Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 24, 2024 CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002343 (Formerly PL140860)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Champagne Centre Ltd. Appellant: Canadian Fuels Association Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 231 Municipality: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002343 Legacy Case No.: PL140860 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002343 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL140860 OLT Case Name: Champagne Centre Ltd. v. Toronto (City)

Heard: January 23 to January 27, 2023 by Video Hearing ("Hearing")

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
City of Toronto ("City")	C. McKeich
Champagne Centre Ltd. ("CCL")	S. Leisk, J. Evola, M. Brown (articling student)
Canadian Fuels Association ("Canadian Fuels")	L. Dean, J. Bilas

DECISION DELIVERED BY D.S. COLBOURNE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to the Order

INTRODUCTION

1This proceeding involves a settlement reached between the City and CCL of an appeal by CCL, which sought to amend the City’s Official Plan (“OPA 231”) in order to permit a development of up to 15,000 square metres ) of retail, personal service and office space (“Settlement”) at the property municipally known as 2 Champagne Drive and 1107 Finch Avenue West, in the City (“Subject Property” or “Site”). The Settlement is opposed by Canadian Fuels. The Site has a total area of 9.78 acres, generally rectangular in shape. It is currently occupied by a one- to two-storey multi-unit commercial building complex, which includes indoor recreational facilities, retail uses, office uses, and various medical uses, including a hospital out-patient facility, medical offices, and a pharmacy. One of the major medical uses in the building is the Polyclinic Family and Specialty Medicine Centre, one of the largest medical facilities in Ontario.

2To the west and north, on the south side of Finch Ave., is the Suncor Fuel depot. Further west of that, on the south side of Finch Ave., is the Imperial Oil Terminal and north of that, is the Shell Terminal. These fuel facilities and operations (collectively, “Terminals”) are located on lands Zoned Employment Heavy Industrial and are designated Core Employment Areas. The southeastern corner of the Suncor Energy terminal property is located approximately 200 metres from the nearest point of the Subject Property.

3The Settlement resulted from a prior proceeding before the Toronto Local Appeal Board (“TLAB”) by the City. A Settlement Decision and Order of the TLAB was issued subject to conditions, one of which was to submit a Zoning By-law (“ZBL”) to permanently implement certain minor variances that had been previously granted and to remove certain previous agreed holding provisions. However, CCL, in this proceeding, requested that the Tribunal approve the proposed Site and Area Specific Policy under OPA 231 (“SASP”) as it relates to the Site. The SASP, now appended as Attachment 1 to this Decision, represents the resolution of the CCL’s appeal of OPA 231 with the City and is the only instrument before the Tribunal for approval pursuant to the Settlement.

4The following materials were before the Tribunal at the Hearing:

(a) Joint Document Book – Volumes 1 and 2 (b) Witness Statement of Michael Goldberg (c) Official Plan Amendment No. 231 – Champagne Drive Visual Evidence of Champagne Centre Ltd. (d) Witness Statement of Scott Penton (e) Witness Statement of Nigel Taylor (f) Witness Statement of Sarah Arulanandam (g) Reply Witness Statement of Sarah Arulanandam (h) Witness Statement of Robyn Brown (i) Witness Statement of David Riley (j) Witness Statement of Claude Cote (k) Outline of Evidence of J. Cantos (l) Implementation Guidelines for Environment Regulations Chapter 2- Canada (m) Canadian Fuels – Visual Evidence (n) Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act (o) O.Reg 50 20

KEY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

1. The Tribunal agrees with CCL that the Settlement Satisfies the Applicable Requirements under the [Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html).

5In the final written argument, CCL succinctly argued that the Tribunal must consider the following in reaching its final determinations:

(a) Does the proposed SASP have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest at section 2 of the Planning Act; (b) Is the proposed SASP consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020; (c) Does the proposed SASP conform to the Growth Plan, 2006; and (d) Does the proposed SASP conform to the purpose and intent of the City of Toronto Official Plan?

Relying on the planning evidence of Michael Goldberg, a highly experienced urban planner qualified by the Tribunal to offer opinion evidence on land use planning matters, CCL argued that each requirement outlined in paragraph [5] above was met. The Tribunal agrees.

6Mr. Goldberg outlined that the current application proposes to implement the settlement with the City pertaining to the appeal of Official Plan Amendment No. 231 (“OPA”). The SASP proposes to redesignate the Subject Site from Employment Areas to General Employment Areas. The SASP proposes to accept this redesignation, It proposes the following:

(a) Approval of an eleven- (11) storey addition to accommodate overnight accommodation for patients using the on-site medical uses and facilities; (b) To permanently embody in the Zoning by-law, the Minor Variances that were temporarily approved for a three-year period, by the TLAB, in its Decision and Order of July 22, 2021; (c) To add on a site specific basis, the following uses to the General Employment Areas zone district applying to this site: Professional Medical office; Clinic: Pharmacy and buildings; structures and uses accessory to the foregoing; (d) To remove specified current as of right uses from the by-law applying to this site to reinforce the General Employment Area focus of this particular site, as follows: Artist Studio, Car rental agency; car washing establishment; cinema; contractor’s establishment; custom workshop; gasoline station; Golf course; Hotel; motor vehicle body repair shop; motor vehicle dealership; pinball and video games arcade; Place of worship; public library; service shop; service station; theatre and transportation terminal; and, (e) To lift the Holding provision imposed by Section 33(5) of Zoning By-law No. 7625 (“ZBL 7625”), subject to the provisions of the implementing ZBL.

7Mr. Goldberg further explained in his written evidence and oral testimony that:

(a) It is the undisputed evidence before the Tribunal that for nearly a decade, the CCL currently located at the Site has provided a variety of healthcare services that provide needed outpatient services through a variety of clinics and diagnostic centres. These are provided by the Polyclinic, the North York General Hospital and York Region. It is also home to several other uses such as indoor recreational facilities, retail uses, office uses, private secondary day schools, and daycares; (b) All of the existing uses at the Site are legally permitted by the current zoning and the in-force City Official Plan; (c) Patients of the CCCL may attend at any time of day, with overnight stays already being a requirement of the sleep clinics located on the Site; (d) The eclectic uses at the CCL are representative of the eclectic nature of the greater market area and the surrounding Employment Area and include a range of office, commercial, religious, educational, healthcare related uses, among others that co-exist with the industrial uses within this Employment Area; (e) OPA 231 propose to redesignate the Subject Site from Employment Areas to General Employment Areas. The SASP proposes to accept this redesignation; (f) The City has settled many site-specific appeals of OPA 231 over the course of these proceedings. Among these are SASPs, which recognize existing sensitive uses, some of which have now been before the Tribunal and approved; (g) The SASP has sufficient regard for all matters of provincial interest enumerated under s. 2 of the Planning Act; (h) The SASP recognizes and supports the existing employment uses of the CCL, will contribute to the efficient use of existing infrastructure, will continue to contribute to a safe and healthy community, support employment opportunities, protect the financial and economic well-being of the Province and resolve a planning conflict involving public and private interests; (i) The SASP is consistent with both the 2006 and 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (collectively, “PPS”), including with respect to efficient development patterns, transit supportive development, support for economic development and Employment Areas, major good movement facilities, and minimization of risk to public health and safety and impact to major facilities; (j) Land use compatibility pursuant to the PPS is to be determined by reference to provincial guidelines, standards and procedures. The only provincial guidelines identified for the Tribunal (by other CCL experts, Mr. Penton and Mr. Taylor, the only experts before the Tribunal qualified in noise, air quality and vibration, and environmental air quality including odour and dust (respectively)) are D-Series Guidelines; (k) The SASP is consistent with the PPS, including with respect to efficient development patterns, transit supportive development, support for economic development and Employment Areas, major good movement facilities, and minimization of risk to public health and safety and impact to major facilities; (l) The SASP conforms to the Growth Plan for Greater Golden Horseshoe 2006 (“GGH 2006”) and also has regard to the policies of the Growth Plan for Greater Golden Horseshoe 2020 (“GGH 2020”), which encourages compact and vibrant complete communities that optimize the use of land and infrastructure in order to support growth in a compact efficient form, and promotes economic development and competitiveness by providing for an appropriate mix of employment uses including industrial, commercial and institutional uses to meet long-term needs, contributing to the economic competitiveness of the Greater Golden Horseshoe region, and to plan for and invest in a balance of jobs; (m) The GGH 2020 designates the Subject Site as part of a Provincially Significant Employment Zone. These are areas defined by the Minister in consultation with affected municipalities for the purpose of long-term planning for job creation and economic development. Provincially significant employment zones can consist of Employment Areas as well as mixed-use areas that contain a significant number of jobs; (n) The GGH 2006 and GGH 2020 both direct intensification of a broad range of employment uses, not only manufacturing and industrial uses; (o) The GGH 2020 does not prohibit the development of sensitive uses in an Employment Area. It directs for the development of sensitive land uses to avoid, or where avoidance is not possible, minimize and mitigate adverse impacts on industrial, manufacturing or other uses that are particularly vulnerable to encroachment; (p) The CCL has demonstrated through its land use compatibility study that it can and will avoid, not just minimize or mitigate, its impact on surrounding industrial and manufacturing uses. No adverse impacts are anticipated through the land use compatibility study; (q) The SASP conforms with the purpose and intent of the City of Toronto Official Plan and a medical office and clinic are permitted uses in the Official Plan, pre and post OPA 231 without condition or restriction. As well, hotels, an overnight accommodation, are currently permitted on the subject lands in conformity with the in force Official Plan and the SASP recognizes and supports the continuation of these uses, similar to other settlements approved under OPA 231; (r) The SASP will result in the redesignation of the subject lands from Employment Area to General Employment Area in accordance with OPA 231 as approved by the Minister. The SASP facilitates existing uses that may be expanded through future development proposals in an area well served by higher order transit; (s) Each of the existing uses at the site are sensitive land uses within the meaning of the PPS. However, for the purposes of the Official Plan, if the Plan permits a use in an Employment Area, it is not a sensitive land use for the purposes of the Official Plan; (t) Pursuant to Policy 4.6.8 of the Official Plan, as amended by OPA 231, establishing a gradation of zones that distinguishes between employment uses is to be done through implementing zoning by- laws. Further to Policy 4.7(i), matters relating to the mitigation of potential adverse effects of noise, vibration, air quality and odour on major facilities and business can be achieved through further study done in the ZBL SASP and site plan approval stages of development; and, (u) Overall conformity with the Official Plan is achieved by the SASP through promoting all of the existing permitted uses on the Subject Site and the City’s directions for the larger Employment Area includes significant intensification and diversity of employment uses.

8In the Tribunal's determination, the most salient points from Mr. Goldberg’s opinion evidence described above in paragraph [7] were not successfully challenged on cross-examination and were also not effectively controverted by the evidence of Canadian Fuel’s planning expert Mr. Riley. For the most part, on cross-examination, Mr. Riley confirmed Mr. Goldberg’s conclusions stated above. In any event, to the extent of any contradictions offered by Mr. Riley, the Tribunal preferred the cohesive, coherent and persuasive planning opinion evidence of Mr. Goldberg.

9The other opinion evidence relevant to the above-noted planning law and policy matters was provided by the following CCL witnesses: Ms. Brown (qualified land economist); Mr. Penton and Mr. Taylor, qualified in noise, air quality and vibration, and environmental air quality including odour and dust (respectively); Ms. Arulanandam, a Professional Engineer qualified as an expert in hazard and risk assessment. In forming her opinion, Ms. Arulanandam reviewed a redacted copy of the Emergency Response Plan for the Suncor Facility, which is part of the Terminals operation. In her view, the documentation provided by Suncor regarding emergency planning, incident investigation and responses indicated an ongoing high level of commitment to public safety that conforms to industry best practices. She concluded, on this basis, with Suncor’s commitment to public safety and in the context of the existing sensitive uses already existing or permitted on the subject site, the Settlement including overnight accommodation is not anticipated to cause unacceptable public health and safety risks.

10The sole opposing expert for Canadian Fuels, (other than the planner, Mr. Riley), was Mr. Cote, an expert in environmental engineering in risk analysis and emergency response planning. Canadian Fuels did not call any other expert evidence to specifically counter the evidence and testimony of Ms. Brown, Mr. Penton and Mr. Taylor. For the reasons described in Section 2 below, the Tribunal did not find the opinions of Mr. Cote, which were heavily reliant on international guidelines and standards not in-force in Ontario, to be persuasive on such matters.

11Ms. Brown, an expert land economist, opined with respect to the adequate provision of employment opportunities and the appropriate location of growth and development. She confirmed that there is no adverse impact to the surrounding Employment Area and importantly, that the SASP will serve to alleviate what is projected to be an unmet demand for medical services, retail, and service commercial space within the market area. Again, there was no contrary expert evidence on these issues from Canadian Fuels and the Tribunal accepted Ms. Brown’s opinions.

2. The Tribunal agrees that No Negative Impact to the Terminals Operations has been Demonstrated and No Unacceptable Public Safety Risk had been Established

12The key issues of contention and disagreement between the two sets of experts – essentially a subset of the Planning Act tests referred to above in Section 1 - were (a) whether the proposed introduction of a sensitive use in close proximity to existing and future heavy industrial operations such as the Terminals had the potential to negatively impact their operation and long-term viability (Issue 6 in the governing Procedural Order); and (b) Issue 7: Does the proposed introduction of a sensitive use in close proximity to a major facility and infrastructure network (the Terminals) that stores and transports hazardous products cause unacceptable public health and safety risks?

13In summary, the Tribunal concurs with the succinct argument of counsel for CCL made in final submissions that:

Based upon the uncontradicted and unopposed evidence of Mr. Taylor and Mr. Penton, the only experts to undertake technical studies of the site and surrounding area in accordance with Ontario laws, it has been demonstrated that any potential risk of adverse effects from the proposed SASP has been mitigated and minimized. Their opinions were not successfully challenged on cross-examination.

14The onus was on Canadian Fuels to establish the propositions underlying Issue 6 and, in the Tribunal’s view, it failed to tender sufficient or convincing evidence on those matters. The Tribunal agrees that Mr. Riley’s written and viva voce evidence regarding future negative impact to the Terminals operations inappropriately relied on one local resident’s submission to City Council and that Mr. Riley himself conceded that this is not the applicable basis for land use planning decisions.

15As further noted by CCL’s experts, the GGH 2020 does not prohibit the development of sensitive uses in an Employment Area. It directs for the development of sensitive land uses to avoid, or where avoidance is not possible, minimize and mitigate adverse impacts on industrial, manufacturing or other uses that are particularly vulnerable to encroachment. The Tribunal was persuaded by the evidence proffered by CCL that it can and will avoid, not just minimize or mitigate, its impact on the industrial and manufacturing uses surrounding the Site. No adverse impacts are anticipated through the land use compatibility study. The Tribunal agrees and accepts that avoidance and mitigation can be achieved through further study done in the ZBL SASP and site plan approval stages of development.

16In terms of public safety risk, the Tribunal is satisfied based on the land use planning, health and safety, and engineering evidence tendered by CCL experts that: (a) the SASP does not contemplate the introduction of a sensitive use as the Site already includes a sensitive use, and (b) the existing and contemplated uses will not cause unacceptable public health and safety risks. These opinions are based upon technical studies that are uncontradicted in this proceeding. Canadian Fuels did not call expert opinion evidence on these points, beyond Mr. Riley’s evidence derived solely from an urban planning perspective.

17The countervailing evidence of Canadian Fuels on the issue of public safety risk was provided by Mr. Cote who confirmed, during cross-examination, that he was unfamiliar with the existing surrounding uses in the employment area but had been directed to focus exclusively on the Site and the Terminals. Mr. Cote provided conclusions and recommendations that relied upon UK guidelines - The UK Health and Safety Executive (“HSE”) land use planning guidelines are not applicable to and have not been adopted in Canada or Ontario – and that were not based upon the environmental emergency plans of the Terminals operations. Further, he confirmed on cross-examination that the recommendations in his witness statement are no longer representative of the latest recommendations of the HSE, which, since 2007, allow for increased uses within the inner zone, including offices. His testimony also did not provide any contradiction to the opinion of Ms. Arulanandam that the adjacent Suncor facilities are in full compliance with all applicable Canadian safety and emergency regulations including the applicable D-Series Guidelines. No evidence was presented to the Tribunal to establish that the existing emergency response plans require an update in response to the SASP or are inadequate or incapable of being modified to deal with the formalized permission of overnight accommodation.

18In summary, the Tribunal is unable to conclude that Mr. Cote’s evidence forms a sufficient basis to justify the disapproval of the Settlement on public safety risk grounds. However compelling his account of the tragic incident in 2005 at Buncefield, U.K. was, the Tribunal accepts that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and its Environmental Emergency Regulations, 2019 (“CEPA E2”) are the applicable Canadian statutes governing emergency response planning. The Tribunal notes that there was no evidence before the Tribunal that the requirements of CEPA E2 or the D-Series Guidelines have not been met or cannot be met in the future. The Tribunal agrees with the arguments of CCL that:

In contrast, [Canadian Fuels] relies upon hypothetical risk, and in particular, Mr. Cote’s recommendation is based on practices of another jurisdiction which do not apply in Ontario land use planning. While Mr. Cote “may feel that regulations from other jurisdictions are better or more effective than those currently in place in Ontario, such legislation does not apply here.

The Tribunal also noted that the Divisional Court, in a broadly similar situation, when considering whether to apply extra jurisdictional standards in the case of South Etobicoke Residents & Ratepayers Assn. Inc. v. Ontario Realty Corp., 2004 CarswellOnt 78 ruled:

While the Applicant may feel that regulations from other jurisdictions are better or more effective than those currently in place in Ontario, such legislation does not apply here…If the Applicant believes that the regulations used in other jurisdictions should be adopted here, he should make such proposals to those who establish the regulations, not to those who are charged with enforcing them.

19Canadian Fuels focused its opposition based on public risk matters relating to the issue of ‘overnight use’ or ‘overnight accommodation’. While conceding that this use already exists at the Site due to the sleep clinic located there, counsel for Canadian Fuels argued (below emphasis added):

Even if the Tribunal were to accept that the sleep clinic offers “accommodation”, the “accommodation” sought by the SASP is of a different scale, character and intensity…In terms of scale, the SASP does not restrict the permission for overnight accommodation to just the sleep clinic use. As drafted, overnight accommodation could be offered in association with any or all of the diverse professional medical offices or clinics on the subject property… Some or all of the overnight patients may be recovering from surgery, dependant on and hooked up to medical equipment, heavily drugged, or have an array of other mobility issues. The patients of the overnight accommodation may be limited in their ability to evacuate the building in case of an emergency…By casting the SASP as merely an extension of an existing use, the Appellant is attempting to avoid the application of provincial and City policies directing that sensitive uses should be prohibited from establishing in employment areas…

20The argument made above in paragraph [19] seems to imply that the City – which obviously supports the Settlement – must be somehow derelict in its duty to comply with its own policies. It also ignores the weight of the persuasive and contrary expert opinion evidence marshalled by CCL discussed above in both Section 1 and Section 2. The Tribunal disagrees with this contention.

21Counsel for Canadian Fuels in their final submissions went on to argue that (below emphasis added):

…Mr. Côté took the Tribunal through the results of the computer modelling contained in Maps 1-6 of …[his] Consequence Analysis. This modelling evaluated the potential consequences (pool fire, flash fire, vapour cloud explosion) of certain major accident events (a leak from a tank or the piping connected to the tank, a tank overfilling; and a major leak from a transfer hose or transfer arm rupture at a loading/unloading station)… The Consequence Analysis demonstrates that potential major accidents at the Suncor Terminal – specifically a vapour cloud explosion or a flash fire – could impact the subject property… Mr. Côté’s opinion, that the proposed overnight accommodation presents unacceptable health and safety risks, is based on his modelling…It was Mr. Côté’s evidence that the accident scenarios he considered have a low probability of occurrence but they are possible and have been experienced in the industry. The severity of consequences must be an important consideration… It was Mr. Côté’s evidence that HSE’s recommended setbacks from fuel terminals were revised in 2007 based on the extent of the observed damage caused by a vapour cloud explosion at a large fuel terminal in the United Kingdom in 2005, the “Buncefield Incident”… It was Mr. Côté’s evidence that the HSE’s recommended setbacks from fuel terminals provide guidance for minimizing risk to sensitive users… Mr. Côté was clear that the HSE recommendations are an internationally recognized best practice and are not binding in Canada or in Ontario… Mr. Côté takes a protective approach to risk. Where risk of a severe accident scenario is known to exist, that risk should be reduced as much as possible. Ms. Arulanandam takes the position that compliance with regulations is sufficient assurance of public safety…Canadian Fuels submits that Ms. Arulanandam’s approach is not an appropriate way to plan for the long-term safety and viability of employment areas. Canadian Fuels requests the Tribunal prefer Mr. Côté’s evidence with respect to public health and safety…

22In the Tribunal’s view, the arguments outlined above in paragraph [21], however reasonable they may be, essentially require the OLT to become the political arbiter of public health and risk management policy and philosophy. This is not the role of the OLT in any proceeding. The Tribunal is bound to apply provincial and municipal law and policy as enacted through the democratic process and should not import or change such policies and requirements because it might prefer an approach advocated by an expert in relation to international standards and practices that have not been adopted in Ontario. Such change must occur as a result of a broad, informed public policy debate and legislative reform that is ultimately conducted and implemented by the Province and, where applicable, by municipalities.

23Canadian Fuels in final submissions was critical of much of the evidence of the CCL experts yet, in the Tribunal’s view, failed to meet its onus in this proceeding by offering its own convincing expert evidence to challenge the conclusions of those CCL witnesses. As already noted above, the Tribunal disagrees that the conclusions put forward by the CCL experts were successfully challenged during their cross-examinations. As also pointed out, the Tribunal does not accept the planning evidence of Mr. Riley wherever it might differ from that of Mr. Goldberg – and disagrees in any event that such differences were meaningful given the number of occasions during Mr. Riley’s cross-examination when he confirmed his agreement with Mr. Goldberg. Moreover, Mr. Riley’s evidence, as a land use planner, on matters of ‘fuel terminal operations’ negative impact and risk was arguably well beyond his experience and expertise, and was therefore of only marginal utility to the Tribunal. In any event, his evidence was thoroughly and convincingly addressed by the subject matter experts, who testified on behalf of CCL and the City, in support of the Settlement.

24As a final note, the Tribunal considered the argument made by Canadian Fuels that the evidence of Jeffrey Cantos, City Manager of Official Plan – Strategic Initiatives, shows that “City staff do not support the proposed SASP”. Mr. Cantos was compelled by summons requested by Canadian Fuels to testify at the Hearing. In his report, he stated:

Health facilities that provide overnight stays, such as “medical care facility” contemplated by the proposed SASP, are a sensitive land use that should not be located within Employment Areas.

The introduction of sensitive land uses (including overnight accommodation) can negatively impact the current and future viability and stability of the employment area.

25Clearly, Mr. Cantos’ personal views do not bind the City which through City Council approval, formally supports this Settlement. Moreover, as argued by counsel for CCL, during his cross-examination Mr. Cantos stated that:

… demonstrated to this Tribunal that: 1) he had no knowledge of the existing uses at the Champagne Centre, 2) no knowledge of the surrounding area, 3) was not aware of the details of the SASP, 4) he had not heard the evidence of any of the witnesses and had not reviewed of any the evidence and materials in this proceeding, including the technical studies, and 5) he was not aware whether a zoning by-law amendment would be required to implement the SASP. He did however confirm that as a planner, his opinion would need to be based on a review of technical studies and their peer review.

26The Tribunal did not find that the testimony of Mr. Cantos served to, in any material way, shed doubt on the substantial evidence proffered by Mr. Goldberg or of any other CCL witness.

CONCLUSION

27Based on the evidence of Mr. Goldberg, as summarized above in Section 1, the Tribunal is of the view that the SASP proposed under the Settlement satisfies all matters of provincial interest under the Planning Act; is consistent with the provisions of the PPS 2006 and PPS 2020; conforms with the applicable provisions of the GGH 2006 and the GGH 2020; conforms with the applicable provisions of the City of Toronto Official Plan; respects principles of good planning; and is fair and reasonable and in the public interest. The Tribunal further accepts the opinion evidence of Mr. Penton, Mr. Taylor and Ms. Arulanandam that the SASP presents no current compelling threats to public safety or health and the Tribunal agrees that these important matters will continue to be addressed through the next steps of the planning process.

INTERIM ORDER

28THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

(i) The appeal by Champagne Centre Ltd. to amend the City of Toronto by way of Official Plan Amendment 231 to permit the Site and Area Specific Policy (“SASP”) as set out in Attachment 1 to this Decision, is allowed in part and the SASP is approved in principle, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph [28] (ii) below; and,

(ii) The Tribunal shall withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon confirmation by the solicitors for the City of Toronto and for Champagne Centre Ltd. of the following pre-requisite matters:

(a) The removal of current permitted as-of-right uses under Zoning By-law No. 7625 has occurred; (b) The registration of a restrictive covenant in favour of the City of Toronto on title to lands municipally known as 2 Champagne Centre Drive and 1107 Finch Avenue West, in the City of Toronto to secure that the Champagne Centre Ltd. will not seek a conversion of any portion of its overnight accommodation to a residential use that is not associated with medical uses on site; (c) The following matters are secured through a site plan agreement in accordance with the Air Quality and Noise Land Use Compatibility Study prepared by SLR: (i) the installation of central air conditioning; (ii) the installation of inoperable and sealed windows for all noise- sensitive spaces, such as patient bedrooms; (iii) upgrading windows of the north façade suites to a minimum Sound Transmission Class rating of STC 32; and, (iv) the design of the heating ventilation and air conditioning system shall include space to add carbon filters in the future.

29The Tribunal may be contacted in the event that the Parties require assistance with respect to the implementation of the above Interim Orders.

"D.S. Colbourne"

D.S. COLBOURNE VICE-CHAIR

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