Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: June 18, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000471
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: 295 Jarvis LP
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: To permit the development of a 60-storey mixed-use building containing 618 residential units
Reference Number: 22 229720 STE 13 OZ
Property Address: 295 Jarvis Street
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No: OLT-23-000471
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000471
OLT Case Name: 295 Jarvis LP v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit the development of a 60-storey mixed-use building containing 618 residential units
Reference Number: 22 229720 STE 13 OZ
Property Address: 295 Jarvis Street
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No: OLT-23-000472
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000471
Heard: June 11, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
295 Jarvis LP
David Bronskill Joe Hoffman (in absentia)
City of Toronto
Sarah O’Connor Jason Davidson (in absentia)
Infrastructure Ontario
Isaiah Banach Katarzyna Sliwa (in absentia)
The Hospital for Sick Children
Brett Davis Isaac Tang (in absentia)
Toronto Community Housing Corporation
Jennifer Evola Signe Leisk (in absentia)
Joseph Da Silva
Self-represented*
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BITA M. RAJAEE ON JUNE 11, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This Hearing was the third Case Management Conference (“Third CMC”) before the Tribunal with respect to appeals under sections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act by 295 Jarvis LP (“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”). The purpose of the OPA and ZBA is to permit the development of a mixed use building on the property known municipally as 295 Jarvis Street in the City (“Subject Property”).
2Two prior Case Management Conferences have taken place on this matter on September 12, 2023 (“First CMC”) and February 7, 2024 (“Second CMC”), with the Tribunal issuing its decisions on September 19, 2023 and February 14, 2024, respectively. At the First CMC, it was confirmed that no further Notice was required. Moreover, Party Status was granted to Infrastructure Ontario and The Hospital for Sick Children, and Participant Status was granted to Adam Wynne. Lastly, a 12-day Hearing was scheduled to take place by Video Hearing from May 27, 2024 until June 11, 2024. At the Second CMC, Party Status was granted to Toronto Community Housing Corporation. Additionally, the Procedural Order and Issues List were ratified by the Tribunal.
3On April 17, 2024, the Applicant’s Counsel, on consent of the Parties, requested that the Hearing for this matter be adjourned to facilitate settlement discussions and to allow the City’s Council to consider a settlement proposal put forth by the Applicant. As such, all dates for the Hearing were released, save July 11, 2024, to be retained for a CMC.
PARTY AND PARTICIPANT STATUS REQUESTS
4At the Third CMC, the Tribunal was tasked with adjudicating a Party Status request from Joseph Da Silva. On April 4, 2024, the Tribunal received an email from a staff lawyer at Neighbourhood Legal Services, stating as follows:
Please find the attached [the] Party Status Request form on behalf of Mr. Joseph da Silva, CC’d. Please accept my apologies for the delay in submitting this: I was transferred this file in late October 2023, and misunderstood that the request had already been submitted. Mr. da Silva has made many attempts to reach me to follow up on this matter and, as our clinic has assisted him numerous times on related files, likely relied on the reasonable assumption that we would be involved on this file, but did not receive a response from me until now indicating that I will not be able to be retained on this matter beyond the submission of this request for status. I ask that my actions not be held against Mr. da Silva and his efforts to gain party status.
5Due to the extenuating circumstances, the Tribunal was willing to consider Mr. Da Silva’s Party Status request at the Third CMC, despite the lateness of the request. At the Third CMC, Mr. Da Silva explained that he was a tenant at building currently located on the Subject Property and his interest in the matter was to represent his concerns with the Proposal, which echoed those of his neighbours. He added that he was aware of the settlement and supported it. However, he still continued to seek Party Status as he wanted to be actively involved in this matter until its end. The Tribunal provided Mr. Da Silva with an explanation of the difference in roles of a Party and a Participant, but Mr. Da Silva maintained his desire to be a Party in the proceeding.
6The other Parties did not object to or raise any concerns with Mr. Da Silva’s Party Status request. The Applicant’s Counsel consented to the request.
7Upon hearing the submissions of Mr. Da Silva and the Counsel to all of the Parties, and reviewing the relevant materials submitted in support of the Party Status request, the Tribunal agreed that Mr. Da Silva met the requirements of being a Party, and granted him Party status in the proceeding.
HEARING IN WRITING TO CONSIDER A SETTLEMENT
8At the Third CMC, the Applicant’s Counsel advised that the Parties had reached a settlement and were finalizing a number of points. As such, he requested that a Hearing in Writing be scheduled to allow the Tribunal to consider the settlement and to approve it if warranted. The other Parties agreed with this course of action.
9As a result, a Hearing in Writing has now been scheduled to take place on July 2, 2024. The Parties were directed to provide all materials in support of the settlement agreement, including but not limited to:
a. An Affidavit from the expert witness the Parties intend to rely on in support of the settlement agreement (as well as the expert’s testimony on any comments raised by the Participant Adam Wynne);
b. A draft Order; and
c. A draft of the instruments that the Parties are seeking that the Tribunal approve. The Applicant’s Counsel indicated that the Parties are seeking an approval in principal, and an Interim Order pending the completion of a number of conditions.
10The Tribunal directs that all material be provided by Thursday, June 27, 2024, at 4:00 p.m.
ORDER
11the Tribunal Orders as follows:
a. Joseph Da Silva is now a Party in this proceeding.
b. A Hearing in Writing seeking approval of a settlement agreement for this proceeding has been scheduled to take place on Tuesday, July 2, 2024. The material in support of the settlement is to be provide to the Tribunal by Thursday, June 27, 2024.
12The 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.