Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 09, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000774

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

Applicant/Appellant: Pem (Eglinton) GP Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit the development of a 40-storey residential building, and more Reference Number: 22 203483 NNY 15 OZ Property Address: 849 Eglinton Avenue E Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-24-000774 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000774 OLT Case Name: Pem (Eglinton) GP Inc. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Applicant/Appellant: Pem (Eglinton) GP Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit the development of a 40-storey residential building, and more Reference Number: 22 160403 NNY 15OZ Property Address: 849 Eglinton Avenue E Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-24-000775 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000774

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Applicant/Appellant: Pem (Eglinton) GP Inc. Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision Description: To permit the development of a 40-storey residential building, and more Reference Number: 22 162079 NNY 15 SB Property Address: 849 Eglinton Avenue E Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-24-000776 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000774

Heard: December 12, 2025 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Pem (Eglinton) GP Inc.	Natalie Ast Daniel Artenosi
City of Toronto	Cameron McKeich Jamie Dexter (in absentia) Sarah O’Connor (in absentia)
Leaside Junction Inc.	Anne Benedetti

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY bita m. rajaee ON december 12, 2025 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1This event was a Hearing to consider a settlement agreement with respect to appeals under sections 22(7), 34(11), and 51(34) of the Planning Act (“Act”) by Pem (Eglinton) GP Inc. (“Owner”) from the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to make a decision within the statutory timeframes on applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”), and a Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPOS”) with respect to lands located at 849 Eglinton Avenue East in the City (“Subject Property”). The purpose of these instruments is to allow for a mixed-use development on the Subject Property.

2A first CMC took place on January 13, 2025, wherein it was confirmed that adequate Notice had been served. Furthermore, Leaside Junction Inc. was added as a Party, and Samuel Nouett and Leaside Residents Association (Geoff Kettle) were added as Participants.

SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL AND INSTRUMENTS

3The Owner proposes to build a mixed-use development on the Subject Property containing three buildings: a 21-storey mixed-use building (Building A), a 33-storey residential building (Building B), and a 7-storey mixed-use building (Building C), as well as a 1,150 square metre public park, a private road, and conveyances towards three adjacent public roads. The development is to contain approximately 770 dwelling units.

4The OPA and ZBA implement the proposed development. Specifically, the instruments seek to accomplish the following:

a. The OPA proposes to redesignate the southern portion of the Subject Property from General Employment Areas to Mixed Use Areas and Parks on Map 17 of the City’s Official Plan and remove the southern portion of the Subject Property from Employment Areas on Map 2 of the Official Plan. As it relates to SASP 568, the draft OPA proposes to remove the southern portion of the Subject Property from Parcel “2”, General Employment Areas, on Map 1.

Other amendments to SASP 568 include modifications to permit the proposed height, massing, amount of non-residential Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) and streetscaping. As a result, the OPA replaces Map 3 with a revised Map attached as Schedule C to permit the proposed 21 storey and 33 storey heights. Modifications are also proposed to Policy 3.6 to permit the proposed amount of non-residential uses, Policy 5.9(ii) to permit the proposed streetscaping along Vanderhoof Avenue, Policy 7.3 to permit the proposed 3.0 metre (“m”) setback from Vanderhoof Avenue and Policy 9.5(ii) and (iii) to permit the proposed 4-storey base building along local streets and a stepback that is less than 3 m at a pinch point along the southern elevation of Building A.

b. The ZBA proposes to include the lands within City-wide Zoning Bylaw 569-2013 and to zone the lands Commercial Residential (“CR”) and Open Space – Recreation Zone (“OR”) to permit the proposed residential and mixed-use buildings and public park, as shown on Diagram 2. The maximum heights and minimum setbacks are as shown on Diagram 3, though select elements are included in the lists of permitted projections and encroachments as set out in 7(J) and (O). The draft ZBA also includes other performance standards related to maximum GFA, parking spaces for residents, residential visitors and non-residential uses, location and size of accessible parking spaces and bicycle parking spaces, among others.

5The Parties requested that the Tribunal approve the OPA and ZBA on an interim basis and to adjourn the DPOS appeal sine die.

HEARING

6In support of the settlement agreement, the Parties presented written and oral testimony from Hailey McWilliam. The Curriculum Vitae and signed Acknowledgement of Expert Duty form for Ms. McWilliam were provided, confirming her expertise in the field of Land Use Planning. Ms. McWilliam was qualified by the Tribunal, without objection, to provide expert opinion evidence in the field of Land Use Planning.

Lands Subject to the Appeal

7The Subject Property is 1.42 hectares in size and rectangular in shape, with 79.4 m of frontage along Eglinton Avenue East, 79.4 m of frontage along Vanderhoof Avenue, and a depth of approximately 179 m. It currently contains one large building, that was previously occupied by a Mercedes-Benz car dealership and ancillary office uses, but is now occupied by temporary recreational uses.

8The Subject Property is located within the Leaside neighbourhood. Surrounding uses include a variety of apartment and semi-detached residential buildings, as well as a range of non-residential uses, such as: retail, commercial, office, manufacturing, warehousing, and light industrial and industrial uses, including major facilities.

9The Subject Property has access to existing and constructed higher order transit. Specifically, it is located approximately 160 m east of the secondary entrance and 215 m east of the primary entrance to Laird Station on the Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail Transit (“Eglinton Crosstown LRT”), a 19-kilometre transit line running along Eglinton Avenue from Black Creek Drive in the west to Kennedy Subway Station in the east. It is also within walking distance of a number of surface transit routes.

10Over the past few years, the area near Eglinton Avenue East and Laird Drive has seen a steady increase in development activity in the form of residential and mixed-use buildings due to construction of Laird Station on the Eglinton Crosstown LRT. There are a number of tall buildings that are approved, under construction, or recently constructed to the east and west of the Subject Property.

Settlement of the OPA and ZBA Appeals

11The planning documents affecting this matter include:

a. The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended;

b. The Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”);

c. Bill 23, More Home Built Faster Act, 2022;

d. City of Toronto Housing Action Plan;

e. City of Toronto Official Plan (“OP”);

f. Official Plan Amendment 575, Site and Area Specific Policy 682 (“SASP 682”);

g. Official Plan Amended 450, Site and Area Specific Policy 568 (“SASP 568”);

h. City-wide Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended; and

i. Applicable City Guidelines, including:

i. Laird in Focus Urban Design Guidelines;

ii. Tall Building Design Guidelines;

iii. Mid-Rise Design Guidelines; and

iv. Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities Guidelines.

12Citing numerous policies in her comprehensive Affidavit and oral testimony, Ms. McWilliam opined that:

a. The settlement proposal is appropriate and desirable in land use planning terms. The proposed development will fit harmoniously with the existing and emerging built form context and will enhance the area by intensifying an underutilized site which is well served by municipal infrastructure, including existing frequent transit and future higher order transit. The settlement proposal will optimize the use of the Subject Property and will support growth within the Leaside area in a manner that is compatible with the existing and planned built form context.

b. The settlement proposal has regard for the matters of Provincial interest identified in section 2 of the Act and is consistent with the PPS. It conforms with the OP and SASP 568, and has appropriate regard for the relevant urban design guidelines.

c. From an intensification perspective, the settlement proposal will support the achievement of numerous policy directions promoting intensification within built-up urban areas and the efficient use of land. The proposal will contribute population and jobs towards the minimum density targets contained in the PPS and SASP 682, both of which identify a minimum target of 160 residents and jobs combined per hectare.

d. From a land use perspective, the settlement proposal includes a mix of land uses including residential, retail, community space, and a new public park, which will contribute to the existing and emerging complete community in the Leaside neighbourhood. In accordance with the PPS, the redesignation of the lands is appropriate as it continues the evolving land use pattern in the immediate area and achieves compatibility with these new uses. The proposed Mixed Use Areas and Parks designations are reflective of the approved and under construction mixed-use developments in the area and are therefore appropriate.

e. Infrastructure and public service facilities are available to accommodate the proposed uses. In this respect, a Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report and a Transportation Impact Study were prepared, which concluded that the Subject Property could be adequately serviced from a municipal servicing and transportation perspective. The existing and planned sewage, water, energy, and transportation infrastructure can accommodate the proposed redesignation.

f. The proposed Mixed Use Areas designation is appropriate as it would reflect the planned, existing and emerging uses on the site and in the area, be compatible with surrounding land uses, while responding to current Provincial and Council direction to increase housing supply. Moreover, the redesignation will not adversely affect the overall viability of an employment area or the maintenance of a stable operating environment for business and economic activities.

g. From a housing perspective, the settlement proposal includes a full range of housing in terms of unit sizes, types, and tenure, including 6 affordable rental housing units.

h. The introduction of residential and retail GFA on the southern portion of the Subject Property is desirable as the additional population will promote the existing and planned transit infrastructure and add to and support retail and service commercial facilities in the vicinity of the site, as well as providing opportunities for residents to live close to where they work.

i. The settlement proposal will contribute numerous public realm improvements as part of redevelopment, such as a new public park, a private road, and road widenings along the north, east, and west lot lines to achieve the planned right-of-way widths of the adjacent roads. A significant amount of the Subject Property (21%) will be conveyed to the City for parkland and road widenings.

j. From a built form perspective, the proposal represents a high-quality architectural addition to the area and is contextually appropriate as it has been thoughtfully designed to respond to the approved and under construction master-planned developments located to the east and west of the Subject Property. Where amendments to the massing policies of SASP 568 are proposed, the settlement proposal has been designed to respect the intent of SASP 568, while responding to the latest approved context.

k. The buildings have been sited and massed to fall under a 45-degree angular plane taken from the Eglinton Avenue East property line at a height of 80% of the right-of-way width to provide appropriate transition to the Neighbourhoods designated lands located north of Eglinton Avenue East and to minimize built form impacts in accordance with the applicable policies.

l. The Subject Property is zoned M1(10) by site-specific By-law 445-2002, which amended Zoning By-law No. 1916 of the former Town of Leaside when it was adopted by Council on May 23, 2002. The site will be brought into the City-wide Zoning By-law 569-2013 through the proposed ZBA.

13Ms. McWilliam reviewed issues raised by the added Party, Leaside Junction Inc., and confirmed that all issues have been addressed and resolved by the settlement agreement. The Counsel to Leaside Junction Inc. agreed. Similarly, Ms. McWilliam spoke about the concerns raised by the Participants and explained how the settlement agreement addresses them.

14Lastly, Ms. McWilliam went through preconditions to final approval requested by the City and agreed to by the Owner as part of the settlement agreement, and testified that these preconditions are appropriate.

15She concluded that the settlement proposal will achieve an appropriate balance in implementing the full range of applicable planning policies and represents good planning and is in the public interest. She recommended that the Tribunal allow the appeals of the OPA and ZBA, in part, and approve these instruments on an interim basis subject to the preconditions set out in the Council resolution.

The DPOS Appeal

16The Parties submitted that the DPOS has not been advanced to the same level as the OPA and ZBA. In fact, the Owner is considering a resubmission at some point. Thus, it would be prudent to adjourn the DPOS Appeal. Ms. McWilliam confirmed that this would be appropriate.

TRIBUNAL’S FINDINGS

17The Tribunal was satisfied by the uncontested written and oral evidence provided by Ms. McWilliam. The Tribunal found that the OPA and ZBA, as revised by the settlement agreement, attached as Attachments A and B to this Decision, align with good land use planning, satisfy all legislative tests pertaining to this matter, and warrant approval on an interim basis subject to the preconditions listed at Attachment C to this Decision. With respect to the DPOS Appeal, the Tribunal found it appropriate to adjourn that matter sine die.

18An oral ruling to this effect was made at the Hearing.

INTERIM ORDER

19THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

a. The appeals by Pem (Eglinton) GP Inc. (“Owner”), pursuant to sections 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 [19b] below. The Official Plan Amendment and the Zoning By-law Amendment, identified as Attachments A and B to this Interim Decision respectively, are hereby approved in principle.

b. The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon confirmation by the City Solicitor of completion of the pre-requisite matters set out at Attachment C to this Decision.

c. The appeal by the Pem (Eglinton) GP Inc. pursuant to section 51(34) of the Planning Act, namely pertaining to the Draft Plan of Subdivision, is adjourned sine die.

20THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS THAT:

a. The Panel 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.

b. The Tribunal may be spoken to in the event that some matter should arise in connection with the implementation of this Order.

c. If the Parties do not submit the final drafts 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 at Attachment C have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order by Monday, December 14, 2026, the Owner and the City shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by that date, regarding the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of the draft Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment and issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.

d. The 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 prerequisites, and the issuance of the Final Order.

e. In accordance with Rule 24.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, this Order is effective as of December 12, 2025.

“Bita M. Rajaee”

BITA M. RAJAEE

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.