Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: December 12, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000369
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Starbank Developments 1416 Corp.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit the development of a 43-storey mixed-use building
Reference Number: 24 222025 NNY 08 OZ
Property Address: 1410-1416 Eglinton Avenue West
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No: OLT-25-000369
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000369
OLT Case Name: Starbank Developments 1416 Corp. v. Toronto (City)
Heard: December 10, 2025 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Starbank Developments 1416 Corp. (“Appellant”) | Ira Kagan Daniel Angelucci |
| City of Toronto (“City”) | Ray Kallio Ariel Lo-Wong |
| Toronto Common Elements Condominium Corporation No. 2018 (“TCECC 2018”) | Luis Hernandez |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY w. daniel best ON DECEMBER 10, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision arises from the third Case Management Conference (“CMC”) for the above-noted matter. The Appellant has appealed under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), for the non-decision of the City regarding a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) concerning the municipal address of 1410-1416 Eglington Avenue West, in the City (“Subject Property”).
2At the second CMC, the Tribunal granted Party Status to TCECC 2018 as it was determined that TCECC 2018 had genuine interest in the proceedings.
3In advance of the second CMC, the Tribunal received a copy of the Draft Procedural Order (“DPO”) and Issues List (“IL”), on consent of the Appellant and the City, who were the only Parties at that time.
4To assist the Parties, the Tribunal agreed to provided additional time to update the DPO and IL. The Tribunal directed that the updated DPO and IL were due on or before Tuesday, October 21, 2025.
5On October 20, 2025, the Tribunal received correspondence from Mr. Kagan, Counsel for the Appellant. Mr. Kagan advised that he had revised the draft PO and IL to incorporate the comments of TCECC 2018.
6Mr. Kagan advised that there were proposed revisions sent by Mr. Hernandez, Counsel for TCECC 2018 which were acceptable to his client and some that were not. The proposed revisions unacceptable to the Appellant were as follows:
- The Appellant proposed to add the clause highlighted in brackets below to paragraph 13 of the DPO. The City was in agreement, but TCECC 2018 seeks its removal or alternative wording to provide greater clarity.
If the applicant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing, the applicant shall provide copies of all revised plans, drawings, updated supporting documents and reports, to the other Parties on or before Friday, July 10, 2026. The applicant acknowledges that any revisions to the proposal after that date (except revisions which address comments or Witness Statements from the other parties) without the consent of the Parties may be grounds for a request to adjourn the hearing.
- The exchange of witness lists to be changed from Friday, June 19, 2026 to Friday, June 5. 2026.
- The last date to provide copies of a revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any) changed from Friday, July 10, 2026 to Friday, July 24, 2026.
- The Expert’s Meeting changed from Wednesday, July 22, 2026 to Friday, June 26, 2026.
- The Agreed Statement of Facts changed from Friday, August 7, 2026 to Wednesday, July 1, 2026 or Friday, July 17, 2026.
- Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements changed from Friday, August 21, 2026 to Friday, September 11, 2026.
7Mr. Kagan requested that the Tribunal hold a CMC so that submissions could be made respecting the disagreement and the Tribunal could provide a direction and ruling.
8Mr. Kagan sent further correspondence dated November 8, 2025, advising that that the changes identified in paragraph [6] remain in dispute. He further advised that the City supports the position of the Appellant and finds the changes proposed by TCECC 2018 are not acceptable.
Disputed Issues
9To assist in its decision-making the Tribunal considered s. 12 and 15 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6 (“OLTA”) and Rules 1.3 and 1.6 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”).
Paragraph 13 Of The DPO
10The Tribunal heard submissions from the Parties regarding the addition of the clause (except revisions which address comments or Witness Statements from the other parties) in paragraph 13.
11Additional wording options were circulated to the Parties and the Tribunal by Mr. Kagan.
12The Parties agreed to remove (except revisions which address comments or Witness Statements from the other parties) and substitute it with the following clause:
The Parties acknowledge that this requirement does not apply to revisions to the proposal which address or resolve issues raised by the other parties.
Date Changes In The DPO
13The Tribunal heard arguments from the Parties outlining their respective positions on the date changes in paragraph [6] of this Decision. The Statutory Parties advised that there was no need to amend the original dates and that the dates presented by TCECC 2018 were arbitrary and without merit. Mr. Hernandez advised that the date changes were based on recommendations of a consultant. Mr. Hernandez was unable to provide a response to the Tribunal indicating the rationale of the consultant.
14The Tribunal asked Mr. Hernandez if TCECC 2018 would suffer prejudice if the original dates remained. Mr. Hernandez acknowledged that there would be no prejudice against TCECC 2018 to keep the original dates as presented by the Statutory Parties.
15The Tribunal determined that by maintaining the dates proposed by the Statutory Parties, there would be no prejudice and no breach of procedural fairness and natural justice. The Tribunal further determined that the original dates allow for a fair, just, expeditious and cost-effective resolution of the merits of the proceedings for all of the Parties.
Next Steps
16The Appellant was directed to submit a draft PO on consent as soon as possible based on the directions provided by the Tribunal.
17The Tribunal inquired as to whether there were any other matters to be addressed which might assist in the fair, just, and expeditious resolution of this matter. The Parties indicated there were none.
18Having reviewed the revised draft PO and IL submitted in accordance with its direction in paragraph [16], the Tribunal deems the attached PO to be in of force and effect to govern the proceedings up to and including the Hearing of the Merits.
ORDER
19THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Procedural Order, appended to this Decision as Attachment 1, is approved and in force and effect.
20The Member is not seized but may be spoken to through the Case Coordinator if any issues arise.
“W. Daniel Best”
W. DANIEL BEST
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 1
ISSUE DATE: December 12, 2025 CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000369
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended:
Appellant: Starbank Developments 1416 Corp.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law- Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit the development of 43- storey mixed- use building
Reference Number: 24 222025 NNY 08 OZ
Property Address: 1410- 1416 Eglinton Avenue West
Municipality/UT: City of Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000369
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000369
OLT Case Name: Starbank Developments 1416 Corp. v Toronto (City)
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 video hearing will begin on Tuesday, October 20th 2026 at 10:00 a.m. and will be conducted virtually. Goto link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/719383509
The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is ten (14) 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 parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1.
The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 2. 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.
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.
The meaning of the terms in the Procedural Order are set out in Attachment 4.
Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal and the other parties 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
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 Friday, June 19, 2026 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 prepared to be qualified.
Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Wednesday, July 22, 2026 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 Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Friday, August 7, 2026.
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.
If the applicant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing, the applicant shall provide copies of all revised plans, drawings, updated supporting documents and reports, to the other Parties on or before Friday, July 10, 2026. The applicant 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. The Parties acknowledge that this requirement does not apply to revisions to the proposal which address or resolve issues raised by the other parties.
On or before Friday, August 21, 2026, 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 23 below.
On or before Friday, August 21, 2026, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.
On or before Monday, September 28, 2026 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.
On or before Monday, October 5, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their 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.
Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before Friday, September 18, 2026.
The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Friday, October 9, 2026.
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 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.
The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Monday, October 12, 2026 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.
All filings shall be submitted electronically. 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.
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.
A summary of the various procedural dates is set out in Attachment 5.
This Member is not seized.
So orders the Tribunal.
BEFORE:
Name of Member:
Date:
TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR
ATTACHMENT 1
LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS
PARTIES
- Starbank Developments 1416 Corp.
KAGAN SHASTRI DeMELO WINER PARK LLP 188 Avenue Road Toronto, ON., M5R 2J1 Ira T. Kagan / Sarah R. Kagan Tel: 416-368-2100 x. 226 / 243 E: ikagan@ksllp.ca / skagan@ksllp.ca
- City of Toronto
Legal Services, City of Toronto
Metro Hall, 26th Floor
55 John Street
Toronto, ON, M5V 3C6
Ray Kallio / Ariel Lo-Wong
Tel: 416-397- 4063 /416- 338- 6966
E: Ray.kallio@toronto.ca / ariel.lo-wong@toronto.ca
- Toronto Common Elements Condominium Corporation No. 2018 (TCECC 2018)
Levitt Di Lella Duggan & Chaplick LLP
425 University Ave., Suite 500,
Toronto, ON, M5G 1T6
Luis Hernandez
Tel: 416-512-7440 x227
participants
- Rod McPhail
T: 416- 575- 3111
- Solomon Fischhoff
T: 416- 880- 9683
- Susan Morry
T: 416- 505- 2647
- Jonathan Schwartz
T: 647- 802- 7212
- Neil Tandon
T: 647- 989- 5367
- Melitta Chan
T: 416- 828- 2336
- Mimi Shao
T: 416- 505- 6515
- Daniel Rasquinha
T: 647- 871- 7432
- Mariam Pirmohammadi
T: 647- 539- 5349
- Caitlin Foster
T: 647- 929- 9707
- Vaneesa Tang
T: 416- 892- 7638
- Van Xuong Mong
T: 416- 992- 0809
- Michael Steinberg
T: 416- 294- 4992
E: michaelsteinberg001@gmail.com
- Tanya Dunn
T: 416- 985- 7574
- Zuwa Omigie
T: 647- 482- 6404
- Hugh Pattison
T: 416- 256- 7108
- Nicola and Angela Nicastro
T: 416- 276- 6223
ATTACHMENT 2
ISSUES LIST
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 either relevant, appropriate, or that a given issue correctly states the applicable law or test to be applied to the matter before the Tribunal. The identification of an issue on this list by a Party indicates that Party’s intent to lead evidence or argue that the issue is relevant to the proceeding, for the purpose of fairly identifying to the other Parties the case they need to meet and shall not be construed as the Tribunal have jurisdiction over such matters in each circumstance or that any Party has retained all of its right to make arguments or bring evidence as to whether an issue itself is appropriate, represents the applicable law or the test to be applied, and/or is good planning. Accordingly, no Party shall advance an issue not identified on the Issues List without leave of the Tribunal.
In addition, parties have reserved their right to adopt any issues submitted by the appellants and parties to the proceeding.
A. City of Toronto (except where otherwise noted)
1410 Eglinton Avenue West
OLT Case No. OLT-24-000731
City of Toronto Issues List
Issue 1 – Policies and Guidelines
- Does the proposed development conform to, is consistent with or have regard for applicable policies and guidelines? Specifically:
a. Does the proposed development have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in Subsections 2 (f), (h), (i), (j), (n), (o), (p), (q), and (r) of the Planning Act?
b. Is the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, including sections 2.1.6, 2.2.1, 2.3.1.1, 2.3.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 2.4.1.2, 2.4.1.3, 2.4.2.6, 2.9.1, 3.1.1, 3.6.1, 3.6.8, 3.9.1 a) and b), and 6.2.1?
c. Does the proposed development conform with the following policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan:
i. 2.2 – Structuring Growth in the City: Integrating Land Use and Transportation (2.2.2 and 2.2.3);
ii. 2.3 – Stable But Not Static: Enhancing Our Neighbourhoods and Green Spaces (2.3.1)
iii. 2.4 – Bringing the City Together: A Progressive Agenda of Transportation Change (2.4.1, 2.4.11, 2.4.15, and 2.4.22);
iv. 3.1.1 – The Public Realm (3.1.1.1, 3.1.1.2, 3.1.1.3, 3.1.1.6, 3.1.1.10, and 3.1.1.13 - 3.1.1.16);
v. 3.1.3 – Built Form (3.1.3.1 - 3.1.3.13)
vi. 3.1.4 – Built Form – Building Types (3.1.4.8 - 3.1.4.12);
vii. 3.4 – The Natural Environment (3.4.1)
viii. 4.5 – Mixed Use Areas (4.5.2)
ix. 5.3 – Implementation (5.3.2.1)
d. City of Toronto Guidelines
i. Does the proposed development meet the intent and purpose of the Tall Building Design Guidelines?
ii. Does the proposal meet the intent of the Toronto Green Standard Version 4, and specifically, Sidewalk width, soil volume and tree plantings requirements?
iii. Does the proposal have appropriate regard for the Growing Up Guidelines: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities (2020)?
iv. Does the proposal have appropriate regard for the Pet Friendly Design Guidelines and Best Practices for New Multi-Unit Buildings?
Issue 2 – Built Form, Height, Massing and Density
Do the proposed building heights and massing fit with the existing and planned context?
Are the separation distances and stepbacks appropriate?
Does the proposed development avoid precluding the orderly development of adjacent properties?
Does the proposal provide an appropriate gradual transition in scale through the stepping down of buildings to adjacent Neighbourhoods designated properties?
Does the transition in scale from the proposed development to adjacent Neighbourhoods designated properties occur entirely on the subject lands?
Is the proposed site organization and built form of the proposed development appropriate, and more specifically:
a. Does the proposal fit within the existing and planned context?
b. Does the proposed development establish appropriate relationships at grade, including setbacks, and provide an appropriate pedestrian realm, with contributions to streetscaping, public spaces, and private open spaces?
c. Are the height, and massing appropriate?
d. Is the separation distance appropriate, and does the proposed development avoid precluding the orderly development of adjacent properties?
e. Does the proposal provide an appropriate transition in scale to adjacent nearby land uses and Neighbourhood designated properties?
f. Are the shadow impacts from the proposed development acceptable?
g. Are the wind impacts from the proposed development acceptable?
Issue 3 – Site Specific Issues
- Are the proposed size, location and configuration of indoor and outdoor amenity space appropriate?
Issue 4 – Good Planning and Urban Design
Does the proposed development represent good planning and good urban design? Would it be in the public interest?
Are the proposed building height and density appropriate?
Issue 5 – Transportation
Has the accessible parking supply, as well as the at-grade pick-up/drop-off parking supply along the laneway within private property, been adequately provided?
Has sufficient space been preserved for the future cycle track, TTC bus platform, and pedestrian sidewalk along the Eglinton Avenue West and Marlee Avenue site frontages?
Is the proposed access to the underground parking functional from both a safety and sightline perspective?
Issue 6 – Servicing and Stormwater Management
- Is there sufficient servicing capacity to support the proposed development?
Issue 7 – Urban Forestry
Does the proposed development meet the requirements of the Toronto Green Standard, particularly as it relates EC 1.1 and EC1.2?
Does the proposed development conform with the City of Toronto’s Official Plan policies as it relates to the urban forest? Specifically,
a. Section 3.1.1 The Public Realm
i. Does the proposal prioritize the long-term growth and increase in the amount of healthy trees?
ii. Does the proposal have appropriate regard for tree growing spaces and their long-term maintenance?
iii. Does the proposal incorporate a Complete Streets approach with space for trees, landscaping and green infrastructure?
iv. Is well-designed tree planting provided through appropriate setbacks and by designing/locating utilities such that it enables the long-term growth of trees to maturity?
b. Section 3.1.3 Built Form
i. Does the proposal provide landscaped open spaces?
c. Section 3.4 The Natural Environment
i. Does the proposal enhance the urban forest by providing suitable tree growing environments for long-lived native and large shade trees in order to increase canopy cover?
Issue 8 – Implementation
- In the event the proposed development is approved in whole or in part, should the Tribunal Order be withheld until the City Solicitor has indicated that the following conditions have been satisfied:
a. the final form and content of the draft Official Plan Amendment is to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review, and the City Solicitor;
b. the final form and content of the draft zoning by-law amendment is to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review, and the City Solicitor;
c. the Owner has, at its sole expense:
i. submitted a revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, Hydrogeological Review Report, Hydrogeological Assessment Report, Servicing Report, Groundwater Summary Form, Foundation Drainage Summary Form, Hydrological Review Summary Form and Associated engineering plans (i.e. Servicing Plan, Grading Plan, Storm Tributary Plan, Sanitary Tributary Plan, Plan & Profiles) (the "Engineering Reports"), to determine the stormwater runoff, sanitary flow and water supply demand resulting from this Development, and whether there is adequate capacity in the existing municipal infrastructure to accommodate the proposed development to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Review;
ii. satisfied all requests for further information identified in the Engineering and Construction Services memorandum to City Planning dated February 24, 2025, and any outstanding issues raised by:
(a) Engineering and Construction Services, arising from the ongoing technical review (including provision of acceptable reports and studies), as they relate to the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment application, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, including but not limited to, a revised Functional Servicing Report to demonstrate the Site can be adequately serviced to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Review; and
(b) Transportation Services, arising from the ongoing technical review (including provision of acceptable reports and studies), as they relate to the subject applications to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services.
iii. secured the design and provided financial securities, in respect of any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure, or constructing new infrastructure, identified in the Engineering Reports, to support the development, all to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Review, should it be determined that improvements or upgrades are required to support the development, according to the Engineering Reports accepted by the Director, Engineering Review, and if necessary, in consultation with the General Manager, Toronto Water;
iv. ensured the implementation of the accepted Engineering Reports does not require changes to the proposed amending By-laws or any such required changes have been made to the proposed amending By-laws, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, and the City Solicitor, including the use of a Holding ("H") By-law symbol regarding any new or upgrades to existing municipal servicing infrastructure as may be required;
v. made arrangements with the City for the design and construction of any improvements to the municipal infrastructure, should it be determined that upgrades are required to the infrastructure to support the development of the Site, according to the revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report accepted by the Director, Engineering Review;
vi. submitted a revised Transportation Impact Study including a Transportation Demand Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review and the General Manager, Transportation Services;
vii. submitted a revised Pedestrian Level Wind Study, including the identification of any required mitigation measures to be implemented and secured through the zoning by-law process to resolve wind safety exceedances and to improve pedestrian comfort, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review;
viii. submitted an updated Sun/Shadow Study to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review;
ix. satisfactorily addressed matters from Tree Protection and Plan Review, Urban Forestry Memorandum dated February 24, 2025, or any outstanding issues raised by Urban Forestry, arising from the ongoing technical review (including provision of acceptable reports and studies), as they relate to the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment application, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Parks and Recreation, including submitting a revised Arborist Report, Tree Preservation Plan, Soil Volume Plan, Public Utilities Plans, Landscape Plan demonstrating sufficient soil volume for tree growth and Landscape Sections to the satisfaction of the Executive Director of Environment, Climate and Forestry;
x. satisfactorily addressed matters from Parks & Recreation as contained in the Parks & Recreation Memorandum dated February 13, 2025, or any outstanding issues raised by Parks & Recreation arising from the ongoing technical review (including provision of acceptable reports and studies), as they relate to the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment application, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Parks and Recreation; and
xi. made revisions to meet the Toronto Green Standard requirements to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review, including submitting an updated complete Toronto Green Standards Checklist and Statistics Template, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, Development Review.
TCECC Specific Issues
Does the proposed development provide an adequate transition in height and massing to the existing low-rise townhouse form immediately to the east?
Does the proposed building maintain sufficient setback and separation distances from the eastern property to ensure access to light, privacy, and sky view for existing and future residents?
Does the proposed building’s podium height and east elevation design contribute positively to the streetscape and provide a compatible interface with the townhouse development to the east?
Does the proposed tower siting and massing allow for the reasonable redevelopment potential of the eastern property, given the precedent it may establish for tower spacing and form along this block?
Does the development’s vehicular access and loading design on Nicastro Lane minimize traffic, noise, and servicing impacts on the adjacent townhouse property?
Does the proposed development adequately mitigate shadow and overlook impacts on the open spaces and windows of the eastern property?
Does the proposed stormwater and foundation drainage strategy avoid increasing runoff, seepage, or flooding risk to the eastern property and shared laneway?
Does the proposed development conform to, is consistent with or have regard for applicable policies and guidelines? Specifically:
i. Does the proposed development conform with the following policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan:
i. Chapter One – Making Choices
ii. 5.6 – Interpretation (5.6)
ii. City of Toronto Guidelines
- How does the proposed development application perform against Tall Building Design Guidelines 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 2.3, 3.1.1, 3.2.3, 4.1, and 4.2?
ATTACHMENT 3
ORDER OF EVIDENCE
Note: Where Parties of like interest have issues in common, they shall make reasonable efforts to coordinate their examinations-in-chief and cross-examinations so as to minimize any duplication or overlap of evidence.
Starbank Developments 1416 Corp.
City of Toronto
Toronto Common Elements Condominium Corporation No. 2018
(Reply if any) Starbank Developments 1416 Corp.
ATTACHMENT 4 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 5
SUMMARY OF DATES
| DATE | EVENT |
|---|---|
| Friday, June 19, 2026 | Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called) |
| Friday, July 10, 2026 | Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any) |
| Wednesday, July 22, 2026 | Expert’s Meeting(s) |
| Friday, August 7, 2026 | Agreed Statement of Facts |
| Friday, August 21, 2026 | Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports (including Appraisal Reports) and Participant Statements |
| Friday, September 18, 2026 | Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any) |
| Monday, September 28, 2026 | Parties to Advise Tribunal if any hearing dates are to be released from the hearing calendar |
| Monday, October 5, 2026 | Exchange of visual evidence (if any) |
| Friday, October 9, 2026 | Joint Document Book provided to parties and the Tribunal |
| Monday, October 12, 2026 | Hearing Plan filed with the Tribunal |
| Tuesday, October 20, 2026 | Hearing commences |