Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 18, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000572
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: CSG Yonge Manor Limited and CSG Hillsdale Limited Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Refusal of request Description: To permit the redevelopment of the subject property for a 29-storey building with 486 residential units. Reference Number: 23 200789 STE 12 OZ Property Address: Various Addresses 2079 Yonge Street (2079-2111 Yonge Street, 9-11, 21, and 31 Hillsdale Avenue East and 12-18 Manor Road East) Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-24-000572 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000572 OLT Case Name: CSG Yonge Manor Ltd and CSG Hillsdale Ltd 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 of application Reference Number: 23 200789 STE 12 OZ Property Address: Various Addresses 2079 Yonge Street (2079-2111 Yonge Street, 9-11, 21, and 31 Hillsdale Avenue East and 12-18 Manor Road East) Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-24-000573 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000572 OLT Case Name: CSG Yonge Manor Ltd and CSG Hillsdale Ltd v. Toronto (City)
Heard: October 16, 2024 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties CSG Yonge Manor Limited and CSG Hillsdale Limited Counsel Max Laskin David Bronskill (in absentia)
Parties Amskor Corporation Counsel Greg Woodward
Parties City of Toronto Counsel Jason Davidson Amrit Sandhu
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. DIXON ON OCTOBER 16, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This Decision and Order arises from the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held regarding appeals filed by CSG Yonge Manor Limited and CSG Hillsdale Limited (“Appellant”) pursuant to ss. 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, concerning official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment applications (“Applications”) in the City of Toronto (“City”) for lands municipally known as 2079-2111 Yonge Street, 9-11, 21 and 31 Hillsdale Avenue East, and 12-18 Manor Road East (“Subject Lands”).
2The Applications seek to facilitate the redevelopment of the Subject Lands from existing low-rise mixed-use and semi-detached residential buildings to a 29-storey mixed-use building containing 486 dwelling units. There are currently 37 rental dwelling units on the Subject Lands.
3City Council refused to adopt the requested amendments and the appeals were filed on that basis.
NOTICE
4The Tribunal was in receipt of an Affidavit of Service sworn by Rochelle Vasquez on September 30, 2024, which was marked as Exhibit 1. There were no concerns with the service of notice for the CMC and as such, no further notice is required.
STATUS REQUESTS
5The Tribunal received two requests for party status and one request for participant status in advance of the CMC.
6Amskor Corporation (“Amskor”), the owner of a three-bedroom single family home at 33 Hillsdale Avenue East, requested party status given their location in relation to the Subject Lands, being directly between the future parkland and driveway proposed by the Applications. Amskor’s primary concern, among other things, is how any adverse affects from the proposed development on the Amskor property will be mitigated.
7There were no objections to Amskor’s request for party status from either the Appellant or the City and the request was granted by the Tribunal.
8A party status request was also submitted by the Hillsdale-Manor Tenants’ Association (“Association”), who were represented at the CMC by Miso Choi. Ms. Choi is the tenant organiser and coordinating committee member of the Association, and a tenant in one of the buildings that is proposed to be demolished by the Appellant. Ms. Choi – and by extension the Association – is concerned that the Applications do not propose to replace all of the existing rental units on the Subject Lands.
9Ms. Choi advised the Tribunal that the Association was not incorporated and therefore not a legal entity. Accordingly, the Tribunal informed Ms. Choi that the Association’s request for party status could not be granted. However, the Tribunal did provide Ms. Choi with an opportunity to request party status as an individual.
10Ms. Choi further advised the Tribunal that she did not intend to retain legal counsel, nor was she likely to call any expert witnesses should she be granted party status. Having been made aware of the roles and responsibilities of a party, Ms. Choi elected to convert her request for party status to a request for participant status.
11Hearing no objections from any of the Parties concerning her request, the Tribunal conferred participant status to Ms. Choi.
12The Tribunal was also in receipt of a participant status request from Jeff Latto, who advised the Tribunal that he represents the South Eglinton Davisville Residents Association (“SEDRA”). SEDRA objects to the Applications as, in their opinion, the proposed development does not fit into the existing fabric and character of the surrounding context, specifically in relation to the land use designation, character area, and height provisions of the City’s Official Plan.
13Hearing no objections from any of the Parties concerning his request, the Tribunal conferred participant status to Mr. Latto.
14The Participants were informed that they may submit a written Participant Statement to the Tribunal by the date to be established in the forthcoming Procedural Order. It is the Tribunal’s expectation that the Parties will address the concerns raised in each of the Participant Statements in their future submissions to the Tribunal.
15There was at least one other individual in attendance at the CMC that appeared to have an interest in being added as a participant to these proceedings. However, in the absence of any other participant status request forms, the Tribunal directed that no further requests would be granted at the CMC. Notwithstanding that direction, the Tribunal further directed that, should any other individuals wish to be added as a participant to these proceedings:
a. Those individuals first speak to Ms. Choi and/or Mr. Latto, if possible, to determine whether their interests will be captured by either of the forthcoming Participant Statements; and
b. Should they feel as though their interests will not be represented, they may submit a participant status request with the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator by no later than Friday, November 15, 2024 (10 days in advance of the next CMC, discussed below).
16Counsel for the City also proffered that anyone in attendance at the CMC may reach out to the City to discuss their concerns with the Applications and/or request any information regarding procedural matters related to these proceedings.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SETTLEMENT
17Counsel for the Appellant advised the Tribunal that the Parties are engaged in collaborative and ongoing settlement discussions. While the Parties are aware of the services that the Tribunal offers in this regard, they are content that their current mediation process is sufficient for the time being. Should the Parties find that Tribunal-led mediation would ultimately be of assistance, they will reach out to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator with a request to initiate same.
SECOND CMC
18The Parties requested that a second CMC be scheduled for late November or early December for the purposes of establishing a Procedural Order and Issues List for these proceedings. The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a second CMC, to be held by Video Hearing, on Monday, November 25, 2024 at 10 a.m.
19The Parties were directed to provide the Tribunal with a Draft Procedural Order and Issues List for the Tribunal’s consideration by no later than Thursday, November 21, 2024.
20The Parties were further directed to be prepared to discuss the scheduling of a hearing on the merits – including the anticipated number of required hearing days and their preferred dates for same – at the second CMC.
21Parties are asked to log in to the Video Hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/765631861
Access Code: 765-631-861
22Parties 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.
23Persons 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) 1-888-455-1389 or +1 (647) 497-9391. The access code is as indicated above.
24Individuals 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 Video Hearing 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.
ORDER
25THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that Amskor Corporation is conferred Party Status and is henceforth a Party to these proceedings.
26THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the following individuals are conferred Participant Status and are henceforth Participants to these proceedings:
a. Miso Choi; and
b. Jeff Latto.
27THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Parties are to provide a Draft Procedural Order and Draft Issues List to the Tribunal by no later than Thursday, November 21, 2024.
“S. Dixon”
S. DIXON
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.