Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: June 22, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002343

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: 10 QEW Inc.

Appellant: 100 Metropolitan Portfolio Inc.

Appellant: 1095909 Ontario Limited (Wynn Group of Companies)

Appellant: 1107051 Ontario Ltd.; and others

Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 231

Municipality: City of Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002343

Legacy Case No.: PL140860

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002343

Legacy Lead Case No.: PL140860

OLT Case Name: A. Mantella & Sons Limited v. Toronto (City)

Heard: June 8, 2023 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
City of Toronto	C. Kapelos, L. Bisset, A. DeBacker (A. Biggart, C. McKeich, D. Elmadany in absentia)
Weins Canada Inc., PAG Realty 2 Inc.	M. Flowers
Amexon Realty Inc.	M. Flynn-Guglietti, P. Pinho (in absentia)
2465855 Ontario Ltd., 2094528 Ontario Limited, HGT Holdings Limited, Freed Developments Ltd., Tippett Developments Inc.	D. Bronskill
H & R REIT	A. Frank, P. Devine (in absentia)
The Governing Council of The Salvation Army of Canada	M. Reedijk, J. Debono (in absentia)
Rareland Development Inc.	A. Lusty, J. Alati (in absentia)
Champagne Centre Ltd.	J. Evola, S. Leisk (in absentia)
Samuel Sarick Limited	K. Sliwa
Revenue Properties Company and Morguard Investments Limited	J. Shapira
2129152 Ontario Inc.	J. Shapira (appearing for D. Wood in absentia)
Dream Asset Management Corporation	J. Reyes, M. Cara (in absentia)
2634698 Ontario Inc.	I. Andres
Loblaws Properties Limited	N. Mares, D. Neligan (in absentia)
39 Wynford Inc.	D. Yarahmadi, P. Duffy (in absentia)
Leslie Lakeshore Developments Inc.	I. Kagan
G. Gagliano Properties Ltd./Benton Property Corp.	J. Park
Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited (“CF”) *	J. Dawson, M. Schuman (in absentia)
690 Evans Avenue Dev Nominee Inc.*	M. Laskin, R. Houser (in absentia)
Home Depot of Canada Inc. *	J. White, D. Tang (in absentia)

* denotes Parties appearing solely in relation to the settlement of Appeal No. 1 to OPA 469 (Tribunal file OLT-22-001933)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C. HARDY AND S. BRAUN ON JUNE 8, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Final Order

INTRODUCTION AND RECENT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1On December 18, 2013, By-law No. 1714-2013 was adopted by City of Toronto (“City”) Council, the purpose and effect of which was to adopt Official Plan Amendment No. 231 (“OPA 231”) to the City’s Official Plan (“OP”) regarding policies for economic health and policies, designations and mapping for Employment Areas. On July 9, 2014, OPA 231 was approved, with limited exceptions, by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (“MMAH”). Thereafter, a total of 178 appeals were filed, including appeals of the whole of OPA 231 and other appeals made on site-specific bases.

2Those 178 appeals were case managed and grouped into specific Phases and at the most recent Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held on March 20, 2023, the Tribunal:

a. scheduled a one-day video hearing for April 26, 2023 for the purpose of hearing motions by the City to settle the last two remaining appeals in Phase 6C, a geographic sub-grouping of site-specific appeals in relation to lands located in the Southwest Etobicoke area. Those appeals were Appeal No. 27, filed by 2130254 Ontario Inc. in relation to 51 Manstor Road (“2130254 Appeal”), and Appeal No. 57, filed by Amexon Realty Inc. in relation to 701-703 Evans Avenue (“Amexon Appeal”).

b. scheduled ten (10)-day video hearings commencing on Monday, October 23, 2023 and Monday, January 15, 2024, respectively, for:

i. Phase 6E - a policy-based grouping involving site-specific appeals which, irrespective of geography, raise issues with the same policy. In particular, the conversion of Core Employment Areas to General Employment Areas (also known as the “Core and General” grouping); and

ii. Phase 6D, a geographic sub-grouping comprised of site-specific appeals in relation to lands located in the Liberty Village area.

c. scheduled today’s CMC for the purposes of discussing the organization of Phase 6G, being all other remaining site-specific appeals that did not fit into the other Phase 6 geographic groupings.

3At the April 26, 2023 hearing event, the Tribunal allowed the 2130254 Appeal, in part, and approved modifications to OPA 231 to redesignate the lands at 51 Manstor Road from Core Employment Areas to General Employment Areas. The Tribunal was, however, unable to proceed to hear the settlement of the Amexon Appeal at that time. The proposed settlement of the Amexon Appeal requested additional relief in relation to another appeal filed by Amexon against the City’s approval of OPA 469 (Sherway Area Secondary Plan) bearing Tribunal file No. OLT-22-001933, which was not properly before the Panel (together, the “Amexon Appeals”). The OPA 469 appeals involve other Parties and although the settlement materials relating to the settlement of the Amexon Appeals were served upon the Parties to both OPA 231 and OPA 469, this was not done in accordance with the timelines set out in the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

4Out of an abundance of caution, the Panel directed that the City’s motion to settle the Amexon Appeals be heard following the already scheduled CMC in relation to the Phase 6G appeals and directed that the motion materials relating to the Amexon Appeals be re-served so as to allow the Parties to the OPA 469 appeals a reasonable opportunity to respond.

5Accordingly, this decision and Order relates to both the case management of Phase 6G of the OPA 231 appeals and the City’s motion to settle Amexon’s appeals of both OPA 231 and OPA 469.

CASE MANAGEMENT – OPA 231 PHASE 6G

Settlements – Appeal No. 92 and Appeal No. 155

6By way of an update on the Phase 6G appeals, counsel for the City, Ms. Kapelos, advised that the City had reached settlements with G. Gagliano Properties Ltd./Benton Property Corp. (“Appeal No. 92”) and Samuel Sarick Limited (“Appeal No. 155”). She advised that City Council has already endorsed the settlement of Appeal No. 92 and further advised that, although City Council had previously endorsed a settlement with respect to Appeal No. 155, an amendment thereto was required. As such, it is expected that Council will endorse the amended settlement of Appeal No. 155 at an upcoming meeting.

7In light of the foregoing, counsel for the Parties to Appeal No. 92 and Appeal No. 155 jointly requested the Tribunal schedule a one-day video hearing to hear the City’s motion to settle these two appeals within the first two weeks of September. The Tribunal suggested that the motion proceed in writing. As there were no objections to proceeding in this manner, the Tribunal scheduled a written motion hearing for Friday, September 8, 2023 and directed the Parties to file all required materials in support of the settlements (including draft orders and clean copies of any attachments to be appended to the Tribunal’s order) no later than Friday, September 1, 2023.

Hearing – Appeal No. 115

8Next, Ms. Kapelos explained that a triage form had previously been circulated to the Phase 6 Appellants approximately two years ago. The impetus behind the triage form was to determine how best to organize those appeals and the responses received ultimately led to the various Phase 6 subgroupings. It was further explained that Counsel to Leslie Lakeshore Developments Inc. (“Appeal No. 115”) had indicated a preference for an early hearing in his response to that triage form. It was noted that although mediation was considered, the Parties remain at an impasse and require the Tribunal to adjudicate the appeal.

9Accordingly, the Parties to Appeal No. 115 requested the Tribunal schedule a five (5)-day hearing in May or June 2024, noting that this appeal is in no way dependent upon a decision with respect to any issues to be considered in the upcoming hearings of Phases 6E and 6D (scheduled for ten (10)-day hearings in October 2023 and January 2024, respectively).

10In advance of today's CMC, the Tribunal was provided a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List (“IL”) in relation to the hearing of Appeal No. 115. Revisions thereto were directed in instances where the PO differed from the Tribunal’s recently updated sample PO for video hearings. The Tribunal additionally expressed some concern in relation to what was viewed as an overly broad framing of Issues No. 6 and No. 7, insofar as they fail to reference specific policies within the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”) and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GP”), simply making reference to OPA 231’s consistency/conformity (or lack thereof) with these policy documents in a general sense. In response, Counsel for Leslie Lakeshore Developments Inc. explained that specific policy references would, in all likelihood, be outdated for a hearing in spring/summer 2024, given the expectation that the government will be making significant changes to these documents in the near future. He suggested, and the Tribunal agreed, that it would be prudent to frame Issues No. 6 and No. 7 broadly for the time being and update same following the expected release of the new PPS.

11Ms. Kapelos undertook to revise the PO as directed and to include a clause in relation to Issues No. 6 and No. 7 which would allow for future updates thereto in accordance with any updated policy documents. She further undertook to circulate the PO and IL to counsel for Leslie Lakeshore Developments Inc. and to submit same to the Tribunal for its review and approval no later than Friday, June 16, 2023.

12At the request of the Parties, the Tribunal scheduled a five (5)-day video hearing for Appeal No. 115, which will commence at 10 a.m. on Monday, June 3, 2024.

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/692665589

Access Code: 692-665-589

13Parties 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. Parties 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.

14Persons 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.

15Individuals 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 event(s) 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.

Next Steps for the remaining Phase 6G Appeals – Information Request and CMC

16Finally, Ms. Kapelos provided an update with respect to the remainder of the Phase 6G appeals. She noted that the City had recently updated the aforementioned triage form and would be circulating same to the Phase 6G Appellants shortly, in an effort to determine the intentions of the Parties.

17She explained that the information sought to be collected is intended to assist the Tribunal in further organizing this Phase and includes, but is not limited to: whether the Appellant seeks a hearing date or intends to withdraw its appeal; if a hearing date is required, the anticipated number and disciplines of expert witnesses to be called; and an anticipated list of issues for a hearing. She further explained that it is the City’s intention to request the Parties respond with the requested information by Friday, June 30, 2023. Should an Appellant fail to respond by the deadline, it would be the City’s intention to move for the Tribunal to dismiss the relevant appeal(s) for delay.

18Again, the Tribunal suggested that any motion to dismiss which might be brought by the City arising out of a Party’s failure to respond to the request for information by the June 30, 2023 deadline be determined in writing. Should any Party responding to such a motion object to the format thereof, they may make a request to have the motion converted to a video hearing but ultimately, the Tribunal will retain discretion to determine whether such a conversion is warranted.

19With respect to the City’s request for a list of issues by the June 30, 2023 deadline, counsel for Rareland Development Inc. expressed concern with respect to committing to a detailed IL at this point and expressed further concern that failure to do so might result in the City bringing a motion for dismissal of his client’s appeal. Ms. Kapelos noted that the City was merely seeking a brief statement of the types of issues to be raised by each Appellant rather than a detailed IL which would be required for the formalization of a PO. She noted that all Parties would remain free to change and refine the issues identified as the process of moving the appeals toward a hearing(s) continues forward. As explained by Ms. Kapelos, the purpose of providing issues at this early stage was to determine Parties with commonalities in order to determine groupings, if any, and progress Phase 6G in an efficient manner.

20Appellants to the Phase 6G appeals are directed to respond to the City’s request for information by the June 30, 2023 deadline, failing which the City may make a written motion to the Tribunal for the dismissal of the appeal(s). The Tribunal notes that lack of specificity in relation to an Appellant’s list of issues will not, in and of itself, result in a decision to dismiss the appeal. By the end of the second week of July, 2023, Ms. Kapelos undertook to provide the Tribunal with an update regarding the responses received to the triage form.

21In response to questioning from the Tribunal with respect to the possibility of settling or mediating any of the remaining Phase 6G appeals, Ms. Kapelos indicated that, to date, the possibility of mediation has been explored with some, but not all, of the Appellants. She explained that the City intends to continue to explore such possibilities with all Parties and that, in the future, there may be some opportunities for resolution/mediation in relation to some of the remaining appeals.

22Ms. Kapelos requested the Tribunal schedule a CMC in late July or early August 2023 for the purposes of providing updates on, and beginning the process of organizing, the remaining appeals in Phase 6G. In the absence of objections from any of the other Parties, the Tribunal scheduled a CMC in mid-August to allow the Parties time to respond to the City’s request for information and, if necessary for any motions for dismissal to be heard and determined.

23The CMC will proceed by way of video hearing at 10 a.m. on Thursday, August 17, 2023

24Parties 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/765631861

Access code: 765-631-861

25Parties 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

26Persons 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.

27Individuals 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.

28The Tribunal inquired as to whether there were any other matters to be addressed which might assist in the fair, just and expeditious resolution of these matters. The Parties indicated there were none and the Tribunal then proceeded to hear the City’s motion to settle the Amexon Appeals.

SETTLEMENT MOTION – THE AMEXON APPEALS

29As noted at paragraph 3 above (and explained in further detail in the Tribunal’s May 2, 2023 decision), the motion record filed in support of the proposed settlement of the Amexon Appeals requested an order that Appeal No. 57 to OPA 231 and Appeal No. 1 to OPA 469 be heard together and that the Tribunal issue an Order:

• modifying and approving OPA 231 at it relates to 701-703 Evans Avenue (“the Lands”) to redesignate those lands from Core Employment Areas to Mixed Use Areas as set out in Exhibit “E” to the Affidavit of Janani Mahendran, affirmed on April 24, 2023; and
• modifying and approving OPA 469 as it relates to the Lands, by identifying the Lands as Mixed Use Areas B – Office Commercial instead of Core Employment Areas, modifying Policy 10.35 to direct that the QEW Office Precinct be maintained as an area for employment uses where commercial office uses will be prioritized and to modify SASP (Sherway Area Secondary Plan) 12.3.1 to permit residential and other sensitive uses on the northern portion of the Lands provided certain policies are met, as set out in Exhibit “E” to the Affidavit of Janani Mahendran, affirmed on April 24, 2023.

30The Tribunal was provided with Affidavits of Service sworn by Ms. Kapelos on May 3, 2023, confirming that all other Parties to the appeals of both OPA 231 and OPA 469 were served with proper Notice of the City’s Motion to settle the Amexon Appeals at today’s hearing event. Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) provides that the Tribunal may order that two or more proceedings, or any part of them, be consolidated, heard at the same time or heard one after the other, or stay or adjourn any matter until the determination of any other matter, subject to any applicable statutory or regulatory restrictions.

31Having been satisfied that proper Notice was provided the Tribunal Ordered, in accordance with Rule 16.1, that Appeal No. 57 to OPA 231 and Appeal No. 1 to OPA 469 be heard together and thereafter proceeded to hear the City’s motion to settle the Amexon Appeals with respect to both matters, as supported by the Affidavit of Registered Professional Planner, Janani Mahendran (Senior Planner within the Strategic Initiatives, Policy & Analysis section of the City Planning Division). Ms. Mahendran affirmed that, should the Tribunal approve the modifications to OPA 231 and OPA 469 in accordance with the proposed settlement, the Amexon Appeals (No. 57 of OPA 231 and No. 1 of OPA 469) would be resolved in their entirety. Ms. Kapelos confirmed that the Amexon Appeal represents the last remaining appeal in Phase 6C to OPA 231.

32The Lands which are the subject of the Amexon Appeals are approximately 1 hectare (“ha”) in size and are bound by the Queen Elizabeth Way (“QEW”) to the south and east, Evans Avenue to the north and a QEW on/off ramp to the west. At present, the Lands contain two 9-storey office buildings with a combined commercial Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) of 19,611 square metres (“sq m”). A portion of the Lands include five levels of above-grade parking and one-storey of underground parking integrated with the office building at 703 Evans Avenue.

33The Lands are subject to both OPA 231 and OPA 469.

34OPA 231 was adopted by City Council through By-law No. 1714-2013 on December 16 to18, 2013. The purpose and effect of OPA 231 is set out in paragraph 1 above and Amexon appealed on a site-specific basis the re-designation of the Lands as Core Employment Areas. Core Employment Areas permits uses on the Lands that include, but are not limited to, all types of manufacturing, processing, warehousing, wholesaling, distribution, storage and transportation facilities.

35The City adopted OPA 469 (Sherway Area Secondary Plan) through By-law No. 1535-2019 on October 29 and 30, 2019. The Sherway Area Secondary Plan is a comprehensive planning framework for the lands bounded by Highway 427, the QEW, Etobicoke Creek and the CP Rail corridor, which includes a precinct-based planning approach that responds to the specific conditions and character of each of the Plan’s six distinct precincts and the need to acknowledge existing uses and required phasing of development. Under OPA 469, the Amexon Lands are identified as being within the QEW Office Precinct, which prioritizes office commercial uses.

36OPA 469 maintains the Amexon lands as Core Employment Areas and applies the QEW Office Precinct overlay to prioritize office commercial uses thereon. The Lands are further subject to site-specific Policy 12.3 in OPA 469, which permits office uses to a maximum Floor Space Index (“FSI”) of 1.86 times the gross site area, excluding any floor area associated with the existing above grade parking structure.

37Counsel for the City provided a high-level explanation of the proposed settlement, as detailed in Exhibit “E” to the Affidavit of Ms. Mahendran. She noted that OPA 231 would be modified to redesignate Amexon’s lands from Core Employment Areas to Mixed Use Areas and, in keeping with this change, OPA 469 would also be modified such that the Amexon Lands would no longer be identified as Core Employment Areas but rather, Mixed Use Areas B. It was explained that the changes proposed to OPA 469 maintain the intent to prioritize the lands for office and commercial uses, in keeping with the character of the QEW Office Precinct. She noted that the proposed settlement also includes several modifications to site and area specific policy 12.3.1 of OPA 469 to permit residential and other sensitive land uses on the northern portion of the Amexon Lands provided that certain policies are met, including but not limited to ensuring: office areas are developed prior to or concurrent with any residential development; a sufficient non-residential land use buffer and separation from the QEW; and the provision of affordable housing secured through agreements with the City. It was noted that all of the proposed modifications to OPA 469 are intended to ensure any future development on the redesignated Amexon Lands meets the intent of policies within the Sherway Secondary Plan.

38In her Affidavit, Ms. Mahendran affirmed that the proposed modifications to OPA 231 and OPA 469 represent good planning for a number of reasons including, but not limited to, the following:

a. ensuring employment-generating uses are not lost through the conversion;

b. prioritizing development of employment gross floor area on the Lands prior to or concurrent with residential or other sensitive land use development;

c. not adversely affecting the viability of other Employment Areas such as the property at 689 Evans Avenue which currently contains a bank;

d. redesignating the Lands Mixed Use Areas B – Office Commercial in OPA 469 which will serve as a land use buffer between the highways and the rest of the Sherway Area, which is intended to be redeveloped as a complete, mixed-use community; and

e. limiting the development of residential uses and/or other sensitive land uses to the northern portion of the Lands (Area “A”) and requiring the demonstration that these sensitive uses would not exceed capacity of planned physical infrastructure.

39Based on the foregoing, Ms. Mahendran affirmed that the proposed settlement has appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act, is consistent with the PPS 2020.

40With respect to the requirement for conformity with the Growth Plan, Ms. Mahendran’s Affidavit explains the application of Ontario Regulation 305/19, which was filed by the Province and came into force on September 6, 2019. This regulation pertains to transitional matters for Growth Plans under the Places to Grow Act, 2005 and transitions OPA 231 under the 2006 Growth Plan, such that the 2020 Growth Plan, as amended, and the policies contained within it, including the Provincially Significant Employment Zones framework, are not applicable to those sites and policy matters that have appeal status under OPA 231, including matters related to site-specific appeals.

41She affirmed that the proposed modifications to OPA 231 conform to the 2006 Growth Plan and the proposed modifications to OPA 469 conform to the 2020 Growth Plan and that the proposed modifications to both conform with the intent and purpose of the OP.

42In summary, Ms. Mahendran’s evidence is that the proposed settlement allows for the orderly development of safe and healthy communities; promotes economic development and the provision of employment opportunities; provides a mix and range of housing options, including the provision of affordable housing in furtherance of the achievement of complete communities; and provides a coordination of infrastructure planning and land use planning.

43Based on the uncontested land use planning opinion evidence presented and the submissions of counsel, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed modifications to OPA 231 and OPA 469, as contained within Exhibit “E” to the Affidavit of Ms. Mahendran, satisfy the requisite legislative tests and are representative of good planning and accordingly approves of same.

ORDER

44In relation to the remaining appeals of OPA 231 and in particular, those Appeals in Phase 6G, the Tribunal orders that:

a. The Tribunal will consider a written motion to settle Appeal No. 92 and Appeal No. 155 on Friday, September 8, 2023. All motion materials in support of the proposed settlement shall be submitted to the Tribunal no later than Friday, September 1, 2023;

b. A five (5)-day video hearing with respect to Appeal No. 115 by Leslie-Lakeshore Developments Inc. in relation to 731 Eastern Avenue, shall commence at 10 a.m. on Monday, June 3, 2024. The Parties shall submit to the Tribunal, for its review and approval, a draft Procedural Order and Issues List no later than Friday, June 16, 2023;

c. The Parties are directed to respond to the City’s forthcoming request for information by Friday, June 30, 2023, failing which, the City may make a motion in writing to the Tribunal requesting an Order dismissing the applicable appeal(s);

d. A further Case Management Conference will be held by video hearing at 10 a.m. on Thursday, August 17, 2023 for the purposes of determining the next steps in organizing the remaining OPA 231 Phase 6G appeals;

e. The Panel is not seized of any of the aforementioned hearing events but may be available for case management purposes should the Tribunal’s calendar permit.

45In relation to the City’s Motion to settle Amexon’s Appeals which came before the Tribunal for a hearing on April 26, 2023 and June 8, 2023, the Tribunal Orders as follows:

a. Pursuant to Rule 16.1, Appeal No. 57 to Official Plan Amendment 231 (“OPA 231”) and Appeal No. 1 to Official Plan Amendment 469 (“OPA 469”) to the Official Plan for the City of Toronto are to be heard together;

b. Amexon’s Appeals are allowed in part and:

i. OPA 231 is hereby modified and approved in accordance with Attachment 1 to this Order and such modifications are hereby in full force and effect, as they apply to the lands at 701-703 Evans Avenue; and

ii. OPA 469 is hereby modified and approved in accordance with Attachment 2 to this Order and such modifications are hereby in full force and effect as they apply to the lands at 701-703 Evans Avenue.

c. The Tribunal further orders that the following parts of OPA 469 are in-force and effect as of June 8, 2023, with respect to the lands municipally known as 701-703 Evans Avenue and the QEW Office Precinct as identified on Map 43-9 of the Secondary Plan, without modification:

i. QEW Office Precinct: the QEW Office Precinct as shown on Map 43-9

ii. 701-703 Evans Avenue: 4.6.5, 5.5, 5.6, 6.1, 7.7, 7.8, 7.11, 7.13, 7.15, 7.18, 8.7, 8.8, 8.9.3, 11.1, Map 43-7.

d. The Tribunal further orders that Appeal No. 57 to OPA 231 has been resolved in its entirety.

e. The Tribunal further orders that Appeal No. 1 to OPA 469 has been resolved in its entirety.

f. This Order and the approval of the above-mentioned portions of OPA 231 is without prejudice to the disposition of the unapproved portions of OPA 231, including but not limited to positions taken by the parties to any remaining site or area specific appeals. Thus, the Tribunal may render future Orders respecting such unapproved portions of OPA 231 which are inconsistent with one or more aspects of this Order, including without limitation approving site-specific modifications that deviate from or are inconsistent with this Order or such policies, non-policy text, that are approved hereby on a City-wide basis (or as approved in respect of other lands which are subject to the same policies, schedules and associated text). However, this does not affect the City’s right to assert that the approved policies and non-policy text should be applied to the specific sites or areas without modification on the basis that they constitute good planning

g. Notwithstanding anything ordered above, the Tribunal hereby retains jurisdiction to consider and approve modifications to any policies, non-policy text, definitions, mapping approved herein as may be appropriate to dispose of any of the outstanding appeals before the Tribunal, in accordance with section 9 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. c.21, Sched 6.

h. Notwithstanding anything in this Order, its terms and any other dispositions in the proceedings which are the subject hereof are without prejudice to the adjudication of the portions of OPA 469 that remain under appeal and to the positions of the parties in Tribunal File No. OLT-22-001933 therein.

i. The Tribunal further orders that the modification and partial approval of OPA 469 set out in this Order shall be strictly without prejudice to, and shall not have the effect of limiting:

i. The rights of all parties in Tribunal File No. OLT-22-001933 to seek to modify, delete or add to the unapproved portions of OPA 469; and

ii. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to consider and approve modifications, deleting 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 are inconsistent with, those portions of OPA 469 that are partially approved by this Order.

j. The Tribunal further orders that the modifications and partial approval of OPA 469 set out in this Order are without prejudice to the position of the parties in Tribunal File No. OLT-22-001933, so that as the remaining appeals in that proceeding 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 such deviate from the approved portions of OPA 469. 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 of precincts without modification on the basis that they are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, or its successor, and that they constitute good planning.

46There will be no further notice and this Panel is not seized but will remain available for case management subject to the Tribunal’s calendar.

“C. Hardy”

C. Hardy MEMBER

“S. Braun”

S. Braun MEMBER

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"

With Respect to OPA 231 and Appeal 57 in OLT-22-002343

Official Plan Amendment No. 231 is modified as follows:

1. Map 2, Urban Structure, shown in Appendix 1, is modified by deleting Employment Areas from the lands known municipally in 2022 as 701-703 Evans Avenue.

2. Map 39 of 48, shown in Appendix 2, is modified by redesignating the lands known municipally in 2022 as 701-703 Evans Avenue to Mixed Use Areas, as shown on attached Schedule 'A'.

Schedule ‘A’

Attachment "2"

With Respect to OPA 469 and Appeal 1 in OLT-22-001933

Official Plan Amendment No. 469 is modified as follows:

1. Map 43-5 Land Use Plan is amended by re-designating the lands known municipally in 2022 as 701-703 Evan Avenue from Core Employment Areas to Mixed Use Areas B – Office Commercial, as shown on attached Schedule ‘B’:

Schedule ‘B’

2. Policy 10.35 is deleted and replaced with the following:

"10.3.5 The QEW Office Precinct will be maintained as an area where office commercial uses will be prioritized pursuant to policies in the Plan."

3. Policy 12.3, Site and Area-Specific Policies, is deleted and replaced with the following: "701-703 Evans Avenue

12.3.1 Despite Policy 5.9, on the lands municipally known as 701-703 Evans Avenue, residential and other sensitive land uses may be considered on the portion of the lands identified as Area 'A' on Map 12.3 below, provided that:

12.3.1.1 a minimum office gross floor area of 19,673 square metres or 100 percent replacement of the existing office gross floor area, excluding any floor area associated with the existing above ground parking structure attached to the existing mid-rise building known as 703 Evans Avenue, whichever is greater, will be developed and/or retained on the lands prior to or concurrent with any residential or other sensitive land uses on Area 'A';

12.3.1.2 redevelopment of the remainder of the lands on Map 12.3 below will provide a sufficient non-residential land use buffer on the lands, and separation from adjacent major transportation facilities, to the City's satisfaction;

12.3.1.3 redevelopment of the lands will maintain singular access from Sherway Gate/Evans Court;

12.3.1.4 it is demonstrated that the liveability of the proposed residential dwelling units and/or occupancy of other sensitive uses will not be adversely impacted by excessive noise, odour, vibration, or poor air quality;

12.3.1.5 in addition to the minimum office gross floor area in 12.3.1.1 above, the maximum floor space index permitted for residential and other sensitive land uses on the lands will be determined in accordance with Policy 6.4 of this Plan through a zoning by-law amendment and in no event will the floor space index for residential and other sensitive land uses exceed 2.5 times the gross site area of the part of the site designated Mixed Use Areas 'B';

12.3.1.6 any new development containing residential units in Area 'A' will secure a minimum amount of affordable housing as follows:

i. if a condominium development is proposed, a minimum of 10 percent of the total new residential gross floor area shall be secured as affordable ownership housing or a minimum of 7 percent of the total new residential gross floor area shall be secured as affordable rental housing; or

ii. if a purpose-built rental development is proposed after 2025, a minimum of 5 percent of the total new residential gross area shall be secured as affordable rental housing;

iii. the affordable housing shall be secured at affordable rents or affordable ownership prices for a period of at least 99 years from the date of first residential occupancy of the unit; and

iv. the unit mix of the affordable housing shall reflect the market component of the development, as appropriate, to achieve a balanced mix of unit types and sizes and support the creation of affordable housing suitable for families;

12.3.1.7 Where a complete application for a Zoning By-law Amendment has not been filed prior to January 1, 2025, the affordable rental housing required in Policy 12.3.1.6 i. will increase by 1.5 percent per year. Affordable ownership housing requirements will be set at one point four times the affordable rental housing requirements;

12.3.1.8 The provision of affordable housing required by Policy 12.3.1.6 shall be secured through one or more agreements with the City;

12.3.1.9 Conditions to be met prior to the removal of any holding ("H") provision on the lands shall include the following:

i. Entering into a Municipal Housing Project Facility Agreement or such other agreement(s) as may be satisfactory to the City Solicitor to secure the provision of affordable housing; and

ii. The submission and acceptance of a Housing Issues Report, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning that identifies the unit mix, unit sizes, and how affordable housing requirements will be met;

12.3.1.10 If an Inclusionary Zoning By-law takes effect and is applicable to development on the lands, then the Official Plan Inclusionary Zoning policies and by-law, as may be amended, will prevail, and the affordable housing requirements in Policy 12.3.1.6 and Policy 12.3.1.7 will no longer apply, but only provided the applicable Inclusionary Zoning policy and by-law requirements meet or exceed the requirements of Policy 12.3.1.6 and Policy 12.3.1.7 above; and

12.3.1.10 To achieve the intent of Policy 8.7 of this Plan, purpose built rental housing shall be encouraged on the lands."