Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: December 21, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000852
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A
Applicant/ Appellant: Mattamy (Eglinton) Limited
Subject: City of Toronto Site Plan Approval
Description: Site Plan application for a Mixed use development
Reference Number: 22 203392 ESC 20 SA
Property Address: 1891 Eglington Avenue E (1891 Eglington Ave. East)
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000852
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000852
OLT Case Name: Mattamy (Eglinton) Limited v. Toronto (City)
Heard: December 7, 2023 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Mattamy (Eglinton) Limited
Andrew Jeanrie
City of Toronto
Daniel Elmadany
Amanda Hill (in absentia)
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY N. EISAZADEH ON DECEMBER 7, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This is the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) in respect of an appeal filed by Mattamy (Eglinton) Limited (“Applicant”) against the City of Toronto (“City”) for its failure to make a decision regarding a Site Plan application under s.114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 (“Act”), respecting the lands municipally known as 1891 Eglinton Avenue, in the City (“Subject Lands”).
2The Site Plan application under appeal relates to one of four separate applications submitted to the City to assist in reviewing the overall development proposal. It relates to the southeast corner of Eglinton Avenue East and Pharmacy Avenue, comprising approximately 3 hectares in size, and is the first phase of the project. Counsel for the Applicant states the applications stand alone in terms of purpose, but also “fit together” to complete a future build-out intended to revitalize an underutilized site in the Golden Mile.
3In addition to the current Site Plan application, there are also pending appeals of a site-specific Official Plan amendment and a Rezoning application (OLT-22-001974, collectively the “OPA and ZBA”), an appeal of a Plan of Subdivision (OLT-23-000092, “PSA”), as well as a site-specific appeal of the Golden Mile Secondary Plan (OLT-22-002510).
4There is a 14-day Hearing for the OPA and ZBA matter currently scheduled to proceed on Monday, March 11, 2024. A Hearing has not yet been scheduled on the PSA matter; however, this Tribunal has directed that a Procedural Order (“PO”) be filed by Thursday, February 15, 2024, with a second CMC to be held on Thursday, February 22, 2024, in that matter.
5The Applicant now seeks to set Hearing dates on the current Site Plan application for the Fall of 2024. Counsel for the Applicant, Andrew Jeanrie, submits that this would provide sufficient time for the OPA and ZBA Hearing to conclude and a decision to be issued. Mr. Jeanrie contends that, should the decision of this Tribunal arising from the OPA and ZBA Hearing impact the Site Plans that are the subject of the present appeal, there would also be sufficient time for the Applicant to make any revisions necessary to their application, serve it on the City, for the City to conduct its review and respond with any changes to the Issues List (“IL”) and the like before the Fall 2024 Hearing.
6Mr. Jeanrie highlights that the Golden Mile has already been identified as an area for mixed-use so there is very little likelihood that the OPA and ZBA Hearing would result in a “no-development” outcome, and therefore, very little risk that occupied time in the Tribunal’s calendar would be lost if Fall 2024 Hearing dates are set now. Mr. Jeanrie points out this would be at the Applicant’s own risk, as it is committed to turning around any necessary revisions quickly so that it can get “shovels in the ground” as soon as possible. Ultimately, this will assist in getting this phase, and the rest of the project, underway, which would collectively deliver upwards of 20,000 - 30,000 residential units during the City’s housing crisis.
7Mr. Jeanrie also points out that under the Act, the City statutorily has only 60 days to deliver a decision on a Site Plan application; therefore, six to eight months from the date of the OPA and ZBA Hearing is more than sufficient time for the necessary steps to occur in order that this matter be ready for Hearing. Finally, that it is not unusual for a Site Plan application to proceed alongside a Rezoning application; therefore, the former does not necessarily require a determination on the latter before it can be considered or be scheduled for Hearing.
8Counsel for the City, Daniel Elmadany, submits that it is premature to schedule a Hearing at this time. He states that any change coming out of the OPA and ZBA Hearing would have direct consequences on the drawings submitted on the present appeal, and that a Site Plan application is predicated on the Zoning for implementation. While those two applications can be heard together, that was not what the Applicant requested here, and if it had, that would have changed the structure of the appeals for the City. If required to submit an IL at present, Mr. Elmadany states the