Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: January 20, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000567 OLT-24-000590

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

Applicant and Appellant: 2606545 Ontario Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit the redevelopment of the subject site with a 28-storey, mixed-use building including 258 residential units Reference Number: 24 109932 STE 13 OZ Property Address: 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78 and 78A Wellesley Street East and 505, 507, 509 and 509 ½ Church Street Municipality: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000567 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000567 OLT Case Name: 2606545 Ontario Inc. 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: 2606545 Ontario Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit the redevelopment of the subject site with a 28-storey, mixed-use building including 258 residential units Reference Number: 24 109932 STE 13 OZ Property Address: 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78 and 78A Wellesley Street East and 505, 507, 509 and 509 ½ Church Street Municipality: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000568 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000567

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A

Applicant and Appellant: 2606545 Ontario Inc. Subject: Site Plan Description: To permit the redevelopment of the subject site with a 28-storey, mixed-use building including 258 residential units Reference Number: 24 109939 STE 13 SA Property Address: 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78 and 78A Wellesley Street East and 505, 507, 509 and 509 ½ Church Street Municipality: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000569 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000567

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 33(9) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18

Applicant and Appellant: 2606545 Ontario Inc. Subject: Refusal of Heritage Alteration Description: To permit the redevelopment of the subject site with a 28-storey, mixed-use building including 258 residential units Property Address: 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78 and 78A Wellesley Street East and 505, 507, 509 and 509 ½ Church Street Municipality: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000590 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000590 OLT Case Name: 2606545 Ontario Inc. v. Toronto (City)

Heard: November 12, 2024 by Video Hearing December 18, 2025 by Telephone Conference Call

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative
2606545 Ontario Inc. (“Appellant”)	E. Costello, N. Mares
City of Toronto (“City”)	J. Braun, J. Amey
Church Wellesley Neighbourhood Association Inc.	I. Flett

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY GREGORY J. INGRAM ON NOVEMBER 12, 2024 AND DECEMBER 18, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This is the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) regarding appeals launched by the Appellant following the City’s refusal of applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, Site Plan Approval (“Planning Appeals”), and a Heritage Alteration Permit (“Heritage Appeal”), collectively herein referred to as the “Appeals”, to permit the redevelopment of the lands municipally known as 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78 and 78A Wellesley Street East, and 505, 507, 509 and 509 1/2 Church Street in the City of Toronto with a 28-storey mixed-use building (“proposed development”).

2The first CMC resulted in the following:

• The Tribunal entered into evidence the Affidavit of Service of Natalie Hickey sworn on September 3, 2024, as Exhibit 1.
• The Church Wellesley Neighbourhood Association Inc. (“CWNA”) was granted Party Status. The Tribunal deferred the Party Status application decision of Church-Wellesley Village BIA (“CWV BIA”) until the second CMC.
• Submissions were heard regarding the ‘hearing together’ of the Appeals but a decision was deferred to allow any added Parties the opportunity to also provide informed submissions at the next CMC.

PARTY/PARTICIPANT STATUS

3The CWV BIA did not attend this CMC. Submissions were heard from the Parties regarding their application. The Tribunal, having considered the submissions and the application, denied the Party status request. The Tribunal is not confident that the CWV BIA would ‘fully participate in the proceeding’ as per the criteria set out in Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”) Rule 8.1.

4The Tribunal acknowledges that the CWV BIA does have a planning interest in the proposed development given the concerns they identified in their Party Status application and, on consent of the Parties, invited them to submit a Participant Status request by Tuesday, November 26, 2024 to continue their involvement in these proceedings through this means.

5The CWV BIA informed the Tribunal on December 18, 2024 that it declines the option of Participant Status.

MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS

6The Parties indicated that they participated in discussions prior to the appeal to the OLT being launched and at this point believe narrowing the issues and proceeding toward a hearing is the next step. Given the addition of the third party, they will continue to deliberate with the hope of finding consensus on as many issues as possible.

CONSOLIDATION OR HEARING TOGETHER OF THE APPEALS

7The Tribunal heard that while the Appellant preferred that the Appeals be consolidated, they consent to the Appeals being heard together and asked that the Tribunal grant this request. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the evidence will not change and the same witnesses may be used with either approach.

8The Tribunal concurs with the Parties and, under OLT Rule 16.3, orders that the Appeals be heard together. The Appellant has two related appeals before the Tribunal. One is an appeal pursuant to ss. 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act and s. 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 (OLT-24-000567) and the other is related to an application pursuant to s. 33(9) of the Ontario Heritage Act Application for Alterations to a Designated Heritage Property (OLT-24-000590). Each requires different consideration under its own legislation but will nevertheless involve overlapping evidence and experts.

9The Tribunal directed the Parties to work together to finalize a draft Procedural Order (“PO”). A draft was received by the Tribunal on consent of the Parties who also requested Tribunal assistance to resolve a disagreement around the inclusion of a specific issue through a Telephone Conference Call (“TCC”).

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL

10A TCC was held on Wednesday December 18, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. regarding the inclusion of the following issue:

North Downtown Yonge SASP 382

In particular, does the proposed built form reinforce the cultural identity of the Church Street Village Character Area as a destination for the LGBTQ2+ community, as envisioned by Section 5.7 and reflected in the related policies?

11Submissions were heard from the Parties regarding the inclusion of the above noted issue:

a. The Counsel for the Appellant requested that the issue be struck in its current form. Counsel submitted that it was unclear how to respond to this issue; in particular, the reference to cultural identity as it doesn’t fall into an expert witness area of expertise, isn’t a heritage matter or built form issue, and the Counsel is not sure how the Tribunal would adjudicate this issue as it doesn’t exist in planning documents. Counsel also suggested that issues related to s. 5.7 are already reflected within issue #9 of the PO.

b. Counsel for the City submitted that the issue is appropriate and argued that there is an explicit link to the built form and emphasized that the preamble of Site and Area Specific Policies (“SASP”) 340, s. 5.7 (North Downtown Yonge Site and Area Specific Policy) helps to interpret the policies that follow in this section. Specifically, Counsel referred to the following statement from the preamble:

The Church Street Village Character Area is regarded as a stable area that should experience limited growth, both along Church Street and in the residential areas abutting and surrounding it. (underlined section was emphasized by Counsel)

The City indicated that it intends to lead evidence on this matter by calling experts in urban design and/or planning and that it is “premature” to remove it now. The City also referred to the preamble of the Tribunal’s PO template which indicates that inclusion of an issue does not suggest agreement and that “the extent to which issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the OLT…will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing.”

c. Counsel for CWNA submitted that the issue is appropriate and should remain. It was suggested that the Tribunal only need to determine if this issue is genuine, triable, and a true matter that should be before it; he concluded that it is. Counsel concurred with the City’s emphasis on the importance of the language in the preamble noted above.

12The Tribunal having considered the submissions of the Parties provided an oral ruling allowing the issue outlined in paragraph [10] above to remain on the issues list. The Tribunal concurs with the submissions from the City and the CWNA and finds that it is an issue related to planning and it is reasonable to have experts in urban design and/or planning to provide expert evidence, which shall be “a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing” as outlined in the Tribunal PO template document.

HEARING PLANNING

13The Tribunal ordered that a 10-day hearing be scheduled to take place from Friday, June 13, 2025 to Friday, June 27, 2025, commencing at 10 a.m. by video conference. The Tribunal will not be sitting on Monday, June 16, 2025.

14Parties 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://meet.goto.com/558205565

Access code: 558-205-565

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 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: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (toll free) 1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 558-205-565.

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 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.

18The Member will remain available for continued case management to the extent that the Tribunal calendar permits.

ORDER

12The Tribunal orders as follows:

1. The Church-Wellesley Village Business Improvement Area request for Party Status is denied.

2. The request is granted and Tribunal File No. OLT-24-000567 and Tribunal File No. OLT-24-000590 shall be heard together, in accordance with Rule 16.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

3. A hearing is scheduled to take place as per the details outlined in paragraphs [13] to [17] and that the Procedural Order attached as Schedule 1 is in full force and effect.

“Gregory J. Ingram”

GREGORY J. INGRAM 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.

Schedule 1 Procedural Order

ISSUE DATE: January 20, 2025

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

Applicant and Appellant: 2606545 Ontario Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit the redevelopment of the subject site with a 28-storey, mixed-use building including 258 residential units Reference Number: 24 109932 STE 13 OZ Property Address: 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78 and 78A Wellesley Street East and 505, 507, 509 and 509 ½ Church Street Municipality: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000567 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000567 OLT Case Name: 2606545 Ontario Inc. 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: 2606545 Ontario Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit the redevelopment of the subject site with a 28-storey, mixed-use building including 258 residential units Reference Number: 24 109932 STE 13 OZ Property Address: 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78 and 78A Wellesley Street East and 505, 507, 509 and 509 ½ Church Street Municipality: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000568 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000567

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A

Applicant and Appellant: 2606545 Ontario Inc. Subject: Site Plan Description: To permit the redevelopment of the subject site with a 28-storey, mixed-use building including 258 residential units Reference Number: 24 109939 STE 13 SA Property Address: 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78 and 78A Wellesley Street East and 505, 507, 509 and 509 ½ Church Street Municipality: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000569 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000567

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 33(9) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18

Applicant and Appellant: 2606545 Ontario Inc. Subject: Refusal of Heritage Alteration Description: To permit the redevelopment of the subject site with a 28-storey, mixed-use building including 258 residential units Property Address: 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78 and 78A Wellesley Street East and 505, 507, 509 and 509 ½ Church Street Municipality: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000590 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000590 OLT Case Name: 2606545 Ontario Inc. v. Toronto (City)

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 June 13, 2025 at the Ontario Land Tribunal via the following link https://meet.goto.com/558205565 or by phone via the call-in numbers: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (toll free) 1-888-299-1889.

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 procedural order deadlines are found in Attachment 1.

5. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 2 (see the sample procedural order for the meaning of these terms).

6. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. 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.

7. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 4 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.

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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, and updated supporting documents and reports to the other parties on or before February 14, 2025 (Expert Witness Statements as in paragraph 13). 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.

11. 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 February 13, 2025 and in accordance with paragraph 24 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. Any challenges to the qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence in the area of expertise proposed shall be made by motion in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules and notice of same must be served on the other Parties on or before March 5, 2025.

12. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before March 14, 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 March 25, 2025, if agreement is reached.

13. 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 15 below on or before April 15, 2025. 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.

14. 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 15 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 15 below.

15. On or before April 15, 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 24 below.

16. On or before April 15, 2025, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 24 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

17. On or before May 9, 2025, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

18. On or before May 14, 2025, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 24 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

19. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence within twenty days (May 5, 2025) after the evidence is received and in accordance with paragraph 24 below.

20. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before May 23, 2025.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before May 30, 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.

24. All filings shall be submitted electronically and in hard copy. 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.

25. 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.

Attachment 1

Summary of Dates

DATE	EVENT
February 13, 2025 (120 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
February 14, 2025 (119 days prior to hearing)	Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any)
March 5, 2025 (100 days prior to hearing)	Last date to challenge qualification of expert witnesses, if any
March 14, 2025 (89 days prior to hearing)	Experts meeting prior to this date, if any
March 25, 2025 (80 days before hearing)	Agreed Statement of Facts, if any
April 15, 2025 (59 days before hearing)	Exchange of Witness Statements, Expert Witness Statements, Summoned Witness Outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
May 5, 2025 (20 days after Witness Statements received)	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
May 9, 2025 (35 days before hearing)	Confirm if reserved hearing dates still required
May 14, 2025 (30 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of visual evidence, if any
May 23, 2025 (21 days prior to hearing)	File Joint Document Book
May 30, 2025 (14 days prior to hearing)	Hearing Plan filed with the Tribunal
June 13, 2025 (20 days prior to hearing) (11 days prior to hearing)	Hearing commences

Attachment 2

Parties:

2606545 Ontario Inc. Aird & Berlis LLP Brookfield Place, 181 Bay Street, Suite 1800 Toronto ON M5J 2T9 Eileen P.K. Costello Naomi Mares Tel: (416) 865-4740 Tel: (647) 426-2842 Fax: (416) 863-1515 Fax: (416) 863-1515 Email: ecostello@airdberlis.com Email: nmares@airdberlis.com

City of Toronto City of Toronto Legal Services 55 John Street, 26th Floor, Metro Hall Toronto, ON M5V 3C6 Jessica Braun Jessica Amey Tel: (416) 392-7237 Tel: (416) 397-1890 Email: Jessica.Braun@toronto.ca Email: Jessica.Amey@toronto.ca

Church Wellesley Neighbourhood Association Inc. Ian Flett Professional Corporation 99 Yorkville Avenue, Suite 200 Toronto, ON M5R 3K5 Ian Flett Tel: (416) 932-0136 Email: ian@flettlaw.ca

Attachment 3 Issues List

NOTE: The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the OLT or any Party that such issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is either appropriate or relevant to the determination of the OLT at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the OLT at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing. 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 OLT 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 OLT. (Lined out issues are formally removed from the Issues List but remain to maintain consistency of numbering for the Parties)

Issues List of City of Toronto

Appeal pursuant to Sections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act and Section 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 (OLT-24-000567-569):

Matters of Provincial Interest

1. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest set forth in section 2 of the Planning Act, and in particular sections 2 (d), (h), (j), (n), (q) and (r) of the Planning Act?

2. Would approval of the proposed development by the Tribunal have regard to the decision of City Council and the information and material that City Council considered in making its decision as required by Section 2.1 of the Planning Act?

3. Is the proposed development consistent with the policies of the Provincial Planning Statement 2024, and in particular, policies 2.1.6; 2.2.1; 2.3.1.1-2.3.1.5; 2.4.1.3a)-c); 2.4.2; 6.1.5; and 6.1.6, 6.1.11.

4. Is the proposed development consistent with the Heritage Policies contained within the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 and in particular, policy 4.6?

City of Toronto Official Plan Conformity

5. Does the proposed development conform with the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, as informed by Chapter One and Section 5.6 on Interpretation, and in particular the policies related to:

a. Downtown: The Heart of Toronto (2.2.1.4);

b. The Public Realm ((3.1.1.1-3.1.1.3, 3.1.1.5, 3.1.1.6, 3.1.1.10, 3.1.1.13-3.1.1.16));

c. Built Form (3.1.3);

d. Built Form – Building Types (3.1.4);

e. Heritage (3.1.6.4; 3.1.6.5; 3.1.6.6; 3.1.6.26; 3.1.6.27)

f. Housing (3.2.1.6)

g. Parks and Opens Spaces (3.2.3.1; 3.2.3.3)

h. Creating a Cultural Capital (3.5.2.3; 3.5.2.5); and

i. Mixed Use Areas (4.5.2).

Downtown Secondary Plan Conformity

6. Does the proposed development conform with the policies of the Downtown Secondary Plan being Section 6, Chapter 41 of the Official Plan, and in particular the policies related to:

a. How to Read This Plan (1.6);

b. Goals – Complete Communities (3.1; 3.3; 3.5);

c. Directing Growth (4.2);

d. Land Use and Economy – Mixed Use Areas (6.18; 6.19; 6.20; 6.22);

e. Land Use and Economy – Mixed Use Areas 3 – Main Street (6.28; 6.29; and 6.30);

f. Development in Proximity to Existing and Planned Rapid Transit Stations (6.34 – 6.36; 6.38);

g. Parks and Public Realm (7.1; 7.4);

h. Mobility – Laneways (8.11.2; 8.11.3; 8.11.4; and 8.11.5);

i. Mobility – Parking and Curbside Management (8.27);

j. Built Form – Improving the Public Realm (9.1; 9.8; 9.9; 9.10);

k. Built Form – Physical Determinants of Intensity and Scale (9.11; 9.13 – 9.15 inclusive);

l. Built Form – Creating a Comfortable Microclimate (9.17; 9.18; 9.20; 9.21 inclusive)

m. Built Form – Transition (9.22; 9.23; 9.24.1-9.24.2; 9.24.4; 9.25-9.27 inclusive);

n. Built Form – Mid-Rise Buildings (9.28);

o. Housing – 11.1;

p. Interpretation (15.1;15.6)

North Downtown Yonge SASP 382

7. Does the proposed development conform with the Goals of the SASP in policy 1.1;1.2; and 1.5?

8. Does the proposed development conform with the Objectives of the SASP in policy 2.2; 2.4 and policy 2.10?

9. Does the proposed development conform with the Church Street Character Area policies including 5.7.1; 5.7.2, 5.7.3?

10. In particular, does the proposed built form reinforce the cultural identity of the Church Street Village Character Area as a destination for the LGBTQ2+ community, as envisioned by Section 5.7 and reflected in the related policies?

11. Does the proposed development conform with the Sun and Shadow Policies including 6.A and 6.A.1?

12. Does the proposed development conform to the Park and Open Space policies, including 6.1.8?

13. Does the proposed development conform with the Urban Design policies including policies 6.3.1; 6.3.2; 6.3.4, and 6.3.6?

14. Does the proposed development conform to Interpretation policy 6.5.1; 6.5.2.; 6.5.3; and 6.5.4?

SASP 602 – Protected Major Transit Station Areas - Wellesley Station

15. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for the policies of SASP 602?

Official Plan Amendment 352/SASP 517

16. Does the proposed development conform with Official Plan Amendment 352 (SASP 517)?

Tall Building Design Guidelines

17. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for and achieve the intent and purpose of the applicable Tall Building Design Guidelines and Downtown Tall Building Vision and Supplementary Design Guidelines?

Other Design Guidelines

18. Does the development have appropriate regard for the applicable North Downtown Yonge Urban Design Guidelines, including section 4.5, 5.0, 8.0, and 11.0.

Site Specific Issues

19. Should the proposed development be a mid-rise building and have appropriate regard for and achieve the intent and purpose of the applicable Mid-rise building design guidelines?

20. Does the proposed development represent good land use planning, and urban design, having appropriate regard for matters such as:

a. The existing and planned context of the Church Street Character Area;

b. The proposed built form, massing and scale, building setbacks and stepbacks, heritage retention, building height, floor plate size, and design; and,

c. The built form relationship to the adjacent and abutting properties, including Parks, regarding the proposed setbacks, stepbacks, base building heights, overall building height, and separation distances;

21. Does the proposed development provide adequate indoor and outdoor amenity space?

22. Does the proposed development appropriately limit shadow impacts onto the public realm, including the 519 Community Hub parkland (i.e. Barbara Hall Park)?

23. Does the proposed development preserve access to sunlight and sky views from surrounding streets and public realm including the 519 Community Hub parkland (i.e. Barbara Hall Park)?

24. Are the proposed alterations of the designated heritage property at 68 Wellesley Street East appropriate, do they constitute good heritage planning, and should the request to alter the designated heritage property be refused?

Conditions to OLT Order on Zoning By-law Amendment

25. If the proposed development is approved in whole or in part, should the Tribunal Order be withheld until the following conditions are satisfied and the Tribunal receive confirmation from the City Solicitor that:

a) the final form of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment are to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the City Solicitor;

b) the Owner has revised the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Reports prepared by Counterpoint Engineering, and re-submitted them to the City for review and acceptance by Engineering & Construction. The report will determine whether the municipal water, sanitary and storm sewer systems can support the proposed development and whether upgrades or improvements of the existing municipal infrastructure are required;

c) all comments from Engineering and Construction Services contained in their March 5, 2024 memorandum are addressed to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services; and,

d) the Owner has entered into a financially secured agreement for the construction of any improvements to the municipal infrastructure, should it be determined that upgrades and road improvements are required to support the development, according to the transportation report accepted by the General Manager of Transportation Services and the functional servicing report accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director of Engineering & Construction Services.

e) The owner has entered into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City for the property at 68 Wellesley Street East, substantially in accordance with the plans and drawings, prepared by the applicant architect, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, including execution of such agreement to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor;

f) The owner has provided a detailed Conservation Plan, prepared by a qualified heritage consultant that is consistent with the conservation strategy set out in a forthcoming Heritage Impact Assessment for 68 Wellesley Street East, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning.

g) City Council has approved Rental Housing Demolition Application 24 109955 STE 13 RH under Chapter 667 of the Toronto Municipal Code pursuant to Section 111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 to permit the demolition of the existing rental housing, and the owner has entered into, and registered on title to the lands, one or more agreements with the City, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, securing all rental housing-related matters necessary to implement City Council’s decision including:

i. replacement of the existing 17 rental dwelling units, including the same number of units, bedroom type and size and with similar rents; and,

ii. an acceptable Tenant Relocation and Assistance Plan addressing the right for existing tenants to return to a replacement rental unit on the lands at similar rents, the provision of rent gap assistance, and other assistance to lessen hardship, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.

all applicable comments from Urban Forestry contained in their February 23, 2024 memorandum are addressed to the satisfaction of the Supervisor, Tree Protection & Plan Review.

Appeal pursuant to Section 33(9) of the Ontario Heritage Act Application for Alterations to a Designated Heritage Property (OLT-24-000590)

26. Is the proposed development designed to conserve the cultural heritage values and attributes of 68 Wellesley Street East and adjacent property at 519 Church Street and to mitigate visual and physical impact on them?

27. Is the proposed development consistent with the principles set out in the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada?

28. If the requested application to alter the property under subsection 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act is approved by the Tribunal, in whole or in part, what conditions should be imposed on the approval of such alteration permit?

Issues List of Church Wellesley Neighbourhood Association Inc.

Matters of Provincial Interest

1. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest set forth in section 2 of the Planning Act, and in particular sections 2 (d), (h), (j), (n), (q) and (r) of the Planning Act?

2. Would approval of the proposed development by the Tribunal have regard to the decision of City Council and the information and material that City Council considered in making its decision as required by Section 2.1 of the Planning Act?

3. Is the proposed development consistent with the policies of the Provincial Planning Statement 2024, and in particular, policies 2.1.6; 2.2.1; 2.3.1.1-2.3.1.5; 2.4.1.3a)-c); 2.4.2; 6.1.5; and 6.1.6, 6.1.11.

4. Is the proposed development consistent with the Heritage Policies contained within the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 and in particular, policy 4.6?

City of Toronto Official Plan Conformity

5. Does the proposed development conform with the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, as informed by Chapter One and Section 5.6 on Interpretation , and in particular the policies related to:

a. Downtown: The Heart of Toronto (2.2.1.4);

b. The Public Realm (3.1.1.1-3.1.1.3, 3.1.1.5, 3.1.1.6, 3.1.1.10, 3.1.1.13-3.1.1.16);

c. Built Form (3.1.3);

d. Built Form – Building Types (3.1.4);

e. Heritage (3.1.6.4; 3.1.6.5; 3.1.6.6; 3.1.6.26; 3.1.6.27)

f. Housing (3.2.1.1. 3.2.1.5, 3.2.1.6, 3.2.1.12)

g. Parks and Opens Spaces (3.2.3.1; 3.2.3.3)

h. Creating a Cultural Capital (3.5.2.3; 3.5.2.5); Creating a Strong and Diverse Civic Economy (3.5.1.2(e)); and

i. Mixed Use Areas (4.5.2).

Downtown Secondary Plan Conformity

6. Does the proposed development conform with the policies of the Downtown Secondary Plan being Section 6, Chapter 41 of the Official Plan, and in particular the policies related to:

a. How to Read This Plan (1.6);

b. Goals – Complete Communities (3.1; 3.3; 3.5);

c. Directing Growth (4.2);

d. Land Use and Economy – Mixed Use Areas (6.18; 6.19; 6.20; 6.22);

e. Land Use and Economy – Mixed Use Areas 3 – Main Street (6.28; 6.29; and 6.30);

f. Development in Proximity to Existing and Planned Rapid Transit Stations (6.34 – 6.36; 6.38);

g. Parks and Public Realm (7.1; 7.4);

h. Mobility – Laneways (8.11.2; 8.11.3; 8.11.4; and 8.11.5);

i. Mobility – Parking and Curbside Management (8.27); 6.37.3

j. Built Form – Improving the Public Realm (9.1; 9.8; 9.9; 9.10);

k. Built Form – Physical Determinants of Intensity and Scale (9.11; 9.13 – 9.15 inclusive);

l. Built Form – Creating a Comfortable Microclimate (9.17; 9.18; 9.20; 9.21 inclusive)

m. Built Form – Transition (9.22; 9.23; 9.24.1-9.24.2; 9.24.4; 9.25-9.27 inclusive);

n. Built Form – Mid-Rise Buildings (9.28);

o. Housing – 11.1;

p. Interpretation (15.1; 15.6)

North Downtown Yonge SASP 382

7. Does the proposed development conform with the Goals of the SASP in policy 1.1;1.2; and 1.5?

8. Does the proposed development conform with the Objectives of the SASP in policy 2.2; 2.4 and policy 2.10?

9. Does the proposed development conform with the Church Street Character Area policies including 5.7.1; 5.7.2, 5.7.3, and 5.7.4?

10. In particular, does the proposed built form reinforce the cultural identity of the Church Street Village Character Area as a destination for the LGBTQ2+ community, as envisioned by Section 5.7 and reflected in the related policies?

11. Does the proposed development conform with the Sun and Shadow Policies including 6.A and 6.A.1?

12. Does the proposed development conform to the Park and Open Space policies, including 6.1.8?

13. Does the proposed development conform with the Urban Design policies including policies 6.3.1; 6.3.2; 6.3.4, and 6.3.6?

14. Does the proposed development conform to Interpretation policy 6.5.1; 6.5.2; 6.5.3; and 6.5.4?

SASP 602 – Protected Major Transit Station Areas - Wellesley Station

15. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for the policies of SASP 602?

Official Plan Amendment 352/SASP 517

16. Does the proposed development conform with Official Plan Amendment 352 (SASP 517)?

Tall Building Design Guidelines

17. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for and achieve the intent and purpose of the applicable Tall Building Design Guidelines and Downtown Tall Building Vision and Supplementary Design Guidelines?

Other Design Guidelines

18. Does the development have appropriate regard for the applicable North Downtown Yonge Urban Design Guidelines, including section 4.5, 5.0, 8.0, and 11.0.

Site Specific Issues

19. Should the proposed development be a mid-rise building and have appropriate regard for and achieve the intent and purpose of the applicable Mid-rise building design guidelines?

20. Does the proposed development represent good land use planning, and urban design, having appropriate regard for matters such as:

d. The existing and planned context of the Church Street Character Area;

e. The proposed built form, massing and scale, building setbacks and stepbacks, heritage retention, building height, floor plate size, and design; and,

f. The built form relationship to the adjacent and abutting properties, including Parks, regarding the proposed setbacks, stepbacks, base building heights, overall building height, and separation distances;

21. Does the proposed development provide adequate indoor and outdoor amenity space?

22. Does the proposed development appropriately limit shadow impacts onto the public realm, including the 519 Community Hub parkland (i.e. Barbara Hall Park)?

23. Does the proposed development preserve access to sunlight and sky views from surrounding streets and public realm including the 519 Community Hub parkland (i.e. Barbara Hall Park)?

24. Is the proposed development consistent with the principles set out in the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada?

Conditions to OLT Order on Zoning By-law Amendment

25. If the proposed development is approved in whole or in part, should the Tribunal Order be withheld until the following conditions are satisfied and the Tribunal receive confirmation from the City Solicitor that:

h) the final form of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment are to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the City Solicitor;

i) the Owner has revised the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Reports prepared by Counterpoint Engineering, and re-submitted them to the City for review and acceptance by Engineering & Construction. The report will determine whether the municipal water, sanitary and storm sewer systems can support the proposed development and whether upgrades or improvements of the existing municipal infrastructure are required;

j) all comments from Engineering and Construction Services contained in their March 5, 2024 memorandum are addressed to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services; and,

k) the Owner has entered into a financially secured agreement for the construction of any improvements to the municipal infrastructure, should it be determined that upgrades and road improvements are required to support the development, according to the transportation report accepted by the General Manager of Transportation Services and the functional servicing report accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director of Engineering & Construction Services.

l) The owner has entered into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City for the property at 68 Wellesley Street East, substantially in accordance with the plans and drawings, prepared by the applicant architect, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, including execution of such agreement to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor;

m) The owner has provided a detailed Conservation Plan, prepared by a qualified heritage consultant that is consistent with the conservation strategy set out in a forthcoming Heritage Impact Assessment for 68 Wellesley Street East, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning.

n) City Council has approved Rental Housing Demolition Application 24 109955 STE 13 RH under Chapter 667 of the Toronto Municipal Code pursuant to Section 111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 to permit the demolition of the existing rental housing, and the owner has entered into, and registered on title to the lands, one or more agreements with the City, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, securing all rental housing-related matters necessary to implement City Council’s decision including:

i. replacement of the existing 17 rental dwelling units, including the same number of units, bedroom type and size and with similar rents; and,

ii. an acceptable Tenant Relocation and Assistance Plan addressing the right for existing tenants to return to a replacement rental unit on the lands at similar rents, the provision of rent gap assistance, and other assistance to lessen hardship, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.

o) all applicable comments from Urban Forestry contained in their February 23, 2024 memorandum are addressed to the satisfaction of the Supervisor, Tree Protection & Plan Review.

Attachment 4

Order of Evidence

1. 2606545 Ontario Inc.
2. City of Toronto
3. Church Wellesley Neighbourhood Association Inc.
4. 2606545 Ontario Inc. (Reply)

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.

61885878.1

62511630.1