Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
December 04, 2025
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-25-000660
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant
110 Sheppard East GP Inc.
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Refusal of request
Description:
To permit a mixed use development comprised of two towers of 49 and 53 storeys in height inclusive of a five to seven storey podium
Reference Number:
25 134898 NNY 18 OZ
Property Address:
110 Sheppard Avenue East
Municipality/UT:
Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No:
OLT-25-000660
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-25-000660
OLT Case Name:
110 Sheppard East GP Inc. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant
110 Sheppard East Inc.
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application
Description:
To permit a mixed use development comprised of two towers of 49 and 53 storeys in height inclusive of a five to seven storey podium
Reference Number:
25 134898 NNY 18 OZ
Property Address:
110 Sheppard Avenue East
Municipality/UT:
Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No:
OLT-25-000661
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-25-000660
Heard:
November 25, 2025, by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
110 Sheppard East GP Inc.
C. MacDougall R. Poon
J. Cole M. Schuman, in absentia
City of Toronto
R. Kallio
Kenneth-Sheppard Limited
A. Jeanrie
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C. HARDY ON NOVEMBER 25, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The Tribunal convened this first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) relating to applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) which were refused by the City of Toronto (“City”) on July 24, 2025. 110 Sheppard East GP Inc. (“Appellant”) appealed the City’s refusal of its OPA application pursuant to s. 22(7) and its ZBA application pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Planning Act”).
2The purpose and effect of the OPA and ZBA is to facilitate the redevelopment of lands located at 110 Sheppard Avenue East (“subject property”) in the City with one 49-storey residential building and one 53-storey mixed-use building atop a shared podium. The proposed development will contain 1,313 residential units with a total residential gross floor area of 77,968.55 square metres and overall density of 16.88 times the lot area. The City’s refusal set out concerns related to the failure to provide an appropriate mix of land uses and proposed building heights and built form elements which do not conform with applicable policies.
3The Tribunal confirmed with the Parties that there were no concerns consolidating the OPA appeal (OLT-25-000660) and the ZBA appeal (OLT-25-000661). The Tribunal will consolidate the appeals, which will proceed under Tribunal File No. OLT-25-000660.
CONFIRMATION OF NOTICE
4The Tribunal confirmed with Counsel that there were no known issues with service of the Notice of the CMC and as such, no further notice is required. The Tribunal received the Affidavit of Service of Notice of Norman Ng dated October 23, 2025, which was marked as Exhibit 1 and the Affidavit of Service of Notice of Robert Daniel Edward Jefferson dated November 6, 2025, which was marked as Exhibit 2.
STATUS REQUESTS
5In advance of the CMC, the Tribunal received one written request for party status from Kenneth-Sheppard Limited which was marked as Exhibit 3.
6Kenneth-Sheppard Limited’s written request noted no concerns with the proposal and was requesting party status to monitor the proceedings in the event the proposal was amended prior to the hearing. During the CMC, Counsel confirmed that Kenneth-Sheppard Limited did not intend on presenting witnesses, nor adding issues to the Issues List (“IL”), and confirmed their client’s position as a watching brief only. In the event the applications were significantly amended prior to the hearing, Kenneth-Sheppard Limited wanted to ensure that it had the ability to become involved in the proceedings. The Tribunal confirmed that if this occurred and Kenneth-Sheppard Limited wished to add issues to the IL, Kenneth-Sheppard Limited would be required to bring a Motion in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Tribunal granted Kenneth-Sheppard Limited Party status, based on this understanding.
7The Tribunal confirmed that there were no other persons or entities present at the CMC requesting Party or Participant status in the proceedings.
MEDIATION
8Counsel for the Appellant advised the Tribunal that the Parties have engaged in discussions regarding the potential for mediation. Counsel for the Appellant and the City agreed that they intend to pursue mediation in January 2026.
PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST
9In advance of the CMC, the Appellant submitted a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) which had not yet been finalized by the City, nor reviewed by Kenneth-Sheppard Limited. During the CMC, the Parties and the Tribunal conducted a review of the draft PO, and the Tribunal directed Counsel for the Appellant to file an updated draft PO, including an IL, following the CMC.
10On November 27, 2025, a revised PO and IL was submitted to the Tribunal and is attached as Schedule 1 to this Order. The revised PO and IL have been reviewed and approved by the Tribunal and will govern the pre-hearing procedural requirements and the hearing of the appeals.
NEXT STEPS
11The Parties jointly requested that the Tribunal schedule a 10-day hearing for the appeal. Upon considering the Parties submissions on hearing length and the assurances from Counsel that 10 days would be sufficient to adjudicate the issues, the Tribunal agreed with the assessed hearing length.
12The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day video hearing commencing on Monday, July 20, 2026, at 10 a.m., the details of which are set out below.
13Parties are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before it begins to test their video and audio connections:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/692665589
Access Code: 692-665-589
14Parties 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 GoTo Meeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html
15Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to it by calling into an audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (Toll-Free) 1-888-299-1889. The Access Code is as indicated above.
16Individuals 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 event to ensure that they are properly connected at the correct time. Questions prior to the event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator
ORDER
17THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT Kenneth-Sheppard Limited is a Party in the proceedings.
18THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Procedural Order attached as Schedule 1 to this Order shall govern the proceedings.
19The case management directives above are so ordered.
20There will be no further notice, and this Member is not seized, however, will remain available for case management subject to the Tribunal’s calendar.
“C. Hardy”
c. hardy
VICE-CHAIR
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.
SCHEDULE 1
DRAFT PROCEDURAL ORDER
OLT CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000660
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant
110 Sheppard East GP Inc.
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Refusal of request
Description:
To permit a mixed use development comprised of two towers of 49 and 53 storeys in height inclusive of a five to seven storey podium
Reference Number:
25 134898 NNY 18 OZ
Property Address:
110 Sheppard Avenue East
Municipality/UT:
Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No:
OLT-25-000660
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-25-000660
OLT Case Name:
110 Sheppard East GP Inc. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant
110 Sheppard East Inc.
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application
Description:
To permit a mixed use development comprised of two towers of 49 and 53 storeys in height inclusive of a five to seven storey podium
Reference Number:
25 134898 NNY 18 OZ
Property Address:
110 Sheppard Avenue East
Municipality/UT:
Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No:
OLT-25-000661
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-25-000660
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
The hearing will begin on Monday, July 20, 2026 at 10 a.m. by video hearing.
The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is ten (10) 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. The procedural order deadlines are found in Attachment 1.
The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 2 (see the sample procedural order for the meaning of these terms).
The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it. An issue can be removed from the Issues List without a formal order of the Tribunal with the consent of all Parties.
The order of evidence is set out in Attachment 4. 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.
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.
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
If the Appellant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing, the Appellant shall provide copies of the revised proposal, including any revised plans, reports, and studies, to the other parties on or before Monday, March 23, 2026 (119 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence). The Appellant acknowledges that any revisions to the plans or the introduction of any new or revised reports after that date without the consent of the parties may be grounds for a request to adjourn the hearing.
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 Wednesday, April 1, 2026 (110 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence) and in accordance with paragraph 23 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. Any challenges to the witness, including qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence in the area of expertise proposed shall be made by motion in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules and notice of same must be served on the other Parties (on or before Monday, April 13, 2026) (98 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence).
Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Tuesday, April 21, 2026 (90 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence) and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and the remaining issues to be addressed at the hearing with the Tribunal’s case coordinator on or before Wednesday, May 6, 2026 (75 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence).
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 14 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.
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 14 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 14 below. For greater certainty, each expert witness statement must comply with the minimum content requirements specified in Rule 7 of the Tribunal’s Rules. If the expert witness has prepared any report(s) that they intend to rely on at the hearing, and which did not form part of the submissions made to the City, such report(s) shall be provided to the other parties at the same as the delivery of expert witness statements, as in paragraph 14 below.
On or before Thursday, May 21, 2026 (60 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the Tribunal’s case coordinator in accordance with paragraph 23 below.
On or before Monday, June 15, 2026 (35 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.
On or before Monday, June 22, 2026 (28 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), the parties may provide to all other parties and the Tribunal’s case coordinator a written response to any written evidence in accordance with paragraph 23 below.
On or before Tuesday, June 30, 2026 (20 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence, if any, to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.
On or before Friday, July 10, 2026 (10 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), the parties shall provide copies of their reply visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.
The parties shall cooperate to prepare a Joint Document Book which shall be shared with the Tribunal’s case coordinator in accordance with paragraph 23 below on or before Friday, July 10, 2026 (10 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence). All parties must be served with the Joint Document Book in an access format in accordance with paragraph 23 below.
The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Friday, July 10, 2026 (10 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), 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 preliminary hearing plan. Any and all witnesses shall be available on the identified date(s), unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal or on consent of parties. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the preliminary hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.
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.
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 at least 10 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.
All filings shall be submitted electronically unless otherwise directed. 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. All documents to be filed with the Tribunal shall be organized, tabbed and digitally searchable.
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.
Meaning of Terms Used in the Procedural Order:
A party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. An unincorporated group cannot be a party and it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorisation from the party.
NOTE that a person who wishes to become a party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.
A participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.
A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.
Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.
Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing.
A witness statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which he or she will discuss ; and a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing.
An expert witness statement should include his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons supporting their opinions and conclusions and (5) a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.
A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the participant’s position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submissions of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports or materials, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.
Additional Information:
A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.
The order of examination of witnesses is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:
direct examination by the party presenting the witness;
direct examination by any party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;
cross-examination by parties of opposite interest;
re-examination by the party presenting the witness; or
another order of examination mutually agreed among the parties or directed by the Tribunal.
ATTACHMENT 1
SUMMARY OF DATES
DATE
EVENT
Monday, March 23, 2026 (119 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)
Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans, reports, and studies (if any)
Wednesday, April 1, 2026 (110 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)
Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
Monday, April 13, 2026 (98 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)
Last day for parties to challenge expert witnesses
Tuesday, April 21, 2026 (90 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)
Experts meeting prior to this date
Wednesday, May 6, 2026 (75 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)
Statement of agreed facts filed with the Tribunal
Thursday, May 21, 2026 (60 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)
Exchange of witness statements, summoned witness outlines and expert reports
Monday, June 15, 2026 (35 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)
Parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required
Monday, June 22, 2026 (28 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)
Parties shall provide written responses to written evidence (if any)
Tuesday, June 30, 2026 (20 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)
Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
Friday, July 10, 2026 (10 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)
Exchange of reply visual evidence (if any)
Friday, July 10, 2026 (10 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)
Hearing plan filed with the Tribunal
Friday, July 10, 2026 (10 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)
Joint document book filed with the Tribunal
Monday, July 20, 2026
Ten-Day Hearing commences
ATTCHMENT 2
LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS
PARTIES:
- 110 Sheppard East GP Inc.
Cynthia MacDougall, Matthew Schuman, and Rachel Poon
McCarthy Tétrault LLP
Suite 5300, TD Bank Tower
Box 48, 66 Wellington Street West
Toronto, ON M5K 1E6
Email: cmacdoug@mccarthy.ca, mschuman@mccarthy.ca, rpoon@mccarthy.ca
Tel: (416) 601-7634, (416) 601-4319, (416) 601-8430
- City of Toronto
Ray Kallio
Legal Services
City of Toronto Metro Hall, 26th Floor 55 John Street Toronto ON M5V 3C6
Email: ray.kallio@toronto.ca Tel: (416) 397-4063
- Kenneth-Sheppard Limited
Andrew Jeanrie
Bennett Jones LLP
100 King St W Suite 3400,
Toronto, ON M5X 1A4
Email: jeanriea@bennettjones.com
Tel: (416) 777-4814
ATTACHMENT 3
LIST OF ISSUES
Note: The identification of an issue on this Issues List is intended to provide notice to all parties that a party will lead evidence and/or argument on the matter. This identification does not serve as an acknowledgement of relevancy to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing.
CITY OF TORONTO:
PROVINCIAL STATUTORY & POLICY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13
Is the proposed official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with the purpose of the Planning Act as set out in Section 1.1, including subsection (b), (c) and (e)?
Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest set forth in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections (e), (f), (g), (h), (h.1), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), (o), (p), (q), (r) and (s)?
Would the approval of the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment have appropriate regard for the decisions of City Council as required by Section 2.1 of the Planning Act?
Would the approval of the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment have appropriate regard for the Ministers’ policy statement issued under Section 3(1), (5), (6), (8)?
Provincial Planning Statement (2024)
- Are the Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and proposed development consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024) as required by Section 3(5) of the Planning Act, including, but not limited to, the following sections/policies:
a) 2.1.6;
b) 2.3.1.2;
c) 2.4.1.2;
d) 2.4.1.3;
e) 2.8.1.1;
f) 2.8.1.4
g) 3.6.1;
h) 3.6.8;
i) 6.1.5;
LOCAL POLICY FRAMEWORK
City of Toronto Official Plan
- Is the proposed amendment to the Official Plan consistent with the general intent of the Official Plan?
- Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment conform to the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, including, but not limited to:
a) Structuring Growth in the City: Integrating Land Use and Transportation (Section 2.2);
b) Public Realm (Section 3.1.1);
c) Built Form (Sections 3.1.3 and 3.1.4);
d) Parks and Open Spaces (Sections 3.2.3)
e) Mixed Use Areas (Section 4.5); and
f) Implementation (Sections, 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.6)
North York Centre Secondary Plan
- Do the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment conform with the policies of the North York Centre Secondary Plan including the policies related to:
a) Land Use Policies (Section 2.1.1)
b) Built Form Policies (Section 5.1, 5.3);
c) Building Heights (Section 5.4);
d) Pedestrian Environment (Section 5.6);
e) Linear Parks, Streetscaping and Landscaping (Section 6.4);
f) Service Vehicle Access (Section 8.12); and
g) Boulevard Widths and Utilities (Section 8.13)
City of Toronto Guidelines
Does the proposal adequately support the unit mix and size objectives of the Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities Guidelines?
Does the proposed development meet the intent and purpose of The Tall Building Design Guidelines? (Guidelines 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 2.1, 2.3, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3)
Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment appropriately address the City-wide Pet Friendly Design Guidelines for High Density Communities?
Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment appropriately address the City-wide Retail Design Manual?
Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment have appropriate regard for the Complete Streets Guidelines?
Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment have appropriate regard and satisfy Tier 1 of the Toronto Green Standard (Version 4)?
SITE-SPECIFIC ISSUES
Built Form, Height, Massing
- Are the site organization and building massing of the proposed development appropriate and representing good planning and urban design, and more specifically:
a) Is the proposed density and height appropriate?
b) Is the proposed mix of uses within the building including the amount of non-residential floor area appropriate and contribute to the development of a complete community?
c) Are the proposed building setbacks, and tower step backs along Sheppard Avenue East and Kenneth Avenue appropriate?
d) Are the proposed base building height and massing along Sheppard Avenue East and Kenneth Avenue appropriate?
e) Are the proposed building configuration and tower floorplate size appropriate?
f) Are the shadow impacts on the adjacent parkland from the proposed development appropriate?
g) Are the wind impacts on the pedestrian walkway onsite from the proposed development appropriate?
Public Realm and Streetscape
- Does the proposal conform with the Public Realm policies of the Official Plan and NYCSP, including, but not limited to:
a) is the proposed streetscape along Sheppard Avenue Eat and Kenneth Avenue appropriate;
b) an appropriate setback area from the front property line to create a 10-metre-wide curb-to-building façade along Sheppard Avenue East;
c) contributing to climate resilience and a comfortable pedestrian experience through adequate tree plantings?
d) Does the boulevard design along Sheppard Avenue East and Kenneth Avenue need to be revised to accommodate tree planting, a furniture zone, and an edge zone along the curb to facilitate pedestrian and cyclist movement?
Sun, Shadow and Wind Impacts
Are modifications to the building design required to ensure outdoor areas at grade are comfortable as a result of the known wind impacts?
Are modifications to the building design required to ensure the outdoor amenity areas are comfortable as a result of the known shadow impacts particularly on Willowdale Park and the proposed on-side parkland dedication?
Does the proposal conform with Policy 5.6.6 of the North York Centre Secondary Plan?
Urban Forestry
- Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment provide adequate soil volume to support growth for large growing shade trees on-site and within the public boulevard on Kenneth Avenue and Sheppard Avenue West?
Transportation Impact and Transportation Demand Management
Is the proposed conveyance unencumbered?
Is the proposed TIS appropriate?
Is the proposed Travel Demand Management (TDM) plan adequate to support the additional growth represented by the proposal?
Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management
Is a Holding Symbol “(H)” required to ensuring site servicing and storm water management concerns are appropriately addressed?
Is there enough capacity in the existing sanitary sewer and water systems to support the proposed development?
What is the plan for managing groundwater, and does it comply with the City's policies and standards for groundwater discharge?
Can the current water infrastructure meet the fire flow requirements for the development?
How will stormwater be managed on-site, and does the plan ensure compliance with City guidelines?
What upgrades or improvements to existing municipal infrastructure and/or new municipal services are required, if any, to accommodate the proposed development?
Planning Instruments
Is the form and content of the proposed Official Plan Amendment appropriate?
Is the form and content of the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment appropriate?
Public Interest and Good Planning
- Do the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment provide for good planning and good urban design, and are they in the public interest?
110 Sheppard East GP Inc.
- Does the proposal, including the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments (the “Proposal”), represent good and appropriate land use planning having regard to the following in addition to and in light of the issues raised by the City?:
a) Provincial Planning Statement (2024)
i. 2.2.1, 2.3.1.1, 2.3.1.3, 2.4.1.1, 2.4.3.1
ii. 3.2.2, 3.9.1. a) and b)
iii. 6.1.1, 6.1.6, 6.1.7, 6.1.12
b) City of Toronto Official Plan
i. 1.2
ii. 2.2.2 (Centres: Vital Mixed Communities)
iii. 3.2.1.1 and 3.2.1.2
iv. Chapter 8 (consolidation August 2025)
c) North York Centre Secondary Plan
i. 2.1.2
ii. 6.2, 6.3, 6.5
iii. 12.1
d) City of Toronto Tall Building Guidelines
i. 1.5, 2.2
- Site Specific Issues
a) Is the Proposal, which contemplates a significant amount of new residential uses, appropriate given that the office vacancy rate in the North Yonge submarket area, and the in force secondary plan provides for 100% residential use of the site?
b) Will the proposed development, as permitted by the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, including the proposed park, contribute to the development of a complete community?
Kenneth-Sheppard Limited
No issues.
ORDER OF EVIDENCE
IN CHIEF:
1. 110 Sheppard East GP Inc.
2. City of Toronto
REPLY: