Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: December 19, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000660 (Formerly: PL011117–O010191)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Transmetro Limited Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit an expansion of the boundary of the City Centre uses designation and associated amendments thereto Reference Number: SC-P 2000 0014 Property Address: 1750 Brimley Road and 350 Progress Avenue Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000660 Legacy Case No.: PL011117-O0010191 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000660 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL011117-O0010191 OLT Case Name: Transmetro Limited v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Transmetro Limited Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit the development of the subject lands for residential, office and secondary commercial uses, and a public park Reference Number: SC-Z 2000 0023 Property Address: 1750 Brimley Road and 350 Progress Avenue Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000661 Legacy Case No.: PL011117-Z010160 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000660 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL011117-O0010191
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Transmetro Limited Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision Description: To permit a proposed plan of subdivision Reference Number: SC-T 2000 0002 Property Address: 1750 Brimley Road and 350 Progress Avenue Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000662 Legacy Case No.: PL011117-S010072 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000660 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL011117-O0010191
Heard: December 6, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Transmetro Limited | Sidonia Tomasella |
| City of Toronto | Leslie Forder |
| Kraft Canada Inc. | Dennis Trinaistich (in absentia) |
| Schick Court Inc. | Conrad Schickendanz |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BITA M. RAJAEE ON DECEMBER 6, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This event was the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) before the Tribunal with respect to an Order of the Tribunal dated July 11, 2007 regarding an appeal under s. 51(34) of the Planning Act by Transmetro Limited (“Applicant”) against the City of Toronto (“City”). The draft plan of subdivision (“Subdivision Plan”) was approved on an interim basis, subject to the clearing of Conditions of Approval (“Conditions”), and relates to lands located at 1750 Brimley Road (“Subject Lands”). The Subdivision Plan is to permit the development of the Subject Lands with residential (1797 units), office, and secondary commercial uses, as well as a public park.
2On June 26, 2024, the Tribunal was asked to re-engage in this matter, as potential modifications to the Subdivision Plan and some of the Conditions were required. A first CMC took place on August 27, 2024, wherein the Parties advised that potential modifications to the Conditions were required, but, as the City stated, the exact nature of those would not be clear until a resubmission of the revised Subdivision Plan was made to the City. The Parties were directed to communicate together and prepare a plan to proceed, including determining what modifications are needed.
3This second CMC was scheduled in order to allow the Parties to present the Tribunal with either the required modifications or with an updated plan for proceeding. Additionally, two procedural matters needed to be dealt with: the involvement of Kraft Canada Inc. (“Kraft”), an added Party; and the status of the developer, Schick Court Inc., who had entered an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for the Subject Property with the Applicant and was taking the lead on this development.
KRAFT CANADA INC.
4No representative from Kraft attended the CMC. However, Mithea Murugesu (Counsel) attended the CMC, representing Mondelez Canada Inc. (“Mondelez”). Mondelez is the current operator of the facility that Kraft previously operated. Ms. Murugesu advised that, at this time, their office was not aware of the status of the current owner of the property that Mondelez is occupying, but that their office is in the process of investigating. For now, Mondelez did not seek Party status or to replace Kraft in the proceeding. Their office intends to continue their investigation and to advise the Tribunal and the other Parties of their intention in the proceeding in due course.
5The Tribunal directed Mondelez to provide an update on their status and their intention as to what role they wish to take in the proceeding by January 31, 2025.
STATUS OF SCHICK COURT INC.
6Schick Court Inc. (“Schick”) is the developer of this proposal, acting on behalf of the Applicant. At the first CMC, the Tribunal had enquired as to the best way to include Schick in the proceeding, in light of the Applicant’s position that Schick is the authorized owner handling all planning matters. The Parties were to advise on this at the second CMC
7At the second CMC, Schick advised that it would seek Party Status in this proceeding. The Tribunal questioned whether it would be better to substitute the Applicant with Schick and then add the Applicant as a Party instead. The Tribunal explained that adding Schick as a Party would mean that it would not have the same rights and abilities as the Applicant, and if the Applicant decided to withdraw its Appeal, Schick as an added Party might not be able to continue with the Appeal and, at the very least, might not have the same rights and responsibilities.
8However, due to the current status of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (where the transfer of lands has not been completed), the Applicant’s Counsel submitted that the Applicant did not wish to forgo its status as the Appellant in this Appeal. If, in the future, it were to decide to remove itself from the proceeding, that would then be the appropriate time for Schick to become the Appellant by replacing the Applicant. The City agreed that this would have to happen at some point in the future to allow Schick to sign the Subdivision Agreement (instead of the Applicant).
9None of the Parties were aware of any rule or statute preventing the Tribunal from being able to substitute an added Party for the Appellant in the future. Moreover, the Applicant’s Counsel indicated that, in all likelihood, the Applicant might be involved in this process until the very end.
10As such, the Tribunal conferred Party status to Schick, who is an appropriate Party and meets all requirements of being a Party in this proceeding.
STATUS UPDATE
11Schick and the City advised that they had engaged in a number of meetings since the last CMC. The City had provided a list of items it believed were outstanding and requested that Schick send the items in one package. Schick has been engaged in compiling this package and is very near submission of it to the City. Once that is done (which is imminently), the City will provide its proposed modifications to Schick.
12Schick and the City requested that a third CMC be scheduled to allow the Parties to:
a. update the Tribunal;
b. seek dates for a contested Hearing if there is a disagreement on the proposed modifications; or
c. present an agreement to the Tribunal regarding the proposed modifications, if the Parties are able to reach same.
13The Tribunal agreed with this course of action and a third CMC has been scheduled, with the details described below.
THIRD CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
14The third CMC has now been scheduled to take place on March 26, 2025 at 10 a.m. by video. The Parties were directed to provide a status update to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator by March 19, 2025. This update can include a draft agenda for the upcoming CMC, an update on discussions that have occurred between the Parties, and whether revisions to the Conditions are proposed to be addressed at the CMC.
15On Wednesday, March 26, 2025, the Parties and Participants are asked to log in to the event by video at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/638422541
Access Code: 638-422-541
16The Parties and/or 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 GoTo Meeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html
17Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to it by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (toll-free) 1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 638-422-541.
18Individuals 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 event to ensure that they are properly connected at the correct time. Questions prior to the event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator.
ORDER
19THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS as follows:
a. Schick Court Inc. is now a Party in this proceeding.
b. Mondelez Canada Inc. is to update the Tribunal and the other Parties by January 31, 2025 regarding the nature of its involvement in this proceeding.
c. A Case Management Conference is scheduled, as described above in this Decision.
d. A status update is to be provided to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator by March 19, 2025.
20This Member is not seized but may be contacted through the Case Coordinator should procedural issues arise.
“Bita M. Rajaee”
BITA M. RAJAEE
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.