Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 31, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000374

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

Applicant and Appellant: Carlyle Investments Inc.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description: To permit the construction of a 49-story residential building

Property Address: 33-37 Maitland Street

Reference Number: 22 203333 STE 13 OZ

Municipality: City of Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000374

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000374

OLT Case Name: Carlyle Investments Inc. 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: Carlyle Investments Inc.

Subject: Request to amend the Zoning Bylaw – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit the construction of a 49-story residential building

Property Address: 33-37 Maitland Street

Reference Number: 22 203333 STE 13 OZ

Municipality: City of Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000375

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000374

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S. O. 2006, c. 11 Sched A

Applicant/Appellant: Carlyle Investments Inc.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit the construction of a 49-storey residential building

Reference Number: 22 203333 STE 13 OZ

Property Address: 33-37 Maitland Street

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-23-000375

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000374

Heard: December 5, 2024, in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Carlyle Young Maitland GP Inc.

Counsel

Daniel Artenosi Rowan Barron Michael Cara

Parties

City of Toronto

Counsel

Amanda Hill Jason Davidson

Parties

OEF Village Green Nominee Inc.

Counsel

Alexander Suriano Maggie Bassani

DECISION DELIVERED BY J. CAMPBELL and order of the tribunal

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision arises from a settlement hearing (the “Hearing”) before the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”) with respect to appeals (collectively, the “Appeals”) under s. 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) by Carlyle Young Maitland GP Inc. (“Applicant”) resulting from the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to make a decision within the statutory timeframe on applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) pertaining to lands municipally known as 33-37 Maitland Street, in the City of Toronto (“Subject Property”). The purpose of the OPA and ZBA was originally to allow for a 49-storey residential building on the Subject Property (the “Proposed Development”).

2OEF Village Green Nominee Inc. was previously granted Party status in these proceedings as the owner of 55 Maitland Street and 40 and 50 Alexander Street in the City of Toronto (the “OEF Lands”), which are the adjacent lands located to the east of the Subject Property.

3The Applicant has also submitted an appeal pursuant to s. 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 seeking site plan approval with respect to the Proposed Development (the “Site Plan Appeal”). However, the Site Plan Appeal was not before the Tribunal in this Hearing as the Appeals are to be addressed prior to the Site Plan Appeal being considered. As previously noted by the Tribunal, while the Appeals have been administratively consolidated with the Site Plan Appeal, they have not been consolidated for the purpose of the Hearing or adjudicating the relevant issues.

BACKGROUND

4The Subject Property is rectangular in shape and located on the south side of Maitland Street between Yonge Street and Church Street, with approximately 35.1 metres (“m”) of frontage on Maitland Street. The Subject Property is approximately 0.14 hectares (“ha”) in size and is currently occupied by two low-rise buildings, one of which is a three-storey apartment building (33 Maitland Street) and the other which is a two-storey office building (37 Maitland Street). The existing building at 37 Maitland Street has been listed on the City’s Heritage Register since March 15, 1974, and in November 2023, City Council passed By-law No. 1120-2023 to designate both properties on the Subject Property under the Ontario Heritage Act. An appeal to the Tribunal with respect to the heritage designation of the Subject Property was filed on December 22, 2023, but was subsequently withdrawn effective August 7, 2024.

5The Subject Property is located less than 500 m from both the College and Wellesley subway stations of the Toronto Transit Commission (the “TTC”), and Maitland Street is also serviced by existing TTC streetcars and/or buses. Significant development activity is taking place in the surrounding context, with several recent proposals for high-density residential developments in the immediate area.

6The Proposed Development was originally to be comprised of a 49-storey residential building that would conserve the key components of the existing structure at 37 Maitland Street and demolish the existing building at 33 Maitland Street. The Applicant filed applications under City File No. 22 203333 STE 13 OZ (the “Applications”) with the City on September 6, 2022 which sought (i) an OPA to amend Site and Area Specific Policy 383 under the City’s Official Plan in order to permit the building height of the Proposed Development (as Site and Area Specific Policy (“SASP”) 382 to which the Proposed Development is subject in accordance with OPA 183, only permits low-rise infill development to occur); and (ii) a ZBA to amend City By-law No. 569-2013 and City By-law No. 438-86 to permit the site-specific development standards associated with the Proposed Development.

7The Applications were deemed complete as of November 24, 2022, and the Applicant subsequently filed the Appeals on April 18, 2023 under s. 22(7) and 34(11) of the Act on the basis of the City’s refusal or neglect to make a decision within the statutory timeframes.

PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

8On August 7, 2024, the Applicant filed a With Prejudice offer with the City to settle the Appeals (the “Settlement Offer”) which proposed to modify the Proposed Development as follows:

(i) Inclusion of the in-situ retention of a portion of the east elevation of 33 Maitland Street, and the rebuilding of the north and partial west elevations, as well as the rebuilding of the east elevation of the rear additions of 37 Maitland Street in addition to retaining the main building of 37 Maitland in-situ (collectively, the “Heritage Conservation Amendments”);

(ii) Revision of the heritage permit applications that were filed by the Applicant on May 2, 2024 in accordance with s. 33 and 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act to implement the Settlement Offer;

(iii) Reconfiguration of the footprint of the Proposed Development to ensure a minimum tower separation distance of 20 m from the 17-storey building to the west and 25 m from the 18-storey building to the south of the Subject Property. As revised, the building is set back a minimum of 3.4 m from the north, 3.8 m from the east, 6.5 m from the south, and 9.1 m from the west; the tower floorplate size has been reduced from 703 to 678 square metres (“m2”); the height of the proposed tower has increased from 49 to 62 storeys; the tower cantilever over 37 Maitland Street has been increased in height to reduce the visual impact on the heritage resources; and the unit mix shall include 15% two-bedroom units and 10% three-bedroom units; and

(iv) An offer by the Applicant to provide an in-kind contribution pursuant to s. 37(6) of the Act in the form of affordable rental housing units (the “Affordable Housing Units”), with the value of the Affordable Housing Units to be equal to 4% of the value of the Subject Property, in full satisfaction of the applicable community benefit charges (the “Affordable Housing Unit Inclusion”). The value in terms of number of Affordable Housing Units shall be determined in accordance with s. 37 of the Act and in consultation with the Chief Planner of the City. The Applicant and City staff will work cooperatively to confirm the quantum of Affordable Housing Units to be provided acceptable to the Applicant and City staff.

9The Settlement Offer was accepted by City Council at a meeting held on October 9 and 10, 2024, in conjunction with certain pre-conditions to be satisfied in connection with the Proposed Development prior to the issuance of a Final Order in respect of this matter by the Tribunal (the “Pre-Conditions”).

10In support of the Settlement Offer, the Parties filed with the Tribunal an Affidavit of Mr. David McKay sworn on December 2, 2024 (the “McKay Affidavit”) together with his curriculum vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty. Mr. McKay is a Registered Professional Planner and a full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners. He holds a Bachelor of Environmental Studies in Urban and Regional Planning from the University of Waterloo (1998) and a Master of Science in Planning from the University of Toronto (2007), and is employed as a Partner and Vice President with MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited where he has been engaged as a planning consultant since June 1997. Mr. McKay has extensive experience working on many different project types in the City including large-scale development and redevelopment projects. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr. McKay holds the necessary qualifications to provide opinion evidence in the matters under review in this Hearing, and duly qualifies Mr. McKay as an expert.

APPLICABLE LAW

11Pursuant to s. 2 of the Act, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest as set out therein when carrying out its responsibilities under the Act. Further, s. 3(5) of the Act provides that any decision of the Tribunal in respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter, shall be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (the “PPS”).

12With respect to the City’s Official Plan, the Subject Property is located within the “Downtown and Central Waterfront” and the “Downtown Toronto Urban Growth Centre” boundaries on Maps 2 and 6, and is designated as “Apartment Neighbourhoods” on Map 18. The Subject Property is also (i) located within the area subject to OPA 406 which provides additional policy directives for development in downtown Toronto; (ii) subject to SASP 382 as set out in OPA 183; and (iii) subject to SASP 602 and SASP 603 of OPA 524.

13Pursuant to Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as amended, the Subject Property is zoned Residential (R (d2.0)(x875)). The R zone generally permits residential uses in a variety of building types. Exception 875 requires compliance with s. 900.2.10(4) which is under appeal and not in full force and effect, while the prevailing by-law reference (s. 12(1)(434) of By-law No. 438-86) permits bed and breakfast uses.

14The City has also adopted a number of guidelines that it relies upon in reviewing new development proposals, including the Tall Building Design Guidelines, the Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities Draft Guidelines, the Pet-Friendly Design Guidelines for High-Density Communities, the Toronto Green Standards, the Bird Friendly Design Guidelines and the North Downtown Yonge Urban Design Guidelines (collectively, the “Design Guidelines”).

ANALYSIS

15The Tribunal must first consider matters of provincial interest with respect to the Settlement Offer, as well as whether the revised OPA and ZBA proposed by the Settlement Offer (collectively, the “Revised Proposal”) are consistent with the PPS in accordance with s. 3(5) of the Act.

Matters of Provincial Interest and the PPS

16The McKay Affidavit opines that the Revised Proposal has appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act for various reasons, including as a result of (i) the absence of adverse impacts of the Revised Proposal on the environment; (ii) the maintenance of the integrity of the cultural heritage value of the Subject Property through the conservation and reconstruction of existing buildings; (iii) the incorporation of low impact development and other sustainable measures in accordance with the Design Guidelines and transportation demand management measures; (iv) an appropriate level of intensification within a strategic growth area at a density of 26.34 floor place index (“FSI”); and (v) the location of the Subject Property within two proposed protected major transit station areas (“MTSAs”) resulting in the intensification of such MTSAs within the “Apartment Neighourhoods” designation in accordance with current Provincial policy direction. The McKay Affidavit was unopposed and is accepted by the Tribunal as well reasoned.

17The PPS provides that planning authorities shall promote densities for new housing that efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities, and which support the use of active transportation. The PPS further states that settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development, and that land use patterns within settlement areas should optimize existing infrastructure and prioritize housing intensification in proximity to transit. The PPS also encourages planning authorities to focus growth and development in strategic growth areas, which are defined to include existing downtowns and MTSAs. As noted above, the Subject Property is located within two proposed protected MTSAs as identified by the City through OPA 524 (which is awaiting approval by the Province).

18The PPS also directs that “protected heritage properties” shall be conserved, which may contain “built heritage resources”. A protected heritage property includes a property designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and a built heritage resource includes a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community. In this respect, both existing buildings on the Subject Property have been designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, and the Revised Proposal incorporates the Heritage Conservation Amendments in order to conserve the crucial heritage features of the existing buildings.

19The McKay Affidavit opines that the Revised Proposal is consistent with the PPS for various reasons, including on the basis that (i) it will allow for additional residential units to be developed on underutilized lands within an “Apartment Neighbourhood” in a strategic growth area (within Downtown Toronto and two Protected MTSAs) through intensification, and assist in meeting housing objectives of the Province and the City (s. 2.2.1, 2.4.1.1, 2.4.1.2, 2.4.2.2, and 2.4.2.3); (ii) it will efficiently utilize existing infrastructure (s. 2.2.1 c) and d), and 2.3.1.2); (iii) it appropriately seeks to increase the permitted height and density in order to make the most efficient use of the Subject Property which is located within an existing built-up area and designated for a mix of uses; it supports the existing built-up area by intensifying an underutilized site in a prominent location and offers a range of housing types (s. 2.3.1.1, 2.3.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 2.4.1.2, 2.4.1.3, 2.4.2.2, and 2.4.2.3); (iv) the proposed infill development will offer a variety of housing types and sizes to residents of all ages, with a minimum of 25% of the proposed units being “family sized units”, and with existing rental units being replaced and affordable housing units being created (s. 2.2.1); (v) it will incorporate low impact development and other sustainable measures, as well as transportation demand management measures to assist the Province and City in becoming resilient to climate change (s. 2.9.1); (vi) it will allow for the efficient use of the Subject Property and available infrastructure (s. 2.2.1 c) and d), 2.3.1.2, 3.2.2, 3.6.1, and 3.6.8); and (vii) it maintains the integrity of the cultural heritage value of the Subject Property through conservation and reconstruction of the existing building fabric (s. 4.6.1, 4.6.3, and 4.6.4).

20Based on the foregoing, the Tribunal finds that the Revised Proposal has appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest and is consistent with the PPS in accordance with s. 3(5) of the Act.

The Official Plan, OPA 406, OPA 183 and OPA 524

21Having determined that the Proposed Development has appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest and is consistent with the PPS, the Tribunal also must consider whether the Revised Proposal is in compliance with the City’s Official Plan, including OPA 406, OPA 183 and OPA 524, and has appropriate regard for the Design Guidelines.

22The Subject Property is identified as being located within the Downtown Toronto Urban Growth Centre, in respect of which the Official Plan stipulates that the minimum combined gross density target of 400 residents and jobs per hectare is to be exceeded. The Subject Property is also located within the “Apartment Neighbourhoods” which are stated in the Official Plan to largely consist of apartment buildings, parks and other uses such as local institutions, cultural and recreational facilities, and small-scale retail, service and office uses. Compatible infill development is permitted within “Apartment Neighbourhoods”.

23The McKay Affidavit opines that the Revised Proposal conforms with the City’s Official Plan, as proposed to be amended, for various reasons including as a result of (i) the revitalization and intensification of underutilized lands (Policy 2.2); (ii) conformity with the policies of the Official Plan which seek to encourage a more efficient and cost-effective use of existing land and infrastructure, including transit infrastructure (Policy 2.2); (iii) use of a built form that appropriately responds to the urban design policies of the Official Plan and the applicable Design Guidelines (Policies 2.2.3, 3.1.3, 3.1.4); (iv) maintenance of the integrity of the cultural heritage value of the Subject Property through conservation and reconstruction of existing building fabric (Policies 3.1.6.4, 3.1.6.5, 3.1.6.7, 3.1.6.17, 3.1.6.22, 3.1.6.25, and 3.1.6.26); (v) consistency with the housing policies of the Official Plan as a result of the addition of 582 units of which approximately 33% will be “family sized units”, replacement of existing rental units and creation of affordable housing units (Policies 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.5, and 3.2.6); and (vi) the Revised Proposal being a form of infill development which conforms with the Apartment Neighbourhoods policies of the Official Plan (Policies 4.2.1 and 4.2.2).

24In addition to the foregoing, OPA 406 also provides additional development criteria for Apartment Neighbourhoods which are applicable to the Subject Property relative to the provision of appropriate setbacks to allow for public accessibility, optimal tree planting and landscape conditions, and access to utilities and below grade services. OPA 406 also requires development on sites that contain or are adjacent to properties on the Heritage Register to include base buildings that are compatible with the street-wall height, articulation, proportion, materiality and alignment thereof, and states that tall building floorplates are to be designed to adequately limit shadow impacts of the tower on the public realm and neighbouring properties and maintain adequate sky view from the public realm, largely through use of a maximum floorplate size of 750 m2 for residential buildings. In this regard, the Proposed Development as revised pursuant to the Revised Proposal, incorporates a tower floorplate with a maximum size of 678 square meters and has increased the height of the tower cantilever over 37 Maitland to reduce the visual impact on the heritage resources.

25The McKay Affidavit opines that the Revised Proposal conforms with OPA 406 as a result of (i) the appropriate intensification with a transit-supportive density in proximity to existing transit stations (Policies 3.3 and 6.34); (ii) the proposed pedestrian connections and bicycle parking spaces which will encourage the use of active transportation within the neighbourhood (Policy 3.2); (iii) the incorporation of a high-quality building design that provides for compatibility and appropriate transitioning with the public realm and adjacent uses, which will not result in unacceptable shadow impacts or negatively impact future redevelopment opportunities of the OEF Lands (Policies 3.3, 3.17, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.27, 9.1, 9.2, 9.4, 9.5, 9.8, 9.9, 9.14 to 9.16, 9.21, 9.22, 9.27, 9.28, 9.31, and 9.33 to 9.37); (iv) the provision of new housing with a balanced mix of unit types and sizes including rental housing replacement and an in-kind contribution in the form of affordable rental housing units (Policies 3.5, 11.1 and 11.2); (v) the provision of sustainable initiatives for the Subject Property that include low-impact development measures (Policies 3.12, 3.18, 13.1 and 13.3); and (vi) the Heritage Conservations Amendments (Policies 3.3, 9.1.2, 9.1.4 and 9.9.11).

26As noted above, the Subject Property is also located within the “Wellesley-Wood Character Area” pursuant to SASP 382 as set out in OPA 183. This area is described as a primarily stable area consisting of “tower in the park” apartment buildings with development / redevelopment of “sensitive low-rise infill” being permitted.

27The McKay Affidavit opines that the Revised Proposal is appropriate in the context of OPA 183 as it positively responds to the emerging tall building context in the area, and notwithstanding the need to permit a tall building, the Revised Proposal positively responds to other policy objectives of OPA 183 as (i) it includes a mix of unit types with full rental housing replacement and an in-kind contribution in the form of affordable rental housing units, all of which will support transit usage given the Subject Property’s proximity to two subway stations (Policies 2.8 and 2.13); (ii) the Revised Proposal is a high-quality building design that provides for compatibility and appropriate transitioning with the public realm and adjacent uses, and will minimize shadow impacts (Policies 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 5.6.1, 5.6.2, 6.3.13 and 6.4); and (iii) it incorporates the Heritage Conservation Amendments (Policies 2.7, 5.6.2 a), 6.1.3 to 6.1.5 and 6.1.7).

28OPA 524 (which is awaiting approval by the Province) establishes SASP 602 and SASP 603 which identify the areas surrounding the Wellesley and College TTC subway stations as Protected MTSAs. The Subject Property is located within each of these proposed Protected MTSAs. SASP 602 proposes a minimum population and employment target of 1,000 residents and jobs combined per hectare for the SASP area and a minimum FSI of 1.5 for the Subject Property. SASP 603 proposes a minimum population and employment target of 1,200 residents and jobs combined per hectare and a minimum FSI of 1.5 for the Subject Property.

29The McKay Affidavit opines that the Revised Proposal conforms with OPA 524, as it will introduce 520 residential units within two proposed Protected MTSAs, contributing to the minimum population and employment targets of 1,000 and 1,200 residents and jobs per hectare, respectively. Furthermore, the Proposed Development will provide a density of 26.34 FSI, which exceeds the minimum density requirement of 1.5 FSI, as directed per SASP 602 and SASP 603.

30The McKay Affidavit also opines that the Revised Proposal has had appropriate regard to the various Design Guidelines which are applicable to the Proposed Development.

31On the basis of the foregoing, the Tribunal finds that the Revised Proposal conforms to the City’s Official Plan as proposed to be amended, including with respect to OPA 406, OPA 183 and OPA 524, and has had appropriate regard to the applicable Design Guidelines.

32Finally, the McKay Affidavit opines that the Preconditions are in keeping with preconditions proposed in similar contexts and are appropriate in this instance; and the Revised Proposal represents good planning and is in the public interest. The Tribunal accepts these findings.

ORDER

33THE TRIBUNAL MAKES THE INTERIM ORDER that in accordance with the provisions of s. 17(50), 22(11), and 34(26) of the Act, and s. 9 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6, as amended:

(i) The appeal by the Applicant of its application for the Official Plan Amendment in respect of the Subject Property (OLT-23-000374) is allowed, in part;

(ii) The appeal by the Applicant of its application for the Zoning By-law Amendment in respect of the Subject Property (OLT 23-000375) is allowed, in part;

(iii) The Official Plan Amendment included as Exhibit “R” in the McKay Affidavit and Attachment 1 to this Interim Order is approved in principle subject to item (v) below;

(iv) The Zoning By-law Amendment included as Exhibit “S” in the McKay Affidavit and Attachment 2 to this Interim Order is approved in principle subject to item (v) below; and

(v) The Tribunal withholds the issuance of its Final Order approving the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment until such time as the Tribunal has been advised that the following pre-conditions are satisfied:

(a) the final form and content of the draft Zoning By-law is to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

(b) The Applicant has provided confirmation of water, sanitary and stormwater, and traffic capacity to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, or the determination of whether holding provisions are required in the Zoning By-law Amendment;

(c) The Applicant has submitted a revised Transportation Impact Study or addendum, including streetscape and curb extension provisions and resolved matters related to access, road widenings, lane widenings and conveyances acceptable to, and to the satisfaction of, the General Manager, Transportation Services and the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and that such matters arising from such study, be secured if required; the Transportation Impact Study or addendum will further include a parking study to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services;

(d) The Applicant has submitted a revised Pedestrian Level Wind Study to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, with any required wind mitigation measures to be secured through the Site Plan approval process;

(e) The Applicant has provided confirmation that no new construction will be undertaken within 3 m of existing TTC infrastructure;

(f) The Applicant has provided a detailed Conservation Plan, prepared by a qualified heritage consultant that is substantially in accordance with the conservation strategy set out in the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated August 27, 2024, and revised August 27, 2024, for the Subject Property, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning;

(g) The Applicant has entered into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City for the Subject Properties, substantially in accordance with the plans and drawings prepared by BDP Quadrangle, dated July 26, 2024, on file with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning and the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated July 26, 2024, and revised August 27, 2024, and on file with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, subject to and in accordance with the approved Conservation Plan, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, including execution and registration of such agreement to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor;

(h) City Council has approved the Rental Housing Demolition Application 21 223798NNY 16 RH in accordance with Chapter 667 of the Toronto Municipal Code pursuant to s. 111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, to permit the demolition of the thirty-six (36) existing rental dwelling units on the Subject Property, and the Applicant has entered into, and registered on title to the lands, one or more agreements with the City, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor, securing all rental housing-related matters necessary to implement City Council's decision including: (1) replacement of the existing rental housing units, including the same number of units, bedroom type and size and with similar rents; and (2) an acceptable Tenant Relocation and Assistance Plan addressing the right for existing tenants to return to a replacement rental unit on the lands at similar rents, the provision of rent gap assistance, and other assistance to lessen hardship, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning; and

(i) The Applicant has entered into an agreement pursuant to s. 37(7.1) of the Act to secure the provision of an in-kind contribution, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor.

34AND THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that it may be spoken to should a matter arise in connection with the implementation of this Interim Order.

“Jennifer Campbell”

JENNIFER CAMPBELL 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.

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2