Montrin Richview GP Inc. v. Toronto (City), 2025 CanLII 113859

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 29, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000563

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53 (19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Montrin Richview GP Inc.

Subject: Consent

Description: MV, C & SP to support a multi-building, mixed-use development.

Reference Number: B0033/23EYK

Property Address: 250 Wincott Drive and 4620 Eglinton Avenue West

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000563

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000563

OLT Case Name: Montrin Richview GP Inc. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45 (12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Montrin Richview GP Inc.

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: MV, C & SP to support a multi-building, mixed-use development.

Reference Number: A0078/25EYK

Property Address: 250 Wincott Drive and 4620 Eglinton Avenue West

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000564

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000563

OLT Case Name: Montrin Richview GP Inc. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A

Applicant and Appellant: Montrin Richview GP Inc.

Subject: Site Plan

Description: MV, C & SP to support a multi-building, mixed-use development.

Reference Number: 22 136287 WET 02 SA

Property Address: 250 Wincott Drive and 4620 Eglinton Avenue West

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000552

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000563

OLT Case Name: Montrin Richview GP Inc. v. Toronto (City)

Heard: October 21, 2025, by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Montrin Richview GP Inc.	Eileen Costello
City of Toronto	Matthew Longo

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JACKIE DENYES ON OCTOBER 21, 2025, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This is the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) before the Ontario Land Tribunal with respect to appeals filed by Montrin Richview GP Inc. (“Applicant/Appellant”), the registered owner of the Subject Properties, appealing the City of Toronto (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“CoA”) refusal of the Minor Variance Application (“MVA”), pursuant to subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act (the “Act’), failure to make a decision regarding the Consent Application, pursuant to subsection 53(14) of the Planning Act, and failure to make a decision related to the Site Plan Approval Application, pursuant to Section 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act.

2In order to ensure that all the related planning applications are considered together, appeals of the Site Plan Approval Application (“SPA”), Consent Application and MVA are brought concurrently.

SUBJECT PROPERTY, ZONING, AND SURROUNDINGS

3The Subject Properties are municipally known as 250 Wincott Drive and 4620 Eglinton Avenue West, located at the northwest corner of Eglinton Avenue West and Wincott Drive in the City (the “Site”). The Site is currently a commercial strip plaza and one stand-alone retail pad, collectively known as “Richview Square”, located at 250 Wincott Drive. The balance of the Site consists of surface parking and loading areas, in addition to a vacant parcel, fronting Eglinton Avenue West, which had been previously reserved as part of the former Richview Expressway (4620 Eglinton Avenue West).

4In July 2021, City Council approved a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) for the Site which permitted a multi-building, mixed-use development, including a public park, fronting Eglinton Avenue West, a privately-owned publicly accessible open space (POPS) abutting the public park and a community agency space.

5In January 2023, a new Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) application was submitted that maintained the site organization of the 2021 ZBA. However, the new application proposed increased heights of 24 and 29 storeys for Buildings A and B, as opposed to 11 storeys respectively. This file is currently under review by City Staff and is not the subject of the appeals at this CMC.

6The Administrative Notice, dated September 4, 2025, was filed as Exhibit 1.

PARTICIPANT STATUS REQUEST

7The Tribunal was in receipt of one Participant Status Request from Richmond Gardens Residents and Ratepayer’s Association (“RGRRA”) signed by Co-Chairs Sonia Pace, who was present during the CMC, and Luisa Girotto, who was not present. The request outlines “RGRRA” concerns relating to “lack of comprehensive planning, piecemeal approvals through variance applications, severance applications, a new 2023 ZBA application, resident and visitor parking shortages, traffic and safety impacts, loss of neighbourhood retail viability and a significant departure in Council-approved site-specific mid-rise built form and height, altering the character of the community.

8Ms. Pace verbally requested that she be allowed to amend her Participant Status Request to that of Party Status. She advised that she was unaware that RGRRA could apply for Party Status. Both Counsel, Ms. Costello and Mr. Longo, objected, citing there was insufficient information to grant a change of the Status Request at this time. Mr. Longo indicated in his brief overview that the refusal by the CoA was based in part on the submissions of residents and that the City is not taking a position on the MVA appeal.

9The Tribunal conferred Participant Status to “RGRRA” and marked the Participant Status Request and attached Letters Patent as Exhibit Two.

CMC HEARING, PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST

10Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant expresses it is their understanding that City Staff are satisfied with the SPA and are prepared to issue Notice of Approval Conditions (“NOAC”). In order to ensure coordination of the proposed development and consistency with the approved Zoning By-law (“ZBA”), the NOAC issuance is pending while the MVA was in process.

11In September 2023, while the SPA was under review, an application was made to the CoA to sever the Site into four lots and create various easements/rights-of-way, to facilitate the future mixed-use development and maintain the retained commercial plaza component.

12In February 2025, a MVA was submitted to the CoA to accommodate a change in non-residential floor area for Building C. The requested variances from Zoning By-law 569-2013 related to:

(a) Accessible parking spaces minimum width of 3.9 m and 2.1 m minimum vertical clearances must be provided, whereas 3.4 m minimum width and a vertical clearance of 2.1 m are proposed and adjacent to a 1.5 m wide accessible barrier free aisle or path;

(b) Minimum of 1 “Type A” loading space, 2 “Type B” loading spaces and 1 “Type G” loading spaces for Building C are required, whereas a total of 1 “Type B” loading space and 1 “Type G” loading spaces are proposed;

(c) 316 residential parking spaces for Building C must be provided, whereas 159 parking spaces are proposed;

(d) 55 visitor parking spaces for Building C must be provided, whereas 20 visitor parking spaces are proposed.

13On June 26, 2025, the CoA heard the MVA which was filed in February 2025, the purpose of which was to adjust the parking standards for the proposed buildings as set out above in Paragraph 12 of this decision. Staff did not raise any concerns about the configuration of the proposed parking levels of Buildings C or D, nor the SPA. Despite City Staff’s general support for the MVA, it was refused by the CoA decision, citing failing all four legislative tests.

14Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant asserts the following:

1. Despite efforts to work with City Staff to resolve the outstanding issues and the willingness of Staff to support the applications, no decision has been made on the revised Consent Application dated November 2024 and SPA;

2. The MVA simply responds to the changing City-wide regulations related to requirements for vehicle parking;

3. The Consent Application provides for orderly development of the collective lands and provides an opportunity to market the lands for individual sale; and

4. The SPA is in keeping with the applicable policy framework set out in the Provincial Policy Statement, City Official Plan, City’s Avenues & Mid-Rise Building Guidelines and complies with the built form set out in the 2021 rezoning approval.

15Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant submits that the effect of the applications facilitate the delivery of much needed housing in the City, including 74 affordable housing units in response to both Provincial and local planning policy.

16Counsel for the Applicant/Appellants and the City are diligent in their efforts to resolve and/or reduce all of the issues at hand. On the SPA, Counsel for the City indicated that the City Staff are working with the Applicant/Appellant, but indicate discussions are complicated by phasing-in and future applications of height restrictions, that need to be considered. On the MVA, the City is taking no active role. However, the Tribunal reminds Counsel that a Hearing de novo with viva voce evidence on the MVA would still be required. The Tribunal further suggests that, should the SPA resolve, there would be no need to bring the appeal before the Tribunal, other than to inform and update the Tribunal of the concept of the plan that was discussed. As to the revised Consent Application, dated November 2024, Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant requested a deferral, is making considerable progress with City Staff, proposes it is an appropriate time for the proposed Consent, as revised, to proceed to the CoA for decision and its status is currently awaiting a scheduled hearing to be set.

17The Tribunal canvassed opportunities for settlement by way of Tribunal-led mediation or other dispute resolution possibilities. The Tribunal suggests that, should the matter go to mediation, RGRRA should be invited to participate in the mediation process.

MERIT HEARING SCHEDULED

18A two-day Merit Hearing will commence on Wednesday December 10, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., by video hearing.

19Parties and participants are asked to log into the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:

GoToMeeting: https://meet.goto.com/278736685

Access Code: 278-736-685

20Parties and participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available:

https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

21Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9391 or (Toll Free): 1 888 455 1389. The access code is as noted above.

22Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the Video Hearing to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

ORDER

23THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. A two-day Merit Hearing will proceed on Wednesday December 10, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. and Thursday, December 11, 2025, at 10:00 a.m.;

2. Ms. Costello is to submit an Issues List and Hearing Plan to the Case Coordinator by 4:30 p.m. on Friday, November 7, 2025; and

3. Participant Status is conferred to the Richmond Gardens Residents and Ratepayer’s Association.

24No further notice will be provided.

25Tribunal member is not seized.

“Jackie Denyes”

JACKIE DENYES 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.