Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: September 02, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-001100
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 1000807336 Ontario Inc. & 1000692389 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: To permit a 50-storey residential building containing 620 units
Reference Number: 23 232536 NNY 18 OZ
Property Address: 7, 9, 11, 15, 17 Nipigon Avenue
Municipality/UT: Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001100
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001100
OLT Case Name: 1000807336 Ontario Inc. & 1000692389 Ontario Inc 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: 1000807336 Ontario Inc. & 1000692389 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit a 50-storey residential building containing 620 units
Reference Number: 23 232536 NNY 18 OZ
Property Address: 7, 9, 11, 15, 17 Nipigon Avenue
Municipality/UT: Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001101
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001100
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A
Applicant and Appellant: 1000807336 Ontario Inc. & 1000692389 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Site Plan
Description: To permit a 50-storey residential building containing 620 units
Reference Number: 23 232941 NNY 18 SA
Property Address: 7, 9, 11, 15, 17 Nipigon Avenue
Municipality/UT: Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000716
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001100
Heard: August 11, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
1000807336 Ontario Inc. & 1000692389 Ontario Inc.
Jason Park Sarah Kagan
City of Toronto
Amrit Sandhu Sarah O'Conner (in absentia)
Gus Corporation Inc.
Shabnam Riazi
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C. I. MOLINARI on august 11, 2025 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1This matter involves a settlement hearing related to appeals filed by 1000807336 Ontario Inc. & 1000692389 Ontario Inc. (“Appellant”) pursuant to ss. 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) and s. 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 for the refusal by the City of Toronto (“City”) of Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) applications (collectively “Applications”), and a related Site Plan Control (“SPC”) application, for the lands municipally known as 7, 9, 11, 15, and 17 Nipigon Avenue (“Property”).
2The settlement proposes the redevelopment of the Property for a 52-storey mixed-use building with a five-storey podium, 603 residential units, and retail/commercial space (“Settlement Proposal”).
3The Property is located approximately 70 metres (“m”) east of Yonge Street and approximately 125 m from the intersection of Yonge Street and Steeles Avenue East on the south side of Nipigon Avenue. It is a rectangular-shaped property with a frontage of approximately 74.25 m and a depth of 37.60 m. It has an area of approximately 2,770 square metres and consists of five properties, each developed with a single-detached dwelling.
4The Tribunal received correspondence from the Appellant in advance of the Hearing advising that the Parties had settled the issues related to the Applications and requesting that the Tribunal convert the proceedings to a settlement hearing.
5In accordance with Rule 12 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal convened the proceedings as a hearing on the terms of the settlement.
6The Appellant requested that the SPC application be adjourned sine die.
REQUIRED APPROVALS
7The OPA application was submitted in order to redesignate the Property from ‘Neighbourhoods’ to ‘Mixed Use Areas’. Since then, the Tribunal approved, in principle, the Yonge Street North Secondary Plan (“OPA 615”), subject to site-specific appeals. Through OPA 615, the Property was redesignated to ‘Mixed Use Areas’, although the Applicant continued to pursue the OPA application out of an abundance of caution, to ensure that all requirements of OPA 615 are satisfied.
8A ZBA application was submitted to rezone the Property from ‘Residential Detached (RD)’ to ‘Commercial Residential (CR)’ under Zoning By-law No. 569‑2013, in order to allow the height and density proposed, as well as to amend performance standards.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
9When considering appeals filed pursuant to ss. 22(7) and 34(11) of the Act, the Tribunal must have regard to the relevant matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act. Section 3(5) of the Act requires decisions of the Tribunal affecting planning matters to be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”). The Tribunal must also be satisfied that the Applications conform with the City Official Plan (“OP”).
10In consideration of the statutory requirements set out above, the Tribunal must also be satisfied that the Applications represent good land use planning and are in the public interest.
WITNESS
11Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal received the Affidavit of Michael Goldberg in support of the Settlement Proposal. The Tribunal qualified Mr. Goldberg, on consent of the Parties, to provide expert opinion evidence in the field of land use planning.
LAND USE PLANNING EVIDENCE
12Mr. Goldberg provided background information on the Property, the surrounding area, the proposed use, and the history and processing of the Applications, and opined that the Settlement Proposal meets the applicable regulatory and policy requirements, represents good land use planning, and should be approved.
13Mr. Goldberg proffered that the Settlement Proposal would increase the housing stock within the area and provide a greater choice of housing type and tenure. He advised that over 30% of the units are proposed as two- and three- bedroom units, with 50 of the 396 one-bedroom units proposed as convertible units.
14Mr. Goldberg noted that the Property is located within a ‘strategic growth area’ of the City given the approval of OPA 615, and within a City Council adopted, although not yet ministerially approved, Protected Major Transit Station Area (“PMTSA”), identified as Site and Area Specific Policy 760 for the Steeles Subway Station at Yonge Street and Steeles Avenue.
15It was Mr. Goldberg’s opinion that the Property is well served by high order transit and within very close proximity to Yonge Street, which accommodates employment, recreation, shops, services, and the planned PMTSA. It was his opinion that the redevelopment of the Property with a more intensive built form will make efficient use of the land and will optimize the use of planned transit infrastructure and public service facilities by providing greater population density within very close walking proximity.
The Planning Act
16Mr. Goldberg opined that the Settlement Proposal has regard to the applicable matters of provincial interest pursuant to s. 2 of the Act, as it is transit-oriented, contributes to the orderly and efficient use of public transit and other infrastructure, provides for a complete and safe community, adds a range of residential units, and assists in meeting the provincial housing targets and the City’s Housing Pledge. Further, he submitted that the Property is an appropriate location for growth and development and the increased density will contribute to a more efficient and optimized use of the land.
Provincial Planning Statement, 2024
17Mr. Goldberg proffered that, as the Property is within a ‘strategic growth area’ and a proposed PMTSA, the Settlement Proposal is consistent with the PPS and meets the policies relating to residential intensification in proximity to transit and contributing to a complete community by accommodating a compact built form with an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities.
City Official Plan
18It was Mr. Goldberg’s opinion that the Settlement Proposal conforms to the OP, including the ‘Mixed Use Areas’ designation policies, the healthy neighbourhood policies, the public realm policies, the built form policies, and the policies regarding massing. It was his opinion that the Settlement Proposal does not result in any undue, adverse, incremental shadow impacts on the public realm, or adjacent private open spaces and represents an improvement to the existing public realm.
19Mr. Goldberg advised that four of the six existing dwellings on the Property are rental units and that a Rental Housing Demolition application (“RHDA”) had been submitted. He further advised that, although rental housing replacement is not required, a ‘Tenant Relocation and Assistance Plan’ will be addressed through the RHDA and is also a condition required to be satisfied prior to a Final Order being issued.
20With respect to OPA 615, Mr. Goldberg opined that the Property is located within the Steeles Transit Station Area, the area that is the focus of the greatest heights and intensity of development, with a maximum building height of 55 storeys at the southwest corner of the intersection of Yonge Street and Steeles Avenue, and with heights generally transitioning down in height and intensity away from the intersection. It was his opinion that, in this regard, the proposed height of 52 storeys is appropriately scaled for the Property.
Design Guidelines
21It was Mr. Goldberg’s conclusion that the Settlement Proposal has been designed to generally satisfy the City’s Tall Building Design Guidelines, the Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities Urban Design Guidelines, and the Pet Friendly Design Guidelines for High Density Communities.
Conclusions
22It was Mr. Goldberg’s opinion that the Property can comfortably accommodate the built form, height, and density, while providing for appropriate tower separation and setbacks with no adverse planning impacts on the closest low density residential ‘Neighbourhoods’ area.
23Mr. Goldberg opined that the Settlement Proposal has regard for the relevant matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the PPS, and conforms with the OP. It was his opinion that the Settlement Proposal, and the draft implementing OPA and ZBA instruments (“Instruments”) represent good land use planning, are in the public interest, and should be approved in principle.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
24The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted testimony and evidence of Mr. Goldberg and found that the Settlement Proposal will fit harmoniously within the existing and planned built form context, achieve appropriate intensification with an efficient use of land and infrastructure, and promote the achievement of complete communities.
25The Tribunal was satisfied that the Settlement Proposal has sufficient and proper regard for the applicable matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act. The Tribunal was further satisfied that the Settlement Proposal is consistent with the PPS, is in conformity with the OP, represents good land use planning, and is in the public interest.
INTERIM ORDER
26THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeals under subsections 22(7) and 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 [27] below, and the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, set out in Attachments 1 and 2 to this Interim Order, are approved in principle.
27The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order, contingent upon confirmation of the City Solicitor, of the following pre-requisite matters:
a) the final form and content of the draft Official Plan Amendment and the draft Zoning By-law Amendment are satisfactory to the Executive Director, Development Review and the City Solicitor;
b) the owner has submitted a revised wind study reflecting the proposal as approved, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review, in consultation with the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
c) the owner has provided a revised Traffic Impact Study and a revised Transportation Demand Management plan, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services;
d) any cash-in-lieu required as part of the Payment-in-Lieu of Bicycle Parking Program and any related templates/agreements have been paid and completed to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review, in consultation with the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
e) the owner has demonstrated that the proposal meets Tier 1 of Version 4 of the Toronto Green Standard;
f) the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, has approved Rental Housing Demolition Application 24 110419 NNY 18 RH under Chapter 667 of the Toronto Municipal Code pursuant to Section 111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, to permit the demolition of the four existing rental dwelling units at 7, 15 and 17 Nipigon Avenue and the owner has secured an acceptable Tenant Relocation and Assistance Plan for the four tenants addressing financial compensation and other assistance to lessen hardship, on such terms and conditions in an agreement with the City, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
g) the owner has submitted a revised Functional Servicing Report for review and acceptance to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Review; the report will determine whether the municipal water, sanitary and storm sewer systems can support the proposed development and whether upgrades or improvements of the existing municipal infrastructure are required; and
h) the owner has entered into a financially secured agreement for the construction of any improvements to the municipal infrastructure, should it be determined that upgrades are required to support the development, according to the Functional Servicing Report accepted by the Director, Engineering Review.
28If the Parties do not submit the final drafts of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order set out in paragraph [27] above have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order by Friday, February 27, 2026, the Parties 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 amendments and request for issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.
29The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by Telephone Conference Call to determine the additional timelines and deadline for the submission of the final form of the Instruments, the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisites, and the issuance of the Final Order.
30The Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law Amendments, and for the issuance of the Final Order.
31THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that the related Site Plan Control appeal is adjourned sine die. The Parties are directed to provide the Tribunal with a status update in respect of the Site Plan Control appeal by no later than Friday, February 27, 2026.
32The Member is not seized with respect to the Site Plan Control appeal.
“C. I. Molinari”
C. I. MOLINARI
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