Armfield Estates Inc. v. Toronto (City), 2025 CanLII 91140

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: September 04, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000898

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

Applicant and Appellant: Armfield Estates Inc.

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

Description: To permit development of an 11-storey mixed use building with at-grade commercial uses and inset townhouse units for a total of 186 dwelling units

Reference Number: 23 129052 NNY 06 OZ

Property Address: 2801 Keele Street and 6 Paxtonia Boulevard

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000898

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000898

OLT Case Name: Armfield Estates 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: Armfield Estates Inc.

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

Reference Number: 23 129052 NNY 06 OZ

Property Address: 2801 Keele Street and 6 Paxtonia Boulevard

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000899

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000898

Heard: September 2, 2025, by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Armfield Estates Inc.	D. Artenosi, R. Barron
City of Toronto	R. Kallio

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C. HARDY ON SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to the Order

BACKGROUND AND SITE CONTEXT

1This Decision and Interim Order relate to a settlement proposal concerning appeals brought pursuant to s. 22(7) and s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”) from the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to render decisions within the prescribed timelines regarding applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) (together referred to as “applications”). The appeals were filed by Armfield Estates Inc. (“Appellant”) regarding lands municipally known as 2801 Keele Street and 6 Paxtonia Boulevard in the City (together referred to as the “subject property”).

2The subject property is located in the Downsview neighbourhood and is rectangular in shape comprised of two sites located at the northeast corner of Keele Street and Paxtonia Boulevard. It is approximately 3,427 square metres in size with 60.3 metres of frontage along Keele Street and 55.8 metres of frontage along Paxtonia Boulevard. 2801 Keele Street is currently improved with a two-storey commercial building and surface parking with a singular access point off of Keele Street. 6 Paxtonia Boulevard is currently vacant.

3To the immediate north of the subject property is a two-storey detached residential building with one and two-storey detached residential buildings located further north, some of which have been converted to commercial buildings. Immediately east of the subject property is a one-storey residential dwelling with similar low-rise residential dwellings further east. The Toronto Public Library – Downsview Branch is located immediately south of the subject property, while two four-storey apartment buildings are located immediately southeast and a 10-storey mid-rise building is located immediately southwest of the subject property. Located on the west side of Keele Street across from the subject property is a four-storey apartment rental building.

4The City’s Road Classification System classifies Keele Street as a Major Arterial Road and Paxtonia Boulevard as a Local Road. There is a Toronto Transit Commission (“TTC”) stop on the subject property, which is located approximately 2.5 kilometres west of the Wilson TTC subway station and approximately 2.6 kilometres southwest of the Downsview Park TTC subway and GO station.

5At the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) convened on December 4, 2024, the Tribunal granted the Parties’ request to consolidate the OPA and ZBA appeals. A second CMC was convened on January 30, 2025, wherein a third CMC was scheduled for June 4, 2025 (which was adjourned) and a ten-day hearing of the merits was scheduled to commence on November 24, 2025. The Parties engaged in mediation and several without prejudice discussions which led to the Parties advising the Tribunal that they had reached a settlement endorsed by City Council on July 24, 2025.

SETTLEMENT

6The materials before the Tribunal in considering the revised applications were the Affidavit of Antonio Volpentesta, sworn on August 21, 2025, with composite exhibits, which was marked as Exhibit 1, a draft OPA, a draft ZBA, City Council Resolution dated July 24, 2025, and a draft Interim Order.

7Mr. Volpentesta is a registered professional planner with over 34 years of experience in planning matters. He is a partner with Bousfields Inc., and he was qualified by the Tribunal, on consent, to provide opinion evidence on land use planning matters.

Proposed Settlement

8On March 20, 2023, the Appellant filed applications for an OPA, ZBA and Site Plan Approval to facilitate the development of an 11-storey “U”-shaped mid-rise building (“original proposal”). The original proposal included various uses at grade, including four residential townhouse units fronting onto Paxtonia Boulevard. It also included two vehicular access points, one from Keele Street at the northwest corner of the subject property and the second from Paxtonia Boulevard at the southeast corner of the subject property. The original proposal was deemed complete by the City on March 31, 2023. As a result of various public meetings and circulations of the original proposal, the Appellant received several public comments, City department comments and agency comments. On June 4, 2024, the Appellant filed a resubmission to the City (“revised proposal”) which included the removal of the second vehicular access point along Paxtonia Boulevard allowing an opportunity to create a Privately Owned Publicly Accessible Space (“POPS”) to transition the proposed development to the existing low density residential to the east. On August 23, 2024, the Appellant appealed the non-decision of the City regarding the OPA and ZBA applications to the Tribunal.

9Following the filing of the appeal, the Appellant and the City engaged in mediation and without prejudice discussions. The result of the hard work and positive discussions among the Parties resulted in a settlement recommendation being presented to City Council on July 23 and 24, 2025.

10The revisions to the revised proposal continue to contemplate an 11-story “U”-shaped mid-rise building with an overall height of 44.2 metres and an overall Gross Floor Area of 14,884 square metres (“proposed development”). Key components of the proposed development include a total of 192 residential dwelling units, approximately 324 square metres of POPS space, a total of 872 square metres of amenity space, approximately 570 square metres of at grade retail/commercial space, 181 parking spaces provided in two levels of underground parking with limited above-grade parking, 148 bicycle parking spaces and maintaining the singular vehicular access from Keele Street, in keeping with the current condition.

11To facilitate the proposed development, an OPA and ZBA are required substantially in the forms set out in Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 to the Interim Order. The OPA is required to redesignate the eastern portion of the subject property municipally known as 6 Paxtonia Boulevard from Neighbourhoods to Mixed Use Areas (“draft OPA”). The ZBA is required to bring the property municipally known as 2801 Keele Street into By-law 569-2013, as amended, rezone the entire subject property to Commercial Residential (CR) Zone and incorporate site-specific development standards as necessary to reflect the settlement proposal (“draft ZBA”).

Evidence

12In addition to his detailed written Affidavit, Mr. Volpentesta provided viva voce contextual and planning rationale in support of the proposed development, draft OPA and draft ZBA. He provided a comprehensive analysis of the proposed development against relevant policies and concluded that the draft OPA and draft ZBA that will facilitate the proposed development will have sufficient regard for matters of Provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act, are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”), conform with the City of Toronto Official Plan (“OP”) and constitute good planning.

13In his written Affidavit, Mr. Volpentesta reviewed s. 2 of the Act in its entirety and it was his opinion that approval of the draft OPA and draft ZBA have regard for matters of Provincial interest as outlined in s. 2 of the Act. Mr. Volpentesta pointed out s. 2(f), noting that the proposed development makes efficient use of existing infrastructure through the provision of new housing in close proximity to existing public transit. Further, the subject property is planned for growth and the proposed development supports optimization of land and infrastructure in a transit-supportive location, encouraging a sense of place with public realm enhancements, having regard for s. 2(r) of the Act. Overall, Mr. Volpentesta opined that the settlement proposal, draft OPA and draft ZBA were supportive of the policy directions set out in the Act.

14Mr. Volpentesta opined that the proposed development, draft OPA and draft ZBA directly implement key policy directions that promote intensification and efficient use of land and infrastructure and the provision of housing. He reviewed a number of policies in his written Affidavit, including various sub-policies of policy 2.2 and 2.3 relating to the promotion of a diverse range and mix of housing types and densities in a compact form. It was Mr. Volpentesta’s opinion that the draft OPA and draft ZBA are consistent with the PPS when read as a whole.

15In his affidavit, Mr. Volpentesta opined that the proposed development and draft ZBA conform with the policies of the OP, as proposed to be amended by the draft OPA. He noted that the technical amendment to redesignate 6 Paxtonia Boulevard to achieve a consistent designation of Mixed Use Areas is contextually appropriate. Further, the subject property is in a location where the OP directs growth to occur and the proposed development and draft ZBA implement the growth management policies and the general policy direction supporting the optimization of existing infrastructure, including public transit. Mr. Volpentesta opined that the proposed development will assist the City in creating additional housing which will be compatible with the area as it contains both existing and planned mid-rise mixed-use buildings.

16Mr. Volpentesta explained that the former City of North York Zoning By-law 7625, as amended, currently applies to 2801 Keele Street, while the City-wide Zoning By-law 569-2013 (“ZBL”) currently applies to 6 Paxtonia Boulevard. As such, the zoning on 2801 Keele Street does not permit residential uses, while the zoning on 6 Paxtonia Boulevard only permits residential uses. The draft ZBA is required to uniformly rezone the entire subject property to Commercial Residential (CR) in addition to introducing site-specific standards required to permit the proposed development on the subject property.

17In his written Affidavit, Mr. Volpentesta noted that the draft OPA and draft ZBA which will facilitate the proposed development will achieve the general urban design and built form policy objectives of Official Plan Amendment 778 (“OPA 778”), which is not yet in effect. Following its approval with amendments by City Council on February 5, 2025, it was appealed to the Tribunal. However, Mr. Volpentesta reviewed relevant policies of the not yet in-effect OPA 778 and opined that the proposed development is appropriately scaled and will support the creation of a safe and comfortable pedestrian environment.

18Mr. Volpentesta reviewed a number of relevant City Guidelines and overall opined that the proposed development facilitated by the draft OPA and draft ZBA meet the intent of and have regard for the various Guidelines.

19Mr. Volpentesta recommended that the Tribunal allow the appeals in part as it was his opinion that the draft OPA and draft ZBA which will facilitate the proposed development will enhance the area by intensifying an underutilized site along an Avenue. He reviewed the preconditions included in the City Council resolution and opined that they are commonly requested and appropriate in this circumstance. Mr. Volpentesta recommended that the Tribunal withhold its Final Order until the Tribunal has been advised that the various preconditions included in City Council’s resolution and set out in the Interim Order below have been satisfied.

ANALYSIS AND DISPOSITION

20The Tribunal accepts the uncontested opinion evidence of Mr. Volpentesta and finds that the draft OPA and draft ZBA have appropriate regard for matters of Provincial interest pursuant to s. 2 of the Act.

21The Tribunal accepts the opinions of Mr. Volpentesta that the proposed development encourages a sense of place and will enhance the Downsview neighbourhood with a building which optimizes the use of the subject property in a manner which is compatible with the surrounding context.

22The draft OPA and draft ZBA are consistent with the PPS as they will facilitate the intensification of an underutilized site which is well served by existing infrastructure, including transit, and is located along an Avenue. The proposed instruments conform with and implement the policies of the OP, as proposed to be amended, and will facilitate a development that will contribute to the provision of a wide range of housing types and densities through the draft ZBA. Further, the proposed building height is compatible with existing and planned heights along Keele Street while the massing, setbacks and stepbacks of the proposed development have been thoughtfully designed to provide an appropriate transition to the land designated Neighbourhoods to the east of the subject property.

23In considering the matter, the Tribunal accepts the opinion of Mr. Volpentesta that the draft OPA and draft ZBA which will facilitate the proposed development represent an appropriate level of intensification of a currently underutilized site and incorporates a compatible built form which transitions to existing sensitive uses.

24The Tribunal finds that the draft OPA and draft ZBA which facilitate the proposed development represent good land use planning in the public interest. The Tribunal will allow the appeal in part and approve the draft OPA and draft ZBA in principle for the reasons set out above. The Tribunal will withhold issuance of its Final Order until it has been notified by the Parties that the preconditions set out in paragraph [26] below have been satisfied.

INTERIM ORDER

25THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeals are allowed in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph [26] below, and the Official Plan Amendment set out in Attachment 1 to this Interim Order and the Zoning By-law Amendment set out in Attachment 2 to this Interim Order are hereby approved in principle.

26The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon confirmation of the City solicitor, of the following pre-requisite matters:

a) the Tribunal has received, and approved, the final form and content of the draft Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, confirmed to be to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Executive Director, Development Review, which amongst other matters, may include a holding (H) provision;

b) the Tribunal is advised that the owner has satisfactorily addressed matters from Engineering Review as contained in the Engineering Review Memorandum dated October 24, 2023, or any outstanding issues raised by Engineering Review, arising from the ongoing technical review (including provision of acceptable reports and studies), as they relate to the Zoning By-law Amendment application, to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Review;

c) the Tribunal is advised that the owner has satisfactorily addressed matters contained in the Engineering Review Memorandum dated October 24, 2023, or any outstanding issues, arising from the ongoing technical review (including provision of acceptable reports and studies), as they relate to the Zoning By-law Amendment application, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services and that such matters arising from such review be secured as required;

d) the Tribunal is advised that the owner has submitted to the Director, Engineering Review for review and acceptance, prior to approval of the rezoning application, a Functional Servicing Report to determine the storm water runoff, sanitary flow and water supply demand resulting from this development and whether there is adequate capacity in the existing municipal infrastructure to accommodate the proposed development;

e) the Tribunal is advised that the owner has made satisfactory arrangements with Engineering Review and shall enter into appropriate agreements with the City for the design and construction of any improvements to the municipal infrastructure, should it be determined that upgrades are required to the infrastructure to support this development, according to the accepted Functional Servicing Report accepted by the Director, Engineering Review;

f) the Tribunal is advised that the owner has satisfactorily addressed matters contained in the Parks and Recreation Memorandum dated July 3, 2024, or any outstanding issues raised by Parks and Recreation arising from the ongoing technical review (including provision of acceptable reports and studies), as they relate to the Zoning By-law Amendment application, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Parks and Recreation;

g) the Tribunal is advised that the owner has satisfactorily addressed matters from Tree Protection and Plan Review, Urban Forestry Memorandum dated September 4, 2024, or any outstanding issues raised by Urban Forestry, arising from the ongoing technical review (including provision of acceptable reports and studies), as they relate to the Zoning By-law Amendment application, to the satisfaction of the General Manager Parks and Recreation;

h) the Tribunal is advised that the owner has submitted a revised Travel Demand Management Plan acceptable to, and to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review and the General Manager, Transportation Services and that such matters arising from such study be secured if required through the implementing zoning by-law amendment and/or Site Plan approval;

i) the Tribunal is advised that the owner has submitted architectural plans reflecting the proposal as approved in whole or in part, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review; and,

j) the Tribunal is advised that the owner has submitted an updated complete Toronto Green Standards Checklist and Statistics Template, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review

27The Tribunal Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment and the issuance of the Final Order.

28The Parties shall either request a Final Order or provide the Tribunal with a written status update on or before 6 months from the issuance of this Order as to the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment and issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.

29The Tribunal Member may be spoken to if any issues arise implementing this Order.

“C. Hardy”

C. Hardy VICE CHAIR

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.

Attachment 1

Attachment 2