Basilian Fathers of Toronto and Daniels HR Corporation v. Toronto (City), 2023 CanLII 83064

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: September 05, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004423

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Basilian Fathers of Toronto and Daniels HR Corporation

Appellant: The Honourable Ted Arnott on behalf of the Office of the Assembly

Appellant: Toronto Catholic District School Board

Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 582

Description: University of Toronto St. George Secondary Plan

Municipality: City of Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004423

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004423

OLT Case Name: Basilian Fathers of Toronto and Daniels HR Corporation v. Toronto (City)

Heard: July 28, 2023 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Toronto Catholic District School Board (“School Board”)

J. Lesage A. Baker (in absentia)

City of Toronto (“City”)

L. Bisset

The Governing Council of the University of Toronto (“UofT”)

Basilian Fathers of Toronto and Daniels HR Corporation (“Basilian Fathers/Daniels”)

S. Leisk C. Gibson (in absentia) M. Flowers S. Lampert

DECISION DELIVERED BY C.I. MOLINARI AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Final Order

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1The Tribunal convened a settlement hearing on an appeal related to the City’s approval of OPA No. 582 to the Toronto Official Plan (“Official Plan”), being the University of Toronto St. George Campus Secondary Plan (“Secondary Plan”/“OPA 582”). The application for the Secondary Plan (“Application”) was made by UofT in 2016, approved by City Council on July 22, 2022, and appealed on August 16 and 17, 2022 by the School Board and others. The appeals were filed pursuant to s. 17(24) of the Planning Act (“Act”).

2Although the Application was submitted by UofT, the scope of the Application, to establish a new Secondary Plan to replace the existing University of Toronto Secondary Plan approved in 1997, includes many properties not owned by UofT. As such, the City undertook to draft a revised version of the Secondary Plan and approached the Application review process and the drafting of the Secondary Plan in a manner that was closer to that of a municipally led planning study rather than as a result of a development application.

3The intent of the Application and the drafting of the Secondary Plan was to update the planning framework for the Area to better facilitate and manage the ongoing evolution of the campus and surrounding lands.

4OPA 582 builds on the existing planning framework to provide area-specific policies regarding the public realm, built form and land uses, as well as implementing new Urban Design Guidelines (“Guidelines”) which are not before the Tribunal. OPA 582 also redesignates 2-20 Washington Avenue and 36-56 Harbord Street from Neighbourhoods to Institutional Areas.

5The Appellants originally comprised the School Board, Basilian Fathers/Daniels, and The Honourable Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario (“LAO”). University of St. Michael’s College (“St. Michael’s”) was added as a Party to the appeal in a watching brief role.

6Basilian Fathers/Daniels resolved its appeal through a settlement hearing before the Tribunal on December 9, 2022 but has maintained its Party status. LAO withdrew its appeal on January 30, 2023, and St. Michael’s withdrew its Party status on April 24, 2023.

7The Basilian Fathers/Daniels settlement resulted in site-specific modifications and partial approval of OPA 582 as it applies to the property at 95 St. Joseph Street. The remainder of OPA 582 was left unapproved and unmodified by the Tribunal as of January 23, 2023.

8The School Board is the remaining Appellant, with a settlement of its appeal with the City (“Settlement Proposal”) currently before the Tribunal, in the form of modifications to the Secondary Plan.

9The Tribunal received correspondence from the School Board in advance of the hearing advising that the Parties had settled the issues and requesting that the Tribunal convert the proceedings to a settlement hearing.

10In accordance with Rule 12 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal convened the proceedings as a hearing on the terms of the Settlement Proposal.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

11When considering an appeal filed pursuant to s. 17(24) of the Act, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest as set in s. 2 of the Act. Section 3(5) of the Act requires decisions of the Tribunal affecting planning matters to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) and, in this case, conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”). The Tribunal must also be satisfied that OPA 582, as modified, conforms with the Official Plan.

12In consideration of the statutory requirements set out above, the Tribunal must be satisfied that OPA 582, as modified, represents good planning and is in the public interest.

PLANNING EVIDENCE – ON CONSENT

13Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal received the Affidavit of Paul Johnson in support of the Settlement Proposal. The Tribunal qualified Mr. Johnson, on consent, to provide opinion evidence pertaining to this matter in the area of land use planning, in both his oral testimony and in his Affidavit.

14Mr. Johnson provided background information on the Secondary Plan area, as well as the history and processing of the Application.

15Mr. Johnson advised that the modifications to the Secondary Plan, as part of the Settlement Proposal, include amendments to sections 4.39 and 5.15(f) of the Secondary Plan.

16The amendment to section 4.39 of the Secondary Plan clarifies where the requirement for a View Study applies in the Secondary Plan area. Mr. Johnson proffered in his Affidavit that:

[i]t was always intended that View Studies would only be required within the Front Campus Panorama and the areas around the Panorama, and this wording assists in confirming this intent to avoid potential future interpretation issues. The modification maintains the intent to conserve and enhance the views from and character of the Front Campus and core of the Central Campus Character Area, while allowing for new institutional development to occur around it, and contribute to a layering of development and new forms over time.

17Mr. Johnson proffered in his Affidavit that the amendment to section 5.15(f) of the Secondary Plan:

serves only to confirm and reinforce staff’s original intent to permit development to transition from a higher scale at the southeastern edges of the East Campus Character Area, to the low-scale area north of St. Joseph Street and toward the lower scale of the Queen’s Park Character Area to the west.

18Mr. Johnson opined that the two modifications to the Secondary Plan do not change the intent or meaning of any of the policies that were adopted by the City. It is his opinion that:

[t]he existing open space character and low-scale of the interior portions of the East Campus Character Area north of St. Joseph Street will be maintained and enhanced. A mix of low-scale institutional buildings, mid-scale institutional buildings and taller institutional elements will continue to be permitted south of St. Joseph Street, while maintaining the intent to provide appropriate transitions in scale from the low-rise core of the East Campus and adjacent Queen’s Park Character Areas to the generally higher scale city beyond to the south and east. While the area south of St. Joseph Street will continue to differ in scale from the core of the Character Area, the policies to maintain connections between the lowrise interior portion of the area and mixed-scale area south of St. Joseph Street through institutional land uses, compatible built form, and public realm elements including forecourts, green open spaces and mid-block connections that extend through the area remain unchanged. Development will also continue to maintain and enhance the visual prominence of the Victoria College building, and St. Basil’s Church and Odette Hall, and views of the Legislative Building’s towers and rooflines, as originally intended.

Policy Framework

19In the final report to City Council on the Secondary Plan (“Final Report”), Mr. Johnson concluded that the recommended Secondary Plan has regard for matters of provincial interest, is consistent with the policies of the PPS, conforms to the Growth Plan and maintains the intent and purpose of, and conforms to, the Official Plan.

20Mr. Johnson further proffered in his Affidavit that he “adopt[s] the content of the Final Report as part of [his] evidence in support of the approval of the Secondary Plan, and in particular the planning analysis contained in that report”.

21In his Affidavit, Mr. Johnson opined that the modifications made by the City in its adoption of the Secondary Plan “have regard for matters of provincial interest; are consistent with the policies of the PPS; conform to the Growth Plan; and maintain the intent and purpose of, and conform to the City’s Official Plan.” He further proffered that the modifications do not change his analysis of the Secondary Plan in the Final Report.

22Further, it was Mr. Johnson’s opinion that the modifications as part of the Settlement Proposal do not change the intent or meaning of the Secondary Plan and that, with respect to matters of provincial interest, consistency with the PPS and conformity with the Growth Plan, his opinion has not changed since the adoption of the Secondary Plan.

23With respect to Section 2 of the Act, Mr. Johnson opined that the Secondary Plan, as modified through the Settlement Proposal, has regard for matters of provincial interest, in that it:

• “provides an updated planning framework for this key growth area of the city that includes many public bodies”,
• “directs the conservation of heritage resources”,
• “establishes built form parameters for institutional development to ensure it is well-designed and reinforces and enhances the Area’s distinct sense of place appropriate to its context and uses”,
• “enhances sustainability and resilience to climate change in the public realm and built form”,
• “takes advantage of existing public transit service and enhances active transportation options through policies that prioritize pedestrians and cyclists in the Area”, and
• “creates opportunities for new employment, increased institutional space, and new educational and cultural facilities through allowing for greater flexibility in the scale and location of future institutional development”.

24Mr. Johnson opined that the Secondary Plan, as modified through the Settlement Proposal, is consistent with the PPS because it provides appropriate built form policy to allow for intensification while:

• “minimizing negative impacts on the public realm and adjacent sites and neighbourhoods”,
• “conserving heritage properties and important views”,
• “protecting and expanding the public realm”,
• “contributing to the enhancement and vitality of the campus environment and surrounding neighbourhoods in an appropriate built form”,
• “allowing for significant intensification opportunities at locations that are in close proximity to higher order transit stations and existing and future cycling infrastructure, and enhancing the pedestrian network through public realm improvements and that also connect to the city beyond the Area”, and
• “contributing to the goal of planning communities to meet people’s needs for daily living”.

25Mr. Johnson opined that the Secondary Plan, as modified through the Settlement Proposal, conforms with the Growth Plan because it provides appropriate built form policy to allow for intensification in a designated urban growth centre while:

• “minimizing negative impacts on the public realm”;
• “protecting heritage properties and important views”;
• “protecting and expanding the public realm”;
• “supporting energy conservation and efficiency, improved air quality and reduced greenhouse gas emissions through intensification of the Area”;
• “prioritizing active transportation and directing enhanced sustainability measures in new development”; and
• “contributing to the goal of planning for complete communities”.

26With respect to the Official Plan, policy 5.3.1.3 requires that a Secondary Plan be consistent with the Official Plan. In Mr. Johnson’s opinion, the Secondary Plan, as modified through the Settlement Proposal, “conforms with the Official Plan because it reinforces and expands on the policy priorities identified in the Official Plan in a way that is tailored to this distinct area of the city by”:

• “allowing for development that is appropriate to its context”;
• “encouraging intensification near transit”;
• “prioritizing active transportation”;
• “enhancing livability through compact development patterns”;
• “encouraging climate positive development”;
• “protecting for institutional uses including non-residential facilities and institutional forms of housing and a mix of supportive animating uses”;
• “identifying, protecting and enhancing character defining elements of the Area and sub-areas within its boundaries that contribute to the Area’s sense of place”; and
• “allowing for the ongoing evolution of the Area through a planning framework that appropriately balances citywide priorities”.

Conclusions

27It was Mr. Johnson’s submission that the Secondary Plan provides “an updated planning framework that supports the policies of the Downtown Plan and existing applicable Site and Area Specific Policies with a complementary planning framework that is specific to the Area context”. Together with the Guidelines, the Secondary Plan “provides detailed policies and guidance to ensure that the primary objectives of heritage conservation, enhancement and expansion of the public realm, and the provision of institutional uses and appropriate built form are met”.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

28The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted planning opinion evidence of Mr. Johnson in support of the Settlement Proposal.

29In consideration of the evidence of Mr. Johnson, both orally and through his Affidavit, and the revisions to the Secondary Plan resulting in the settlement of the appeal, the Tribunal is satisfied that OPA 582, as modified, has sufficient and proper regard for the applicable matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act. The Tribunal finds that OPA 582, as modified, is consistent with the PPS, conform to the policies of the Growth Plan, and conform to the policies of the Official Plan.

30Accordingly, the Tribunal approves OPA 582, as modified.

ORDER

31THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed in part and Orders that Amendment No. 582 to the Official Plan for the City of Toronto is modified by adding the following underlined words to policies 4.39 and 5.15(f):

• Policy 4.39 - Planning applications both within and adjacent to the areas shown on Map 20-2E will demonstrate that they comply with Policy 4.38 by completing a View Study as part of a complete application illustrating panoramic views from the centre of the Front Campus lawn looking toward the proposed development; and
• Policy 5.15(f) - Development within the East Campus Character Area will: (f) south of St. Joseph Street, include a mix of low-scale institutional buildings, mid-scale institutional buildings and taller institutional elements, which will be designed and massed to provide noticeable and discernable built form transition in scale from the eastern edges of the Character Area, where the highest scale buildings would be located, to the lower scale Queen’s Park Character Area to the west and the interior portion of the Character Area north of St. Joseph Street;

32THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that, pursuant to Rule 24.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, this Order is effective on July 28, 2023, being the date of the settlement hearing at which Amendment No. 582 was presented and considered by the Tribunal.

"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.