Benny Stark Limited v. Toronto (City), 2025 CanLII 68200

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

July 08, 2025

CASE NO.:

OLT-25-000095

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

Applicant and Appellant:

Benny Stark Limited

Subject:

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

Description:

To permit a mixed-use development comprised of seven buildings with 1818 units and a new a public park

Reference Number:

21 228594 STE 09 OZ

Property Address:

0, 119-125, 144, 160 & 200 Benny Stark Street and 116-122 Turnberry Avenue, Toronto

Municipality/UT:

Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-25-000095

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-25-000095

OLT Case Name:

Benny Stark Limited v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant:

Benny Stark Limited

Subject:

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

Description:

To permit a mixed-use development comprised of seven buildings with 1818 units and a new a public park

Reference Number:

21 228594 STE 09 OZ

Property Address:

0, 119-125, 144, 160 & 200 Benny Stark Street and 116-122 Turnberry Avenue, Toronto

Municipality/UT:

Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-25-000096

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-25-000095

OLT Case Name:

Benny Stark Limited v. Toronto (City)

BEFORE:

STEVEN T. MASTORAS

Tuesday, the 8^th

MEMBER

day of July, 2025

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

“Matthew D.J. Bryan”

MATTHEW D.J. BRYAN

REGISTRAR

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

PROCEDURAL ORDER

Purpose of the Procedural Order:

Case management conferences are scheduled by the Tribunal to organize the hearing. This sample procedural order is provided to identify who may participate in the hearing, the issues in dispute, and the matters that are required to be carried out before the hearing. The attachment to this sample procedural order explains the meaning of a number of terms in the sample procedural order, such as a party or a participant.

The Tribunal recommends that the appellant, municipality, the applicant (if applicable), or those who wish to seek party status in this proceeding, meet, remotely if necessary, to discuss this sample procedural order before the date of the case management conference and try to identify the issues and process they want the Tribunal to order following the conference. The Tribunal will hear submissions on the content of this sample procedural order at the case management conference and issue a procedural order at a later date.

If you are not represented by a lawyer, you should prepare by reviewing the Tribunal’s Video Hearings Guide, and the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), particularly Rule 20, which are available on the Tribunal’s website.

ISSUE DATE: July 08, 2025 CASE NO.: OLT-25-000095

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

Applicant and Appellant:

Benny Stark Limited

Subject:

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

Description:

To permit a mixed-use development comprised of seven buildings with 1818 units and a new a public park

Reference Number:

21 228594 STE 09 OZ

Property Address:

0, 119-125, 144, 160 & 200 Benny Stark Street and 116-122 Turnberry Avenue, Toronto

Municipality/UT:

Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-25-000095

OLT Lead Case No:

OLT-25-000095

OLT Case Name:

Benny Stark Limited v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant:

Benny Stark Limited

Subject:

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

Description:

To permit a mixed-use development comprised of seven buildings with 1818 units and a new a public park

Reference Number:

21 228594 STE 09 OZ

Property Address:

0, 119-125, 144, 160 & 200 Benny Stark Street and 116-122 Turnberry Avenue, Toronto

Municipality/UT:

Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-25-000096

OLT Lead Case No:

OLT-25-000095

OLT Case Name:

Benny Stark Limited 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 hearing will begin on Monday February 2, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. by video hearing.

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. The procedural order deadlines are found in Attachment "1".

4. 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).

5. 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. An issue can be removed from the Issues List without a formal order of the Tribunal with the consent of all Parties.

6. The order of evidence is set out in Attachment "4". The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

7. Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.

8. Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearings Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. If the applicant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing, the applicant shall provide copies of the revised proposal, including any revised plans, reports, and studies, to the other parties on or before Friday September 5, 2025 (150 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence). The Applicant acknowledges that any revisions to the plans or the introduction of any new or revised reports, except those that are very minor or filed in accordance with paragraph 17 and amount to "true" or "proper" reply that could not reasonably have been anticipated or foreseen prior to receipt of the other parties' witness statements, after that date without the consent of the parties may be grounds for a request to adjourn the hearing.

10. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before Friday October 3, 2025 (122 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence) 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 Acknowledgement of Expert Duty form(s), and the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified.

11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Friday October 17, 2025 (108 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence) 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 the remaining issues to be addressed at the hearing with the Tribunal’s case coordinator on or before Friday October 31, 2025 (94 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence).

12. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 14 below. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony. For greater certainty, each expert witness statement must comply with the minimum content requirements specified in Rule 7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. If the expert witness has prepared any report(s) that they intend to rely on at the hearing, and which did not form part of the submissions made to the City, such report(s) shall be provided to the other Parties at the same as the delivery of expert witness statements, as in Section 14.

13. Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence as in paragraph 14 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 14 below.

14. On or before Friday December 19, 2025 (45 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the Tribunal’s case coordinator in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

15. On or before Friday December 19, 2025 (45 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), 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 permitted by the Tribunal.

16. On or before Friday January 9, 2026 (24 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

17. On or before Monday January 12, 2026 (21 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case coordinator a written response to any written evidence in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

18. On or before Friday January 23, 2026 (10 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), 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.

19. 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.

20. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a Joint Document Book which shall be shared with the Tribunal’s case coordinator in accordance with paragraph 23 below on or before Friday January 23, 2026 (10 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence).

21. A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

22. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Friday January 23, 2026 (10 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), 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 preliminary hearing plan. Any and all witnesses shall be available on the identified date(s), unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal or on consent of parties. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the preliminary hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

23. All filings shall be submitted electronically. 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. All documents to be filed with the Tribunal shall be organized, tabbed and digitally searchable.

24. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

This Member is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal

BEFORE:

Name of Member:

Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

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.

ATTACHMENT "1"

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE

EVENT

1. Friday September 5, 2025 (150 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans, reports, and studies (if any)

2. Friday October 3, 2025 (122 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)

3. Friday October 17, 2025 (108 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

Experts meeting prior to this date

4. Friday October 31, 2025 (94 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

Statement of agreed facts filed with the Tribunal

5. Friday December 19, 2025 (52 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

Exchange of witness statements, summoned witness outlines, expert reports and participant statements

6. Friday January 9, 2026 (24 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

Parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required

7. Monday January 12, 2026 (21 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

Exchange of reply witness statements (if any)

8. Friday January 23, 2026 (10 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

Exchange of visual evidence (if any)

9. Friday January 23, 2026 (10 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

Hearing plan filed with the Tribunal

10. Friday January 23, 2026 (10 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

Joint document book filed with the Tribunal

11. Monday February 2, 2026

Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT "2"

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

PARTIES:

1. Benny Stark Limited

Michael Foderick and Jamie Cole

McCarthy Tétrault LLP

Suite 5300, TD Bank Tower

Box 48, 66 Wellington Street West

Toronto, ON M5K 1E6

Email: mfoderick@mccarthy.ca and jpcole@mccarthy.ca

Tel: (416) 601-8300

2. City of Toronto

Cameron McKeich and Adrienne deBacker Metro Hall 55 John Street, 26^th Floor Toronto, ON M5V 3C6

Email: cameron.mckeich@toronto.ca and adrienne.debacker@toronto.ca Tel: (416) 392-8047

3. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

Tim Duncan and Matthew Rutledge Fogler, Rubinoff LLP Scotia Plaza 40 King Street West, Suite 2400 Toronto, ON M5H 3Y2

Email: tduncan@foglers.com and mrutledge@foglers.com

Tel: (416) 941-8817

PARTICIPANTS:

1. Fern Santos Furtado fernsf2005@gmail.com

ATTACHMENT "3"

LIST OF ISSUES

Note: The identification of an issue on this Issues List is intended to provide notice to all parties that a party will lead evidence and/or argument on the matter. This identification does not serve as an acknowledgement of relevancy to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing.

A party may revise their Issues List in response to any revised proposal within 20 days of receipt of such revised proposal.

CITY OF TORONTO:

Planning Act

1. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment have sufficient regard for the matters of provincial interest identified under Section 2 of the Planning Act, including but not limited to Sections 2(a), (h), (o), (f), (i), (k), (r), (s)?

Provincial Planning Statement

2. Is the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024, including but not limited to Sections 2.2, 2.4.2, 2.8.1, 2.9, 3.5.2, 3.6, 3.9, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.1.5, 6.1.5, 6.1.6, 6.1.7)?

City of Toronto Official Plan

3. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment conform to the City of Toronto Official Plan, including sections 2.2.4, 2.3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.2.1, 3.2.2. 3.2.3, 3.4, 4.6, 5.2?

4. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment conform to the Council Adopted Keele-St. Clair Secondary Plan (OPA 537), including but not limited to Sections 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 3, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.10, 4.12, 5, 6, 7, 8.1,8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.12, 9.1, 9.2?

City of Toronto Guidelines

5. Does the proposal respond appropriately to and meet the intent and purpose of:

a. The Tall Building Design Guidelines with respect to Guidelines 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 2.4, 2.6, 2.7, 3.2.2, 4.1 and 4.3;

b. Growing Up Urban Design Guidelines: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities;

c. Pet Friendly Design Guidelines

Toronto Green Standard

6. Does the proposed developed meet the requirements of the Toronto Green Standard?

Site Specific Issues

7. Is the site organization and built form of the proposed development appropriate, including:

a. Are the proposed building heights and massing appropriate, and in keeping with the existing and planned context for the site?

b. Does the proposed built form appropriately transition to adjacent Neighborhoods and the public realm, and maximize access to direct sunlight on the public realm?

c. Does the site organization create inviting spaces for pedestrians by providing generous building setbacks, public sidewalks with tree planting and safe and comfortable pedestrian connections?

d. Does the proposal limit negative impact on planned and existing pedestrian movement?

e. Are the shadow impacts from the proposed development appropriate?

f. Are the wind impacts from the proposed development acceptable?

8. Does the proposal represent good and appropriate land use planning, having regard for:

a. appropriate provision of new parks and open spaces that contributes to a pedestrian/cycling network;

b. appropriate provision of new public roads and lanes, including any interim condition if required prior to Transportation Master Plan (“TMP”) improvements being constructed;

c. appropriate implementation of the St. Clair Avenue West Area TMP;

d. timing of the delivery of the St. Clair-Old Weston SmartTrack Station;

e. adequate municipal infrastructure;

f. appropriate provision of affordable housing;

g. appropriate provision of non-residential uses;

h. provision of appropriate ravine protection, including but not limited to:

i. has the Ravine and Natural Feature Protection limit been accurately plotted on all relevant drawings?

ii. have the arborist report and tree protection plan been revised to include all Ravine and Natural Feature Protection regulated trees within 12 metres of any proposed construction, including construction and grading for the Keele Street realignment?

iii. has a stewardship/naturalization plan been provided to the satisfaction of the City?

iv. will the privately owned ravine lands be redesignated to Natural Areas?

v. will the privately owned ravine lands be re-zoned to Open Space - Natural?

vi. has tree-based compensation in the form of planting or cash in lieu in accordance with RNFP current standards been provided for the trees that will be injured or destroyed by the proposed development and road alignment?

i. provision of appropriate measures related to Natural Heritage including but not limited to:

i. Have natural heritage values and potential negative impacts to the natural heritage system been sufficiently recognized, and appropriate mitigation measures identified to minimize adverse impacts, and where possible restore and enhance the natural heritage system?

ii. Have appropriate buffer areas been identified to help protect natural features and functions from negative impacts associated with the proposed development?

iii. Does the proposed development demonstrate no negative impacts to significant natural features and their ecological functions?

9. Has a parkland dedication of an appropriate size, location, and configuration been proposed?

10. Has the proposed development provided adequate number and type of loading spaces to support the development?

11. Is the proposed vehicular parking supply, including accessible parking supply, appropriate?

12. Is the proposed bicycle parking supply and facilities adequate to support the development?

13. Does the Transportation Impact Study demonstrate appropriate TDM, site circulation, access, parking, loading and related concerns in accordance with the City of Toronto guidelines?

14. Are the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment good planning and in the public interest?

Implementation

15. If the requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments are approved by the Tribunal, in whole or in part, should the Tribunal’s final order be withheld until it has been advised by the City Solicitor that:

a. the final form and content of the draft Official Plan Amendment is to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review and the City Solicitor;

b. the final form and content of the draft Zoning By-law Amendment is to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review and the City Solicitor;

c. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing issues a decision on Official Plan Amendment 537 related to the Keele-St. Clair Secondary Plan;

d. the owner has, at their sole cost and expense:

i. submitted a revised Functional Servicing, Stormwater Management, and Hydrogeological Reports for review and acceptance to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, in consultation with the General Manager, Toronto Water. The reports will determine whether the municipal water and fire flow, sanitary and storm sewer capacity can support the proposed development and whether upgrades or improvements of the existing municipal infrastructure are required;

ii. entered into a financially secured agreement for the construction of any improvements to the municipal infrastructure, to the satisfaction of the City, should it be determined that upgrades and road improvements are required to support the development, according to the Transportation Impact Study accepted by the Executive Director, Development Review and the Functional Servicing Report accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, in consultation with the General Manager, Toronto Water;

e. submitted a revised Transportation Impact Study and Transportation Demand Management Plan to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services;

f. submitted a revised Compatibility Mitigation, Environmental Noise Feasibility and Railway Vibration Studies including peer review to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review;

g. submitted a revised Pedestrian Level Wind Study to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner, City Planning and Executive Director, Development Review;

h. submitted a revised Natural Heritage Impact Study, to the satisfaction of Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.

i. submitted an Arborist Report, and Tree Preservation Plan to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Environment, Climate and Forestry and,

j. submitted a phasing plan to demonstrate the order in which the various elements of development would be delivered, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review.

16. If the proposed development is approved in whole or in part, should the Tribunal Order be withheld until the Tribunal receives confirmation from the City Solicitor that a Holding provision (H) has been included in the final form of the site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment, not to be lifted until such time as the following conditions are satisfied:

a. Should it be determined that infrastructure upgrades are required to support the development according to the accepted Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report and/or the Transportation Impact Study, or until such time as the planned improvements identified in the St. Clair Avenue West Area Transportation Master Plan are delivered, a Holding Provision be included in the final form of the site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment; and the Holding Provision not be lifted until such a time as the owner has made satisfactory arrangements, including entering into appropriate agreement(s) with the City for the design and construction of any improvements to municipal infrastructure and the provision of financial securities to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, and the General Manager, Transportation Services.

TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY:

1. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendment have regard to matters of provincial interest, as set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections 2(h), (m), (n), (o) and (p)?

2. Have the hazardous lands, as defined in the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, been accurately identified through the appropriate technical studies?

3. Are the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendment, consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, including policies 5.1.1, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.4, and 5.2.8?

4. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendment, conform with the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, including policies 3.4.8, 3.4.9, and 3.4.10?

5. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law have appropriate regard for and meet the intent and purpose of the general regulations of the City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013 applying to all zones?

6. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment have appropriate regard for the policies contained in the 2014 Living City Policies for Planning and Development in the Watersheds of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, including policies 7.3.1, 7.3.2, 7.4.2.1, 7.4.3.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2.2(b), 7.5.2.4(a), 8.4.4, 8.4.5, 8.4.8, 8.4.10, 8.4.11, and 8.5.1.1?

ATTACHMENT "4"

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

IN CHIEF:

1. Benny Stark Limited

2. City of Toronto

3. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

REPLY:

1. Benny Stark Limited