Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: January 6, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000882

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

Applicant and Appellant: The Lake Promenade Real Estate Co-Tenancy

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description: To permit the development of five residential apartment buildings with heights ranging from 12 to 30 storeys

Reference Number: 23 134668 WET 03 OZ

Property Address: 220, 230 and 240 Lake Promenade and 21 and 31 Park Boulevard

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000882

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000882

OLT Case Name: The Lake Promenade Real Estate Co-Tenancy v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: The Lake Promenade Real Estate Co-Tenancy

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit the development of five residential apartment buildings with heights ranging from 12 to 30 storeys

Reference Number: 23 134668 WET 03 OZ

Property Address: 220, 230 and 240 Lake Promenade and 21 and 31 Park Boulevard

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000883

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000882

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: The Lake Promenade Real Estate Co-Tenancy

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision

Description: To permit the development of five residential apartment buildings with heights ranging from 12 to 30 storeys

Reference Number: 23 134682 WET 03 SB

Property Address: 220, 230 and 240 Lake Promenade and 21 and 31 Park Boulevard

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000884

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000882

Heard: October 18, 2024, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
The Lake Promenade Real Estate Co-Tenancy ("Applicant")	Michael Foderick, Jamie Cole
City of Toronto ("City")	Amanda Hill, Ariel Lo-Wong
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ("TRCA")	Tim Duncan
Long Branch Neighbourhood Association ("LBNA")	Christine Mercado*

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS ON October 18, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The Applicant controls ten companies that own sites municipally known as 220, 230 and 240 Lake Promenade and 21 and 31 Park Boulevard in the City (“Subject Property”). These entities seek to construct five residential apartment buildings ranging in height from 12 to 30 storeys which would include approximately 2022 units. To this end, the Applicant had applied for an amendment to the City’s Official Plan, for a Zoning By-law amendment, and for approval of a draft plan of subdivision which would be applicable to the entire Subject Property. The Appeals are brought by the Applicant pursuant to sections 22(7), 34(11) and 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (“Act”), due to the City’s failure to decide within the prescribed time.

2The Subject Property currently contains five, seven-storey apartment buildings.

3On October 18, 2024, the Tribunal held a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) to organize the appeal, address status requests and establish next steps in this proceeding.

NOTICE

4There were no issues raised by the Parties with service of Notice of the CMC and as such, no further notice is required. The Tribunal was in receipt of the Affidavit of Service of Notice of the CMC sworn on October 1, 2024, which was marked as Exhibit 1 to this CMC. The Tribunal notes that the Notice of CMC, dated September 4, 2024, includes the following direction: “Pour recevoir des services en français, veuillez communiquer avec la Tribunal au 1-866-448-2248/(416) 212-6349 ou OLT.COORDINATOR@ontario.ca.” This indicated the steps to follow for those wishing to receive services in French.

PARTY STATUS REQUEST

5The Tribunal received three written requests for Party Status from: (1) the TRCA, (2) the LBNA, and (3) We Agree Mediation (“WAM”). Counsel for the Applicant had no objections to adding the TRCA and the LBNA as Parties but objected to the addition of WAM. It was clear to the Tribunal that the TRCA and the LBNA intend to advance evidence, including from expert witnesses. The TRCA is already represented by Counsel, and the LBNA, an incorporated entity, intends to retain legal counsel. The Tribunal finds that granting Party status to both the TRCA and the LBNA will assist the Tribunal in making a determination in this matter.

6WAM was given the opportunity to provide reasons why it should be granted Party status. Rather than doing so at the express and repeated request of the Tribunal, Thomas Giglione, as the representative of WAM, made submissions on the merits of the appeal. This was not relevant at this stage of the proceeding. Mr. Giglione also made submissions that the Tribunal could not proceed with the CMC because the Notice of the CMC was not in French. Questioned by the Tribunal Member, who would have been able to consider submissions in either French or English, Mr. Giglione admitted that he was not seeking to make submissions in French, that he had limited knowledge of French and was raising the argument not on his behalf but rather on behalf of individuals seeking Participant status which he did not and could not represent. Although requested by the Applicant to do so, WAM did not indicate whether it intended to advance evidence, including the evidence of one or more expert witnesses. In response to a request by the Applicant about WAM’s intent with respect to retaining legal counsel, Mr. Giglione correctly submitted that he was not required to be represented by a lawyer. However, based on Mr. Giglione’s contribution at the CMC, the Tribunal finds that granting WAM status as a Party would not assist the Tribunal in deciding in this matter. He demonstrated that he would be more disruptive to a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the matter, rather than helpful. Nevertheless, the Tribunal directed, as indicated below, that Thomas Giglione would be granted Participant status.

7Accordingly, the Tribunal directed that the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Long Branch Neighbourhood Association be added as Parties.

PARTICIPANT STATUS REQUESTS

8The Tribunal was also in receipt of 133 requests for Participant status. The City, the TRCA and the LBNA did not object to granting them Participants status. Counsel for the Applicant indicated that he had no objections with respect to 131 proposed Participants, but he had concerns about the incorporated status of the Lake Promenade Tenants’ Association and the Lakeshore Affordable Housing Advocacy and Action Group. Considering this, the Tribunal directed that the 131 individuals or entities listed in Attachment A to this Decision be granted Participant status. The Participant status of the Lake Promenade Tenants’ Association and the Lakeshore Affordable Housing Advocacy and Action Group was deferred. They will have until Monday, December 2, 2024, to file with the Tribunal evidence that they are incorporated entities. If such evidence is provided, the Tribunal directed that they will be given Participant status. If such evidence is not provided, it is open to them to provide the name of an individual as a replacement for Participant status.

9The Tribunal notes that, after the CMC, on November 15, 2024, Lake Promenade Tenants’ Association provided a copy of a certificate of incorporation under the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act and it was therefore added to the list of Participants in Attachment A.

FRENCH LANGUAGE SERVICES FOR PARTICIPANTS

10The Tribunal directed that if a Participant listed in Attachment A makes their written submissions in French, the Tribunal will have those submissions translated into English. These translations will be provided to the Parties and the other Participants.

11Similarly, the Tribunal directed that the Procedural Order will be made available by the Tribunal in both English and in French.

NEXT STEPS

12A draft Procedural Order was provided by the Applicant to the Tribunal prior to the CMC. However, the draft did not include an Issues List.

13Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Tribunal should set a nine-day Merit Hearing after August 1, 2025, and direct the City to provide a list of its issues. Counsel for the City argued that she is in no position to provide a list of issues as the matter is being considered by City Council on December 2, 2024. She also indicated that she would likely call 11 expert witnesses and that a hearing of three to four weeks would be appropriate. In any event, the City submitted that, instead of setting a Hearing date, a second CMC should be scheduled. Counsel for the TRCA supported the position of the City and submitted that setting a Hearing date was premature, that setting a second CMC would be more appropriate, and that the TRCA would likely present three or four expert witnesses. The LBNA also supported the City’s position, advocated for the setting of a second CMC, and noted that they intend to retain counsel, which has yet to occur. In reply submissions, Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the purpose of the CMC is to set hearing dates and that he is flexible with respect to the number of hearing days (which can be shortened later if required).

14Given that the applications have been deemed complete by the City since June 13, 2023, and given that the appeals have been filed on August 9, 2024, the Tribunal finds that the City should have been prepared to come to this CMC with a list of potential issues. Even if Counsel for the City has not yet received instructions from City Council on this file, the universe of potential issues should be largely known because of the work that should have been conducted by City staff leading up to the Council meeting which is to occur in just a few weeks. The Tribunal is also skeptical about the potential number of witnesses identified by the City and by the TRCA.

15The Tribunal finds that setting a hearing date at this CMC offers the best opportunity for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of this proceeding. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed as follows:

a. A 20-day merit hearing be set for 10 a.m. on Tuesday, September 9, 2025 to Monday, October 6, 2025, by Video Hearing;

b. The City is to provide the Applicant its list of issues by Wednesday, January 15, 2025;

c. The Parties are to file their final draft Procedural Order, including an Issues List, by Friday, January 31, 2025.

16The Tribunal noted that these directions will provide ample time for the LBNA to retain legal counsel and will enable the list of issues to reflect discussions at City Council which are set to occur in early December 2024.

17The Tribunal further directed that, 90 days before the start of the Hearing, the Parties are to advise the Tribunal whether all 20 hearing days are required. This obligation of the Parties shall be reflected in the draft Procedural Order.

18Parties 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.

Go To Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/687587165

Access code: 687-587-165

19Parties 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.

20Individuals 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: (Toll-Free) 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The Access Code is as indicated above.

21Individuals 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 hearing by video 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

22THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS its directions in this Decision.

23The Member is not seized but may be spoken to if there are difficulties satisfying its direction in this Decision.

“Jean-Pierre Blais”

JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS 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.

ATTACHMENT A

1. Elizabeth McCullough
2. *Louis-Charles Lavallée
3. Sam (Salvatore) Sanguedolce
4. Carole Sanguedolce
5. *Gérard Lévesque
6. Ruth Snowden
7. Sonia Pooran
8. Rose Greening
9. Kathryn Santa Ana
10. Laura Lee Therrien
11. Sarah Lockett
12. Thomas G. Giglione
13. Cornelia Machin
14. Marie Nardella
15. Brett Campbell
16. Annie Dell
17. Susan Albert
18. Janis Hancock
19. Donna-Marie Batty
20. Madeleine Pengelley
21. Joel McConvey
22. Ken O'Brien
23. Carol Goodwillie
24. Mark McKeon
25. Terry McCullough
26. Lee Travaglini
27. Steven Vella
28. Daryle Moffatt
29. Brian Blendick
30. Marcin Stolarczyk
31. Soojin Kim
32. Tracy Pearce
33. Brian Curran
34. Robert Gass
35. Brian Anderson
36. Paul Terry
37. Maria Giorgio
38. Laurie Weishuhn
39. John Bishop
40. Andriy Baysa,
41. Ewa Dorozko
42. Catherine Hallahan
43. Ken Okazawa
44. Yvonne Harris
45. Louise Noguchi
46. Patrick Rice
47. Jan Shulman
48. Christine Tang
49. Julie Northrup
50. Dorothy-Anna Orser
51. Kamilia Zagol
52. Julian Boyd
53. Andy Choles
54. Cindy Butler
55. Rob Muru
56. Patricia Mitchell
57. Adrienne Bacher
58. Mike Lecky
59. Suzanne Brown
60. Mohammed F. Mia
61. Kc Verde
62. Saje Mistry
63. Jessica Carter
64. Alana Eastmond
65. Joseph Okeke
66. Cyrièle Kiening
67. Kathryn Kotris
68. Barbara-Anne Patterson
69. Giancarlo Silvestri
70. Eric Winch
71. Lilia Tretiak
72. Anu Liivandi
73. Vincenzo Butera
74. Gay Chisholm
75. Mary Elizabeth Sorichetti
76. Gaby Cordeiro
77. Debbie Nolan
78. Sean Sicard
79. *Mitch Fairrais
80. David Godon
81. Sonja Kecman
82. William Woods
83. Brian Bailey
84. Lisa Okazawa
85. Katherine Balfour
86. Slawomir Joseph Rollicking
87. Susan Willsher
88. Ian Christensen
89. Slawomir Joseph Grobicki
90. Roderick Beattie
91. Carole Wright
92. Galen Bagdan
93. Maryna Khatnyuk
94. Santiago Aristizabal
95. Quan Zhang
96. Jenny Ribeiro
97. Ali Mustafa
98. Albertina Araujo
99. Tina Mucci
100. Barb Dabek
101. Joel Hulley
102. Aylen Sotomayor
103. Daniel Foderingham
104. Axile Gerona
105. Amanda Palias
106. Robin Zaloznik
107. Mary McColl
108. Alexander (Sandy) Donald
109. Robert Szykowski
110. Michelle Flynn
111. Hark Savinsky
112. Judith Witmer
113. Mohamed Naiem Mia
114. Donna Struk
115. David Juliusson
116. Janice DeHart
117. Dragan Filipovic
118. Natalie Voss
119. Venita Indewey
120. Michael Goldschmid
121. LAMP Community Health Centre
122. Jasmin Dooh
123. Richard Mercado
124. Nadia Stelmach
125. Peter Martin
126. Rose O'Callaghan
127. Yolanda Kirsic
128. Katherine Stratton
129. Raymond Macaraeg
130. Vanderzalm Toni
131. Deborah Bradley
132. Lake Promenade Tenants’ Association

• Submissions in French