Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: January 28, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000471
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: 295 Jarvis LP
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: To permit the development of a 60-storey mixed-use building containing 618 residential units
Reference Number: 22 229720 STE 13 OZ
Property Address: 295 Jarvis Street
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No: OLT-23-000471
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000471
OLT Case Name: 295 Jarvis LP v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit the development of a 60-storey mixed-use building containing 618 residential units
Reference Number: 22 229720 STE 13 OZ
Property Address: 295 Jarvis Street
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No: OLT-23-000472
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000471
Heard: January 20, 2025, in Writing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative* |
|---|---|
| 295 Jarvis LP | David Bronskill |
| City of Toronto | Sarah O’Connor Jason Davidson |
| Infrastructure Ontario | Isaiah Banach Michael James |
| The Hospital for Sick Children | Isaac Tang Katie Butler |
| Toronto Community Housing Corporation | Signe Leisk |
| Joseph Da Silva | Self-represented* |
DECISION DELIVERED BY DAVID BROWN AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1The matter before the Tribunal concerns two appeals (“Appeals”) filed pursuant to s. 22(7) and s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), against the City of Toronto (“City”) for its failure to make a decision within the timeframes prescribed by the Act with respect to applications filed by 295 Jarvis LP (“Appellant”) for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”). The Appellants propose to redevelop the lands known municipally as 295 Jarvis Street (“Subject Lands”).
2The Appellant filed the OPA and ZBA together with an Application for Site Plan Approval (together the “Applications”) in November 2022, proposing a 60-storey residential building with a nine-storey podium having a total Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) of 44,530 square metres (“m2”) and 618 dwelling units.
3The Applications were deemed complete on November 15, 2022. Community Consultation meetings were held on February 3, 2023 and April 11, 2023. The Appellant filed the Appeals of the OPA and ZBA on May 16, 2023.
4The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) on September 19, 2023, and granted Party Status to Infrastructure Ontario (“IO”) and The Hospital for Sick Children (“SickKids”). IO represents the immediately abutting lands to the north occupied by the Provincial Courthouse raising concerns with the impact of the proposed redevelopment of the Subject Lands on the Courthouse operations and the future development potential of the Courthouse lands. The Subject Lands are located within the eastern flight path for helicopters that service SickKids, and SickKids’s interest is to ensure that the proposed development appropriately recognizes and protects the flight path.
5On January 26, 2024, the Province issued a Minister’s Zoning Order under Ontario Regulation 10/24 (“MZO”) altering the regulations applicable to the SickKids and St. Michael’s Hospital’s flight paths.
6The Tribunal granted Party Status to the Toronto Community Housing Corporation (“TCHC”) at the CMC held on February 7, 2024. TCHC owns the immediately adjacent lands to the south of the Subject Property and raised concerns with the impact of the proposed development on their lands.
7The Parties engaged in mediation and, on April 1, 2024, the Appellant filed a revised submission describing the Settlement reached between the Parties. At the CMC held on June 11, 2024, Counsel for the Parties advised the Tribunal that a Settlement had been reached between all the Parties. Counsel requested that a Hearing in Writing be scheduled allowing sufficient time to finalize the details of the Settlement.
8The Tribunal, having been notified that the Settlement had been finalized, scheduled the Hearing to be conducted writing pursuant to the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL
9The Settlement Proposal proposes a 36-storey residential building including a six-storey podium having a total GFA of 30,346 m2, a density of 33.3 Floor Space Index, and a height of 125.22 metres (“m”) inclusive of the mechanical penthouse. The proposed building will have 414 dwelling units, six visitor parking spaces, and 466 bicycle parking spaces located in the underground garage. 1,035 m2 of amenity space is proposed including 621 m2 of indoor amenity space and 414 m2 of outdoor amenity space.
10The Settlement Proposal proposes a tower floor plate with a 3 m cantilever over the TCHC lands which has been secured through a Strata Conveyance Agreement and a Limiting Distance Agreement (“LDA”).
11The Settlement Proposal also includes an LDA with IO to facilitate the proposed development.
12The height of the proposed building was reduced as part of the Settlement to ensure compliance with the provisions of the MZO thereby securing an agreement with SickKids.
AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL BISSETT
13The Tribunal is in receipt of the uncontested opinion evidence contained in the Affidavit of Michael Bissett sworn and dated December 17, 2024 (marked as Exhibit 1).
14The Tribunal acknowledged that Mr. Bissett is a Registered Professional Planner and Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners with over twenty years of land use planning experience and is qualified to assist the Tribunal with opinion evidence as an expert in the area of land use planning.
15Mr. Bissett explained that the proposed OPA and ZBA will facilitate the redevelopment of the Subject Lands, currently occupied by a three and a half storey rooming house, with a transit-supportive proposal located within the Downtown area designated in the City Official Plan (“OP”) and in proximity to existing and planned higher-order transit service.
16In consideration of the matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, Mr. Bissett opined that the Settlement Proposal has regard for these matters as it optimizes the use of existing land and infrastructure within a settlement area while also contributing to a number of Provincial objectives including an increase to the number and type of housing options, encouraging the use of existing and planned higher-order transit infrastructure, and creating a high quality, safe, accessible, attractive, and vibrant community.
17Mr. Bissett proffered that the Settlement Proposal will contribute to the achievement of numerous policy directions articulated in the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (“PPS 2024”), the OP and the Downtown Secondary Plan (“DSP”), all of which support intensification on underutilized sites within built-up urban areas, particularly in locations in the Downtown that are well served by municipal infrastructure, including higher-order public transit.
18In consideration of the PPS 2024, the Subject Lands are located within a Strategic Growth Area (“SGA”) and a Major Transit Station Area (“MTSA”). These areas have been identified to be the focus for accommodating intensification and higher-density mixed uses in a more compact built form. An MTSA is defined as an area that includes a mix of land uses and built form that supports the achievement of minimum density targets and maximizes the number of potential transit users that are within walking distance of a transit station. Mr. Bissett advised that the Subject Lands are located within the College Station Protected Major Transit Station Area (“PMTSA”) as set out in Site and Area Specific Policy 603 approved by City Council and which is currently awaiting approval by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Mr. Bissett opined that the Settlement Proposal provides for a desirable residential development with convenient access to the Dundas and College Toronto Transit Commission (“TTC”) Subway stations, the Dundas and College/Carlton streetcar lines, and is in proximity to the future Moss Park Station on the TTC Ontario Subway Line.
19Mr. Bissett proffered that the Subject Lands are identified for growth and intensification pursuant to its Mixed Use Areas designation in the OP. The OP states that the Mixed Use Areas are areas intended to absorb the majority of growth and will accommodate the largest increase in jobs and population anticipated by the OPs growth strategy. Further, the Subject Lands are located within the DSP and is designated Mixed Use 3, a designation in which growth is encouraged.
20In consideration of the Housing Policies contained in the OP, Mr. Bissett proffered that the Settlement Proposal provides for the replacement of the GFA of the dwelling rooms proposed for demolition in the form of rental bachelor units. The Settlement Proposal includes the provision of a Tenant Relocation Assistance Plan secured through an appropriate agreement with the City and generally consistent with Official Plan Amendment No. 453. Mr. Bissett opined that the proposed housing strategy is good planning and conforms with the applicable policies of the OP.
21Mr. Bissett reviewed the Public Realm policies and advised that the Settlement Proposal has been designed with a generous 12 m sidewalk zone to enhance the public realm. The sidewalk zone will contain a new 2.5 m sidewalk along Jarvis Street, street trees, enhanced hardscaping, and street furniture.
22The Urban Design and Built Form Policies were reviewed, and Mr. Bissett proffered that the Settlement Proposal provides for a height and massing that is appropriately scaled, within an area that is specifically identified for a tower development in Official Plan Amendment 82 (“OPA 82”). To accommodate the tower, it is proposed to amend OPA 82 to adjust the permitted tower locations, specifically the area where two towers are permitted on the provincial courthouse property to the north of the Subject Lands. The Settlement Proposal consists of a podium element that frames Jarvis Street at a proportion that respects the character of the designated heritage building to the south. Additionally, the proposed tower limits the duration of the net-new shadow impacts on the conservatory buildings in Allan Gardens during the winter solstice. Mr. Bissett opined that the amendment to OPA 82 will allow for this limited shadow impact and that it is appropriate.
23Mr. Bissett concluded opining that the Settlement Proposal has regard for those matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the PPS 2024; and conforms with the OP and the DSP. Mr. Bissett further opined that the OPA and ZBA conform with and implement the intent of the OP.
24Mr. Bissett proffered that the Settlement Proposal represents good land use planning and urban design, and is in the public interest.
25Mr. Bissett recommended that the Appeals should be allowed and that the OPA and ZBA as revised to implement the Settlement Proposal should be approved. Mr. Bissett recommended that the approval should be subject to the number of conditions set out in the Settlement Agreement and as outlined in his Affidavit.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
26The Tribunal, having considered the material filed and the uncontested evidence of Mr. Bissett, accepts the opinions proffered by Mr. Bissett.
27The Tribunal is satisfied that the OPA and ZBA proposed to implement the Settlement Proposal have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest as set out in s.2 of the Act, are consistent with the PPS 2024, and conform with the OP and the DSP.
28The Tribunal finds that the Subject Lands are an appropriate location for high-density residential development, and the proposed development will provide new housing in a compact built form that supports the use of existing infrastructure, including existing and planned higher-order transit.
29The Tribunal finds that the proposed OPA and ZBA required to implement the Settlement Proposal are consistent with the PPS 2024 as the Settlement Proposal optimizes density and the use of infrastructure, represents growth and intensification in an SGA and an MTSA, while conserving cultural heritage resources.
30The Settlement Proposal conforms with the OP and DSP as it represents an appropriate intensification in a PMTSA supporting the investments in higher order transit infrastructure. The Settlement Proposal is new housing in the Downtown and represents growth within the DSP. The Tribunal finds that the public realm, built form, and urban design policies are appropriately addressed in the Settlement Proposal.
31The Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal represents good planning and is in the public interest.
32The Tribunal allows the Appeals in part and approves the OPA and ZBA in principle subject to the conditions set out in the Settlement endorsed by City Council and set out in the Affidavit of Michael Bissett.
INTERIM ORDER
33THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Appeals filed pursuant to section 22(7) and section 34(11) of the Planning Act are allowed, in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction, or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph [34] below and the Official Plan Amendment set out in Attachment 1 and Zoning By-Law Amendment set out in Attachment 2 to this Interim Order, are hereby approved in principle.
34The Tribunal withholds the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon the receipt and approval of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment in their final form and confirmation from the Solicitor for the City of Toronto, the Solicitor for the Hospital for Sick Children, and the Solicitor for the Toronto Community Housing Corporation, as applicable, of the following pre-requisite matters:
a) The final form and content of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment submitted to the Tribunal for approval is satisfactory to the City Solicitor, the Chief Planner and Executive Director of City Planning, the Hospital for Sick Children, and the Toronto Community Housing Corporation;
b) The Owner has entered into Limiting Distance Agreements with the owners of the properties to the north, south and east of the Subject Lands, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the Toronto Community Housing Corporation;
c) The Owner has provided confirmation of water, sanitary, and stormwater capacity to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;
d) The Owner has entered into a legal agreement binding the owner and successor owners to secure all rental housing related matters, including replacement of existing dwelling rooms and an acceptable Tenant Relocation and Assistance Plan in accordance with the Housing Replacement Terms, in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor and Chief Planner, and Executive Director, City Planning;
e) The Owner has provided an Aeronautical Impact Assessment to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the Hospital for Sick Children to ensure that the building height and projections of the development conform to applicable requirements, including Zoning By-law 1432-2017 and the Minister’s Zoning Order, Ontario Regulation 10/24, as these instruments may be amended and/or replaced, such that sufficient clearance of the flight path is provided on rooftops, including during construction;
f) The Owner has provided confirmation that the development will be constructed and maintained in accordance with Tier 1, Toronto Green Standard, and the owner will be encouraged to achieve Tier 2, Toronto Green Standard, or higher, where appropriate, consistent with the performance standards of Toronto Green Standards applicable at the time of the Site Plan Control application;
g) The Owner has provided an updated wind study to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
h) The Owner has provided the City of Toronto and the Ontario Land Tribunal with a withdrawal letter respecting the appeal of Official Plan Amendment No. 453 before the Ontario Land Tribunal, and a withdrawal letter respecting their Party Status in the appeal of Official Plan Amendment No. 82 before the Ontario Land Tribunal; and
i) The Owner has registered a restriction on title to the Site (Subject Lands) pursuant to section 118 of the Land Titles Act, RSO 1990, c. L. 5, to the satisfaction of the Toronto Community Housing Corporation.
35The Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Official Plan Amendment, the final draft of the Zoning By-Law Amendment, and the issuance of the Final Order.
36If the Parties do not submit the final draft of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment and provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order, set out in paragraph [34] above, have been satisfied and do not request the issuance of the Final Order by Tuesday, June 30, 2026, 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 Zoning By-law Amendment and issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.
37The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange further attendance of the Parties to determine the additional timelines and deadlines for the submission of the final form of the instruments, the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisites, and the issuance of the Final Order.
“David Brown”
DAVID BROWN 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.
Attachment 1
Attachment 2