Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 29, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000060
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: 297506 Ontario Ltd. and Diamond Corp.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: To permit a 56-storey mixed-use building with 407 residential units and 272.2 m2 of commercial space
Reference Number: 24 146664 NNY 08 OZ
Property Address: 2346 Yonge Street
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000060
OLT Case Name: 297506 Ontario Ltd. and Diamond Corp. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: 297506 Ontario Ltd. and Diamond Corp.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit a 56-storey mixed-use building with 407 residential units and 272.2 m2 of commercial space
Reference Number: 24 146664 NNY 08 OZ
Property Address: 2346 Yonge Street
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000062
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000060
OLT Case Name: 297506 Ontario Ltd. and Diamond Corp. v. Toronto (City)
Heard: April 8, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
297506 Ontario Ltd. and Diamond Corp.
Mark Flowers
City of Toronto
Jyoti Zuidema Gabe Szobel (in absentia)
2350 Yonge Street Inc.
Rodney Gill
Phoenix 2323 Yonge Street Inc., Phoenix 2329 Yonge Street Inc., and Phoenix 2345 Yonge Street Inc.
Anne Benedetti
EPRA LPRO SKHC 500 Duplex Coalition
Thomas Cohen* Lindsay Isaac-Lalla*
2354 Yonge Street Inc.
Brian Noy* Josh Epstein*
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. DIXON ON April 8, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision and Order arises from the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held regarding appeals by 297506 Ontario Ltd. and Diamond Corp. (“Appellant”) pursuant to ss. 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, concerning official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment applications (“Applications”) in the City of Toronto (“City”) for lands municipally known as 2346 Yonge Street (“Subject Lands”).
2The Applications seek to permit a 56-storey mixed-use building with 407 residential units and 272.2 square metres of commercial space on the Subject Lands.
NOTICE
3The Tribunal was in receipt of an Affidavit of Service affirmed by Philip Boulos on March 7, 2025. There were no concerns with the service of notice, which was marked as Exhibit 1. No further notice is required in these proceedings.
STATUS REQUESTS
4The Tribunal received four requests for Party status from the following entities:
2350 Yonge Street Inc.;
Phoenix 2323 Yonge Street Inc., Phoenix 2329 Yonge Street Inc., and Phoenix 2345 Yonge Street Inc.;
EPRA LPRO SKHC 500 Duplex Coalition; and
2354 Yonge Street Inc.
5Collectively, the Appellant and the above entities are all Parties to a separate appeal filed by 2350 Yonge Street Inc. (Case No. OLT-23-000686) concerning a different development proposal immediately adjacent to the Subject Lands. Accordingly, there were no concerns with the Party status requests and all four entities were granted Party status by the Tribunal.
6There were no requests for Participant status.
REQUEST FOR RELATED CASES TO BE HEARD TOGETHER
7Counsel for the Appellant advised the Tribunal that the neighbouring appeal by 2350 Yonge Street Inc. is scheduled to proceed to a 15-day Hearing on the Merits commencing Monday, October 6, 2025 (“October Hearing”). He proffered that the October Hearing was scheduled by the Tribunal with the expectation that the appeals for both Case Nos. OLT-25-000060 and OLT-23-000686 would be heard together, given their geographic proximity and potential overlapping areas of evidence.
8Counsel for 2350 Yonge Street Inc. agreed with the approach and, with the consent of all Parties, the Tribunal ordered that Case Nos. OLT-25-000060 and OLT-23-000686 will be heard together at the October Hearing.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SETTLEMENT
9The Parties were previously engaged in Tribunal-led mediation for the adjacent appeal by 2350 Yonge Street Inc., which did not result in a resolution. Accordingly, the Parties are all familiar with the Subject Lands and the proposal currently before the Tribunal, and do not believe that Tribunal-led mediation would be of assistance in this matter.
10Notwithstanding the above, counsel to the Appellant noted their willingness to continue working with the Parties towards a resolution.
DRAFT PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST
11A draft Procedural Order (“PO”), inclusive of draft issues, was provided to the Tribunal in advance of the CMC but was further updated following the CMC and provided to the Tribunal on April 23, 2025. The dates in the draft PO reflect the dates in the approved PO for Case No. OLT-23-000686, facilitating the request to have both cases heard together at the October Hearing.
12The Tribunal hereby approves the PO attached to this Decision and Order as Schedule 1.
HEARING DATES
13In accordance with Paragraph [8] above, these matters are to be heard together with Case No. OLT-23-000686 at the forthcoming October Hearing commencing Monday, October 6, 2025 at 10 a.m. and scheduled to conclude on Tuesday, October 28, 2025 (the Tribunal will not be sitting on Monday, October 13 and Tuesday, October 14, 2025).
14Parties are asked to log in to the Video Hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:
GoTo Meeting: https://meet.goto.com/680885805
Access Code: 680-885-805
15Parties 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.
16Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: (Toll-Free) 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The Access Code is as indicated above.
17Individuals 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 Video Hearing to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.
ORDER
18THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the following entities have been granted Party status and are hereby Parties to this proceeding:
a) 2350 Yonge Street Inc.;
b) Phoenix 2323 Yonge Street Inc., Phoenix 2329 Yonge Street Inc., and Phoenix 2345 Yonge Street Inc.;
c) EPRA LPRO SKHC 500 Duplex Coalition; and
d) 2354 Yonge Street Inc.
19THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT Tribunal Case Nos. OLT-25-000060 and OLT-23-000686 are to be heard together but are not consolidated.
20THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Procedural Order attached to this Order as Schedule 1 is in effect and shall govern these proceedings in advance of the Hearing on the Merits.
“S. Dixon”
S. DIXON
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.
SCHEDULE 1
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000060
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: 297506 Ontario Ltd. and Diamond Corp.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: To permit a 56-storey mixed-use building with 407 residential units and 272.2 m2 of commercial space
Reference Number: 24 146664 NNY 08 OZ
Property Address: 2346 Yonge Street
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000060
OLT Case Name: 297506 Ontario Ltd. and Diamond Corp. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: 297506 Ontario Ltd. and Diamond Corp.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit a 56-storey mixed-use building with 407 residential units and 272.2 m2 of commercial space
Reference Number: 24 146664 NNY 08 OZ
Property Address: 2346 Yonge Street
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000062
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000060
OLT Case Name: 297506 Ontario Ltd. and Diamond Corp. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEDURAL ORDER
- 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 October 6, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. These appeals will be heard together, but not consolidated, with an appeal by 2350 Yonge Street Inc. in respect of 2350-2352 Yonge Street under Case No. OLT-23-000686.
The length of the hearing is fifteen (15) days, scheduled to conclude on October 28, 2025, and not sitting on October 13 and 14, 2025. 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 (see the sample procedural order for the meaning of these terms).
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 the written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.
Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.
Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.
Requirements Before the Hearing
If the applicant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing, the applicant shall provide copies of the revised proposal, including all revised plans, drawings, proposed instruments, updated supporting documents and reports, to the other parties on or before May 1, 2025. The applicant acknowledges that any revisions to the proposal after that date without the consent of the parties may be grounds for the Tribunal to adjourn the hearing.
A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before June 6, 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.
Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before June 26, 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 July 4, 2025.
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.
On or before July 23, 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.
On or before July 23, 2025, 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 August 27, 2025 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.
On or before September 19, 2025, 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 August 22, 2025 and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.
The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before September 19, 2025.
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 September 26, 2025 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, and in hard copy if requested by the Tribunal. 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.
SUMMARY OF DATES
Date
EVENT
May 1, 2025
Last day to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any)
June 6, 2025
Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
June 26, 2025 and July 4, 2025
Experts Meeting and Agreed Statement of Facts
July 23, 2025
Exchange of Witness Statements, summonsed witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
August 22, 2025
Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
September 19, 2025
Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
September 19, 2025
Preparation of Joint Document Book
September 26, 2025
Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal
October 6, 2025
Hearing commences
ATTACHMENT 1 PARTIES/PARTICIPANTS
Parties
297506 Ontario Ltd. and Diamond Corp. Mark Flowers, Davies Howe LLP Tel: 416-263-4513 Email: markf@davieshowe.com
City of Toronto Gabe Szobel / Jyoti Zuidema, City of Toronto Legal Services Tel: 416-338-1889 / 416-338-0800 Email: gabe.szobel@toronto.ca / jyoti.zuidema@toronto.ca
2350 Yonge Street Inc. Rodney Gill, Goodmans LLP Tel: 416-597-4136 Email: rgill@goodmans.ca
Phoenix 2323 Yonge Street Inc., Phoenix 2329 Yonge Street Inc. and Phoenix 2345 Yonge Street Inc. Anne Benedetti, Goodmans LLP Tel: (416) 597-5929 Email: abenedetti@goodmans.ca
2354 Yonge Street Inc. Brian Noy Tel: 647-283-2477 Email: brian.i.noy@gmail.com
EPRA LPRO SKHC 500 Duplex Coalition Thomas Cohen / Lindsay Isaac-Lalla Tel: 416-932-8566 / 416-994-5287 Email: tcohen@yorku.ca / lindsay.isaac@gmail.com
ATTACHMENT 2 ISSUES LIST
Issues of City of Toronto
- Do the proposed development, Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment have appropriate regard for the following matters of provincial interest set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act: Sections 2 (f), (h), (i), (j), (k), (n), (p), (q), (r) and (s)?
Provincial Planning Statement (2024)
- Are the proposed development, Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with the following policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2024): policies 2.1(6), 2.2(1), 2.4.1(2), (3), 2.9(1), 3.2(2), 3.6(1), 3.9(1), 6.1(11)
City of Toronto Official Plan
- Do the proposed development, Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment conform with the following sections and policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan:
a. Healthy Neighbourhoods: 2.3.1.3
b. Transportation Change: 2.4.7, 2.4.22
c. The Public Realm: 3.1.1.2, 3.1.1.3, 3.1.1.6, 3.1.1.12, 3.1.1.13, 3.1.1.15, 3.1.1.16
d. Built Form: 3.1.3.1, 3.1.3.3, 3.1.3.4, 3.1.3.5, 3.1.3.6, 3.1.3.7, 3.1.3.9, 3.1.3.10, 3.1.3.11, 3.1.3.13
e. Built Form – Building Types: 3.1.4.8, 3.1.4.9; 3.1.4.10; 3.1.4.11
f. Housing: 3.2.1; 3.2.1.12;
g. Future of Retailing: 3.5.3.3
h. Mixed Use Areas: 4.5.2
Yonge Eglinton Secondary Plan
- Do the proposed development , Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment conform with the following sections and policies of the Yonge Eglinton Secondary Plan (OPA 405): 1.3.1, 1.3.6, 2.1.1, 2.2.1, 2.4, 2.6.1, 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.1.5, 3.1.7, 3.1.9, 3.2.3, 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4.1.5, 4.34, 5.1.1, 5.3.5, 5.3.31, 5.3.33, 5.3.34, 5.3.35, 5.3.36, 5.4.3, 5.6.5, 5.6.6, 5.7.5, and 7.1?
City of Toronto Guidelines
Does the proposal adequately support the size objectives of the Growing Up Guidelines?
Does the proposed development meet the intent and purpose of the City of Toronto Tall Building Guidelines?
Does the proposed development meet the intent and purpose of the City of Toronto Retail Design Manual?
Does the proposal meet the requirements of the Toronto Green Standard particularly as it relates to transportation demand management, electric vehicle infrastructure, tree planting, soil volume, stormwater management and tree planting requirements?
Site Specific Issues
Does the proposed development conform individually and collectively with the vision for Midtown, and specifically, the Montgomery Square Character Area, the Area Structure of the Midtown, the Midtown Transit Station Areas (Secondary Zone), the Built Form Principles, and the anticipated height range for the Montgomery Square Character Area?
Is the site large enough to accommodate the proposed development and conform to the Official Plan and Yonge Eglinton Secondary Plan policies and urban design and built form standards noted above?
Does the proposed development site preclude the orderly development of adjacent properties on the block?
Has the proposal demonstrated how the orderly development of adjacent properties can develop independently of this development site?
Has the proposal demonstrated that the site has appropriate access to service the proposed development?
Is the proposed height and density appropriate for the site?
Is the proposed built form, height, transition and massing and the resulting sun, shadow and wind impacts appropriate for the site, and does it represent good planning?
Does the proposal provide for a public realm that includes an appropriate retail street environment?
Are the site organization and built form of the proposed development appropriate in terms of its proposed massing, including setbacks, step backs, scale, separation distances, streetwall heights, design, and transition to neighbouring properties?
Are the resulting impacts appropriate? In particular:
a. Does the development have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities Guidelines as it relates to the sizes of the units and type of amenity spaces?
b. Does the proposed massing of the base building provide appropriate grading relationships and transition to and interface with the neighbouring properties to the north, west and south?
c. Is the proposed tower transitioned appropriately to the surrounding land uses?
d. Is the massing of the proposed development appropriate in terms of its impact on access to sunlight, overlook, and privacy?
e. Does the proposal provide sufficient accessible parking spaces and visitor parking spaces?
f. Are the proposed pick-up/drop-off spaces adequate?
g. Does the proposal provide sufficient loading spaces?
Is there sufficient infrastructure capacity to accommodate the proposed development (including water, sanitary and stormwater)?
Is the proposed mid-block connection adequate?
Does size, design, and location of the proposed commercial uses meet the requirements of Section 2.6.1 of the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan?
Is the proposed reduction in the minimum 3-bedroom units from 10% to 7% appropriate?
General
- Does the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment represent good planning, good urban design, and is it in the public interest?
Implementation
- If the Tribunal approves the proposal in whole, or in part, should the Tribunal’s Order be withheld until the following conditions are satisfied?
a. The final form and content of the draft Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-laws are to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
b. If required, provisions for a holding by-law pursuant to Section 36 of the Planning Act regarding the provision of an acceptable sanitary system solution constructed and operational as determined by the Chief Engineer & Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services which may include the applicant obtaining MECP Environmental Compliance Approval and upgrading the existing municipal infrastructure off site;
c. The owner has satisfactorily addressed the Transportation Services and Engineering and Construction Services matters in the Engineering and Construction Services Memorandum dated September 24, 2024, and any outstanding issues arising from the ongoing technical review (including provision of acceptable reports and studies), as they relate to the Zoning By-law Amendment application to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services and Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;
d. The Owner satisfactorily addressing matters from the Urban Forestry memorandum dated September 20, 2024, or as may be updated, in response to further submissions filed by the Owner, all to the satisfaction of Urban Forestry;
e. Submit to the Chief Engineer and Executive Director of Engineering and Construction Services for review and acceptance, prior to approval of the rezoning application, a Functional Servicing Report to determine the storm water 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;
f. Make satisfactory arrangements with Engineering and Construction Services and enter into the appropriate agreement 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 this development, according to the accepted Functional Servicing Report accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director of Engineering and Construction Services;
g. The owner has provided financial securities for any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure identified in the acceptable Functional Servicing Report and Stormwater Management Report, to support the development, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, and General Manager, Toronto Water, where it has been determined that improvements or upgrades are required to support the development. In requiring any off site municipal infrastructure upgrades, the owner is to make satisfactory arrangements with Engineering & Construction Services for Work on the City's Right-of-Way;
h. The owner has submitted a revised Travel Demand Management Plan acceptable to, and to the satisfaction of, the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the General Manager, Transportation Services;
i. The owner has submitted architectural plans reflecting the proposal as approved in whole or in part, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
j. the owner has submitted an updated complete Toronto Green Standards (TGS) Checklist and Statistics Template, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.
Issues of Phoenix 2323 Yonge Street Inc., Phoenix 2329 Yonge Street Inc. and Phoenix 2345 Yonge Street Inc.
Does the application have appropriate regard to matters of Provincial interest in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections (f), (h), (m), (n) and (r)?
Is the application consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024), including sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.9, and 6.2?
Does the application conform with the City of Toronto Official Plan, including policies 2.2.4, 2.2.5, and sections 2.2.1 (Downtown: The Heart of Toronto), 3.1.1 (Public Realm), 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 (Built Form)?
Does the application have appropriate regard for, and appropriately implement, the Tall Building Design Guidelines?
Does the proposed development inappropriately limit the potential future redevelopment of the lands known municipally as 2323 – 2329 Yonge Street and 2345 Yonge Street?
If approved by the Tribunal, what are appropriate pre-conditions to the issuance of a final order? Is the form and content of the proposed zoning by-law amendment appropriate?
Issues of 500 Duplex Coalition
Is the proposed development appropriate for placement in the Montgomery Square Character Area? [OPA 405 - 1.3.6.b.]
Is the proposed development an appropriate building form in this general context?
Is the proposed development of an appropriate height, scale and massing? [OPA 405 - 2.4.2.ii.]
Will the proposed development contribute to the Montgomery Square's planned environment? [OPA 405 – 3.2.3.e.; 5.1.1.a.; d.; e.; h.; i.]
Will the proposed development be compatible with the area's urban design standards? [OPA 405 – 5.3.1.; b.; c.; d. 5.3.1.e.; 5.3.4.; 5.3.5.; b.; 5.3.6.]
Does the great scale of the proposed development require greater regard? [ OPA 405 – 5.3.31.; a.; b; 5.3.33.; d.; e.; f.; c.]
Considering the proposed building's height, should a detailed wind tunnel test be required? [OPA 405–5.6.6.]
Does the proposed development provide an adequate housing offering? [OPA 405 – 7.1.; a.; b.; c.; 7.2.; a.; b.; 7.3.; 7.4.]
Has the proposed development provided a comprehensive context assessment? [OPA 405 – 9.3.1.; b.; c.; d.; 9.3.2.; a.; f.]
Would approving this proposed development represent good planning?
Issues of 2354 Yonge Street Inc.
Are the proposed building setbacks and tower setbacks appropriate?
Do the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment facilitate the appropriate development of the block bounded by Yonge Street, Orchard View Boulevard, Helendale Avenue, and Duplex Avenue?
Do the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment inappropriately limit the potential future redevelopment of the lands municipally known as 2354 Yonge Street? If so, should the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment be revised, and if so, in what manner?
Do the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment constitute good planning and are they in the public interest?
Have the impacts of the proposed development upon the neighbouring property at 2354 Yonge Street, including as it relates to stormwater management, snow load, and other matters, been adequately studied and addressed to ensure that the proposed development will not result in any unacceptable impacts upon the neighbouring property? If so, should the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment be revised, and if so, in what manner?
What measures should the applicant take to mitigate potential adverse construction impacts to existing buildings and structures on the neighbouring property at 2354 Yonge Street?
If the appeal is allowed by the Tribunal, what are the appropriate conditions of approval?
ATTACHMENT 3 ORDER OF EVIDENCE
297506 Ontario Ltd. and Diamond Corp.
2350 Yonge Street Inc.
City of Toronto
Phoenix 2323 Yonge Street Inc., Phoenix 2329 Yonge Street Inc. and Phoenix 2345 Yonge Street Inc.
2354 Yonge Street Inc.
EPRA LPRO SKHC 500 Duplex Coalition
Reply of 297506 Ontario Ltd. and Diamond Corp. (if any)
Attachment to Sample Procedural Order
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.