Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: January 08, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002510

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: 10285773 Canada Corp. Appellant: 1090011 Ontario Limited Appellant: 1941 Eglinton East Holdings Inc. Appellant: 2004085 Ontario Inc.; and others Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment Description: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 499 (Golden Mile Secondary Plan) Reference Number: 17 134997 EPS 00 TM Property Address: Various Addresses Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002510 Legacy Case No: PL200628 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002510 Legacy Lead Case No: PL200628 OLT Case Name: 10285773 Canada Corp. 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: City of Toronto Request for: Directions Heard: December 13, 2024 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel

City of Toronto D. Elmadany A. Hill

KS (Kingsett) Eglinton Square Inc. and KS Engelhart GP Inc. J. Smuskowitz A. Brown S. Brown

10285773 Canada Corp. and Artlife Developments L. English I. Tang (in absentia)

Bell Canada L. English I. Tang (in absentia)

BRL Realty Limited I. Andres

Toronto District School Board and Toronto Lands Corporation J. Lesage P. Patterson (in absentia)

Samuel Sarick Limited J. Jakubowski K. Sliwa (in absentia)

Yorkreal Holdings Inc. M. Schuman

SA Armstrong Ltd. R. Uukkivi

Mattamy (Eglinton) Limited Partnership A. Jeanrie S. Brazzell (in absentia)

Cosmetica Investments Inc. A. Jeanrie S. Brazzell (in absentia)

1090011 Ontario Limited B. Engell J. Cherniak

Riocan Holdings Inc., 2075936 Ontario Ltd. et al., and 2076031 Ontario Ltd.sssss C. Lantz

1941 Eglinton East Holdings Inc. M. Flowers G. O’Brien (in absentia)

Dundeal Canada (GP) Inc., Calloway REIT (1900 Eglinton) Inc., Eglinton Warden Developments Limited, 20 Ashtonbee Holdings Limited, and 1920 Eglinton Avenue Holdings Limited R. Gill D. Bronskill (in absentia)

D. D. Acquisitions Partnership S. Ovas

C.P. REIT Ontario Properties Ltd. S. Tomasella M. Bassani

Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited A. Pilkington S. Leisk (in absentia)

IPEX A. Frank

Metro Ontario Real Estate Ltd. C. Harris

Mondelez Canada Inc. S. Ovas appearing for K. Mullin (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BRAUN AND SHARYN VINCENT ON DECEMBER 13, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This was the third Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held for appeals against the adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 499 (“OPA 499”) by the City of Toronto (“City”) in October 2020. OPA 499 includes the Golden Mile Secondary Plan (“Secondary Plan”), which is intended to guide the redevelopment of approximately 113 hectares along Eglinton Avenue East. The Golden Mile encompasses lands generally to the east and west of Victoria Park Avenue, certain lands south of Eglinton Avenue East, and lands south of Ashtonbee Road and Birchmount Road.

2OPA 499 represents a comprehensive long-term planning framework to transform the Golden Mile from a generally automobile-oriented area, characterized by low scale buildings and large surface parking lots, into a complete, liveable, connected, transit-supportive, and prosperous mixed-use community. It envisions a new street and block structure, the re-designation of certain lands as Parks, and the accommodation of approximately 24,000 residential units, 43,000 residents, and 19,000 jobs in a mix of tall, mid-, and limited low-rise buildings over the next twenty years and beyond.

3A total of 20 valid appeals of OPA 499 were filed, including both site-specific and plan-wide appeals. Following mediation and further discussions between the Parties, certain modifications to OPA 499 were endorsed by City Council (“Proposed Modifications”).

CITY’S MOTION

4At this CMC, the City brought forward a Motion, seeking an Order of the Tribunal granting the relief broadly described below:

• confirming the unappealed portions of OPA 499 as being in force and effect by operation of s. 17(27) of the Planning Act (“Act”); confirming the scope of the appealed portions of OPA 499;
• approving the Proposed Modifications to OPA 499;
• hearing together, for this Motion, several site-specific OPA appeals and the granting of specific relief aimed at avoiding duplication of OPA 499 policies and other Site and Area Specific Policies; and
• granting adjournments of the remainder of the appeals.

5The Panel was advised that, concurrent with approval of the Proposed Modifications to OPA 499, several appeals of OPA 499 would be finally disposed of, including the complete closure of remaining site-specific appeals under s. 22(11) of the Act through confirmation of final Orders on eight Official Plan Amendments.

6Counsel for the City addressed the aforementioned site-specific appeals in two groups. The first group (OLT File Nos.: 22-003152, 22-002407; 22-002268; 21-001701; and 22-002229) are the subject of previous Tribunal Orders, which include clauses specifying that, should any part of OPA 499 come into force and effect, the Parties to that appeal may seek revisions to delete, amend, or revise policies and/or mapping duplicative of, or similar to, amendments contained in OPA 499. Those clauses further specify that any such amendments would be effective on the date of the Order issued in that particular appeal.

7In light of the foregoing, the Panel was asked to delete and replace specific Attachments to those previous Orders, as specified in Item Nos. 10, 12, 13, 14 and 16 of the below Order.

8The second group (OLT File Nos. 22-001974, 22-002373 and 22-002442), while also the subject of previous Tribunal Orders, do not contain similar clauses. Notwithstanding the foregoing, counsel for the City advised that, in all three cases, the settlements reached between the Parties to those appeals always contemplated that there would be an eventual removal and replacement of specific Attachments in order to avoid duplication of policies and mapping. When canvassed by the Panel, counsel for the Parties to each of the three appeals concurred with the City’s explanation and consented to the relief requested and specified in Item Nos. 11, 15 and 17 of the below Order.

9With respect to the request to adjourn the remainder of the appeals, counsel for the City again separated the appeals into two groups. The first group of appeals deal with matters specifically related to the realignment and reconfiguration of O’Connor Drive. In light of an ongoing Environmental Assessment (“EA”) of same, the Panel was asked to adjourn those appeals pending the earlier of: substantial completion of the Phase 3 and 4 EA or, the Tribunal being advised that the City has reached a resolution with one or more of the Appellants. In relation to the remaining group of appeals, the Panel was advised that the Parties to those the appeals had reached agreements with the City to adjourn their matters sine die, allowing time for the completion of further studies, discussions aimed at resolution, etc.

10Counsel for the City confirmed for the Panel that all of the settlements proffered for the Tribunal’s approval had been endorsed by City Council. The Panel canvassed the other Parties affected by the City’s Motion, all of whom consented to the totality of the relief requested. It is however noted that, although Mattamy (Eglinton) Limited (“Mattamy”) served a Response to the Motion which was deferred at the agreement of Mattamy and the City, subject to specific conditions, which are set out in Item No. 19 in the below Order.

EVIDENCE, ANALYSIS AND DISPOSITION

11In support of the requested relief, Emily Caldwell, a Registered Professional Planner, who was qualified to provide land use planning opinion evidence, provided an affirmed Affidavit and detailed oral evidence. She delivered a comprehensive review of the extensive history and purpose of OPA 499, as well as the current and envisioned context for the Golden Mile. Ms. Caldwell explained that the Golden Mile is planned to change dramatically over the next few decades to leverage major transit investments in the Eglinton Light-Rail Transit (“LRT”). Development and infrastructure upgrades are planned to occur in phases, ensuring that the area’s transformation proceeds in an orderly and coordinated fashion.

12Ms. Caldwell also provided an overview of the proposed modifications to OPA 499, characterizing them as minor wording changes which allow for further flexibility and clarification while maintaining the key objectives of the Secondary Plan. Overall, it was her opinion that OPA 499, and the Proposed Modifications thereto, have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest, are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”), conform with the overall intent of the City Official Plan (“OP”), and represent good planning in the public interest.

13In support of the foregoing, she highlighted that OPA 499, as modified: makes efficient use of land and infrastructure through the redevelopment of underutilized commercial and institutional sites; ensures that appropriate transportation, sewer, water, and other infrastructure will be available to accommodate current and future needs; creates opportunities for job creation; and provides a range of housing options, including affordable housing, within a complete, vibrant, and transit-supportive mixed-use community. She further opined that OPA 499, as modified, implements and builds upon policies in the OP, including but not limited to those which speak to steering growth to areas well served by transit, by providing for a robust transportation system with direct connections to higher order transit, as well as active transportation connections to support a reduction in automobile dependency.

14Finally, in relation to the request to hear together with the current matters the eight site-specific OPA appeals under s. 22(11) of the Act and the specific relief requested in relation thereto, Ms. Caldwell explained that Site and Area Specific Policies are not intended to repeat or duplicate policies that would otherwise be contained in Secondary Plans. She opined that, as OPA 499, or portions thereof, come into effect, certain policies and/or mapping contained in Attachments to previous Tribunal Orders approving various Site and Area Specific Policies are no longer required.

15Based on the submissions of counsel, and the detailed and uncontested evidence of Ms. Caldwell in support of the City’s Motion, the Panel is satisfied that OPA 499, and the Proposed Modifications thereto, represent good land use planning in the public interest, and that all requisite legislative tests have been met. The comprehensive planning policies contained within the Secondary Plan will ensure that the Golden Mile transforms over time through orderly and coordinated redevelopment into a complete community that leverages significant infrastructure investments in the Eglinton LRT.

16In addition, the Panel finds it appropriate to adjourn the remainder of the appeals, as requested, and to grant the relief requested for the site-specific OPA appeals under s. 22(11) of the Act, on the consent of all affected Parties.

ORDER

17THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. As it relates to OLT-22-002510: the un-highlighted sections, non-policy text, policies, and maps of Official Plan Amendment No. 499 (“OPA 499”) to the City of Toronto Official Plan included in Attachment “A”, came into force and effect on December 1, 2020 by operation of s. 17(27) of the Planning Act, except as those parts that were appealed on a site specific or character area specific basis, in accordance with Attachment “B” to this Order.

2. Pursuant to ss. 17(30), 17(30.1), and 17(50) of the Planning Act,

a) the appeals of KS (Kingsett) Eglinton Square Inc., Toronto District School Board and Toronto Lands Corporation, Yorkreal Holdings Inc., S.A. Armstrong Ltd, RioCan Holdings Inc., Mattamy (Eglinton) Limited, 2075936 Ontario Ltd., and 2076031 Ontario Ltd., Dundeal Canada (GP) Inc, Calloway REIT (1900 Eglinton) Inc., Eglinton Warden Developments Limited, 20 Ashtonbee Holdings Limited and 1920 Eglinton Avenue Holdings Limited, Bell Canada, D.D. Acquisitions Partnership, CP REIT Ontario Properties Limited, Cosmetica Investments Inc., are allowed in part;

b) part of the appeals of Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited, Mattamy (Eglinton) Limited, 1941 Eglinton East Holdings Inc., Eglinton Warden Developments Limited, 20 Ashtonbee Holdings Limited, 1920 Eglinton Avenue Holding Limited, and Bell Canada are allowed in part, with the remaining parts and scope of these appeals of OPA 499 set out in Attachment “B” to this Order;

c) modifying and approving pursuant to s. 17(50) of the Planning Act, the non-policy text, policies and maps, or parts thereof, as shown in Attachment “A”, highlighted in green, and confirming that such green highlighted non-policy text, policies and maps, or parts thereof, of OPA 499 included in Attachment “A”, came into effect on December 13, 2024 for all lands subject of OPA 499, except for the lands as identified in Attachment "B" that maintain a site-specific or character area specific appeal;

d) confirming pursuant to ss. 17(30) and 17(30.1) of the Planning Act that the non-policy text, policies and maps, or parts thereof, as shown in Attachment “A”, highlighted in green, came into effect on December 13, 2024 for all lands subject of OPA 499, without modification, due to resolution/withdrawal of specific appeals of parts of OPA 499, except for the lands as identified in Attachment “B” that maintain a site-specific or character area specific appeal;

e) the non-policy text, policies, and part of a map(s) that are highlighted in yellow remain under appeal on a plan-wide basis and as identified in Attachment “B”;

f) the non-policy text, policies, and part of a map(s) that are highlighted in light blue remain under appeal on a plan-wide, character area specific or site-specific basis only as it relates to one or more of: (1) O'Connor Drive extension; (2) O' Connor Drive reconfiguration; or (3) East-West Street #4 shown on or described on a specified part of a Map or Policy, as further articulated in Attachment “B”.

3. In support of Orders 1 and 2, the modification and partial approval of OPA 499 shall be strictly without prejudice to, and shall not have the effect of limiting:

a) the rights of all Appellants to seek to modify, delete, or add to the unapproved portions of OPA 499; and

b) the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to consider and approve modifications, deletions, or additions to the unapproved portions of OPA 499 on a plan-wide, character area specific basis or site-specific basis, as the case may be.

4. In support of Orders 1 and 2, the modification and partial approval of OPA 499 is without prejudice to the positions that may be taken by the remaining Appellants in respect of their appeals as scoped in Attachment “B” to this Order, so that if those appeals proceed to a hearing, individually or collectively, the City will not take the position that the Tribunal ought not to approve character area or site-specific modifications to the affected portions of OPA 499 on the basis that they deviate from, or are inconsistent with, such approved portions of OPA 499 on a Plan-wide basis (or as approved in respect of other lands). However, this does not affect the City's right to assert that the approved portions of OPA 499 should be applied to the specific sites or character areas without modification on the basis that they are consistent with the provincial policy/planning statements, conform with provincial plans, and that they constitute good planning.

5. The following parts of the appeals of OPA 499, as specified in Attachment “B”, are adjourned until such time as the City has reached substantial completion of the Phase 3, Environmental Assessment of O'Connor Drive reconfiguration and realignment under the Environmental Assessment Act, or the City advises a resolution has been reached for the Tribunal's consideration for one or more Appellants, and any such adjournment is without prejudice to the rights of the City or the Appellant(s) regarding such appeals:

a) Appeal 2: Artlife Developments, 1861 O'Connor Drive;

b) Appeal 3: Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited, 1901 Eglinton Avenue East;

c) Appeal 4: BRL Realty Limited, 1474 Victoria Park Avenue;

d) Appeal 7: Vitmont Holdings (Vic Park) Inc., 1460 Victoria Park Avenue; and

e) Appeal 21: 1090011 Ontario Ltd, The Eglinton Town Centre.

6. The following remaining parts of the appeals of OPA 499, as specified in Attachment “B”, are adjourned sine die, and any such adjournment is without prejudice to the rights of the City or the Appellant(s) regarding such appeals:

a) Appeal 6: Samuel Sarick Limited, 1911 & 1921 Eglinton Avenue East;

b) Appeal 11: Mattamy (Eglinton) Limited, 1891 Eglinton Avenue East;

c) Appeal 13: 1941 Eglinton Holdings Inc., for the block bounded by Warden Avenue, Eglinton Avenue East, Prudham Gate and Civic Road;

d) Appeal 16: Eglinton Warden Developments Limited, 20 Ashtonbee Holdings Limited, 1920 Eglinton Avenue East;

e) Appeal 16: Avenue Holding Limited, for 1920-1940 Eglinton Avenue East, 880-900 Warden Avenue, 20-50 Ashtonbee Road; and

f) Appeal 17: Bell Canada, 865 Pharmacy Avenue.

7. Notwithstanding Orders 1 and 2 above, the policy, non-policy text, and/or maps identified under the heading of “Disputed Parts of OPA 499”, as identified in Attachment “B”, are asserted as being under appeal by Appellant 6, being Samuel Sarick Limited, but which assertion is disputed by the City, and which dispute will be adjudicated at a later date, if necessary; and such Orders, are without prejudice to the positions of the City and Samuel Sarick Limited with regard to such assertions made by Appellant 6, and that such policy, non-policy text, and/or map may be argued to be in force as of December 1, 2020 pursuant to s. 17(27) of the Planning Act and otherwise approved, as modified, on December 13, 2024 pursuant to s. 17(50) of the Planning Act and s. 9 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021.

8. Notwithstanding Orders 1 and 2 above, the policy, non-policy text, and/or maps identified under the heading of “Disputed Parts of OPA 499”, as identified in Attachment “B”, are asserted as being under appeal by Appellant 17, being Bell Canada, but which assertion is disputed by the City, and which dispute will be adjudicated at a later date, if necessary; and such Orders, are without prejudice to the positions of the City and Bell Canada with regard to such assertions made by Appellant 17, and that such policy, non-policy text, and/or map may be argued to be in force as of December 1, 2020 pursuant to s. 17(27) of the Planning Act and otherwise approved, as modified, on December 13, 2024 pursuant to s. 17(50) of the Planning Act and s. 9 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021.

9. The following matters as set out in Table 1 below are to be heard together pursuant to Rules 16.1 and 16.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Tribunal Rules”) for the purposes of this Motion and Order of the Tribunal arising from this Motion to finally dispose of those specified appeals of OPA 499 and their approved site-specific Official Plan Amendment appeals under s. 22(11) of the Planning Act, made by Order of the Tribunal or in principle:

Appeal # of OPA 499	Appellant of OPA 499	OLT File No. of s. 22(11) of the Planning Act, Official Plan Amendment
1	KS (Kingsett) Eglinton Square	OLT-22-003152
11	Mattamy (Eglinton) Limited	OLT-22-001974
12	RioCan Holdings Inc., 2075936 Ontario Ltd., and 2076031 Ontario Ltd.	OLT-22-002407
14	Dundeal Canada (GP) Inc.	OLT-22-002268
15	Calloway REIT (1900 Eglinton) Inc.	OLT-22-001701
18	D.D. Acquisitions Partnership	OLT-22-002373
19	CP REIT Ontario Properties Limited	OLT-22-002229
20	Cosmetica Investments Inc.	OLT-22-002442

10. As it relates to OLT-22-003152: in accordance with paragraph [50] of the Tribunal's Order issued on August 12, 2022, and effective on August 4, 2022 in OLT-22-003152, Attachment “1” to that Order is deleted and replaced with Attachment “C” to this Order and that Official Plan Amendment contained in Attachment “C” to this Order remains effective as of August 4, 2022.

11. As it relates to OLT-22-001974:

a) having come for a written hearing on April 12, 2024 and the Tribunal determined that the appeal under s. 22(7) of the Planning Act (“Mattamy Official Plan Amendment Appeal”) should be allowed, in part, and in its written Decision rendered that the final order on the proposed Official Plan Amendment be withheld, pending the final form and content satisfactory to the City;

b) having been advised that the final form and content of the proposed Official Plan Amendment is satisfactory through this Motion;

c) the Mattamy Official Plan Amendment Appeal is allowed, in part, and that the City of Toronto’s Official Plan is hereby amended in the manner set out in Attachment “D” to this Order;

d) that pursuant to ss. 17(50) and 22(11) of the Planning Act, and Rules 24.2 and 24.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules, should the remainder of OPA 499 in Tribunal Case No. OLT-22-002510 come into force and effect as it applies to the remainder of the lands at 1891 Eglinton Avenue East, subject of this Order, the City and Appellant may seek a revised Attachment “D” to delete, amend, or revise policies and/or mapping which are duplicative or similar to amendments to the Official Plan contained in OPA 499, and any such amended Order will be effective on the effective date of this Order.

12. As it relates to OLT-22-002407: in accordance with paragraph [46] of the Tribunal's Order issued on June 26, 2023, and effective on August 4, 2022 in OLT-22-002407, Attachment “1” to that Order is deleted and replaced with Attachment “E” to this Order and that Official Plan Amendment contained in Attachment “E” to this Order remains effective as of August 3, 2022.

13. As it relates to OLT-22-002268: in accordance with paragraph [48] of the Tribunal's Order issued on October 31, 2022, and effective on August 3, 2022 in OLT-22- 002268, Attachment “1” to that Order is deleted and replaced with Attachment “F” to this Order and that Official Plan Amendment contained in Attachment “F” to this Order remains effective as of August 3, 2022.

14. As it relates to OLT-22-001701: in accordance with paragraph [46] of the Tribunal's Order issued on November 10, 2022, and effective on August 3, 2022 in OLT-22-001701, Attachment “1” to that Order is deleted and replaced with Attachment “G” to this Order and that Official Plan Amendment contained in Attachment “G” to this Order remains effective as of August 3, 2022.

15. As it relates to OLT-22-002373: Attachment “1” to the Tribunal’s Decision and Order dated June 1, 2024, as corrected on July 6, 2024, is deleted and replaced with Attachment “H” to this Order.

16. As it relates to OLT-22-002229: in accordance with paragraph [4] of the Tribunal's Order issued on August 12, 2022, and effective on August 10, 2022 in OLT-22-002229, Attachment “1” to that Order is deleted and replaced with Attachment “I” to this Order and that Official Plan Amendment contained in Attachment “I” to this Order remains effective as of August 10, 2022.

17. As it relates to OLT-22-002442:

a) having come for a public hearing on March 13, 2023 and the Tribunal determined that the appeal under s. 22(7) of the Planning Act (“Cosmetica Official Plan Amendment Appeal”) should be allowed, in part, and in its oral Decision rendered that the final order on the proposed Official Plan Amendment be withheld pending the final form and content satisfactory to the City;

b) having been advised that the final form and content of the proposed Official Plan Amendment is satisfactory through this Motion; and

c) the Cosmetica Official Plan Amendment Appeal are allowed, in part, and that the City of Toronto’s Official Plan is hereby amended in the manner set out in Attachment “J” to this Order.

18. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk to format the By-laws in Attachment “A”, and Attachments “C” to “J” to this Order, as may be necessary, and, where required, assign by-law numbers for record keeping purposes.

19. The Notice of Response to Motion filed by Mattamy (Eglinton) Limited on December 9, 2024, is deferred, subject to the following conditions:

a) notwithstanding Orders 1 and 2, Policy 12.3 of OPA 499 is asserted as being under appeal by Appellant 11, being Mattamy (Eglinton) Limited, on a plan-wide basis, but which assertion is disputed by the City, and which dispute will be adjudicated at a later date, if necessary; and such Orders, are without prejudice to the position of the City with regard to such assertions made by Appellant 11 and that Policy 12.3 of OPA 499 may be argued to be in force as of December 1, 2020 pursuant to s. 17(27) of the Planning Act, on a plan-wide basis, and where applicable, otherwise remain under appeal on a site-specific basis;

b) the City and Appellant 11 (Mattamy (Eglinton) Limited) shall advise the Tribunal in writing, no later than January 31, 2025 of whether: (1) a continuation motion date is to be scheduled to determine the matter described in paragraph [17]19.a. above, and/or (2) a hearing on the merits be scheduled through the Case Coordinator for no more than three hearing days to dispose of the matter at the Tribunal’s earliest convenience, in consultation with any impacted Appellant arising from the position taken by Mattamy (Eglinton) Limited. Concurrent with this status update, should a hearing request be made of the Tribunal through the Case Coordinator, the City will file a procedural order, including the issue(s) list of Appellant 11 related to Policy 12.3 of OPA 499;

c) the City may rely on the Notice of Motion filed on November 28, 2024, including any attachments and the affidavit of Emily Caldwell, to Reply to the Notice of Response filed by Mattamy (Eglinton) Limited on December 9, 2024 in any continuation motion scheduled by the Tribunal. The City and/or any other Appellant shall file a Notice of Reply (if any) five days before the continuation motion date, and the City’s and/or any other Appellant’s Notice of Reply arguments in respect of such a continuation Motion shall not be limited by the effect of this Order, including but not limited to reliance on any relevant Tribunal Rules, decisions, materials or arguments;

d) this Order shall be without prejudice to the rights of the City and any other Appellant who wishes to oppose the Notice of Response to Motion filed by Mattamy (Eglinton) Limited on December 9, 2024; and

e) if resolution is reached on this matter, on consent of all Appellants to OPA 499 and the City, the City may request the Tribunal dispose of the matters pertaining to Policy 12.3 by way of written order.

18The Panel is not seized but remains available for case management subject to the Tribunal calendar.

“S. Braun”

S. BRAUN VICE-CHAIR

“Sharyn Vincent”

SHARYN VINCENT 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.