Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 29, 2025 CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000290

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: 2559261 Ontario Inc. Appellant: 389 Cleveland Street LP Appellant: Brosko Investments Limited and others

Subject: Zoning By-law Description: Purpose of these amendments is to implement the policies of the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan (Official Plan Amendment 405) Reference Number: ZBL 63-2024 Property Address: Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan Area Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000290 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000290 OLT Case Name: 2559261 Ontario Inc. et al. v Toronto (City)

Heard: July 7, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
City of Toronto	Gabe Szobel Jessica Braun
Multiple Appellants	Refer to Schedule 1

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BOBKA ON JULY 7, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This was the third Case Management Conference (“CMC”) for appeals brought pursuant to s. 34(19) of the Planning Act (“Act”) regarding the passing of Zoning By-law No. 63-2024 (“ZBL”) by the Council of the City of Toronto (“City”) relating to lands located within the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan area.

2In advance of the CMC, the Tribunal was notified of the following:

a. The appeal by MOD Developments (Redpath) Limited Partnership was withdrawn by letter dated December 17, 2024; and

b. The appeal by 389 Cleveland Street LP was withdrawn by letter dated June 13, 2025.

The Tribunal acknowledged the withdrawal of these appeals by letter dated June 26, 2025.

3In early June, the Tribunal received an updated Procedural Order (“PO”) for consideration, which proposed, on consent, the addition of Attachment 6 outlining the ‘Terms of Adjournment for Appeals to Zoning By-law 63-2024’ (“Attachment 6”).

4The Tribunal was also advised prior to this CMC that a number of the Appellants were scoping their appeals to be site specific and were seeking to adjourn their respective appeals sine die.

UPDATE

5Counsel for the City highlighted the addition of Attachment 6, which was circulated and agreed upon by the Parties. Mr. Szobel advised that all of the Appellants had now agreed to scope their appeals to be site specific and were seeking to adjourn their appeals sine die in accordance with the terms in Attachment 6. As a result, the 10 days scheduled for the Hearing of this matter in October 2025 could be released by the Tribunal.

6Through their respective Counsel, the Appellants each confirmed their agreement with this path forward; however, several Parties advised of the need for some minor administrative changes to Attachment 6 in order to better reflect the circumstances of their respective situations. The City confirmed that they were agreeable to these minor administrative changes.

7Following a brief discussion, it was highlighted that with the release of the October hearing dates, the PO would not need to be formally issued, but that it might be helpful to attach the form of the PO (without any specific dates) to the Tribunal’s Decision, should it be required in the future. Upon consideration, the Tribunal directed that the form of the PO, including the changes to Attachment 6, be revised as discussed and submitted to the Tribunal by 12 p.m. on Friday, July 18, 2025. Mr. Szobel agreed to take the lead regarding the delivery of the form of the PO.

8Counsel for the City also advised of its intent to bring forward a motion (most likely in writing) for partial approval of the ZBL to bring into force and effect those parts not under appeal. The Parties did not anticipate the need for a subsequent CMC to be scheduled at this time but were advised that one could be requested through the Case Coordinator should the need arise.

9The revised form of the PO has since been received and considered. It is noted that the Tribunal made some required revisions for the Parties to incorporate into any final draft PO that is sent to the Tribunal for approval. The revised form of the PO is attached to this Decision as Schedule 2 as requested by Parties. To be clear, the Tribunal has not approved the form of PO attached as Schedule 2.

10Following the CMC, the Tribunal also received correspondence from the City and Counsel for G.R. Feldman Investments Ltd. (“Feldman”) indicating that as Feldman is “the only appellant with an approved zoning by-law … the terms of Attachment 6 to the form of Procedural Order do not address it. [As such,] The City and Ms. Bassani have agreed to adjourn this appeal sine die on the basis that any decision made or partial approval granted with respect to Zoning By-Law 63-2024 in the general proceedings on Zoning By-Law 63-2024 shall be without prejudice to Feldman’s site-specific appeal and shall not have the effect of limiting Feldman’s rights to litigate Zoning By-Law 63-2024 as it relates to Feldman’s site.”

ORDER

11The Tribunal acknowledges that the appeals of MOD Developments (Redpath) Limited Partnership and 389 Cleveland Street LP have each been withdrawn and orders that:

a. The remaining appeals are now scoped to be site specific and these matters are adjourned sine die;

b. The hearing dates for the 10-day Hearing scheduled to commence Monday, October 6, 2025 are hereby released; and,

c. The Parties are to provide a written status update to the Tribunal no later than one year from the date of this Order.

“S. Bobka”

S. BOBKA MEMBER

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

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

SCHEDULE 1

Appellant	Counsel
2	G.R. Feldman Investments Ltd.
4	Brosko Investments Limited
5	ZWD Developments Limited
6	The RW 124 Development Corporation, The RW 136 Development Corporation and The RW 77 Land Corporation
7	Calmco Inc.
8	OEF 77 Davisville L.P. (Ontario)
10	QR MAR Holdings Limited Partnership (Wells Gordon Limited)
11	Korkin Developments Limited
12	K&G Group
13	CentreCourt Properties Inc.
14	2559261 Ontario Inc.
15	Menkes Brownlow Inc.

*Note: Initially there were 15 Appellants; however, three Parties have now withdrawn their appeals. For consistency and ease of reference, the Tribunal has maintained the Appellant numbers as they were first assigned.

SCHEDULE 2

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000290

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: 2559261 Ontario Inc. Appellant: 389 Cleveland Street LP Appellant: Abraham J. Green (225 Davisville Avenue) Ltd. Appellant: Brosko Investments Limited and others

Subject: Zoning By-law Description: Purpose of these amendments is to implement the policies of the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan (Official Plan Amendment 405) Reference Number: ZBL 63-2024 Property Address: Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan Area Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000290 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000290 OLT Case Name: 2559261 Ontario Inc. et al. v Toronto (City)

PROCEDURAL ORDER

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 Date to be determined (“tbd”) at 10:00 a.m. as directed in the Tribunal's Decision and Order.

3. The length of the hearing will be about 10 (Ten) 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 generally found in Attachment 1.

4. The Parties and Participants identified at the Case Management Conference are listed in Attachment 2 to this Order.

5. The Issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3 to this Order. The Parties will attempt to resolve the issues prior to the hearing on the merits of the appeal. There will be no changes to the Issues List unless the Tribunal permits, and a Party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6. The order of evidence is 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.

7. Any person intending to participate in the hearing shall provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal. Any such person who retains a representative must advise the other Parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number.

8. If the hearing is to proceed electronically, 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 (https://olt.gov.on.ca/guides/).

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. 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, the expert witness(es)' curriculum vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert Duty form(s), and the order in which the witnesses will be called. This list must be delivered at least one hundred and twenty one (121) calendar days before the hearing (on or before Date tbd). For expert witnesses, a Party is to identify the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified. Any challenges to the witness, including 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 Date tbd) (102 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence).

10. Expert witnesses in the same discipline(s) shall have at least one meeting before the hearing to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. The experts shall prepare a list of any agreed facts and the remaining issues to be addressed at the hearing, and provide this list to all of the Parties and the Tribunal at least fourteen days (14) days prior to date for Expert Witness Statements as stated in Section 14 (on or before Date tbd ), if agreement is reached.

11. 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, and the curriculum vitae and Acknowledgment of Expert Duty Form previously provided as in Section 9. Copies must be provided as in Section 14. 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.

12. A witness or participant must provide to the Tribunal and the Parties a witness statement or participant statement, respectively, on or before Date tbd (sixty-seven (67) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing) or the witness may not give oral evidence at the hearing. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

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 Section 14.

14. On or before Date tbd (sixty-eight (67) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing), the Parties shall provide copies of their expert witness statements (full disclosure including reports) to the other Parties.

15. On or before Date tbd (forty-five (45) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing) the Parties may provide to all other Parties a written response to any written evidence.

16. On or before Date tbd (forty (40) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing), the Parties shall advise the Tribunal of whether any hearings dates scheduled for this matter may be released from the Tribunal's calendar. This request may only be made on consent of all of the Parties. If no hearing dates are intended to be released from the Tribunal's calendar, no Party is required to advise the Tribunal anything further in that regard.

17. On or before Date tbd (thirty (32) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing), the Parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other Parties. The Tribunal and all Parties shall be notified if a model will be used, all Parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the scheduled commencement of the hearing.

18. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. Such a motion shall be in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rule 10, which requires that the moving Party provide copies of the motion to all other Parties at least 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

19. A Party who provides a witness’ written evidence 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.

20. On or before Date tbd (fourteen (14) days before the commencement of the hearing), the Parties shall prepare and file a detailed Work Plan that identifies the following, at a minimum: the identified Parties participating in the Hearing Event, preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the date a witness is intended to attend the Tribunal, the identified witness name/expertise, and the approximate time allotted for Examination in Chief, Cross Examination and any re-examination (if any) (the “Work Plan”). The Work Plan should be adhered to guide the Hearing Event to the best ability of all the Parties, and any and all witnesses shall be available on the identified date(s), unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the Work Plan throughout the Hearing Event.

21. The Parties shall prepare a Joint Document Book on or before Date tbd (20 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), and which one (1) hard copy will be filed with the Tribunal as soon as practicable in advance of the Hearing. All Parties must be served with the Joint Document Book in paper or an accessible electronic format in accordance with Section 22.

22. All filing of documents and materials shall be electronic to the Tribunal, the Parties and Participants (if any). The Tribunal will be provided a hard copy of documents and materials in advance of the hearing event as soon as practicable. 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 and such materials will be filed in accordance with directions contained in the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, dated July 2, 2020, or as may be amended. Section 22 applies regardless if the hearing event is in-person or electronic.

23. 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.

24. The Tribunal may conduct mediation on consent of all Parties, on consent of those Parties who wish to participate in mediation, or if the Tribunal sees fit.

25. The purpose of this Procedural Order and the meaning of the terms used in this Procedural Order are set out in Attachment 5.

26. A party who elects to adjourn its appeal in accordance with the terms of adjournment in Attachment 6 shall not be required to comply with the requirements set out in Sections 9-21 above and the issues associated with that appeal in Attachment 3 will not be addressed at the hearing that is scheduled to commence on Date tbd.

This Member is [not] seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
(120 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
(100 days prior to hearing)	Last date to challenge identification of expert witness
(83 days prior to hearing)	Experts meeting prior to this date
(83 days prior to hearing)	Agreed Statement of Facts
(68 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
(45 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
(40 days prior to hearing)	Parties to Advise Tribunal if any hearing dates are to be released from the hearing calendar (if any)
(32 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
(14 days prior to hearing)	Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal
(20 days prior to hearing)	Finalize Joint Document Book
Date to be determined	Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

A. PARTIES

	Counsel/*Agent
1)	City of Toronto Gabe Szobel/Jessica Braun City of Toronto, Legal Services Metro Hall, 26th Floor 55 John Street Toronto, Ontario M5V 3C6 E-mail: gabe.szobel@toronto.ca jessica.braun@toronoto.ca Tel:(416) 338-1889/392-7237 Fax: 416-397-5624
2)	G.R. Feldman Investments Ltd. Maggie Bassani Aird and Berlis LLP 181 Bay Street, #1800 Toronto, ON M5J 2T9 E-mail: mbassani@airdberlis.com Tel.: (416) 865-3401 Fax: (416) 863-1515
3)	OEF 77 Davisville L.P. (Ontario) Mark Flowers Davies Howe Partners LLP 425 Adelaide Street W. 10th Floor Toronto, ON M5V 3C1 E-mail: markf@davieshowe.com Tel.: (416) 977-7088 Fax: (416) 977-8931
4)	ZWD Developments Limited Marc Kemerer McMillan 181 Bay Street #4400 Toronto, ON M5J 2T3 E-mail: marc.kemerer@mcmillan.ca Tel: (416) 865-7222 Fax: (416) 865-7048
5)	The RW 124 Development Corporation, The RW 136 Development Corporation, The RW 77 Land Corporation, Brosko Investments Limited Joe Hoffman Goodmans LLP 333 Bay Street #3400 Toronto, ON M5H 2S7 E-mail: jhoffman@goodmans.ca Tel:: (416) 597-5168 Fax:
6)	2559261 Ontario Inc. CentreCourt Properties Inc. K&G Group Korkin Developments Limited QR MAR Holdings Limited Partnership David Bronskill Goodmans LLP 333 Bay Street #3400 Toronto, ON M5H 2S7 E-mail: dbronskill@goodmans.ca Tel: (416) 597-4299 Fax:
7)	Calmco Inc. Menkes Brownlow Inc. Adam Brown Jessica Smuskowitz Sean Brown Brown Dryer 40 Holly Street Suite 404 Toronto, ON, M4S 3C3 E-mail: adam@shermanbrown.com jessica@@shermanbrown.com sean@shermanbrown.com Tel: (416) 222-0344

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUES LIST

NOTE: The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the Tribunal or any Party that the issue is either relevant or appropriate. 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 Tribunal have jurisdiction over such matters in each circumstance. Accordingly, no Party shall advance an issue not identified on the Issues List without leave of the Tribunal.

Issues List of Calmco Inc. – City of Toronto By-law 63-2024

Provincial Legislation and Policy

1. Does By-law 63-2024 have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections (e), (f), (h), (j), (k), (m), (n), (p), (q) and (r)?

Is By-law 63-2024 consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2024), including policies 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1,3, 2.1.4, 2.1.5, 2.1.6, 2.2.1, 2.3.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.9, 3.1, 3.2, 6.1.5, 6.1.7, 6.1.12 and 6.2.1?

2. Does the Planning Act provide the necessary statutory authority to impose minimum unit size requirements through a zoning by-law?

City of Toronto Official Plan Policies

3. Does By-law 63-2024 conform to and/or maintain the intent and purpose of the City of Toronto Official Plan, including the following policies:

a. Chapter 2 – Shaping the City: 2.2.1, 2.3.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 2.4.4

b. Chapter 3 – Building a Successful City: 3.1.3.1, 3.1.3.3, 3.1.3.5, 3.1.3.6, 3.1.3.7, 3.1.4.7,3.1.4.8, 3.1.4.9, 3.1.4.10, 3.1.4.11, 3.2.1.1, 3.5.1.3

c. Chapter 4 – Land Use Designations: 4.2.2, 4.2.3

d. Chapter 5 – Implementation: Making Things Happen: 5.2.1.1, 5.2.1.2, 5.2.1.3, 5.2.1.4, 5.2.1.5, 5.3.1.1

4. Does By-law 63-2024 conform to and/or maintain the intent and purpose of the City of Toronto Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan?

5. Does By-law 63-2024 conform to and/or maintain the intent and purpose of Council-adopted Official Plan Amendment 570, and in particular, Site and Area Specific Policies 680, 722 and 723?

Non-Statutory Planning Documents

6. Does By-law 63-2024 appropriately respond to and contribute towards achieving the strategies outlined in the 2041 Regional Transportation Plan for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area?

7. Do the performance standards in By-law 63-2024 have adequate regard to the City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines?

8. Are the development standards with respect to the following matters appropriate and do they represent good planning:

a. maximum building heights;

b. minimum densities;

c. minimum landscaping requirements;

d. minimum setback and stepback requirements;

e. maximum floor plate size;

f. maximum encroachment of balconies into building setbacks;

g. minimum separation distances between main walls; and

h. minimum unit sizes?

9. Do the built form standards in the By-law have appropriate regard for the existing and planned context?

Good Planning and Public Interest

10. Does By-law 63-2024 represent good planning and is it in the public interest?

11. Is the By-law drafted with sufficient clarity to allow for consistent interpretation and application?

12. Are the transition clauses in the By-law appropriate?

Issues List of Brosko Investments Limited

City of Toronto By-law 63-2024

1. Does By-law 63-2024 (the “By-law”) have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections (e), (f), (h), (j), (k), (m), (n), (p), (q) and (r)?

2. Is the By-law consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), including policies 2.2, 2.3.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.9, 3.1, 3.2, 6.1.5, 6.1.6, 6.1.7, 6.1.12 and 6.2.1?

3. Does the By-law conform with the City of Toronto Official Plan, including the following sections/policies:

a. Chapter 2 – Shaping the City: 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.3.1, 2.4.4

b. Chapter 3 – Building a Successful City: 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.2.1, 3.5

c. Chapter 4 – Land Use Designations: 4.2.2

d. Chapter 5 – Implementation: Making Things Happen: 5.2.1, 5.3.1.1

4. Does the By-law conform with the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan?

5. Does the By-law conform with Official Plan Amendment 570, and in particular, Site and Area Specific Policy 680?

6. Are the By-law’s non-residential use permissions appropriate and do they represent good planning? Should the range of non-residential uses permitted be expanded?

7. Are the development standards with respect to the following matters appropriate and do they represent good planning:

a. maximum building heights;

b. minimum densities;

c. minimum landscaping requirements;

d. minimum setback and stepback requirements;

e. maximum floor plate size;

f. maximum encroachment of balconies into building setbacks;

g. minimum separation distances between main walls; and

h. minimum unit sizes?

8. Do the built form standards in the By-law have appropriate regard for the existing and planned context?

9. Does the By-law provide sufficient flexibility to support as-of-right development in accordance with the Secondary Plan?

10. Does the Planning Act provide the necessary statutory authority to impose minimum unit size requirements through a zoning by-law?

11. Is the By-law drafted with sufficient clarity to allow for consistent interpretation and application?

Issues List of The RW 124 Development Corporation, The RW 136 Development Corporation and The RW 77 Land Corporation

City of Toronto By-law 63-2024

12. Does By-law 63-2024 (the “By-law”) have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections (e), (f), (h), (j), (k), (m), (n), (p), (q) and (r)?

13. Is the By-law consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), including policies 2.2, 2.3.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.9, 3.1, 3.2, 6.1.5, 6.1.6, 6.1.7, 6.1.12 and 6.2.1?

14. Does the By-law conform to the City of Toronto Official Plan, including the following sections/policies:

a. Chapter 2 – Shaping the City: 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.3.1, 2.4.4

b. Chapter 3 – Building a Successful City: 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.2.1, 3.5

c. Chapter 4 – Land Use Designations: 4.2.2

d. Chapter 5 – Implementation: Making Things Happen: 5.2.1, 5.3.1.1

15. Does the By-law conform to the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan?

16. Does the By-law conform to Official Plan Amendment 570, and in particular, Site and Area Specific Policy 680 and 723?

17. Are the development standards with respect to the following matters appropriate and do they represent good planning:

a. maximum building heights;

b. minimum densities;

c. minimum landscaping requirements;

d. minimum setback and stepback requirements;

e. maximum floor plate size;

f. maximum encroachment of balconies into building setbacks;

g. minimum separation distances between main walls; and

h. minimum unit sizes?

18. Do the built form standards in the By-law have appropriate regard for the existing and planned context?

19. Does the Planning Act provide the necessary statutory authority to impose minimum unit size requirements through a zoning by-law?

20. Is the By-law drafted with sufficient clarity to allow for consistent interpretation and application?

21. Are the transition clauses in the By-law appropriate?

22. Does the By-law require modification to reflect the redevelopment approvals of zoning by-law amendments for the lands known municipally as 124 and 136 Broadway Avenue and 77 Roehampton Avenue?

OLT-24-000290

Issues List of ZWD Developments Limited

25 Davisville Avenue

Updated 2 December 2024

Provincial Legislation and Policy

1. Does By-law 63-2024 have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections (e), (f), (h), (j), (k), (m), (n), (p), (q) and (r)?

2. Is By-law 63-2024 consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, including policies 2.1.4, 2.1.6, 2.2.1, 2.3.1.1, 2.3.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 2.3.1.4, 2.3.1.5, 2.4.1.1, 2.4.1.2, 2.4.1.3, 2.4.2.2, 2.4.2.3, 2.4.2.6, 2.4.3.1, 2.9.1, 3.1.1, 3.2.2, 6.1.5, 6.1.6, 6.1.12 and 6.2.1.

City of Toronto Official Plan Policies

3. Does By-law 63-2024 conform to and/or maintain the intent and purpose of the City of Toronto Official Plan, including the following policies:

a. Chapter 2 – Shaping the City: 2.2.1, 2.3.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 2.4.4

b. Chapter 3 – Building a Successful City: 3.1.3.1, 3.1.3.3, 3.1.3.5, 3.1.3.6, 3.1.3.7, 3.1.4.9, 3.1.4.10, 3.1.4.11, 3.2.1.1, 3.5.1.3

c. Chapter 4 – Land Use Designations: 4.2.2

d. Chapter 5 – Implementation: Making Things Happen: 5.2.1.1, 5.2.1.2, 5.2.1.3, 5.2.1.4, 5.2.1.5, 5.3.1.1

4. Does By-law 63-2024 conform to and/or maintain the intent and purpose of the City of Toronto Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan, including the following policies:

a. Chapter 1 – Vision: 1.2.1.e, 1.3.3

b. Chapter 2 – Area Structure: 2.1.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.1.1, 2.4.1.2, 2.4.1.3, 2.4.2, 2.4.4

c. Chapter 3 – Parks and Public Realm: 3.2.8

d. Chapter 5 – Built Form: 5.1.1, 5.3.1, 5.3.4, 5.3.5, 5.3.31, 5.3.33, 5.3.34, 5.3.35, 5.3.36, 5.3.38, 5.3.41, 5.3.45, 5.4.3.h

e. Chapter 7 – Housing: 7.1

5. Does By-law 63-2024 conform to and/or maintain the intent and purpose of Council-adopted Official Plan Amendment 570, and in particular, Site and Area Specific Policy 722?

Non-Statutory Planning Documents

6. Does By-law 63-2024 appropriately respond to and contribute towards achieving the strategies outlined in the 2041 Regional Transportation Plan for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area?

7. Do the performance standards in By-law 63-2024 have adequate regard to the City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines?

Site and Area Specific Matters

8. Does By-law 63-2024 appropriately account for the Subject Site’s contextual and physical attributes?

9. Are the regulations proposed by By-law 63-2024 appropriate given the urban nature of the Subject Site and reflect existing and recent approvals in the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan area, including in the Davisville Apartment Neighbourhoods designation?

10. Does By-law 63-2024 appropriately consider the Subject Site’s location along the western edge of the Apartment Neighbourhoods designation in the Official Plan and Davisville Apartment Neighbourhoods designation in the in the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan?

11. Does By-law 63-2024 appropriately consider the Subject Site’s adjacency to the lands just west of the site, which are designated Mixed Use Areas in the Official Plan and Mixed Use Areas ‘A’ in the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan?

12. Are By-law 63-2024’s minimum landscaping requirements for the Davisville Apartment Neighbourhoods designation too onerous given the urban nature of the Subject Site? Is the requirement for a minimum of 40% of the area of the lot for landscaping appropriate, particularly when considering that recent Zoning By-law Amendment approvals within the Davisville Apartment Neighbourhoods designation, including applications which were recommended for approval by City Planning staff, are exempt from providing any minimum landscaping requirements?

13. Does By-law 63-2024’s proposed maximum permitted building height of 30 storeys (93 metres) prevent the Subject Site from developing with a contextually appropriate built form and building type when considering the scale of existing, approved, and proposed developments located within the Subject Site’s vicinity?

14. Is By-law 63-2024’s minimum street yard setback requirement of 6.0 metres along Davisville Avenue and minimum rear yard setback requirement of 7.5 metres appropriate, particularly when considering that recent Zoning By-law Amendment approvals within the Davisville Apartment Neighbourhoods designation contain reduced setback requirements?

15. Is By-law 63-2024’s requirement for pedestrian entrances to lobbies and residential units to “face and be directly accessible from” public streets and pedestrian walkways appropriate as a Zoning By-law requirement? Does this requirement unnecessarily impose detailed design control which does not address a site’s unique characteristics?

16. Are the minimum tower setbacks and separation distances proposed by By-law 63-2024 appropriate, considering: the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan’s policy directive to intensify underutilized Apartment Neighbourhood sites; and, the Tall Building Design Guidelines recommended minimum tower setbacks of 12.5 metres?

17. Is By-law 63-2024’s restriction of tall building’s maximum tower floorplate size to 750 square metres appropriate, especially when considering that the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan contains policy directives which offer flexibility for floorplate areas to exceed 750 square metres when other urban design considerations are satisfied?

18. Should By-law 63-2024 restrict tall building’s maximum tower floorplate size to 750 square metres, when considering that within the Davisville Apartment Neighbourhoods designation, both existing buildings, as well as proposed buildings that were subject to recent Zoning By-law Amendment approvals, contain tower floorplate sizes in excess of 750 square metres?

19. Is it appropriate for By-law 63-2024 to implement minimum unit size requirements given that such a requirement is not contained as policy in the Official Plan or Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan? Does such a requirement further impose controls which may restrict the provision of a wide supply and mix of housing?

Good Planning and Public Interest

20. Does By-law 63-2024 represent good planning and is it in the public interest?

Appeals of City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 63-2024 OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000290

Issues List of OEF 77 Davisville L.P. (Ontario)

1. Does By-law No. 63-2024 include development standards that would inappropriately limit redevelopment potential within the area subject to the by-law and thereby limit opportunities for increasing housing supply?

2. Does By-law No. 63-2024 seek to regulate matters that are more appropriately addressed in a guideline document and should therefore be removed from the by-law?

3. Does By-law No. 63-2024 seek to impose requirements that are more restrictive than existing City guideline documents and, if so, is this appropriate?

4. Is By-law No. 63-2024 inconsistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement, including policies 2.2, 2.3.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.9, 3.1, 3.2, 6.1.5, 6.1.6, 6.1.7, 6.1.12 and 6.2.1?

5. Does By-law No. 63-2024 fail to conform with the City of Toronto Official Plan, including policies 2.2.2.1, 2.3.1.2, 2.4.4, 3.1.3, 3.1.4.7 through 3.1.4.12, 3.2.1.1. 3.2.1.2, 3.5.1.3, 4.2.2 and 4.2.3?

6. Does By-law No. 63-2024 fail to conform with the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan, including policies 1.2.1, 1.3.3, 2.4.1 through 2.4.1.3, 2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.10, 3.1.7, 3.1.8, 3.1.9, 3.2.8, 3.3.2, 3.3.5, 4.13 through 4.16, 4.32, 5.1.1, 5.3.1, 5.3.4, 5.3.5, 5.3.31, 5.3.33, 5.3.34, 5.3.35, 5.3.36, 5.3.38, 5.3.41, 5.3.44, 5.3.45, 5.3.48, 5.3.49, 5.3.53, 5.4.3, 6.3 and 7.1?

7. Should the lands municipally known as 77 Davisville Avenue be subject to any site-specific provisions within By-law No. 63-2024?

8. If an exception or site-specific provision is appropriate for the lands municipally known as 77 Davisville Avenue, should By-law No. 22535 continue to prevail?

Issues List of G.R. Feldman Investments Ltd. OLT Case No. OLT-24-000290 (Appeal of City of Toronto Zoning By-law 63-2024)

1. Does Zoning By-law 63-2024 appropriately reflect the development approved for 45 and 57-93 Balliol Street through site-specific By-law 983-2023?

2. Do Diagrams 1D, 3E and 4D of Zoning By-law 63-2024 maintain a consistent approach to the depiction and treatment of parkland dedications?

Issues List for 2559261 Ontario Inc., CentreCourt Properties Inc., K&G Group, Korkin Developments Limited, QR MAR Holdings Limited Partnership

General Issues for All Above-noted Appellants

1. Does By-law 63-2024 (the “By-law”) have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections (e), (f), (h), (j), (k), (m), (n), (p), (q) and (r)?

2. Is the By-law consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), including policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, 1.2.1, 1.4.3, 1.6.1, 1.6.7.2, 1.6.7.4, 1.7.1, 1.8.1, and 4.6?

3. Does the By-law conform to and not conflict with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019) (as amended in 2020), including policies 2.2.1.2, 2.2.1.3, 2.2.1.4, 2.2.2.3, 2.2.4.1, 2.2.4.3, 2.2.4.6, 2.2.4.9, 2.2.4.10, 2.2.6.1, 2.2.6.2, 2.2.6.3, 3.2.1.1, and 5.2.5.1?

4. Does the By-law conform to the City of Toronto Official Plan, including the following sections/policies:

a. Chapter 2 – Shaping the City: 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.3.1, 2.4.4

b. Chapter 3 – Building a Successful City: 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.2.1, 3.5

c. Chapter 4 – Land Use Designations: 4.2.2

d. Chapter 5 – Implementation: Making Things Happen: 5.2.1, 5.3.1.1

5. Does the By-law conform to the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan?

6. Does the By-law conform to Official Plan Amendment 570, and in particular, Site and Area Specific Policy 681?

7. Are the By-law’s non-residential use permissions appropriate and do they represent good planning? Should the range of non-residential uses permitted be expanded?

8. Are the development standards with respect to the following matters appropriate and do they represent good planning:

a. maximum building heights;

b. minimum densities;

c. minimum landscaping requirements;

d. minimum setback and stepback requirements;

e. maximum floor plate size;

f. maximum encroachment of balconies into building setbacks;

g. minimum separation distances between main walls; and

h. minimum unit sizes?

9. Is the maximum floor plate size in the By-law appropriate as it applies to mid-rise buildings?

10. Do the built form standards in the By-law have appropriate regard for the existing and planned context?

11. Does the Planning Act provide the necessary statutory authority to impose minimum unit size requirements through a zoning by-law?

12. Is the By-law drafted with sufficient clarity to allow for consistent interpretation and application?

Site-Specific Issues for CentreCourt Properties Inc.

1. Are the transition clauses in the By-law appropriate?

2. Should the lands known municipally as 160 Soudan Avenue be exempted from the By-law pending the outcome of the site-specific rezoning process for those lands?

Site-Specific Issues for 2559261 Ontario Inc.

1. Are the transition clauses in the By-law appropriate?

2. Should the lands known municipally as 54-70 Brownlow Avenue be exempted from the By-law pending the outcome of the site-specific rezoning process for those lands?

Site-Specific Issues for K&G Group

1. Are the transition clauses in the By-law appropriate?

2. Should the lands known municipally as 299 Roehampton Avenue be exempted from the By-law pending the outcome of a future site-specific rezoning process for those lands?

Site-Specific Issues for QR MAR Holdings Limited Partnership

1. Are the transition clauses in the By-law appropriate?

2. Should the lands known municipally as 214-226 Soudan Avenue be exempted from the By-law pending the outcome of the site-specific rezoning process for those lands?

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

NOTE: Where Parties of like interest have issues in common, they shall make reasonable efforts to coordinate their examinations-in-chief and cross-examinations so as to minimize any duplication or overlap of evidence.

A. City of Toronto

B. Appellants

C. City of Toronto – Reply

ATTACHMENT 5

Purpose of the Procedural Order and Meaning of Terms

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. If an unincorporated group wishes to become a Party, 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 authorization 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, must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

Participant is an individual, group or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may attend only part of the proceeding but who makes a written statement to the Tribunal on all or some of the issues in the hearing in accordance with Rule 7.7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

NOTE that such persons will likely not receive notice of a mediation or conference calls on procedural issues. They also cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision as Parties can.

Written and Visual Evidence:

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a Party 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 intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

Witness Statements:

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 the witness will discuss and the witness’ opinions on those issues; and a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include the expert’s (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 for the opinions and (5) a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which the participant will address and a short outline of the evidence on those issues; and a list of reports, relied upon, if any, which the participant will provide to the Tribunal for consideration of the written statement at the hearing.

Additional Information:

Summons: A Party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons. This request must be made before the time that the list of witnesses is provided to the Tribunal and the Parties (see Rule 13 on the summons procedure). If the Tribunal requests it, an affidavit must be provided indicating how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the affidavit, it will require that a motion be heard to decide whether the witness should be summoned.

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 6

TERMS OF ADJOURNMENT FOR APPEALS TO ZONING BY-LAW 63-2024

1. An Appellant whose appeal is adjourned sine die in accordance with the below terms shall scope its appeal geographically to the lands which are the subject of its complete development application. An appellant who wishes to adjourn their appeal in accordance with these terms of adjournment shall make an election to adjourn their appeal on or before July 7, 2025.

2. These Terms of Adjournment shall apply to any Appellant to By-Law 63-2024 who has a Site Specific Application or makes one within one year of the issuance of the Procedural Order in OLT CASE OLT-24-000290, and if a Site Specific Application is not made within one year or such time thereafter, the City may seek a hearing of such appeal, after proving a minimum of 30 days notice to the Appellant.

3. If City Council refuses the site-specific zoning by-law amendment application or neglects to make a decision and the Appellant appeals the refusal or neglect to the OLT, the parties are at liberty to raise issues with respect to Zoning By-Law 63-2024, and to make an argument about the relevance of and weight to be given to Zoning By-Law 63-2024 at the OLT hearing of the site-specific appeals as may be appropriate.

4. In the event the Appellant's site specific zoning by-law amendment is approved, either by City Council or the OLT, the Appellant will either withdraw its appeal of Zoning By-Law 63-2024 within 31 days of the Date of Final Approval of the site-specific zoning by-law(s), or the Appellant will request that the OLT, as necessary, on consent of the City, incorporate any findings from the Site Specific application into Zoning By-law 63-2024 on a site-specific basis and to dismiss the balance of its appeal of Zoning By-law 63-2024.

5. In the event the Appellant's site-specific zoning by-law amendment appeals are dismissed by the OLT, and in doing so the OLT makes one or more specific findings that certain proposed development standards are not appropriate for that individual site, neither the Appellant nor the City will attempt to relitigate such finding(s) in subsequent proceedings, including at the general hearing of Zoning By-Law 63-2024 and the Appellant will withdraw its appeal of Zoning By-Law 63-2024, without prejudice to any subsequent zoning by-law amendment application that may be submitted.

6. Any decision made or partial approval granted with respect to Zoning By-law 63-2024 in the general proceedings on Zoning By-Law 63-2024 shall be without prejudice to any outstanding deferred site-specific appeals, and shall not have the effect of limiting the Appellants' rights to litigate Zoning By-Law 63-2024 as they relate to individual sites in the context of the site specific proceedings.

7. “Date of Final Approval" means the first day upon which all of the provisions of the site specific zoning by-law amendments have come into force and in effect, with all applicable appeal periods having lapsed with no appeals nor rehearing requests to the OLT, and/or application to court having been commenced with respect thereto or with any such appeals or rehearing requests to the OLT and/or application to court having been finally determined so that a building permit could be issued by the Chief Building Official, permitting the construction contemplated by the site specific zoning by-law amendments, upon the owner obtaining all requisite approvals, submitting the appropriate applications for a building permit and paying the requisite application fees.