and by City staff.

As Minto's attempts to submit these new materials for its site plan application are pre-mature absent a PAC, the City will remit to Minto the amounts paid for that attempt on April 27, 2023 as set out in the Letter.

45Sections 114(4.5), (4.6), (4.7) of the COTA are as follows:

Response re completeness of application

(4.5) Within 30 days after the applicant pays any fee under section 69 of the Planning Act, the City shall notify the person or public body that the plans and drawings referred to in subsection 114 (5) of this Act and the information and material required under subsections (4.2) and (4.3), if any, have been provided, or that they have not been provided, as the case may be. 2022, c. 12, Sched. 1, s. 1 (1).

Motion re dispute

(4.6) Within 30 days after a negative notice is given under subsection (4.5), the applicant or the City may make a motion for directions to have the Ontario Land Tribunal determine,

(a) whether the plans and drawings and the information and material have in fact been provided; or

(b) whether a requirement made under subsection (4.3) is reasonable. 2022, c. 12, Sched. 1, s. 1 (1).

(4.7) If the City does not give any notice under subsection (4.5), the applicant may make a motion under subsection (4.6) at any time after the 30-day period described in subsection (4.5) has elapsed. 2022, c. 12, Sched. 1, s. 1 (1).

FINDINGS

46The Tribunal rejects the assertion of the City that the correspondence would not constitute a negative notice as contemplated in s. 114(4.5), (4.6), or alternatively a failure to notify in s. 114(4.7) of the COTA. In summary, the letter advises Minto counsel that new materials were submitted (2023 Applications, MV Applications), and a PAC meeting would be required. It should be noted that it was Minto that chose to submit new applications on April 14, 2023, and April 17, 2023, respectively.

47Based on the foregoing, the Tribunal asserts its authority to hear and decide the Motion under s. 114(4.6), (4.7) and rejects the contention that the Tribunal lacks any jurisdiction to make an order in respect of the Code and that any such order would be ultra vires of its powers.

48In determining if Minto submitted complete applications as of April 27, 2023, the Tribunal must look towards the “modern principle” of statutory interpretation to assist in its analysis.

49According to the Supreme Court of Canada, in Rizzo and Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), 1998 CanLII 837 (SCC), [1998] 1 SCR 27 (“Rizzo”) at paragraph 21 outlines the following:

Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.

50Continuing in paragraph 27 of the Rizzo decision, the following provides direction to the Tribunal:

….It is a well established principle of statutory interpretation that the legislature does not intend to produce absurd consequences. According to Cote, supra, an interpretation can be considered absurd if it leads to ridiculous or frivolous consequences, if it is extremely unreasonable or inequitable, if it is illogical or incoherent, or if it is incompatible with other provisions or with the object of the legislative enactment (at pp. 378-80). Sullivan echoes these comments noting that a label of absurdity can be attached to interpretations which defeat the purpose of a statute or render some aspect of it pointless or futile (Sullivan, Construction of Statutes, supra, at p. 88).

51The concept of a PAC has been within the statutory framework of the COTA as set out in Bill 51, Planning and Conservation Land Statute Law Amendment Act, 2006, for well over a decade and a half. The rationale for the change to a mandatory PAC was an effort to ensure time periods would not commence unless the pre-application consultation process had been completed.

52While a PAC should be seen as an important element of the development process, it is antithetical, and therefore untenable that the Legislature would support such a tactic of making a PAC mandatory that could thereby result in delays to the application process, further increasing costs and exacerbating existing delays in the delivery of housing and other much-needed development in the City, or that the failure to have a meeting, would render the Tribunal’s jurisdiction pursuant to s. 114(4.6) or 114(4.7) to determine a complete application, moot.

53The COTA, s. 114(4.4.) and (4.5) specifically outline what is required for a complete application, and on what basis the City may refuse to accept or further consider an application. What is clearly absent is the requirement for a mandatory PAC.

54According to the Ontario Court of Appeal in Paletta International Corporation V. Burlington (City), 2004 CanLII 8695, (ONCA), [2004] (“Paletta”) at paragraph [8] outlines the following:

8While I agree that the application judge's interpretation significantly diminishes the role of the council in local planning decisions, I cannot agree that the application judge erred in his interpretation of the Act. In my view, the Act plainly draws a clear and sharp distinction between prescribed information under s. 22(4) and required information under s.22(5) and lays down, in specific terms, the remedies available in the event of non-compliance. An applicant must provide the information prescribed under s. 22(4), and if the applicant fails to comply, the council can refuse to deal with the application. Once the applicant has provided the prescribed information, the council can require further information under s. 22(5). Should the applicant fail to comply with that demand, the council is entitled to refuse the application but, since ss. 22(6) and (7) establish a 90-day period for decision from the date the fee is paid and the prescribed information is provided, the council is not entitled to refuse to deal with the application until it receives the required information.

55Taking direction from the principles of Paletta, the COTA draws a distinction between prescribed information under s.114(4.2) and required information under s.114(5) and provides in specific terms, the remedies available in the event of non-compliance. An applicant must provide the information prescribed under s. 114(4.2), and if the applicant fails to comply, the authorized person can refuse to deal with the application. Once the applicant has provided the prescribed information, the authorized person can require further information under s. 114(4.3). Should the applicant fail to comply with that demand, the authorized person is entitled to refuse the application but, since s114(4.5) establish a 30-day period for decision of completeness from the date the fee is paid and the prescribed information is provided, the authorized person is not entitled to refuse to deal with the application until it receives the required information.

56The requirement of consultation within the context of s. 114(4) of the COTA was to mitigate delays in the development process by ensuring that all materials thought necessary to support an application are identified to the Proponent at the onset of the approval process. The outcome of a mandatory PAC should result in requirements and expectations being clearly identified. In fact, from a developer standpoint, to not proceed with a PAC would be tantamount to “proceeding with an application at one’s own peril.” Nonetheless, the PAC, within the scheme of the COTA and the Planning Act, which at their core, establish rights and appeal avenues, cannot be used to delay the application process or mitigate potential revenue losses (through refunds). If this were truly the intent of the Legislature, the requirements for what is considered a complete application would have been changed or fully elaborated to include the PAC as being a component of the prescribed information referenced in s. 114(4.2) of the COTA. This was and is not the case.

57The Tribunal acknowledges that the Mandatory PAC By-law is in force and effect and not under appeal at this hearing. It is not the role of the Tribunal to amend or revise the PAC By-law. If it were the intent of the Province to grant such authority to the Tribunal, it would have incorporated such language by statute.

58However; when adhering to the uncontested principles of Rizzo and following the principle or approach that the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament [emphasis added by Tribunal], it can be concluded that a PAC By-law cannot delay the determination by the Tribunal of a complete site plan application. It is noted by the Tribunal, that the Council has delegated this authority to staff and have further authorized staff discretionary authority in the determination as to whether a mandatory meeting is required.

59Ms. Cooper’s Affidavit of June 19, 2023 highlighted her knowledge of the evolution of the City’s mandatory PAC that resulted in the Council adopting the following staff recommendations on February 23, 2022:

City Council adopted the following Staff Recommendations:

a. City Council adopt the Official Plan Amendment 550 substantially in accordance with Attachment 2 to this report;

b. City Council amend the City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 415, Development of Land substantially in accordance with Attachment 3 to this report; and

c. City Council authorize the City Solicitor to make such stylistic and technical changes to the Official Plan Amendment and the amendment to the City of Toronto Municipal Code as may be required.

60The February 22, 2023 meeting with City staff was held to discuss potential zoning changes for the lands. Ira Banks, Senior City Planning Staff suggested that the proposed revisions for the Subject Lands should be filed as revisions to the 2022 Applications with updates to the application materials filed in support. Minto preferred to file new applications for site plan approval, and it is the uncontested evidence before the Tribunal that Mr. Banks was advised that new site plan applications for the Subject Lands would be submitted before the end of April 2023. The Tribunal notes that the only evidence before the Tribunal with respect to the “completeness” of the application materials is that found in the uncontested affidavit of Ms. Cooper.

61In email correspondence on April 11, 2023, Ms. Cooper acknowledged that a PAC meeting would be required for the 2023 Applications and requested one accordingly. In addition, she advised that in her experience it would take between six to eight weeks to schedule a PAC meeting. During cross-examination, Ms. Cooper advised that a PAC meeting was requested for the end of March 2023 but the only formal request before the Tribunal appears to be April 11, 2023. Based on Ms. Cooper’s own estimates, it would be unreasonable to expect a PAC meeting before April 27, 2023, when in fact it is the uncontested evidence before the Tribunal that the materials and fee in support of a complete application were e-filed with the City, which the Tribunal understands to be the normal course for all such applications.

ORDER

62THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that as of April 27, 2023, Minto (Mimico) Inc. provided to the City of Toronto the required plans, drawings, information, and the application fee in support of the application for site plan approval for the property municipally known as 1 Audley Street and 8 Newcastle Street; and the application was complete as of April 27, 2023.

63THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that as of April 27, 2023, Minto (Mimico) Inc. provided to the City of Toronto the required plans, drawings, information, and the application fee in support of the application for site plan approval for the property municipally known as 2 and 10 Audley Street and 29, 31, and 59 Portland Street; and the application was complete as of April 27, 2023.

“W. Daniel Best”

W. DANIEL BEST MEMBER

“Sharyn Vincent”

SHARYN VINCENT VICE-CHAIR

Ontario Land Tribunal Website: www.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 1

On February 2, 2023, Minto met with City staff to discuss proposed changes to the development. The changes were for the Block D Lands and the Block E Lands in the 2022 Applications as follows:

a. an increase to the overall storeyed and metric height for the proposed building on the Block D Lands from 36-storeys (113.5 metres) to 40-storeys (123.0 metres) as well as increasing only the metric height of the podium from 13.0 metres to 16.5 metres.

b. an increase to the storeyed heights of both proposed towers for the Block E Lands from 20-storeys to 23-storeys for Tower A, and from 24-storeys to 27-storeys for Tower B.

c. an additional overall gross floor area of 5,600 square metres for the development on the Block E Lands.

d. an increase in the permitted height of projecting elements, including access to corridors to stairs, elevator lobbies and universal washrooms, equipment used for the functional operation of the building and telecommunication equipment.

e. permissions to exclude the areas dedicated to elevator overruns and mechanical and electrical rooms in any part of the building from the calculation of gross floor area; and,

f. a decrease to the number of required resident vehicular parking spaces for the Block D Lands and the Block E Lands, in conformity with the new general Citywide (as-of-right) parking requirements in City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended by By-law 89-2022 and By-law 125-2022.