Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: June 18, 2024

CASE NO.: OLT-22-004605

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

Applicants/Appellants: OMERS Realty Holdings (STC One) Inc. et al
Subject: Request to amend Official Plan – failure to adopt requested amendment
Description: OPA to permit a mixed-use redevelopment of Scarborough Town Centre
Reference Number: 21 206885 ESC 21 OZ
Municipality/UT: City of Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004605
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004797
OLT Case Name: OMERS Realty Holdings (STC One) Inc. et al v. Toronto (City)

BEFORE:

M. A. SILLS
VICE-CHAIR

Tuesday, the 18th Day of June, 2024

In accordance with Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, whereby the Tribunal may at any time and without prior notice to the parties correct a technical or typographical error made in a decision or order.

The Decision and Order (“Decision”) issued on September 13, 2023, is hereby amended by replacing Schedule 1 of the Decision;

In all other respects, the Tribunal’s Decision remains the same.

“Euken Lui”

EUKEN LUI
ACTING REGISTRAR

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.

SCHEDULE 1

ISSUE DATE: CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004605

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

Applicants/Appellants: OMERS Realty Holdings (STC One) Inc. et al
Subject: Request to amend Official Plan – failure to adopt requested amendment
Description: OPA to permit a mixed-use redevelopment of Scarborough Town Centre
Reference Number: 21 206885 ESC 21 OZ
Municipality/UT: City of Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004605
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004797
OLT Case Name: OMERS Realty Holdings (STC One) Inc. et al v. Toronto (City)

PROCEDURAL ORDER

1. The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own motion.

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will begin on October 15, 2024 at 10 a.m, and will end on November 21, 2024. The hearing will not proceed on November 11, 18, or 19, 2024.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 25 days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1 (see the sample procedural order for the meaning of these terms).

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 2. Each of the parties are hereby permitted to revise their issues in order to address the revised proposal served by the Appellant on May 16, 2024. Should a party wish to revise its issues on account of the revised proposal served on May 16, 2024, such revised issues shall be submitted to the other parties and the Tribunal by no later than July 12, 2024. A party to the proceedings shall not seek costs against a party who revised its issues if the revised issues are served for the purpose described in this paragraph 5 prior to July 12, 2024.

6. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

7. Attachment 4 contains a Table of Deadlines.

8. Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.

9. Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.

Requirements Before the Hearing

10. If the applicant / appellant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing, the applicant / appellant shall provide a copy of the proposed modifications to the other parties on or before May 16, 2024. The applicant / appellant acknowledges that any revisions to the proposal after that date without the consent of the parties may be grounds for a request to adjourn the hearing.

11. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before July 19, 2024 and in accordance with paragraph 24 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified.

12. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before August 1, 2024 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting, and if the expert witnesses reach an agreement, the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before August 9, 2024.

13. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 15 below. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.

14. Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence as in paragraph 15 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as set out in paragraph 15 below.

15. On or before August 23, 2024, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 24 below.

16. On or before August 23, 2024, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 24 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

17. On or before September 20, 2024, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 24 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

18. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before September 10, 2024, and in accordance with paragraph 24 below.

19. On or before September 12, 2024 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

20. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before September 30, 2024.

21. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

22. A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal and the other parties at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

23. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before September 23, 2024 with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

24. All filings shall be submitted electronically, and in hard copy to the Tribunal if requested. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Rule 7.

25. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

This Member is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1 – PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

PARTIES

1. OMERS Realty Holdings (STC One) Inc., OMERS Realty Holdings (STC Two) Inc., OMERS Realty Holdings (STC Three) Inc., and ARI STC GP Inc. / ARI STC Investments LP

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Bay Adelaide Centre, East Tower
22 Adelaide Street West
Toronto ON M5H 4E3

Pitman Patterson
416-367-6109
ppatterson@blg.com

Michael Grant
416-367-6120
mgrant@blg.com

2. City of Toronto

Legal Services, Planning & Administrative Tribunal Law 26th fl., 55 John St.
Toronto ON M5V 3C6

Mark Piel
416-392-2124
Mark.Piel@toronto.ca

Adam Ward
416-394-2787
Adam.Ward@toronto.ca

3. Mondelez Canada Inc.

Wood Bull LLP
65 Queen Street West, Suite 1400
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 2M5

Kim Mullin
416-203-5633
kmullin@woodbull.ca

Ashley Seely
416-203-7739
aseely@woodbull.ca

4. Toronto Lands Corporation

WeirFouldsLLP
1525 Cornwall Road, Suite 10
Oakville, Ontario
L6J0B2

Raj Kehar
416-947-5051
rkehar@weirfoulds.com

5. Atlantic Packaging Products Limited

McMillan LLP Lawyers | Patent & Trademark Agents Brookfield Place, 181 Bay Street, Suite 4400 Toronto, Ontario M5J 2T3

Mary Flynn-Guglietti
416-865-7256
mary.flynn@mcmillan.ca

Kailey Sutton
416-945-8008
Kailey.sutton@mcmillan.ca

ATTACHMENT 2 – ISSUES LISTS

Global Issues

1. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment represent good planning?

Planning Act

2. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment, including the proposed modifications to the Scarborough Centre Secondary Plan, have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, particularly paragraphs (e), (f), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), (o), (p) (q), (r) and (s)?

Provincial Policy Statement (2020) and Growth Plan (2019), as amended

3. Is the proposed Official Plan Amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) as required by Section 3 of the Planning Act, as set out in Sections 1.1.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, 1.1.3.7, 1.2.1, 1.2.6.1, 1.2.6.2. 1.3.1, 1.3.2.1, 1.3.2.2, 1.3.2.6, 1.4.3, 1.5.1, 1.6.1, 1.6.5, 1.6.6.1, 1.6.6.7, 1.6.7, 1.6.8, 1.7.1, 1.8.1, 2.2.1, 2.6, 4.2, 4.6, and 4.7?

4. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019) as amended as required by Section 3 of the Planning Act, in particular Sections 1.2.1, 2.1, 2.2.1.2(a), 2.2.1.3(b), 2.2.1.2(c), 2.2.1.4, 2.2.2.3, 2.2.3.1, 2.2.4, 2.2.5.1 (b), (c) and (d), 2.2.5.2, 2.2.5.3, 2.2.5.4, 2.2.5.5, 2.2.5.6, 2.2.5.7, 2.2.5.8, 2.2.6.1(a), (b) and (e), 2.2.6.2(c) and (d), 2.2.6.3, 2.2.6.4, 3.1, 3.2.1.5, 3.2.2.2, 3.2.2.3, 3.2.2.4, 3.2.3, 3.2.4.2, 3.2.5.1 (b), 3.2.5.1 (e), 3.2.6.2, 3.2.7, 3.2.8, 4.2.5, 4.2.7, 4.2.9, 4.2.10.1(b), (d) ,(e), and (i), 5.2.4.5, 5.2.5.6 and 5.2.5.8?

5. Does the development, as currently proposed, contribute to the achievement of a complete community, as described under the Growth Plan?

City of Toronto Official Plan

6. Is the proposed Official Plan Amendment consistent with the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan with respect to Section 2.1 (Shaping The City) (2.2 (Structuring Growth in the City), Section 2.2.2 (Centres), Section 2.4 (Bringing the City Together), Section 3.1.1 (The Public Realm), Section 3.1.2 (Built Form), Section 3.1.3 (Built Form – Tall Buildings), Section 3.1.4 (Public Art), Section 3.2.1 (Housing), Section 3.2.2 (Community Services and Facilities), Section 3.2.3 (Parks and Open Spaces), Section 3.3 (Building New Neighbourhoods), Section 4.5 (Mixed Use Areas), Section 5.1.2 (Holding By-laws), Section 5.2.1 (Secondary Plans), Section 5.3.2 (Implementation Plans and Strategies for City- Building), and Section 5.6 (Interpretation), and Schedule 1, Existing Minor Streets With Right-Of-Way Widths Greater Than 20 Metres?

City of Toronto

Planning Act

1. Does the proposed Official Plan amendment, including the proposed modifications to the Scarborough Centre Secondary Plan, have regard for the purposes of Planning Act as set out in Section 1.1 particularly paragraphs (b), (c), (e) and (f)?

2. Would approval of the proposed Official Plan Amendment have appropriate regard for the decisions of Toronto’s City Council as required by Section 2.1 of the Planning Act?

3. Is the proposed Official Plan Amendment consistent with the policies of the Scarborough Centre Secondary Plan, being Chapter 6 of the City's Official Plan, as set out in sections 5 (b) and (c), 1.11 (a); 1.12, 1.13, 3.1.1(f), 3.1.3(a), 3.1.3(c), 3.1.3(d), 4.8(c), 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.21, 5.22, 5.23, 5.26, 5.33, Site and Area Specific Policies 5 and 9, and Maps 5-3 and 5.4.

Our Scarborough Centre (Scarborough Centre Review)

4. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment have appropriate regard for the emerging policy direction of the Our Scarborough Centre Secondary Plan Study as it relates to Street Network, Street Design, Active Transportation, Built Form (heights, shadow impacts, tower separation, setbacks, tower floor plates size, building variation); Housing (mix of units, size of units, housing diversity), and Sustainability (green infrastructure, complete streets, green streets, and soil volume)?

Guidelines and Official Plan Implementation Documents

5. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment meet the intent and purpose of the Tall Building Guidelines, particularly guidelines 1.2, 1.4, 2.1, 2.4, 3.1.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.3, 3.2.4 and 4.3?

6. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment meet the intent and purpose of the Midrise Building Guidelines, particularly guidelines 1 and 4a?

7. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment meet the intent and purpose of the Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities, 2020, particularly guidelines: 2.1a and 3.0 a, b, and c?

8. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment meet the intent and purpose of the Scarborough Centre Public Art Master Plan, 2018 and the Percent for Public Art Guidelines, 2010?

9. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment meet the intent and purpose of Toronto Green Standards, Version 3.0?

10. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment meet the intent and purpose of the Complete Streets Guidelines?

Implementation and Phasing

11. Is the proposed Official Plan Amendment supported by an acceptable comprehensive phasing plan/phasing strategy that provides details on timing and implementation mechanisms that coordinate the provision of: community facilities and services; municipal infrastructure; parks; a balanced mix of housing (including affordable housing); office; and other non-residential uses at each phase to ensure the orderly development of a safe, healthy and complete community?

12. Are the proposed Official Plan Amendment policies with respect to phasing of the development appropriate in the absence of a comprehensive phasing plan/phasing strategy?

13. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment provide an acceptable approach for the timing, delivery and interim conditions of matters including, but not limited to, parkland, streets, the public realm and other mobility elements, servicing, the provision of community facilities and services, and the balanced mix of housing including the provision of affordable housing?

14. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment adequately provide for how to address the long-term redevelopment of the existing shopping centre on the site?

15. Should the proposed Official Plan Amendment include policies regarding the use of a Holding (“H”) provision for matters including, but not limited to, transportation and servicing capacity limitations?

16. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment contain appropriate implementation policies, including but not limited to:

a. Timing of the delivery of final urban design guidelines and the coordination between future urban design guidelines and the proposed Official Plan policies; and

b. Timing of the delivery of a public art strategy, sustainability strategy and a public realm strategy?

17. Does a staggered delivery of the materials referred to in issue 20 preclude a comprehensive approach to the planning of development for the site?

Land Use Planning

18. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment provide an appropriate mix of uses, including the advancement and enhancement of employment opportunities, to ensure the development of a mixed-use community?

19. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment represent an overdevelopment of the site?

20. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment conform to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks guidelines, specifically Guideline NPC-300 as it relates to mitigating potential conflicts between the proposal, and

a. impacts of the surrounding environment on the proposed development;

b. impacts of the development on the surrounding environment; and

c. impacts of the development on itself?

21. Are the location of vehicular accesses and underground parking within City street rights of way appropriate and should they be integrated within building massing in accordance with the Official Plan?

Housing

22. Does the proposed affordable housing appropriately address Official Plan Policy 3.2.1.9, including providing for a full range of housing by tenure, unit type and unit size?

23. Should the proposed Official Plan Amendment include requirements for an affordable housing strategy, including appropriate phasing plans for the provision of affordable housing?

24. Is the proposed residential unit mix appropriate, having regard to considerations such as affordability and tenure?

Parks and Community Service Facilities

25. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment provide an acceptable approach to the provision of community services and facilities having regard to the existing capacity of community services and facilities and whether they can support the anticipated population growth associated with the proposed development?

26. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment identify appropriate parkland sizes, locations and configurations?

27. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment contain appropriate policies for the phased conveyance of usable, programmable and accessible parkland that is proportionate to the phased development?

28. Are the proposed community services and facilities appropriate and are the floor areas of these spaces identified in the draft policies appropriate?

Built Form & Public Realm

29. Are the built form type, height, density, massing, location, placement and scale of the proposed development appropriate, given principles of good planning and good urban design; its relationship to the surrounding context; shadow impacts; wind impacts; the public realm; the relevant policy documents; and the further issues more particularly set out below?

30. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment and comprehensive block masterplan provide a suitable public realm and open space network that promotes connectivity between parks, privately owned publicly accessible space(s), and midblock connections both on and off-site?

31. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment contain appropriate implementation policies regarding the timing of the delivery of a public realm strategy?

32. Are the proposed policies with respect to private connections and their location appropriate?

33. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment represent good urban design?

Mobility

34. Is the proposed Official Plan Amendment supported by an acceptable transportation impact study, which:

a. demonstrates sufficient transportation infrastructure capacity to accommodate the travel demands associated with the development and planned growth under the Scarborough Centre Secondary Plan; and

b. provides for an acceptable multi-modal transportation analysis?

35. Can the proposed site access and circulation for the proposed Official Plan Amendment accommodate the traffic demands associated with the proposed development?

36. Is the proposed Official Plan Amendment's street network appropriate and is it supported by adequate information pertaining to its implementation, including interim and ultimate conditions, existing easements and obligations related to adjacent property owners?

37. Are the proposed policies with respect to private streets and their location appropriate?

38. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment appropriately take into consideration transportation-related matters including the future lowering of Progress Avenue and the creation of an at-grade intersection with McCowan Road?

Infrastructure and Municipal Servicing

39. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment appropriately address the future infrastructure needs to service the overall development and the implementation of those services?

Sustainability

40. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment provide for the provision of an appropriate sustainability strategy including stormwater management, energy efficiency and green infrastructure?

41. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment conform to the vision set out in the Official Plan with respect to sustainability?

Public Interest and Good Land Use Planning

42. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment represent good planning and is it in the public interest?

43. Is the form and content of the draft Official Plan Amendment appropriate?

Toronto Lands Corporation

1. Is the consideration of the proposed Official Plan Amendment premature in the context of availability of school space and accommodation (community/public service facilities)?

2. Should the proposed Official Plan Amendment be revised to include policies that support the opportunity for school space to be provided as the community develops?

a. Is it appropriate and good planning to add “public schools” to the list of major objectives, permitted uses, and community benefits?

b. Is it appropriate and good planning to include a monitoring policy that requires consultation with school boards to confirm when a new school is required?

c. Is it appropriate and good planning to include a policy that establishes a density threshold that triggers the requirement for a school in the subject development, to ensure that educational facilities are developed and provided in tandem with the pace of growth?

Mondelez Canada Inc. / Atlantic Packaging Products Ltd.

Land Use Compatibility

1. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment provide for appropriate separation from the existing employment/manufacturing uses to the west of the subject property, and does it contain sufficient measures to ensure land use compatibility between the proposed sensitive land uses and the existing employment/manufacturing uses?

2. Is it premature to consider the Official Plan amendment without the details of a zoning amendment application in order to provide the necessary specificity to ensure appropriate mitigation measures are secured and will be implemented to ensure land use compatibility with the adjacent employment lands?

3. Are adverse impacts, including but not limited to noise, traffic, odour, and dust, to the proposed future development of sensitive land uses appropriately minimized and mitigated? If not, what mitigation measures can be secured in an Official Plan amendment to ensure land use compatibility is maintained and would the measures in an Official Plan be sufficient?

4. Are the technical studies in relation to land use compatibility, odour, dust, and noise complete and are they based on sound engineering principles and have appropriate regard for the D-Series guidelines?

Transportation

5. Is there appropriate transportation infrastructure to support the proposed use, scale, and density of the proposed development? Will the additional traffic from the development negatively impact the operations of the existing employment area and the industrial and manufacturing uses?

Oxford Properties

1. Is the Official Plan Amendment required to have regard for the emerging policy direction of the Our Scarborough Centre Secondary Plan Study?

Note: The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the Tribunal or any party that the issue is relevant or appropriate, or that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over it. The identification of an issue by a party indicates that party’s intent to tender evidence and/or make submissions on it, for the purpose of fairly identifying to the other parties the case they need to meet.

ATTACHMENT 3 – ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Oxford Properties
2. City of Toronto
3. Toronto Lands Corporation
4. Mondelez Canada Inc.
5. Atlantic Packaging Products Ltd.
6. Reply of Oxford Properties

ATTACHMENT 4 – TABLE OF DEADLINES

ITEM	DEADLINE
Delivery and filing of revised proposal for approval at hearing by Oxford Properties, if applicable	May 16, 2024
Revisions to Issues List, if applicable	July 12, 2024
Exchange and filing of lists of witnesses	July 19, 2024
Meeting(s) of like experts	August 1, 2024
Filing of Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues	August 9, 2024
Exchange and filing of witness statements and expert witness statements	August 23, 2024
Exchange and filing of reply witness statements and reply expert witness statements	September 10, 2024
Confirmation with OLT that hearing dates are still required	September 12, 2024
Exchange and filing of visual evidence	September 20, 2024
Filing of preliminary hearing plan	September 23, 2024
Filing of Joint Document Book	September 30, 2024
Commencement of hearing	October 15, 2024