Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: June 03, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-004688
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Royal Mimico Developments Limited
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit development of tow towers of 37 and 23 stories having 824 units
Property Address: 266-268 Royal York Road
Municipality: City of Toronto
Reference: 21 236250 WET 03 OZ
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-004688
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-004688
OLT Case Name: Royal Mimico Developments Limited v. City of Toronto
Heard: May 9, 2025 by video hearing May 23, 2025 by written hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
Royal Mimico Developments Limited ("Applicant") Heather and Hubert Walsh
David Bronskill Matthew Lakatos-Hayward John Znacko*
City of Toronto ("City")
Nathan Muscat
DECISION DELIVERED BY W. DANIEL BEST AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1The Tribunal convened a Hearing to consider a settlement regarding an appeal brought forward for the above-noted matter. The Applicant appealed under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, against the failure of the City to make a decision on an Application for a Zoning By-law Amendment ("ZBA") concerning 266-268 Royal York Road. (the "Subject Lands").
2The Subject Lands are located on the west side of Royal York Road at the intersection with Stanley Avenue, east of the CN rail corridor and rail yard. The Subject Lands have a total area of approximately 11,146 square metres ("m2"), with a frontage of approximately 70.1 metres ("m") on Royal York Road. The Subject Lands have a depth of 101 m on the north property line and a depth of 184 m on the south property line.
3The Subject lands are occupied by a vacant two-storey light industrial building at 266 Royal York Road and a vacant two-storey commercial building at 268 Royal York Road. There is a shared private driveway providing access to on-site surface parking, loading and outdoor trailer storage at the rear of the properties.
4The Subject Lands are located within the Mimico Neighbourhood. The neighbourhood includes the Mimico GO Station and a TTC stop is located in front of the Subject Lands. The Subject Lands are well served by existing and planned transit.
5The lands to the immediate north include a light industrial building. The lands to the east include a church and elementary school. The lands directly south include a townhouse complex, detached dwellings and single-storey commercial buildings. Lands to the immediate west are the rail corridor and yard.
6The Settlement Proposal consists of a mixed-use building with a 36-storey tower and a 29-storey tower. The towers will provide a total gross floor area ("GFA") of 52,933 m2, inclusive of 52,520 m2 of residential GFA and 413 m2 of non-residential GFA. The tower floorplates will be a maximum of 751 m2 and 752 m2. The proposed residential area results in approximately 820 total units. An estimated 264 parking spaces will be provided in two levels of underground parking.
7Tower A and Tower B sit atop a shared podium of four storeys. Tower C sits atop a five-storey podium. The Settlement Proposal is a 3-phased development. Phase 1 will include Tower A and the bulk of the shared podium element; Phase 2 will include Tower B and the balance of the shared podium element; and Phase 3 will include the standalone Tower C.
8The Settlement Proposal includes a total Gross Floor Area ("GFA") of 74,980 m2, comprised of approximately 74,499 m2 of residential space and approximately 481 m2 of non-residential space, resulting in a gross density of 9.13 Floor Space Index ("FSI"). The amenity areas include a total of approximately 2,446 m2 of indoor space. Approximately 2,528 m2 is proposed.
9The Settlement Proposal includes a public parkland dedication of 1,146 m2. Additionally, there will be an east-west pedestrian connection with an approximate area of 375 m2 adjacent to the new public park, which will be secured as a privately-owned publicly accessible space ("POPS").
10The proposed unit mix will include a minimum 15% of two-bedroom units and a minimum of 10% three-bedroom units. Amenity space would be provided at a minimum rate of 1.6 m2 per unit for indoor amenity space and 1.5 m2 per unit for outdoor amenity space.
11The Tribunal was advised that the settlement had been endorsed by City Council on March 26, 2025, subject to the conditions outlined in paragraph [27].
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
12When considering an appeal of an application to amend a ZBA filed pursuant to s.34, The Tribunal must have regard to matters of Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act as well as regard to the decision of the City Council and the information considered by it pursuant to s.2.1(1) of the Act.
13Section 3(5) of the Act requires that decisions of the Tribunal affecting planning matters be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement ("PPS").
14The Tribunal must also be satisfied that the ZBA conforms with the Official Plans in effect.
15Overall, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the OPA, ZBA, and Conditions represent good planning and are in the public interest.
SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCE
16In support of the proposed settlement, the following Exhibits were filed:
- Exhibit 1: Affidavit of Jonathan Tinney dated May 5, 2025.
17Mr. Tinney is a registered planner and principal of a land-use planning consulting firm. Based on his experience and expertise outlined in his curriculum vitae, the Tribunal qualified him to provide opinion evidence as an expert in land-use planning.
18Mr. Tinney stated that the Subject Lands are in a community that is providing a greater range of housing types and increased living opportunities near transit. The Subject Lands are located within close proximity to the Mimico-Judson lands, a designated Regeneration Area undergoing significant transformation through the introduction of multiple higher-density master plan developments.
19Mr. Tinney submitted that the proposed development achieves a number of policy objectives for the land use types, given the designation of the Subject Lands. On lands designated as mixed-use, the proposal provides transit-supportive residential and commercial uses in a compact built form which appropriately frames street edges and provides a safe and comfortable pedestrian environment.
20Mr. Tinney advised that the proposed residential units on the Subject Lands will add population to an area which is well-served by surface and higher-order transit, promoting transit ridership and supporting existing retail and commercial facilities in the area. He continued that the self-storage building meets the objectives of the Core Employment Areas designation, maintaining the lands for employment uses and acting as a buffer to adjacent residential activities.
21Mr. Tinney stated that access to the site is provided through a consolidated private driveway from Royal York Road, with parking and loading areas strategically located at the rear of the Site.
22Mr. Tinney opined that the Settlement Proposal supports intensification and in-fill development of underutilized sites within a built-up area. He continued that the Subject Lands are located within the Mimico Major Transit Station Area ("MTSA") and the proposal will contribute to the urbanization of an MTSA on an Intensification Corridor with a mix of uses and new public amenities.
23Based on the foregoing, Mr. Tinney summarized that the Settlement Proposal represents good planning and that the proposed development addresses the relevant matters of Provincial interest identified in s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the PPS, and conforms with the applicable Official Plans.
24The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted planning opinion evidence of Mr. Tinney in its entirety. The Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal addresses the relevant matters of Provincial interest identified in s. 2 of the Act, is representative of good land use planning, is consistent with the PPS, and conforms with the applicable Official Plans. The Tribunal acknowledges the failure of City Council to make a decision on the ZBA but recognizes the endorsement of the Settlement Proposal on March 26, 2025.
25Mr. Tinney recommended that the Tribunal approve the Zoning instrument in principle, subject to the conditions outlined in paragraph [27] and withhold the Final Order for the purpose of allowing the Parties to finalize the instrument.
INTERIM ORDER
26THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction, or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph [27] below, and the Zoning By-law Amendment set out in Attachment 1 to this Interim Order, are hereby approved in principle.
27The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon confirmation of the City Solicitor of the following pre-requisite matters:
the Zoning By-law Amendment is in a final form, satisfactory to the Executive Director, Development Review, and to the City Solicitor;
the owner has submitted a revised pedestrian wind tunnel study, including the identification of any required mitigation measures to be implemented and secured through the Zoning By-law and/or Site Plan Control process to resolve wind safety exceedances and to improve pedestrian comfort, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
the owner has submitted a revised transportation impact study, including an updated analysis of vehicular circulation on the Lands, including the pick-up/drop-off area at the proposed residential lobby, access to the underground garage ramp and loading space, and access to the self-storage facility, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services;
the owner has provided a revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, to determine the stormwater run-off, 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;
the owner has made arrangements with the City and has entered into the appropriate agreement 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 revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, and revised Traffic Impact Study accepted by the General Manager, Transportation Services;
the submitted Rail Safety Report has been peer reviewed by a third-party consultant retained by the City at the owner’s expense, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review, as part of the Zoning By-law Amendment application; and,
the owner has addressed all outstanding issues raised by Urban Forestry, Tree Protection and Plan Review as they relate to the Zoning By-law Amendment, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Environment, Climate and Forestry.
28The Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Zoning By-Law Amendment, and the issuance of the Final Order.
29If the Parties do not submit the final draft of the Zoning By-law Amendment and provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order set out above in paragraph [27] above have been satisfied, and if the Parties do not request the issuance of the Final Order by Monday, November 24, 2025, the Applicant and the City shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by that date as to the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of the draft Zoning By-law Amendment and issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.
30The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by Telephone Conference Call to determine the additional timelines and deadline for the submission of the final form of the instrument, the satisfaction of the contingent prerequisites, and the issuance of the Final Order.
"W. Daniel Best"
W. DANIEL BEST
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.