Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: December 24, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000942
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: 4158 Kingston Road, Inc. c/o North American Development Group
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To facilitate 20-storey mixed-use building containing 320 dwelling units with retail at grade
Reference Number: 22 168468 ESC 24 OZ
Property Address: 4158 to 4180 Kingston Road and 8 to 12 Overture Road
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No: OLT-24-000942
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000942
OLT Case Name: North American Development Group v Toronto (City)
Heard: December 01, 2025, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
4158 Kingston Road, Inc. c/o North American Development Group
P. Duffy C. Jordan
City of Toronto
A. Lo-Wong J. Braun (in absentia)
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. deBOER ON DECEMBER 1, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The Tribunal had originally scheduled a 10-day hearing to hear the merits of the appeal by 4158 Kingston Road, Inc. c/o North American Development Group (“Appellant”) due to the City of Toronto’s (“City”) failure to approve the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) pertaining to the lands municipally known as 4158 to 4180 Kingston Road and 8 to 12 Overture Road in the City of Toronto (“Subject Lands”).
2Prior to the commencement of the Hearing, the Tribunal received correspondence advising that the Parties have reached a settlement on the issues and was making a request that the merit Hearing be converted to a Settlement Hearing.
3In accordance with Rule 12 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal convened the proceedings as a hearing on the terms of the settlement.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
4When considering appeals filed pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”), the Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act. Decisions of the Tribunal affecting planning matters must be consistent with the applicable policies of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”), and in this matter, conform to the City of Toronto Official Plan (“COP”), the City of Toronto City-wide Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as amended (“ZBL”), the West Hill Community Zoning By-law No. 10327 (“West Hill ZBL”), the City Wide Tall-Building Guidelines (“CWTBG”), the Growing Up Guidelines (“GUG”), the Site Area Specific Policy 272 (“SPA 272”), Official Plan Amendment 540 (“OPA 540”), and Official Plan Amendment 570 (“OPA 570”).
SUBJECT LANDS AND SURROUNDING AREA
5The Subject Lands are located on the west side of Kingston Road and the south side of Overture Road. The Subject Lands are of an irregular shape and have an area of approximately 4,033 square metres (“sq.m.”) with a frontage of approximately 76 metres (“m”) on Kingston Road and a frontage of approximately 44 m on Overture Road.
6The Subject Lands are currently developed with an “L” shaped single-storey commercial building. The westerly portion of the commercial building is two storeys in height and is currently occupied with a variety of retail and service commercial uses.
7To the west of the Subject Lands are two-storey semi-detached dwellings that front onto Overture Road. To the north of the Subject Lands is a single-storey commercial building with retail commercial uses. More to the north are three-storey townhouses and low-rise buildings.
8To the east of the Subject Lands are several single-storey commercial buildings. Further to the east is an 87-unit apartment building and townhouse complex. Beyond this apartment building is a mix of low-rise apartment and service commercial uses.
9To the south of the Subject Lands is a townhouse complex fronting onto the north side of Kingston Road. Further south are single-storey and semi-detached dwellings.
10Kingston Road is classified as a Major Arterial Road by the City. The Subject Lands are currently served by higher order and surface transit services and are located approximately 400 m from the Guildwood Go station, which is an approximate 7-minute walk from the Subject Lands. The nearest bus stop is approximately 200 m away and this bus stop is serviced by four different service routes.
11Metrolinx has proposed a future transit stop of the Metrolinx Eglinton East Light Rail Transit at the intersection of Kingston Road and Celeste Drive.
12The Appellant submitted their original proposal to the City on June 16, 2022. The original application proposed a 12-storey residential building measuring 42.5 m in total height and a total of 229 residential dwelling units. The application was deemed complete by the City on September 12, 2022.
13In response to the comments by the City and external agencies, the Appellant submitted a revised proposal on October 6, 2023, which proposed a 20-storey mixed-use building containing 320 residential units with retail services at grade along Kingston Road and Overture Road. This proposal resulted in a total gross floor area (“GFA”) of approximately 21, 212 sq. m. and a floor space index (“FSI”) of 5.26.
14The City hosted a virtual community meeting on July 10, 2024. Issues raised from the public included concerns to the proposed residential unit mix, bicycle parking, the total number of vehicle parking spaces, and possible shadowing issues to the adjacent low-rise buildings.
15The Appellant filed an appeal with the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”) on September 4, 2024, due to the City’s failure to make a decision within the statutory timelines on the application.
16At the City Council meeting of December 17 and 18, 2024, City Council adopted the recommendations of Planning Staff to attend the OLT in opposition to the appeal.
17On May 13 and 14, 2025, mediation took place between the Appellant and the City which resulted in a new proposal that was to be presented to the City at the council meeting of October 8 and 9, 2025. The proposal would permit 320 dwelling units with a new total of dwelling unit mixes and a total building height of 22 storeys, including a 7-storey podium with a proposed FSI of 5.37. The total of 22 storeys would not include the proposed mechanical penthouse.
18City Council adopted the recommendations of the City Solicitor that the proposal be recommended to the OLT for approval with an Interim Order, and recommends to the OLT that a Final Order be withheld until the following criteria have been satisfied:
a. The final form and content of the draft zoning by-law amendment is to the satisfaction of staff; and,
b. The Owner submits the following materials, the contents of which are detailed in the Stikeman Letter in Ms. Kwast’s Affidavit:
i. revised Engineering Reports;
ii. revised Transportation Impact Study (or addendum);
iii. revised Pedestrian Level Wind Tunnel Study;
iv. revised Arborist Report, Tree Preservation and Inventory Plan, Soil Volume Plan, Public Utilities Plan, and Landscape Plan;
v. revised Toronto Green Standards materials; and,
vi. revised Energy Strategy Report.
SUBMISSIONS
19Prior to the commencement of the Hearing, the Tribunal received the following documents and submitted said documents as exhibits to the Hearing:
Exhibit 1: Affidavit of Stephanie Kwast and related planning documents; comprising of 396 pages
Planning Evidence
20Ms. Kwast opined that throughout the mediation process, many changes were made to the proposal, and these agreed upon changes can be seen in the Table listed below:
Section 2 of the Act
21It was Ms. Kwast’s opinion that the settlement before the Tribunal has regard to matters of provincial interest as the Settlement Proposal will allow for, inter alia, the orderly development of safe and healthy communities, provide for a range of housing options, including affordable housing, an orderly development of safe and healthy communities and the Subject Lands are an appropriate location for growth and development.
Provincial Planning Statement 2024
22In Ms. Kwast’s opinion, the PPS 2024 provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development and all land use planning Decisions must be consistent with the PPS 2024. Ms. Kwast opined that the Settlement Proposal is consistent with all the applicable policies of the PPS 2024. The Settlement Proposal is consistent with the policies pertaining to residential intensification in strategic growth areas and in areas near a Protected Major Transit Station Area (“PMTSA”).
23Ms. Kwast continued with her opinion that the Settlement Proposal makes efficient use of the Subject Lands while optimizing the existing and planned infrastructure and public services. The location of the Subject Lands within a PMTSA will allow for an efficient use of existing higher order transit for the new residents and will help the City meet its density target of 150 residents and jobs per combined hectare within a PMTSA while promoting a complete community.
City of Toronto Official Plan
24Ms. Kwast opined that the Settlement Proposal conforms to the COP and is permitted by the “Mixed-Use Area” designation. The COP directs growth to “Centres”, “Avenues”, “Employment Areas”, and “Downtown”, as shown on Map 2 of the COP. The objectives of this policy include:
using municipal land, infrastructure, and services efficiently;
concentrating jobs and people in areas well served by surface transit and rapid transit stations;
promoting mixed use development to increase opportunities for living close to work and to encourage walking and cycling for local trips;
offering opportunities for people of all means to be affordably housed;
facilitating social interaction, public safety, and cultural and economic activity;
improving air quality and energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and,
protecting neighbourhoods and green spaces from the effects of nearby development.
25Ms. Kwast continued with her opinion that the COP is focused on redevelopment along “Avenues” that develop new housing and jobs while improving the pedestrian environment and transit service for community residents. Ms. Kwast continued to opine that the Settlement Proposal will permit development on lands adjacent to existing or planned transportation corridors, and the Settlement Proposal is compatible with, and supportive of, the existing higher order public transit and will help reduce the use of automobile dependency.
26Ms. Kwast continued to opine that the “Mixed-Use Areas” designation is intended to achieve a multitude of planning objectives by combining a broad array of residential uses, offices, retail and services, institutions, entertainment, recreational and cultural activities, and parks and open spaces. The Settlement Proposal before the Tribunal will allow for residents to live, work, and shop in their own local area without the dependency on automobiles.
27In Ms. Kwast’s opinion, the Settlement Proposal is adjacent to an area designated as “Neighbourhoods”. Ms. Kwast continued to opine that “Mixed-Use Areas” must be compatible with adjacent “Neighbourhoods” and supported her opinion by stating that the Settlement Proposal is compatible with the adjacent “Neighbourhoods” as the Settlement Proposal will provide for a gradual transition of scale and density, maintain adequate light and privacy, and minimize shadowing, while creating a balance of residential intensification and high-quality commercial services in the local area.
Site and Area Specific Policy 272
28It was Ms. Kwast’s opinion that the Settlement Proposal conforms to this Policy as the “Mixed-Use Areas” designation will prohibit used car sales and public garages on the Subject Lands. No used car sales or public garages are planned for the Subject Lands.
Official Plan Amendment 540
29Ms. Kwast opined that OPA 540 was modified by the Province on August 15, 2025, by adding Chapter 8 which implemented a framework to facilitate transit-supportive development through the delineation of PMTSAs. The Settlement Proposal lies within the delineation area of OPA 540 and thus, conforms to OPA 540 by having growth occur within a delineated PMTSA.
Official Plan Amendment 570
30It was Ms. Kwast’s opinion that OPA 570 introduced Site and Area Specific Policies for 57 PMTSAs across the city, including Guildwood Go Station. The delineated boundaries of the PMTSA permit a population and employment target of a minimum of 150 residents and jobs per hectare. The delineated boundaries also require a minimum floor density of 2.5 FSI. Ms. Kwast opined that the Settlement Proposal surpasses both minimum targets and therefore conforms to OPA 570.
West Hill Community Zoning By-law No. 10327, as amended
31In Ms. Kwast’s opinion, the West Hill ZBL zones the Subject Lands as Commercial/Residential (CR) which permits a wide range of uses including office, retail, commercial services, and multi-unit residential. This zoning was put in place by amending the City’s Zoning By-law No. 597-2003. However, it is the intent of this Settlement Proposal to have a draft amendment that would include having the Subject Lands become of the City-wide Zoning By-law No. 569-2013.
City-wide Zoning By-law No. 569-2013
32Ms. Kwast opined that, as stated above, it is the intent of the ZBA to have the Subject Lands become apart of the ZBL. However, a final version of the ZBA has not yet been completed. It is the intent of the Parties to present the Tribunal with a final form of the ZBA that is to the satisfaction of the City before the Final Order of the Tribunal is given.
Tall Building Guidelines
33It was Ms. Kwast’s opinion that the Settlement Proposal has taken into consideration the Tall Building Guidelines, and that the recommended setbacks will be apart of the final version of the ZBL when it is presented to the Tribunal for approval. These setbacks will include, inter alia, a minimum separation distance of 20 m from the south property line and a minimum separation distance of 22 m from the west property line.
Growing Up Urban Design Guidelines
34Ms. Kwast opined that the purpose of the GUG is to provide how new multi-unit residential buildings can better accommodate the needs of households with children. The GUG recommends a minimum of 15% two-bedroom and 10% three-bedroom units. In Ms. Kwast’s opinion, the Settlement Proposal before the Tribunal surpasses these minimum standards.
Participant Statement
35It was Ms. Kwast’s opinion that the Participant raised concerns for the proposed height compared to the original 12-storey design. Ms. Kwast continued to opine that it is a clear direction from the Province and the City that intensification occur within a PMTSA in order to maximize the use of higher order transit. As such, the Settlement proposal of 22 storeys is appropriate and is compatible with the surrounding area.
36The Participant Statement raised concerns of the loss of sky view and the shadows that may result in the redevelopment of the Subject Lands. It was Ms. Kwast’s opinion that the shadow studies have demonstrated that there will not be any unacceptable shadow impacts on the surrounding area. The Settlement Proposal will provide for an appropriate transition in scale that will minimize any shadow impacts.
37The Participant Statement provided concerns for the unit mix that is proposed. Ms. Kwast gave opinion evidence that the Settlement Proposal exceeds the number of two-bedroom units and meets the minimum number of three-bedroom units in the GUG.
Overall Opinion
38It was Ms. Kwast’s overall opinion that the proposal before the Tribunal is supported by the policy directions of the COP and will provide additional housing options by contributing 320 new residential units in an area within a PMTSA.
39Ms. Kwast continued with her opinion that the proposal has regard to matters of provincial interest, is consistent with the PPS 2024, conforms to the COP, and will conform to the final version of the ZBL. The proposal meets the Tall Building Guidelines, the Growing Up Urban Guidelines, and represents good land use planning of a redevelopment site.
40It was Ms. Kwast’s opinion that the Tribunal should approve the proposal in principle, and the Tribunal should withhold its Final Order until the Tribunal has received confirmation that the ZBL is in a final form and the proposed conditions have been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
41Having received the uncontroverted evidence of Ms. Kwast and the Tribunal receiving the uncontested opinions of the Parties in support of the appeals before the Tribunal, the Tribunal accepts the evidence of Ms. Kwast, and the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed settlement will meet the statutory tests.
42The Tribunal finds that the settlement proposal is a matter of provincial interest as per s. 2 of the Act as it will provide needed density within a PMTSA. The Tribunal finds that the settlement has demonstrated that it is consistent with the applicable policy framework of the PPS 2024 as the proposal will help promote efficient land use and intensification that is in a compact form.
43The Tribunal finds that the proposal, as presented, has demonstrated its conformity to the COP as the proposal will provide for an appropriate redevelopment that is within a PMTSA. The proposed settlement has demonstrated it will add needed housing options in a neighbourhood that is within a PMTSA.
44The Tribunal finds that the proposal is designed to fit harmoniously within the existing neighbourhood while proving an appropriate amount of residential density within a PMTSA.
45The Tribunal finds that the proposal has demonstrated that it meets the relevant CWTBDG and the GUG guidelines.
46The Tribunal finds the settlement as presented should be conditionally approved with an Interim Order. The Tribunal finds that the Final Order will be withheld until the Tribunal receives written confirmation from the City Solicitor that the proposed conditions have been met, which include the final form of the ZBA.
ORDER
47THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph [48] below, and the Zoning By-law Amendment set out in Attachment 1 to this Interim Order, is hereby approved in principle.
48The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon confirmation from the City Solicitor of the following pre-requisite matters:
The Tribunal has received, and approved, the Zoning By-law Amendment submitted in a final form, confirmed to be satisfactory to the Executive Director, Development Review, and the City Solicitor and;
The Owner has at its sole cost and expense:
a. 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, and Sanitary Tributary Plan and 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;
b. 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 Director, Engineering Review 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;
c. Submitted a revised Transportation Impact Study or addendum, including a Transportation Demand Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review and the General Manager, Transportation Services, and that matters arising from such study be secured if required;
d. Submitted a Pedestrian Level Wind Study – Wind Tunnel 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;
e. Submitted an Arborist Report, Tree Preservation and Inventory Plan, Soil Volume Plan (QL-A), Public Utilities Plans, Landscape Plan demonstrating sufficient soil volume for tree growth, and Landscape Sections to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Environment, Climate and Forestry;
f. Made revisions to meet the Toronto Green Standard requirements to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review; and
g. Provided a revised Energy Strategy Report, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Environment and Climate.
- If the accepted Engineering Report(s) require(s) any new municipal infrastructure or upgrades to existing municipal infrastructure to support the development, then either:
a. The Owner, at its sole cost and expense, has secured the design, construction, and provision of financial securities for any new municipal infrastructure or any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure identified in the accepted Engineering Report(s), to support the development, in a financially secured agreement, to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Review; or
b. The required new municipal infrastructure or upgrades to existing municipal infrastructure to support the development according to the accepted Engineering Report(s), have been constructed and are operational, to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Review and the General Manager, Toronto Water.
49The Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Zoning By-Law Amendment and the issuance of the Final Order.
50If the Parties do not submit the final draft of the Zoning By-law Amendment, provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order set out in paragraph [48] above have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order, by Tuesday, December 1, 2026, the Applicant and the City shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by that date as to the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of the draft Zoning By-law Amendment and issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal. In the event the Tribunal fails to receive the required status report and/or in the event the contingent pre-requisites are not satisfied by the date indicated above, or by such other deadline as the Tribunal may impose, the Tribunal may then consider dismissing the appeal.
51The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by Telephone Conference Call to determine the additional timelines and deadline for the submission of the final form of the instrument, the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisites and the issuance of the Final Order.
“S. deBoer”
S. deBOER
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: 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