Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 17, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001322

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

Applicant and Appellant: First Capital Holdings (Ontario) Corporation

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

Description: To permit two mixed-uses buildings at 12 and 14-storeys in height with a total of 665 residential units

Reference Number: 20 153975 NNY 08 OZ

Property Address: 272-290 Lawrence Avenue West and 1507-1549 Avenue Road

Municipality/UT: Toronto / Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001322

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001322

OLT Case Name: First Capital Holdings (Ontario) Corporation 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: First Capital Holdings (Ontario) Corporation

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

Description: To permit two mixed-uses buildings at 12 and 14-storeys in height with a total of 665 residential units

Reference Number: 20 153975 NNY 08 OZ

Property Address: 272-290 Lawrence Avenue West and 1507-1549 Avenue Road

Municipality/UT: Toronto / Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001323

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001322

Heard: March 27, 2024 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

First Capital Holdings (Ontario) Corporation

City of Toronto

Lytton Park Residents’ Organization and Bedford Park Residents’ Organization

Counsel/Representative*

A. Benedetti

M. Hardiejowski

M. Kapral* T. Butler*

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BRAUN ON MARCH 27, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held for the purpose of organizing appeals by First Capital Holdings (Ontario) Corporation (“Appellant”) against the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment in relation to the property located at 272-290 Lawrence Avenue West and 1507-1549 Avenue Road.

2The Tribunal received an Affidavit of Service sworn by Linda Roberts dated February 23, 2024, confirming that Notice of this CMC was properly given. No further notice will be required.

STATUS REQUESTS

3In response to the Notice, the Tribunal received no requests for Participant status and three written requests for Party status, discussed in further detail below.

4Maureen Kapral sought Party status on behalf of the Lytton Park Residents’ Organization Inc. (“LPRO”). LPRO’s request raised concerns in relation to the built form and massing of the proposal, site circulation and transportation and impacts on parkland/public realm. Ms. Kapral indicated that LPRO has hired a land use planner to provide evidence to the Tribunal at a future hearing of the merits. The Tribunal, being satisfied that LPRO has a direct interest, and that its presence will assist in making a decision, granted LPRO Party status with no objections.

5Through David Roitman, YCC 494 and YCC 503 sought Party status, raising only one issue in their written request relating to the proposed construction of a new Municipal road to connect Lawrence Avenue West and Douglas Avenue. Following an explanation of the differences between Party and Participant status, Mr. Roitman confirmed that YCC 494 and YCC 503 do not intend to present a case at a future hearing and, as such, requested Participant status. Participant status was granted to YCC 494 and YCC 503 with no objections.

6Ted Butler sought Party status on behalf of the Bedford Park Resident’s Organization (”BPRO”). BPRO raised concerns in relation to potential impacts from the proposed development on the neighbourhood and surrounding area including, but not limited to, traffic and access and egress from the proposed development. Mr. Butler noted that BPRO would be willing to work with other residents’ organizations to “speak with one voice” in order to ensure an efficient hearing. He indicated that BPRO is considering hiring expert witnesses for the purposes of providing evidence at a future hearing but, to date, no experts have been retained. Based upon the foregoing and the prospect of a number of overlapping issues and evidence between the BPRO and LPRO, counsel for the Appellant suggested that the two organizations jointly present one case at a future hearing.

7The Tribunal canvassed Ms. Kapral with respect to the suggested approach. She indicated LPRO’s willingness, in principle, to have BPRO join with LPRO but requested an opportunity for the two entities to be separated at the next CMC should they not be able to agree upon issues and positions thereon. It was agreed that Party status would be granted to BPRO on the condition that, in conjunction with LPRO, one case be presented to the Tribunal. Both organizations were directed to come prepared to speak to their ability to do so at the next CMC. Should this not be a possibility, the Tribunal shall revisit BPRO’s status and may downgrade same to that of a Participant.

8Gilbert Palter attended the hearing event seeking Participant status on behalf of TSCC 2942, noting that he had received Notice of today’s hearing event at the last minute and, as such, a written request had not been submitted. Mr. Palter agreed that, following the CMC, he would submit a written request to the Tribunal, copying the other Parties detailing TSCC 2942’s concerns with the proposed development which, he explained, generally relate to the proposed height thereof. With the consent of the other Parties, the Tribunal granted provisional Participant status to TSCC 2942, with such status being revisited at the next CMC.

9The Tribunal directed the Participants to pay attention to the deadline for the submission of written statements which will be specified in a forthcoming Procedural Order (“PO”). It also directed Ms. Kapral and Messrs. Butler, Roitman and Palter to submit copies of articles of incorporation and written confirmation of authorization to represent their respective organizations to the case coordinator following the CMC.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR SETTLEMENT

10Counsel for the Appellant noted that a mediation assessment would be taking place on March 28, 2024. She agreed to share the details of that mediation assessment following the CMC with the representatives of the added Party organizations to enable them to attend said assessment.

11The Parties indicated that they have all been engaged in an ongoing and positive dialogue prior to today’s hearing event and expressed optimism with respect to mediation and prospects for settlement.

FUTURE HEARING EVENTS

12The Parties provided a draft PO including a relatively detailed draft issues list (“IL”) and requested that the matter be scheduled for a hearing in April 2025. On the strength of the level of detail in that draft list of issues and the fact that ongoing discussions between the Parties have been positive and focused upon settlement to date, the Tribunal set the matter down for a nine-day video hearing commencing at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, April 22, 2025.

13In light of the provisional status requests granted at today’s hearing event and the need to revisit same, as well as the need to review and approve a finalized PO and IL, the Tribunal scheduled a subsequent CMC to be held by video commencing at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, June 4, 2024. Counsel for the Appellant undertook to submit a finalized PO and IL on consent in no later than 12 p.m. on June 1, 2024.

14The Video Hearing details are as follows:

Tuesday, June 4, 2024 at 10 a.m.(One-Day Case Management Conference)

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/519389173

Access code: 519-389-173

Audio-only telephone line: 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373

Audio-only access code: 519-389-173

Tuesday, April 22, 2025 at 10 a.m. (Nine-Day Video Hearing)

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/927921077

Access code: 927-921-077

Audio-only telephone line: 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9391

Audio-only access code: 519-389-173

15Parties 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. Parties 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.

16Persons 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.

17Individuals 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 events 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.

OTHER MATTERS

18It is noted that an individual identifying themselves only as “D”, and who did not appear on camera, attended the hearing event. At the outset, the Tribunal canvassed “D” to determine if “D” was intending to seek status of any kind or was simply in attendance as an observer, but “D” did not respond. Given that “D” may have been experiencing technical issues with audio and/or video, the Tribunal invited “D” to use the chat function on the video platform, noting that failure to answer to the Tribunal’s questions (either by means of the chat function, or otherwise) would be taken to mean that “D” was simply interested in observing the proceedings. Again, “D” did not respond.

19Seconds prior to the conclusion of the CMC, following the consideration of all status requests, the scheduling of future hearing events and discussion of directions of the Tribunal, “D” used the chat to communicate the following message: “Indigenous Services of Toronto Council will need time to assess the development that pertain to Native Land being disrupted to this issue (sic)”.

20Again, the Tribunal made attempts to ascertain the identity of “D”, and whether there was any intention to seek status, as well as to ascertain whether “D” was authorized to speak on behalf of the named organization. Despite the willingness of “D” to utilize the chat function to communicate the above noted message, “D” did not respond to any of the Tribunal’s questions.

21Out of an abundance of caution, the Tribunal used the chat function to provide “D” with the contact information of the assigned case coordinator. Counsel for the Appellant and the City indicated that they had not previously been made aware of any concerns with the proposed development on behalf of any such organization, but also shared their contact information in the chat for the benefit of “D”.

22Should “D” and/or the named organization wish to request status, such a request is to be made in writing to the case coordinator, copying all other Parties, at least 10 days in advance of the June 4, 2024 CMC. Should “D” and/or the named organization wish to be included on the Tribunal’s mailing list for future hearing events, they are directed to share appropriate contact information with the case coordinator as soon as possible.

23There will be no further notice and this Member is not seized but may be available for case management subject to the Tribunal’s calendar.

24It is SO ORDERED.

“S. Braun”

S. BRAUN

VICE-CHAIR

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: 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.