Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: July 22, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000259
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A.
Applicant/Appellant: Mabelle Developments Limited
Subject: Site Plan – failed to make a decision.
Description: To facilitate site plan application which will provide 580 residential units.
Reference Number: 22 206826 WET 03 SA
Property Address: 25 Mabelle Avenue
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No: OLT-25-000259
OLT Case Name: Mabelle Developments Limited v. Toronto (City)
Heard: July 4, 2025, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Mabelle Developments Limited
Michael Foderick
Rachel Poon
Jamie Cole (In absentia)
City of Toronto
Michael Mohoney
Jessica Braun
Mabelle SPE
1583617 Ontario Limited et al
Paul DeMelo
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY Kurtis SMITH ON July 4, 2025
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1Mabelle Developments Limited (“Appellant”) filed an appeal of non-decision on their Site Plan Application (“Application”) for the property municipally known as 25 Mabelle Avenue (“Subject Property”) in the City of Toronto (“City”), pursuant to s. 114 (15) of the City of Toronto Act (“Act”).
2The Proposed Development will include 580 residential units, at grade commercial space and five levels of below grade parking.
3This was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) for this appeal.
PARTY STATUS REQUEST & MOTION HEARING SCHEDULED
4Prior to the CMC, the Tribunal did not receive any Party or Participant status requests. However, the Tribunal received email correspondence from Paul DeMelo, Counsel for Mabelle SPE/1583617 Ontario Limited et al(“Mabelle”) communicating that the registered owner of the Subject Property is his client, Mabelle.
5Mr. DeMelo attended the CMC requesting Party Status as well as suggesting that the appeal be held in abeyance and adjourned sine die as there is ongoing litigation between Mabelle and the Appellant relating to the agreement of purchase of the Subject Property. Leading to the looming questions relating to whether or not the Appellant is authorized to file the appeal.
6The City took no position on the Party Status request. Although they communicated that the appeal could be all for not and an insufficient use of funds if this is something that can not be constructed due to the pending litigation.
7Mr. Foderick, Counsel for the Appellant communicated that they do not support the Party Status request, suggested that it is an inappropriate use of Tribunal time, and stated that the appeal should not be held in abeyance during the parallel litigation matters. Furthermore, he communicated that there is caselaw that supports his position that his client is able to appeal the Application regardless of the current ownership of the Subject Property.
8Mr. Foderick suggested that a Motion hearing be scheduled to determine the jurisdiction relating to the Parties of the appeal, stating that Mabelle should only be granted Party status for the purpose of the Motion.
9The Tribunal considered the submissions of the Appellant, City and Mabelle. Since Mabelle is the current registered owner of the Subject Property, the Tribunal determined that they have a direct interest in these proceedings and can assist in determining the issues before the Tribunal.
10The Tribunal then scheduled a Video Hearing Motion, where the Appellant indicated and agreed that they will be the Moving Party of a three-part motion as follows:
a. Is the Appellant an agent of Mabelle? Or is it revoked?
b. Pursuant to s. 114 (15) of the City of Toronto Act is this a valid appeal?
c. Should the matter be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the civil litigation?
11The Parties will work cordially together to exchange the Motion materials as determined by Rule 10 of the Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure.
12The Motion Hearing will commence at 10 a.m. on Thursday, September 4, 2025, by Video Hearing.
13Parties are asked to log in to the Video Hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:
GoTo Meeting: https://meet.goto.com/558205565;
Access Code: 558-205-565
14Parties 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 GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html.
15Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: +1-647-497-9373 or (Toll Free) 1-888-299-1889. The Access Code is as indicated above.
16Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the Video Hearing to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.
ORDER
17THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS as follows:
a. Mabelle SPE/1583617 Ontario Limited et al is granted Party Status; and
b. That a Motion hearing is scheduled for Thursday, September 4, 2025, at 10 a.m. by Video Hearing as set out above.
“Kurtis Smith”
Kurtis Smith
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.