Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: September 07, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000334

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

Applicant/Appellant: BayviewEg Investment Corp Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit a 35-storey mixed-use building Reference Number: 22 225964 NNY 15 OZ Property Address: 589 – 595 Eglinton Avenue East and 61 – 67 Mann Avenue Municipality/UT: City of Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-23-000334 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000334 OLT Case Name: BayviewEg Investment Corp v. Toronto (City)

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

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit a 35-storey mixed-use building Reference Number: 22 225964 NNY 15 OZ Property Address: 589 – 595 Eglinton Avenue East and 61 – 67 Mann Avenue Municipality/UT: City of Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-23-000335 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000334

Heard: August 8, 2023 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
BayviewEg Investment Corp.	R. Gill D. Bronskill (in absentia)
City of Toronto	A. deBacker R. Kallio (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C. I. MOLINARI ON AUGUST 8, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) in respect of an appeal filed pursuant to subsections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) by BayviewEg Investment Corp. (“Appellant”) against the City of Toronto (“City”) for its failure to make a decision on Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment applications (“Applications”) within the timeframe prescribed by the Act.

2The lands that are the subject of the application are known municipally as 589-595 Eglinton Avenue East and 61-67 Mann Avenue (“Subject Lands”). The Appellant proposes to redevelop the Subject Lands with a 35-storey mixed-use building containing approximately 442 residential units.

NOTICE

3An Affidavit of Service sworn on July 12, 2023, attesting to the giving of notice for this proceeding, was marked as Exhibit 1.

PARTIES / PARTICIPANTS

4In advance of the CMC, written requests for Participant status were received from:

• Hugh and Barbara Fletcher – citing concerns related to adherence to existing OP policies and Zoning standards, building design, height, shadows, neighbourhood transition, street views, parking, electrical charging areas, adequacy of infrastructure and schools;
• Jill Hamilton – citing concerns related to built form, height and massing, transition, and capacity of local infrastructure and community services;
• Katherine Hung – citing concerns related to the Tall Building Guidelines in terms of transition in scale, angular planes, base building scale, and height, the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan in terms of housing, and the Transportation Demand Management study; and
• South Eglinton Davisville Residents’ Association (“SEDRA”), represented by Jeff Latto – citing concerns related to OPA 405 and the height of the proposed building.

5Mr. Latto confirmed that the Subject Lands are within the geographic area covered by SEDRA and that he had authorization to represent SEDRA. Additionally, the Tribunal is in receipt of SEDRA’s Articles of Incorporation.

6With the consent of the Parties, all Participant status requests were granted.

7The Parties were advised to ensure that their witnesses address the concerns of the Participants in their evidence.

8Jim Parker was also in attendance at the CMC, advising that he had submitted a request for Participant status to the Tribunal approximately one month prior to the CMC. During a break in the CMC, the Case Coordinator confirmed that no such request had been received. Mr. Parker was advised to resubmit a Participant Status Request Form (“Form”).

9Following the CMC, the Tribunal received Mr. Parker’s Form, in which he cited concerns related to height, the lack of a graduated buffer to the neighbouring two-storey dwellings, parking, and the ratio of unit types.

10Consideration of Mr. Parker’s Participant status request will be addressed at the second CMC.

NEXT STEPS

11The Tribunal engaged the Parties in a discussion about next steps in the process, which included expectations for a second CMC and details required for a hearing of the merits.

12Ms. deBacker requested a second CMC as the City has not yet received Council instructions and does not yet have an Issues List (“IL”). She advised that the earliest Council meeting to receive instructions is not until October 13, 2023, and that the City could be ready for a second CMC as early as one week after the Council meeting. Ms. deBacker preferred not to set a hearing date at this time.

13Mr. Gill was not in agreement with the City. He advised that the Applications had been filed over 270 days prior and that it had been close to four months since the Notice of Appeal was filed. In his opinion, the City has had ample time to evaluate the issues and prepare an IL. Mr. Gill requested that a hearing date be set at this time.

14The Tribunal canvassed the Parties on the potential to set dates for both a second CMC and a hearing. Mr. Gill was agreeable but Ms. deBacker preferred not to set a hearing date. She advised that the second submission of the Applications was received by the City on July 12, 2023 and is currently under review, that hearing dates could be considered at the second CMC, and that she was reluctant to set hearing dates without a list of witnesses. Mr. Gill advised the Tribunal that he had put the City on notice that he would be seeking hearing dates. He added that the second submission of the Applications was as a result of comments from the City, and that an explanatory note accompanied the resubmission which noted that the number of storeys remained the same and that the height differed only slightly from the first submission.

15As the Applications involve the development of much needed residential units in an area to be served by the Eglinton Crosstown LRT, the Tribunal felt it was prudent to schedule both a second CMC and a hearing at this time.

MEDIATION

16The Tribunal advised the Parties of the option of Tribunal-led mediation and to contact the Case Coordinator to determine next steps if the need for mediation arises.

DRAFT PROCEDURAL ORDER

17The Tribunal was in receipt of a draft PO indicating a 7-day hearing event but with no IL attached.

HEARING EVENTS

18At the request of the Parties, the Tribunal scheduled a second CMC for Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 10 a.m. by video hearing.

19The purpose of the second CMC will be to determine the status of all Parties and Participants and to review the draft PO and IL, among other preliminary matters to be determined.

20At the request of the Appellant, the Tribunal scheduled a 7-day video hearing to commence on Wednesday, February 28, 2024 at 10 a.m. through to March 8, 2024, exclusive of March 4, 2024.

21The video hearings are scheduled to proceed as follows:

Tuesday, November 07, 2023 at 10 a.m.:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/660145013

Access code: 660-145-013

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

Audio-only access code: 660-145-013

Wednesday, February 28, 2024 at 10 a.m. through Friday, March 08, 2024

(Exclusive of March 04, 2024):

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/660145013

Access code: 660-145-013

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

Audio-only access code: 660-145-013

22Parties and Participants are asked to log in to the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test video and audio connections.

23Parties 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 at:

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

24Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling in to the audio-only telephone line.

25Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned dates at the correct times. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in hearing events by video to ensure that they are properly connected at the correct time. Questions prior to these hearing events may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

ORDER

26The Tribunal confers Participant status to the following in this proceeding:

• Hugh and Barbara Fletcher
• Jill Hamilton
• Katherine Hung, and
• South Eglinton Davisville Residents’ Association

27The Tribunal orders that a second CMC will commence by video hearing on Tuesday, November 7, 2023, at 10 a.m.

28The Tribunal orders that a 7-day hearing will commence by video on Wednesday, February 28, 2024 at 10 a.m., through to March 8, 2024, exclusive of March 4, 2024.

29No further notice is required.

30The Member is not seized of this matter.

“C. I. Molinari”

C. I. MOLINARI

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.