Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: January 15, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004346
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Appellant: 1018429 Ontario Inc. Appellant: 480 Steeles West Limited et al Appellant: 6200 Yonge GP Inc. Appellant: Augend Investment Ltd. and others Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment Description: To guide future growth along the Yonge Street corridor in the area bounded by Steeles Avenue, Willowdale Avenue, Cummer and Drewry Avenues, and Lariviere Road Reference Number: OPA 615 Property Address: Area bounded by Steeles Avenue, Willowdale Avenue, Cummer and Drewry Avenues, and Lariviere Road Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-22-004346 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004346 OLT Case Name: Augend Investment Ltd. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6
Request by: Morguard Investments Limited and Revenue Properties Company Ltd Request for: Motion for Directions Heard: January 9, 2024 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| City of Toronto | Ray Kallio, Jessica Braun (in absentia) |
| CAPREIT Apartments Inc. | Max Laskin, David Bronskill (in absentia) |
| 1018429 Ontario Inc. | Barry Horosko |
| 480 Steeles West Limited, 228 Steeles West Limited, 1163919 Ontario Limited, 1888836 Ontario Limited, and 1211612 Ontario Limited | Alan Heisey (in absentia) |
| Longevity Properties Limited | Jonathan Cheng |
| Sky Property Group Inc. | Jennifer Evola, Signe Leisk (in absentia), Christie Gibson (in absentia) |
| Centre Park Holdings Inc. | Max Laskin, David Bronskill (in absentia) |
| Ghods Builders Inc. (5959 Yonge Street Limited) | Jason Park, Ira Kagan (in absentia), Sarah Kagan (in absentia), Olivia Rasekhi (in absentia) |
| Augend Investment Ltd. | Andrew Valela, Mark Flowers (in absentia) |
| W Mandel Developments Limited and Mandross Holdings Inc. | Andrew Valela, Mark Flowers (in absentia) |
| Connaught Yonge Square Limited and Enderby Developments Limited | Jason Park, Ira Kagan (in absentia), Sarah Kagan (in absentia), Olivia Rasekhi (in absentia) |
| 6200 Yonge GP Inc. | Jason Park, Ira Kagan (in absentia), Sarah Kagan (in absentia), Olivia Rasekhi (in absentia) |
| Delmar Development Corp. (18 – 28 Athabaska Avenue) | Jason Park, Ira Kagan (in absentia), Sarah Kagan (in absentia), Olivia Rasekhi (in absentia) |
| Delmar Development Corp. (19 Abitibi Avenue) | Jason Park, Ira Kagan (in absentia), Sarah Kagan (in absentia), Olivia Rasekhi (in absentia) |
| Yonge Steeles Landowners Group Inc. | Jason Park, Ira Kagan (in absentia), Sarah Kagan (in absentia), Olivia Rasekhi (in absentia) |
| Trolleybus Urban Developments Inc. | Max Laskin, David Bronskill (in absentia) |
| Streetside Capital Holdings Inc. | Max Laskin, David Bronskill (in absentia) |
| Morguard Investments Ltd. and Revenue Properties Company Ltd. | Johanna Shapira, Ashley Seely |
| City of Vaughan | Bruce Engell, Effie Lidakis (in absentia) |
| 6150 Yonge G.P. Inc. | Matthew Schuman, Jamie Cole (in absentia), John Dawson (in absentia) |
| Yongwood Ltd. | Matthew Schuman, Jamie Cole (in absentia), John Dawson (in absentia) |
| 2078004 Ontario Inc. and 24590304 Ontario Ltd. | Jason Park, Ira Kagan (in absentia), Sarah Kagan (in absentia), Olivia Rasekhi (in absentia) |
| Amdev Asset Management | Max Laskin, David Bronskill (in absentia) |
| Toronto Catholic District School Board | Andrew Baker, Julie Lesage (in absentia) |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C.I. MOLINARI ON JANUARY 9, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1This Decision and Order arises from the fourth Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held on January 9, 2024, to allow for the Parties to provide the Tribunal with a further update on the appeals (“OPA 615 Appeals”) to the City of Toronto (“City”) Official Plan Amendment 615 (“OPA 615”) for the Yonge Street North Secondary Plan (“Secondary Plan”) that was adopted by the City on July 22, 2022 and appealed under section 17(24) of the Planning Act (“Act”).
2Ahead of the CMC, Morguard Investments Ltd. and Revenue Properties Company Ltd. (“Morguard”) filed a Notice of Motion (“Morguard Motion”) requesting the hearing together of the OPA 615 appeals, and OLT-23-000091, regarding a Site and Area Specific Policy (“SASP”) Official Plan Amendment Appeal (“SASP Appeal”) related to lands municipally known as 6212-6600 Yonge Street (“Centerpoint Mall”). The Toronto Catholic District School Board (“TCDSB”) subsequently filed a Notice of Response to Motion (“TCDSB Response”) requesting Party status.
3OPA 615 covers an area that is irregular in shape, extending along both sides of Yonge Street from Steeles Avenue West/East to south of Cummer Avenue. The Centerpoint Mall site covers approximately 14.6 hectares and lies wholly within the OPA 615 boundary, at the southwest corner of Yonge and Steeles Avenue West.
4The SASP Appeal was filed due to the City’s failure to adopt the requested Official Plan Amendment for Centerpoint Mall. The first CMC for the SASP Appeal was held on June 29, 2023 and a second CMC is scheduled for January 22, 2024.
UPDATE
5Mr. Kallio advised the Tribunal that, since the last CMC for OPA 615 held on May 31, 2023, there had been plenary and individual mediation sessions with the Parties resulting in improvements to the Secondary Plan, and progress towards narrowing the scope of the issues to be adjudicated at the 30-day merit hearing scheduled to commence on Wednesday, October 16, 2024. He noted that he is confident there will be further progress ahead of the merit hearing and undertook to advise the Tribunal at the earliest opportunity should the merit hearing be able to be shortened in length.
PARTY STATUS REQUEST
6The Tribunal elected to consider the Party status request ahead of, and separate from, the Motion, despite it being requested through the TCDSB Response.
7The TCDSB is a Party to the SASP Appeal and has an interest in a future school site within the area covered by the SASP Appeal. Mr. Baker noted that Policy 7.9 in the Secondary Plan, as adopted, specifically provides for the preferred location for a new TCDSB school facility within the SASP Appeal area.
8The TCDSB is not currently a party to the OPA 615 Appeals, and the TCDSB Response noted that the TCDSB will take no position on the Morguard Motion on the condition that the Parties to the OPA 615 Appeals consent to the TCDSB being granted Party status in the OPA 615 Appeal.
9With no objection from any Party, the Tribunal granted Non-Appellant Party status to TCDSB as it has a genuine and direct interest in the matter and could assist the Tribunal in making its Decision.
10The Tribunal noted that, as per Rule 8.3 of the Tribunals Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), for a Non-Appellant Party to an appeal brought under section 17(24) of the Act, the TCDSB would need to shelter under the issues of an Appellant Party.
MOTION
11The Morguard Motion was filed on December 22, 2023, returnable at this CMC. The TCDSB, although not yet a party to the proceedings, filed a Notice of Response to Motion (“TCDSB Responding Motion”) on January 4, 2024. Morguard did not file a Reply Motion.
12The Morguard Motion requested an Order of the Tribunal directing that the SASP Appeal, under OLT Case No. OLT-23-000091, be heard together with the OPA 615 Appeals.
13Ms. Shapira noted the grounds for the request to have the SASP Appeal heard together with the OPA 615 Appeals, advising that Morguard is a Party to both the SASP Appeal and the OPA 615 Appeals, there will be overlapping evidence and experts between the two proceedings, and several of the Appellants to OPA 615 Appeals were granted party status at the CMC (“SASP CMC”) for the SASP Appeal held on June 29, 2023.
14Ms. Shapira advised that the Tribunal was informed at the SASP CMC that Morguard may seek to consolidate the SASP Appeal with the OPA 615 Appeals due to their overlapping nature. She clarified that Morguard’s position is now that the two proceedings should be heard together rather than consolidated. She advised that a consolidation is not desirable in this case because having all the SASP Appeal matters litigated through the OPA 615 Appeals proceeding would be burdensome on the Tribunal and the Parties time and resources. Overall, she explained that hearing the proceedings together will allow efficiencies in the process for the Tribunal and for the parties who wish to participate in both the OPA 615 Appeals and SASP Appeal issues, while preserving flexibility for parties who wish to only participate in one or the other. Further, she noted that it is apparent from the OPA 615 Appeals Procedural Order (“PO”) that many of the issues in that proceeding are specific to the SASP Appeal.
15With no objection from any Party, the Tribunal found it reasonable and prudent that the OPA 615 Appeals and the SASP Appeal be heard together, for the reasons provided by Ms. Shapira and in the Morguard Motion material. Further, hearing the OPA 615 Appeals together with the SASP Appeal will not result in any prejudice to the Appellants or Parties in either proceeding.
16The TCDSB Responding Motion requested, in addition to the Party status request, an Order granting relief from the requirement in Rule 10.6 requiring an affidavit be filed in support the TCDSB Responding Motion and granting relief from the timelines in Rule 10.7 related to the required timelines for serving and filing the TCDSB Responding Motion.
17With no objections from any Party, the Tribunal granted relief from the Rule 10 requirements given that the TCDSB Responding Motion was solely related to the request for Party status.
PROCEDURAL ORDER
18Ms. Shapiro noted that there is no need for amendments to the PO at this point related to the hearing together of the appeals, but that it may be appropriate to hive off the site-specific issues of the SASP Appeal from the OPA 615 Appeals to form a separate site-specific hearing for the SASP Appeal, leaving the area-wide matters to be adjudicated as part of the OPA 615 Appeals proceeding. She advised that Section 9 of the PO for the OPA 615 Appeals already contemplates Appellants electing to proceed by way of a site-specific hearing and adjournment of their appeal of OPA 615 sine die. As Parties are required to advise the City by Friday, April 19, 2024 if they wish to have a site-specific hearing, she suggested that the hiving off process could potentially be facilitated through that procedural step.
19Mr. Baker noted that the only change required to the PO as issued would be to have the TCDSB added as a Party. It was determined that it would be sufficient to have it recorded in this Decision, rather than amending the PO, that the TCDSB has been added as a Non-Appellant Party sheltering under the issues of an Appellant Party.
FUTURE CMC
20The Tribunal canvassed the Parties as to whether there was a need for a further CMC ahead of the merit hearing, other than the one scheduled for the SASP Appeal on Monday, January 22, 2024. Ms. Shapira noted that given that the OPA 615 Appeals and the SASP Appeal proceedings are now to be heard together, the CMC scheduled on Monday, January 22, 2024 may not be required, and that it may make more sense to reschedule it to a date after Friday, April 19, 2024, when Parties are to have provided notice to the City if they intend to proceed by way of a site-specific hearing.
21There were no other submissions in this regard and it was determined that the need for the Monday, January 22, 2024 CMC for the SASP Appeal, or another CMC for both the OPA 615 Appeals and the SASP Appeal, would best be canvassed through emails with the Case Coordinator and the Parties, giving the opportunity for all Parties to both proceedings to provide their preference and any blackout dates. Ms. Shapira undertook to canvass for CMC dates in this regard.
22As such, the CMC for the SASP Appeal remains scheduled on Monday, January 22, 2024 and no further CMC is to be scheduled at this time.
ORDER
23THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Toronto Catholic District School Board is granted Non-Appellant Party status sheltering under the issues of an Appellant Party with respect to Tribunal file number OLT-22-004346.
24THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Toronto Catholic District School Board is granted relief from Rule 10.6 and Rule 10.7 of the Tribunals Rules of Practice and Procedure, given that its Responding Motion was solely related to the request for Party status.
25THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeals against Official Plan Amendment 615 under Tribunal file number OLT-22-004346 and the Revenue Properties Company Ltd. and Morguard Investments Limited appeal under Tribunal file number OLT-23-000091 are to be heard together pursuant to Rule 16 of the Tribunals Rules of Practice and Procedure.
26The Member is not seized of these matters.
“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.