Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: September 08, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000424
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Laing Sears Holdings Inc.
Subject: Official Plan Amendment
Description: To permit development of 7-storey and 4-storey residential buildings consisting of total 130 residential units
Property Address: 46R, 50, 52 and 52R Laing Street
Municipality/UT: Toronto
Municipal File No.: 22 242126 STE 14 OZ
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000424
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000424
OLT Case Name: Laing Sears Holdings Inc. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Laing Sears Holdings Inc.
Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment
Description: To permit development of 7-storey and 4-storey residential buildings consisting of total 130 residential units
Property Address: 46R, 50, 52 and 52R Laing Street
Municipality/UT: Toronto
Municipal File No.: 22 242126 STE 14 OZ
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000424
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000424
OLT Case Name:
Heard: September 6, 2023 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Laing Sears Holdings Inc.
Max Laskin Joe Hoffman (in absentia)
City of Toronto
Adam Ward Raymond Tung Ray Kallio
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY ERIC S. CROWE ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) with respect to an appeal filed by Laing Sears Holdings Inc. (“Applicant/Appellant”) regarding the City of Toronto (“City”), Council’s failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) under s. 22(7) and a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBLA”) under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) for the property municipally addressed as 46R,50,52,and 52R Laing Street (“Subject Site”).
2The purpose of the OPA and ZBLA is to permit development of a 7-storey and a 4-storey residential building with a combined total of 130 residential units.[3] The Subject Site is a consolidation of four properties. The site is irregular in shape, and has an area of approximately 2,475.3 square metres. The applications propose to intensify a largely vacant site with two residential buildings. Building A is a sculpted 7-storey building that would occupy the majority of the property with frontage on Sears Avenue, Maple Leaf Forever Park and the public lane to the west. Building B is a 4-storey building fronting Laing Street. The proposal seeks to introduce new purpose-built rental residential units to the Subject Site through sensitive infill development that is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.
3While the Property is designated Neighbourhoods, a land use designation that anticipates heights up to four storeys, the proposed official plan amendment would introduce a Site and Area Specific Policy to permit a height of seven storeys in recognition of the Property’s location near two major streets and within proximity of two frequent transit routes.
4The appeal is the failure to make a decision by the City Council.
5The Sworn Affidavit of Service dated August 8, 2023 related to the Notice was marked as Exhibit 1.
PARTICIPANT or PARTY STATUS REQUEST
6In response to the Notice, the Tribunal did not receive any Participant or Party Status requests. However, two observers at the CMC noted that they were still considering whether to make formal requests for Party or Participant status. The Tribunal advised the observers that their request should have been submitted within ten days of this CMC however, they would be able to contact the case coordinator to determine if they wanted to pursue this request which would determine their potential status at the next CMC
HEARING
7Max Laskin, Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant, provided a brief update on the current status of the application. He advised that he has not received any comments from City staff concerning the application. The application was deemed complete in January 2023. Mr. Laskin advised that he would be requesting a 9- day hearing preferably in April 2024, due to the nature of the proposal and advised in his opinion, there was no land issues but only built form and possible transportation issues. Mr. Laskin submitted that there would be no prejudice to the City and the finalization of the PO and Issues list could be completed before the proposed hearing date. In the alternative Mr. Laskin advised he would not be opposed to a second CMC as long as hearing dates as proposed would also be set.
8Adam Ward, Counsel for the City, submitted that he has no instructions from City council concerning this proposal, therefore he can not complete an Issues List at this time and advised it is premature to set a hearing date since he would not know the issues or how many days to request. Mr. Ward advised that there was a slight revision to the original application and therefore, it took time to clarify, that is the reason the application was not sent to Council before. Mr. Ward advised the next council meetings are between October 11 to 13, 2023 and that a second CMC after these dates would be preferable.
MEDIATION
9The Parties were advised that Tribunal-led mediation was available and that they are aware that they may request this mediation at their convenience.
DRAFT PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST
10The Tribunal canvassed the Parties regarding the time needed to draft a Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List (“IL”). On consent, the Tribunal directed that a complete draft PO be provided to the Case Coordinator no later than Monday, October 30, 2023. Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant will co-ordinate and provide the draft PO to the Tribunal by the appointed date.
CMC DATE
11The Tribunal finds a second CMC is preferable considering counsel for the City needs instructions from City council therefore, the Tribunal directs that a second CMC will be held by video commencing on Monday, November 6, 2023, at 10 a.m.
12Parties 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://meet.goto.com/558205565
Access code: 558-205-565
13Parties 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: (Toll-Free) 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The access code is as indicated above.
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 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.
16No further notice will be given.
17The Member is not seized of the matter, but subject to scheduling availability, may be spoken in regards to case management.
18The directions in this Decision are so ordered.
“Eric S. Crowe”
ERIC S. CROWE
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.