Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement
du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
December 10, 2025
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-25-000527
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Lawton Dev LP
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description:
To permit the development of two residential buildings with a maximum height of 43 storeys and 38 storeys
Reference Number:
25 121716 STE 12 OZ
Property Address:
59-81 Lawton Boulevard
Municipality/UT:
City of Toronto
OLT Case No.:
OLT-25-000527
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-25-000527
OLT Case Name:
Lawton Dev LP v. Toronto (City)
Heard:
November 20, 2025 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Lawton Dev LP (“Applicant/Appellant”)
Jamie Cole Michael Foderick
City of Toronto
Ariel Lo-Wong Ray Kallio (in absentia)
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BOBKA ON november 20, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) for an appeal filed pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act regarding the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to make a decision within the required timeframe on an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) to facilitate the development of two residential buildings with heights of 43 storeys and 38 storeys on the property municipally known as 59-81 Lawton Boulevard (“Subject Property”).
NOTICE
2The Tribunal canvassed Counsel, who confirmed that there were no issues with the service of the Notice of the CMC. The Tribunal is in receipt of two Affidavits of Service sworn by Norman Ng on October 16, 2025, and by Robert Daniel Edward Jefferson on October 31, 2025. These were marked as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively, and confirm that Notice was adequately served. As such, no further notice is required.
STATUS REQUESTS
3Prior to the CMC, the Tribunal received two requests for Participant status from Kevin Gillen and Craig Young. Mr. Gillen expressed support for the proposal, while Mr. Young raised concerns with the proposal regarding excessive height, massing and density, adverse impacts on adjacent properties, traffic and safety concerns, procedural and analytical omissions, and inadequate public realm and environmental response.
4The morning of the CMC, the Tribunal received a written request for Party status from Anton Pfisztner. Counsel for the Parties had not received, nor reviewed this request. The Tribunal asked several questions of clarification of Mr. Pfisztner and provided him with an explanation of the roles and obligations of both Parties and Participants in Tribunal proceedings.
5Mr. Pfisztner asked that his request be changed to a request for Participant status and the Tribunal agreed to consider same. He then verbally outlined his concerns regarding the proposal including incompatibility with the existing character of the area, shadow implications, excessive height, and the location of the vehicle entrance/exit as currently proposed.
6Counsel for the Parties expressed no concerns regarding the requests for Participant status.
7Upon consideration, the Tribunal determined that these individuals had an interest in the matter and will assist the Tribunal in understanding the potential impacts of the ZBA on the local community. The Tribunal granted Participant status to all three individuals. Mr. Pfisztner was directed to submit a Participant request form outlining his concerns, as stated, to the Tribunal Case Coordinator to ensure the completeness of the Tribunal’s records, and the form was received following the CMC.
UPDATE / MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT
8Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant advised that City Council would be providing instructions at its meeting in mid-December and as a result, the draft Procedural Order (“PO”) submitted to the Tribunal did not yet contain the City’s Issues List. As a result of their on-going discussions, Mr. Cole advised that the City had consented to the scheduling of a 9 or 10-day Hearing on the Merits (“Merit Hearing”) in late June or early July of 2026. He stated that the Applicant/Appellant was open to mediation and settlement discussions; however, he stated that these discussions were often more fruitful once a hearing date had been set and requested that the Tribunal set hearing dates at this time.
9Counsel for the City, Ms. Lo-Wong, explained that she was not co-counsel but was attending in the place of Mr. Kallio. She confirmed that the proposal would be considered by Community Council at its meeting in late November, and then by City Council at its meeting scheduled for December 16-17, 2025. She highlighted that normally the City would not agree to schedule a hearing without an Issues List or instructions from Council, but that in this case, the City did consent to the scheduling of a Merit Hearing.
10The Tribunal reminded the Parties that, if interested in Tribunal-led mediation, they could contact the Case Coordinator to begin a mediation assessment.
NEXT STEPS
11As stated above, the draft PO provided did not contain the City’s Issues List. The City advised that an Issues List could be finalized and provided to the Tribunal following the scheduled City Council meeting and suggested a date of Friday, January 30, 2026.
12When questioned by the Tribunal, Mr. Cole advised that the Applicant/Appellant intended to call a land use planner, an architect, a transportation engineer and a servicing engineer and that 9-10 days could accommodate the number of witnesses contemplated. Ms. Lo-Wong advised that she could not provide the number of witnesses, nor the disciplines involved, as she was not Counsel of Record and did not have instructions from Council. Mr. Cole highlighted that while not present at the CMC, Mr. Kallio had agreed that 9-10 days would be sufficient. Mr. Cole requested that a Merit Hearing be set, subject to availability in the Tribunal calendar.
13Upon consideration of the draft PO and the submissions of the Parties, the Tribunal did not agree with the proposed path forward. Without an Issues List or a sound estimate of the number of expert witnesses involved, the Tribunal found it more appropriate to set a second CMC to consider the PO with the Issues List and discuss the setting of hearing dates at that time.
14Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant requested that this second CMC be set as soon as possible after the December Council meeting. After some discussion, the Tribunal scheduled a second CMC to be conducted by video hearing on Tuesday, January 13, 2026 at 10 a.m.
15Parties and Participants 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/519389173
Access code: 519-389-173
16Parties 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 GoTo Meeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html
17Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to it by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: (647) 497-9373 or (Toll Free) 1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 519-389-173.
18Individuals 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.
19The Parties were directed to provide the draft PO including Issues List for consideration on or before Tuesday, January 6, 2026 and Mr. Cole agreed to take the lead. ADDITIONAL PARTICIPANT STATUS REQUEST
20Following the conclusion of the CMC, Andrew Peat emailed the Tribunal Case Coordinator, with his Participant status request form. He cited a family medical issue for his failure to provide the form prior to the CMC. As a second CMC has been scheduled, the Tribunal will deal with Mr. Peat’s request at that event.
ORDER
21The Tribunal Orders that:
a. Participant status is granted to Kevin Gillen, Craig Young, and Anton Pfisztner;
b. A second Case Management Conference is set as detailed in paragraph [14];
c. The draft Procedural Order and Issues List are due on or before Tuesday,
January 6, 2026.
22The Member is not seized but may be available for case management, should the Tribunal’s calendar permit.
“S. Bobka” S. BOBKA 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.