Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 25, 2025

CASE NO.: OLT-24-001194, OLT-24-001195

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

Applicant and Appellant: Wycliffe Royal York Limited

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

Description: To permit

Reference Number: 24 113800 WET 03 OZ

Property Address: 464 Royal York Road

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001194

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001194

OLT Case Name: Wycliffe Royal York Limited v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Wycliffe Royal York Limited

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

Description: To permit the development of a 12-storey building

Reference Number: 24 113800 WET 03 OZ

Property Address: 464 Royal York Road

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001195

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001194

OLT Case Name: Wycliffe Royal York Limited v. Toronto (City)

BEFORE:

N. EISAZADEH MEMBER

Wednesday, the 23rd day of April, 2025

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that further to the Decision issued on April 14, 2025, the Procedural Order, as agreed to between the Parties and attached hereto as Schedule “A”, shall be in force and effect for the purpose of governing the required procedures leading up to and including the hearing, which is scheduled to commence on February 2, 2026. The Tribunal has set aside 10 days for the hearing.

“Euken Lui”

EUKEN LUI ACTING REGISTRAR

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.

Schedule “A”

ISSUE DATE: CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-001194

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

Applicant and Appellant: Wycliffe Royal York Limited Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit the development of a 12-storey building Reference: 24 113800 WET 03 OZ Property Address: 464 Royal York Road Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001194 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001194 OLT Case Name: Wycliffe Royal York Limited v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Wycliffe Royal York Limited Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision the requested amendment Description: To permit the development of a 12-storey building Reference: 24 113800 WET 03 OZ Property Address: 464 Royal York Road Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001195 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001194 OLT Case Name: Wycliffe Royal York Limited v. Toronto (City)

PROCEDURAL ORDER

1. 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

2. The video hearing will begin on February 2, 2026 at 10:00 am.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 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.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1 (see the sample procedural order for the meaning of these terms).

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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

9. If the applicant / appellant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing, the applicant / appellant shall provide a copy of the proposed modifications to the other parties on or before Friday September 19, 2025. The applicant / appellant 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.

10. 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 October 3, 2025 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.

11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Friday October 17, 2025 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 October 31, 2025.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. On or before Friday December 12, 2025, 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.

15. On or before Friday December 12, 2025, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

16. On or before Monday December 29, 2025, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

17. On or before Friday January 23, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

18. On or before Monday January 12, 2026, parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

19. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Friday January 23, 2026.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Friday January 23, 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

BEFORE: Name of Member: Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF KEY DATES

Date	Hearing Event
Friday September 12, 2025	Delivery and filing of revised proposal, if applicable
Friday October 3, 2025	Exchange of List of Witnesses
Friday October 17, 2025	Expert Witness Meeting
Friday October 31, 2025	Filing of Statement(s) of Agreed Facts and Issues
Friday December 12, 2025	Exchange of Witness Statements, participant statements (if any), and summoned witness outlines (if any)
Monday January 12, 2026	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
Monday December 29, 2025	Confirmation to Tribunal if all reserved hearing dates are still required
Friday January 23, 2026	Exchange of Visual Evidence
Friday January 23, 2026	Filing of Joint Document Book
Friday January 23, 2026	Filing of Hearing Plan
Monday February 2, 2026	Hearing Commences

ATTACHMENT 2

PARTIES

Wycliffe Royal York Limited WeirFoulds LLP 66 Wellington St W Suite 4100, Toronto, ON M5K 1B7 Denise Baker 416-947-5090 dbaker@weirfoulds.com

City of Toronto Metro Hall 26th Floor 55 John St. Toronto ON M5V 3C6 Adam Ward adam.ward@toronto.ca Nathan Muscat nathan.muscat@toronto.ca

693380 Ontario Limited Bennett Jones LLP 3400 One First Canadian Place, P.O. Box 130, Toronto, ON, M5X 1A4 Andrew Jeanrie T. 416 777 4814 jeanriea@bennettjones.com

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUES LISTS

City of Toronto

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 or appropriate. 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 having jurisdiction over such matters in each circumstance. Accordingly, no Party shall advance an issue not identified on the Issues List without leave of the Tribunal

Issue 1 – Planning Act. Do the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections 2 (f), (h), (h.1), (j), (o), (q) and (r), (r, iii)

Issue 2 – Provincial Planning Statement, 2024. Are the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, including sections 2.1.6, 2.3.1.2 (a, c, d), 3.1.2, 3.1.4, 3.2, 3.5 and 3.6, 3.9.1 (a, b)?

Issue 3 – City of Toronto Official Plan Do the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment conform to the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, including: a) Structuring Growth in the City 2.2, 2.2.4, and 2.4, including 2.2 (2), 2.2.4 (5), (6), (7), and 2.4 (15); b) The Public Realm (3.1.1), including 3.1.1 (1), (2), (10), (14), and (19); c) Built Form (3.1.3 & 3.1.4), including 3.1.3 (1), (4), (5), (9), (10), (11), (12) and (13) and 3.1.4 (4); d) Apartment Neighbourhoods (4.2), including 4.2 (2); e) Implementation (5.1.2, 5.3.1, and 5.6);

Issue 4 – City of Toronto Guidelines. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for and meet the intent and purpose of applicable City of Toronto Guidelines and standards including but not limited to Mid-rise Building Design Guidelines, Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities Guidelines, Pet Friendly Design Guidelines for High Density Communities and Toronto Green Standard?

Issue 5 – Site Organization. Does the proposed site organization conform to the City of Toronto Official Plan and does it implement long-term sustainable goals, safety, and functional pedestrian and vehicular movements? a) Is the proposed development’s site organization appropriate? b) Is the proposed site organization safe and accessible? c) Is the proposed site organization functional for all vehicles and loading vehicles?

Issue 6 – Streetscape and Public Realm. Is the proposed development’s relationship with the public realm and resulting streetscape appropriate, and does it represent good planning? Is the proposed building envelope, including building setbacks and stepbacks from the property lines, adequate to provide for? a) Appropriately sized publicly accessible walkways, that are safe and meet accessibility requirements; b) Adequate tree planting and soil volume; c) Appropriate ground floor animation, and avoiding above grade parking structures; d) Appropriately sized, and functional, publicly accessible open space; e) Proper location of loading; and f) The standards and requirements of the Toronto Green Standard.

Issue 7 – Traffic Impact, Parking, and Loading. Is the proposed development designed in accordance with accepted transportation engineering principles, Official Plan policies, zoning performance standards, and City of Toronto Guidelines, as they relate to appropriate site circulation, access, parking, parking supply, loading, vehicle maneuvering, safety, and functionality of surrounding streets?

Issue 8 – Height and Density. Is the development's proposed height and density appropriate in the existing and planned context?

Issue 9 – Built Form, Massing, and Design a) Is the proposed development’s built form appropriate, specifically the height and massing of the proposed mechanical penthouses? b) Are the shadow impacts from the proposed development acceptable? c) Are the wind impacts from the proposed development acceptable?

Issue 10 – Servicing. Has it been demonstrated that there are adequate municipal services in place to support the proposed development? Is there adequate sanitary, storm and water capacity available to allow for adequate water pressure, and appropriate stormwater and groundwater management?

Issue 11 – Bridge Connection. Has it been demonstrated that there is a plan to appropriately deconstruct, and reconstruct, the municipal bridge substructure in compliance with all City of Toronto Standards, Bridge Design Codes and Appendix S policy of the Municipal Code Requirements? Have all bridge related reports, with specific associated plans, been prepared by a bridge engineering professional?

Issue 12 – Compatibility, Noise, and Vibration. Is the proposed development compatible with adjacent major facilities, and does the development incorporate the necessary mitigation measures for air quality, odour, noise, and vibration?

Issue 13 – Amenity Space. Is the proposed development's outdoor amenity space appropriate?

Issue 14 – Public Interest and Good Planning. Do the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments provide for good planning and good urban design and are they in the public interest?

Issue 15 - Implementation. In the event the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments are approved in whole or in part, should the Tribunal’s Order be withheld until the following conditions are satisfied and the Tribunal has received confirmation from the City Solicitor that:

1. The final form and content of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments are satisfactory to the Executive Director, Development Review, and the City Solicitor;
2. The owner, at its sole expense:
   1. Submitted a revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, 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 Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services.
   2. Submitted revised civil drawings and bridge retaining wall construction reports to determine bridge connection specifications and whether upgrades to the municipal infrastructure are necessary to accommodate the proposed development to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and the General Manager, Transportation Services.
3. The owner has secured the design, construction, and provision of financial securities in respect of any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure identified in the accepted Engineering Reports, to support the development, in a financial secured agreement, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and the General Manager, Toronto Water, should it be determined that upgrades are required to infrastructure to support the development according to the accepted Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report;
4. The owner has ensured that implementation of the accepted Engineering Reports does not require changes to the proposed amending By-law or that any required changes have been made to the proposed amending By-law to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review, and the City Solicitor, including the use of a Holding ("H") Bylaw symbol regarding any new municipal servicing infrastructure or upgrades to existing municipal servicing infrastructure, as may be required;
5. The owner has secured the design, construction, and provision of financial securities for all work required for the deconstruction and/or reconstruction of the existing bridge substructure to accommodate the proposed walkway connection to support the development, in construction reports and drawings or other required reports, and in a financial secured agreement, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, and General Manager, Transportation Services, including the use of a Holding ("H") By-law symbol regarding any upgrades to the bridge substructure, as may be required to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and Executive Director, Development Review;
6. The owner has submitted a revised Hydrological Investigation Report, and Hydrological Review Summary Form, Servicing Report Groundwater Summary Form, and Foundation Drainage Summary Form to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and the General Manager, Toronto Water;
7. The owner has provided a revised Transportation Impact Study to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Review;
8. The owner revised Functional Plan and Pavement Marking and Signage Plan to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Review;
9. The owner has provided a revised Pedestrian Level Wind Study including a Wind Tunnel Study, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review;
10. The owner has submitted a revised Compatibility Mitigation Study, and has been peer reviewed by a third-party, at the sole cost of the applicant, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review;
11. The owner has submitted a revised Noise Study, and has been peer reviewed by a third-party, at the sole cost of the applicant, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review;
12. The owner has submitted a revised Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Environment, Climate and Forestry; and
13. The owner has addressed all outstanding issues raised by Urban Forestry, Tree Protection and Plan Review, as they relate to the application, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Environment, Climate and Forestry.

693380 Ontario Limited

1. Block Context Plan (“BCP”)

   1. Is the BCP appropriate as a planning tool to allocate development within the block?
   2. Has the BCP fairly considered the interests of all owners within the block and were they provided an equal opportunity to develop the same? c. The BCP shows lands at 444-452 Royal York Road being consolidated into one development (“Block 1”), but these properties are under different ownership. Should the BCP to analyze 446-452 Royal York Road separately from 444 Royal York Road rather than assuming or relying upon consolidation.

2. POPS as identified within the BCP: a. The BCP appears to disproportionately distribute POPS space on what it refers to as “Block 1” and 464 Royal York Road. Is this appropriate planning for the block?

3. Should the BCP POPS allocation be reviewed assuming separate developments at 446-452 Royal York Road and 444 Royal York Road?

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Wycliffe Royal York Limited
2. City of Toronto
3. 693380 Ontario Limited
4. Wycliffe Royal York Limited, in reply