Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: January 7, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000563 OLT-25-000564 OLT-25-000552
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53 (19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Montrin Richview GP Inc.
Subject: Consent
Description: MV, C & SP to support a multi-building, mixed-use development.
Reference Number: B0033/23EYK
Property Address: 250 Wincott Drive and 4620 Eglinton Avenue West
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000563
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000563
OLT Case Name: Montrin Richview GP Inc. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45 (12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Montrin Richview GP Inc.
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: MV, C & SP to support a multi-building, mixed-use development.
Reference Number: A0078/25EYK
Property Address: 250 Wincott Drive and 4620 Eglinton Avenue West
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000564
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000563
OLT Case Name: Montrin Richview GP Inc. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A
Applicant and Appellant: Montrin Richview GP Inc.
Subject: Site Plan
Description: MV, C & SP to support a multi-building, mixed-use development.
Reference Number: 22 136287 WET 02 SA
Property Address: 250 Wincott Drive and 4620 Eglinton Avenue West
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000552
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000563
OLT Case Name: Montrin Richview GP Inc. v. Toronto (City)
Heard: December 10, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties Montrin Richview GP Inc. City of Toronto Richmond Gardens Ratepayers Association (Participants)
Counsel Eileen Costello Matthew Longo
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JACKIE DENYES ON DECEMBER 15, 2025, AND FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL.
Link to Final Order
INTRODUCTION
1The Tribunal convened a hearing to consider a settlement on an appeal filed by Montrin Richview GP Inc. (“Applicant and Appellant”), the registered owner of the properties commenced under subsection 53(19) (Consent) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 c.P13 (the “Act”) as amended, subsection 45(12) of the Act (Minor Variance) and subsection 111(14) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006 c. 11, Schedule A as amended to support a multi-phased, mixed-use development located at 250 Wincott Drive and 4620 Eglinton Avenue West in the City of Toronto as follows:
As permitted through the 2021 Rezoning Approval, the development includes two mixed-use buildings of 11 storeys each (i.e., Buildings A and B), a third mixed-use building with a maximum height of 43.0 metres to top of roof (i.e., Building C), and a retained portion of the existing Richview Plaza (i.e., Building D). The approval also included a 1,700 square metre public park, a 659 square metre POPS, a 465 square metre community agency space and a new private road intersecting the Subject Site. A total of 587 dwelling units were approved, inclusive of 54 affordable rental housing units.
- Through the 2023 Rezoning Application, the Owners are proposing to increase the heights of Buildings A and B to 24 and 29 storeys, respectively, and to increase the number of dwelling units on the Subject Site to 1,060 units. The proposed unit count is inclusive of 101 affordable rental housing units.
2The scope of the Applications and the Appeals to the Tribunal pertain to the Phase One and Phase Two lands, consisting of Buildings C and D. In this regard, Buildings C and D have continued to advance in accordance with the permissions established by the 2021 Rezoning Approval (i.e., By-law 834-2021), in addition to the subsequent minor variance application
- Buildings A and B are currently subject to the 2023 Rezoning Application, which is not before the Tribunal. A separate application for Site Plan Approval has been filed pertaining to Buildings A and B which is requested to be adjourned sine die
SUBJECT PROPERTY
2The Subject Site is located in the Willowridge-Martingrove-Richview neighbourhood, which is generally bounded by Dixon Road and The Westway to the north, Eglinton Avenue West to the south, Royal York Road to the east and Highways 401 and 27 to the west. The surrounding area was largely developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s as a suburban neighbourhood bounded by an arterial grid road pattern and subdivided by a network of curvilinear collector and local roads. The general pattern of land use within the interior of the neighbourhood includes low-rise residential uses, public parks and local institutions (e.g. schools and community centres), with commercial uses, cluster townhouse blocks and mid-rise to tall apartment buildings located along the periphery of the neighbourhood and at prominent intersections.
REQUESTED RELIEF
3Through negotiated efforts between Counsel leading up to the date of the scheduled 2-day Merit Hearing, the parties have arrived at consensus, regarding Consent to Sever and Conditions thereto in that the City is now in a position to support the Consent, takes no position on the Minor Variances and that the Site Plan application is to be adjourned sine die.
4The matter proceeded as an uncontested Settlement Hearing.
MINOR VARIANCES REQUESTED
5The Parties seek authorization of the following variances to the City of Toronto Zoning By-law (“TOZBL”):
- Variance #1 Section 200.15.1.(1), By-law 569-2013
- An accessible parking space must have a minimum width of 3.9 m and a minimum vertical clearance of 2.1 m.
- The proposed accessible parking spaces will have a width of 3.4 m, a vertical clearance of 2.1 m and will be adjacent to a 1.5 m wide accessible barrier free aisle or path;
- Variance #2 Section 900.11.10.(310)(BB)(iii), By-law 569-2013
- A minimum of 1 “Type A” loading spaces 2 “Type B” loading spaces and 1 “Type G” loading space are required for Building C.
- A total of 1 “Type B” loading space and 1 “Type G” loading space;
- Variance #3 Section 970.10.15.5.(5), By-law 569-2013
- Building C residential parking spaces must be provided at a minimum rate of 0.7 for each bachelor dwelling unit. up to 45 m ² and 1 for each bachelor dwelling unit greater than 45 m ²; 0.8 for each one-bedroom dwelling unit; 0.9 for each two-bedroom dwelling unit; and 1.1 for each three or more bedroom dwelling unit (316 parking spaces).
- Building C will provide a minimum of 0.43 parking spaces per dwelling unit for residential occupants (159 parking spaces);
- Variance #4 Section 970.10.15.5.(5) By-law 569-2013
- Building C visitor parking spaces must be provided at a minimum rate of 0.15 parking spaces per dwelling unit (55 visitor parking spaces).
- Building C will provide a minimum of 2 + 0.05 parking spaces per dwelling unit for visitors (20 visitor parking spaces).
CONSENT REQUESTED
6The Parties seek Provisional Consent to sever the Subject Property to create Schedule A, subject to Conditions of Approval requested by the City of Toronto, as set out in Schedule B as follows:
SCHEDULE ‘A’
Retained Lands - Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11
Parts 2, 5, and 9 on Plan 66R-XXXX, being part of PINS 07404-0131 (LT), 07404-0249 (LT), and 07404-0251 (LT), are subject to a non-exclusive easement and right-of-way on, over, along and upon for pedestrian and vehicular access in favour of the owner of Parts 12-19 (the “Conveyed Lands”), and its successors, assigns, customers, employees, servants, agents, invitees, and tenants, and their respective customers, employees, servants, agents, invitees, and licensees.
Parts 1 -11 are subject to a non-exclusive easement for stormwater surface drainage over, along, in, under, and through the Retained Lands in favour of the owner of the Conveyed Lands (Parts 12-19, inclusive), and its successors, assigns, customers, employees, servants, agents, invitees, and tenants, and their respective customers, employees, servants, agents, invitees, and licensees, for the purpose of stormwater drainage (including surface drainage), and the repair and maintenance of associated storm sewers, catch basins, and drains; and
Conveyed Lands – Parts 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19
Part 19 on Plan 66R-XXX, being part of PIN 07404-0131 (LT), is subject to a non-exclusive easement and right-of-way on, over, along, and upon for pedestrian and vehicular access in favour of the owner of Parts 1–11 on Plan 66R-XXX (the "Retained Lands"), and its successors, assigns, customers, employees, servants, agents, invitees, and tenants, and their respective customers, employees, servants, agents, invitees, and licensees.
Parts 12-19 are subject to a non-exclusive easement for stormwater surface drainage over, along, in, under, and through the Conveyed Lands in favour of the owner of the Retained Lands (Parts 1-11, inclusive) and its successors, assigns, customers, employees, servants, agents, invitees, and tenants, and their respective customers, employees, servants, agents, invitees, and licensees, for the purpose of stormwater drainage (including surface drainage), and the repair and maintenance of associated storm sewers, catch basins, and drains.
SCHEDULE ‘B’
Conditions of Approval Requested by the City of Toronto
Confirmation of payment of outstanding taxes to the satisfaction of the Revenue Services Division, in the form of a statement of tax account current to within 30 days of an applicant's request to the Deputy Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment to issue the Certificate of Official.
Municipal numbers for the subject lots indicated on the applicable registered reference plan of survey shall be assigned to the satisfaction of the Supervisor, Surveys, Engineering Support Services, Engineering and Construction Services.
One electronic copy of the registered reference plan of survey integrated to NAD 83 CSRS (3 degree Modified Transverse Mercator projection), delineating by separate Parts the lands and their respective areas, shall be filed with, and to the satisfaction of, the Manager, Land and Property Surveys, Engineering Support Services, Engineering and Construction Services.
One electronic copy of the registered reference plan of survey satisfying the requirements of the Manager, Land and Property Surveys, Engineering Support Services, Engineering and Construction Services shall be filed with the Deputy Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment.
Prepare and submit a digital draft of the Certificate of Official, Form 2 or 4, O.Reg. 197/96, referencing either subsection 50(3) or (5) of the Planning Act if applicable as it pertains to the conveyed land and/or consent transaction to the satisfaction of the Deputy Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment.
Once all of the other conditions have been satisfied, the applicant shall request, in writing, that the Deputy Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment issue the Certificate of Official.
Within TWO YEARS of the date of the giving of this notice of decision, the applicant shall comply with the above-noted conditions.
HEARING
7Luisa Girotto and Sonia Pace, Co-Chairs, in their very limited role as Participant Status on behalf of Richmond Gardens Ratepayer’s Association (“RGRRA”) were in attendance along with approximately 20 other interested persons. Their fulsome 75-page written submission filed with the Tribunal, outlined the background and history of this development and concern about the pattern of Variance Applications that undermine comprehensive development planning. RGRRA opposed the appeals with regard to parking reduction, variances and loading spaces as it sets a precedent that is grossly reduced from other more recent norms in the broader district neighbourhoods threatening the viability of the already battered retail plaza. RGRRA respectfully submit the variances are not minor in scale or impact, not desirable for the appropriate development of the land as they jeopardize retail viability and residential functionality; undermine the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law (“ZBL”) by attempting to bypass rather than amend through a proper process and fail to maintain the spirt of the City’s Official Plan (“OP”) with respect to complete communities, transit-supportive planning and coordinate growth.
8The Tribunal noted the following exhibits continuing in sequence from the Case Management Conference as follows:
Exhibit Three – Witness Statement and Planning Report of Ryan Doherty
Exhibit Four - Visual evidence package
9Uncontroverted witness, Ryan Doherty, Associate, Bousfields Inc., specializing in Urban Design, was affirmed as a duly qualified expert witness to give opinion evidence in the field of Land Use Planning. He provided the Tribunal with extensive details of background and approval history regarding this matter.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
10When considering this Appeal, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in section 2 of the Act, the proposal must be consistent with the polices of the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 (“PPS”) and conform to the Official Plan(s) in effect. Also, in consideration of the statutory requirements, the Tribunal must be satisfied the Appeal represents good land use planning and is in the public interest.
11Further, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the Consent Application has regard to the criteria set out in subsection 51(24), the requested variances meet the four tests set out in subsection 45(1) of the Act and in accordance with subsection 53(1) of the Act, a plan of subdivision is not required.
EVIDENCE
Sections 2 and 35.1 of the Act
12Mr. Doherty testified to matters of provincial interest that must be considered when evaluating and approving applications, in particular, but not limited to:
the adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems;
the orderly development of safe and healthy communities;
the adequate provision and distribution of educational, health, social, cultural and recreational facilities;
the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing;
the adequate provision of employment opportunities;
the resolution of planning conflicts involving public and private interests;
the appropriate location of growth and development;
the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians; and
the promotion of built form that is well-designed, encourages a sense of place, and provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant.
13It was Mr. Doherty’s opinion that this application aligns with provincial and city objectives, is in the public interest, and represents good planning.
Subsection 51(24) Severance Applications
14Subsection 51(24) of the Act sets out the criteria to be considered in the approval of Consents which deal with matters regarding health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities, and the welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality. These include suitability of land, affordable housing units, width, location of grades and elevations of highways, dimensions and shapes of proposed lots, conservation of natural resources and flood control, adequacy of municipal services, school sites, and plan design optimization.
15It was Mr. Doherty’s opinion that the Subject Property addresses and meets the criteria as set out in subsection 51(24) of the Act.
Provincial Policy Statement (2024) “PPS 2024”
16Mr. Doherty testified that the Applications are consistent with the 2024 PPS and provided an extensive review of policies inter alia as follows:
Policy 2.1.6, which provides that planning authorities should support the achievement of complete communities by accommodating an appropriate range and mix of land uses, housing options, transportation options with multimodal access, employment, public service facilities and other institutional uses, recreation, parks and open space and other uses to meet long-term needs;
Policy 2.2.1(a), which provides that planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet projected needs of current and future residents;
Policy. 2.3.1 with policies that seek to optimize the use of land and infrastructure. He opined the Subject Site is located within a “settlement area” and a “strategic growth area” as defined by the PPS 2024 which include, among other things, “major transit station areas”, existing and emerging downtowns, and other areas where growth or development will be focused for accommodating intensification and higher-density mixed uses in a more compact built form;
Policy 2.4.2 (1) the Subject Site falls within the draft boundaries of the proposed Protected Major Transit Station Area associated with Kipling-Eglinton Station, as set out in draft Site and Area Specific Policy 903 and provides that delineations for major transit station areas shall “define an area within an approximately 500 to 800 metre radius of a transit station and that maximizes the number of potential transit users;
Policy 2.9.1, which directs planning authorities to plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for the impacts of a changing climate;
Policy 3.1.1. which provides that infrastructure and public service facilities shall be provided in an efficient manner while accommodating projected needs and that planning for infrastructure and public service facilities shall be coordinated and integrated with land use planning and growth;
Policy 3.1.2 which provides that, before consideration is given to developing new infrastructure and public service facilities, the use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities should be optimized and opportunities for adaptive re-use should be considered, wherever feasible;
Policy 6.1.6. which requires that planning authorities keep their zoning by-laws up-to-date with their official plans and the PPS by establishing permitted uses, minimum densities, heights and other development standards to accommodate growth and development; and
Policy 6.1.12. which provides that density targets represent minimum standards and planning authorities are encouraged to go beyond these minimum targets, where appropriate, except where doing so would conflict with any policy of the PPS or any other provincial plan.
City of Toronto Official Plan (“CTOP”)
17It was Mr. Doherty’s opinion that the applications conform with the City of Toronto Official Plan, and in particular, with the applicable Mixed Use Areas designation (4.5(2)), and the policies related to growth management (2.1(3), 2.2(1), 2.2(2), 2.2(3), 2.2(9), 2.2.3(1), 2.2.3(3), 2.2.3(4), 2.2.3(7)); transportation (2.4(4), 2.4(7), 2.4(9)); healthy neighbourhoods (2.3.1(1) and 2.3.1(3)); public realm (3.1.1); built form (3.1.3 and 3.1.4); housing (3.2.1(1) and 3.2.1(2)); retail (3.5.3(5)) and implementation (5.3.2(1) and 5.6(1.1).
Draft Kipling-Eglinton Major Transit Station Area (SASP 903)
18On December 5, 2024, the Planning and Housing Committee considered a staff report, dated November 19, 2024, which contained draft delineations for 7 Major Transit Station Areas along the ECWE corridor and 2 Protected Major Transit Station Areas elsewhere in the City.
19The Subject Site is located within draft Site and Area Specific Policy 903 (“SASP 903”).
City of Toronto Zoning By-Law #569-2013
20Mr. Doherty provided Zoning By-law details that the Subject Site is subject to the City-wide Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended by By-laws 834-2021 and 57-2025, and the City-wide Zoning By-law 569-2013 is now in full force as it pertains to the Subject Site.
Subsection 45(1) – Minor Variance Applications
21This is a Hearing de novo, and the onus is on the Applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that the Amended Applications are minor and do not require further Notice and having done so in the Hearing, then for the Applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the requested variances meet the statutory tests. The general four tests to be met in considering the approval of Minor Variance applications individually and collectively are as set out as follows and, in support of his evidence, Mr. Doherty lead the following evidence:
i. Is the requested variance(s) minor in nature;
- Mr. Doherty testified that the proposed variances are minor in nature and are limited to functional elements of the proposed development with no changes to the approved mix of uses, density, height or built form standards. Nothing in the consent or minor variation applications would affect the design or space nor hinder providing adequate accessible parking space configuration and loading supply. Further with regard to resident vehicle parking, Mr. Doherty testified that the supply of parking spaces exceed the latest requirements set out in the City-wide Zoning By-laws 89-2022 and 125-2022
ii. Is approval of the requested variance desirable for the appropriate development of the area;
- The requested variances would help to facilitate the first phase of the comprehensive redevelopment of the Subject Site and provide for appropriate range and mix of land uses, housing options, transportation options optimize the use of land and infrastructure requires that planning authorities keep their zoning by-laws up-to-date with their official plans and the PPS by establishing permitted uses, minimum densities, heights and other development standards to accommodate growth
iii. Does the requested variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL;
No changes are proposed to any built form or permitted use standards which would notably alter the type of development contemplated by the ZBL. The proposed location of parking, accessible parking and loading spaces has remained unchanged and meets the latest City-wide standards set out in the City-wide ZBL 569-2013; new development (i.e. Bldg. C) will be located primarily underground and away from the public realm. The ZBL contains two sets of requirements for accessible parking.
Variance 1 is required to allow for the proposed development to align with the City’s most recent performance standards in ZBL 569-2013 for Buildings C and D that pertain to previous accessible parking space dimensions requiring 5.6 metres (“m”). in length, a minimum 3.9 m. wide and a minimum vertical clearance of 2.1 m. to the current standard of 5.6 m. in length, 3.4 m in width with a vertical clearance of 2.1 m. wherein the requirement for a 1.5 m. barrier free aisle or path is required.
Variance 2 is required to deal with an oversupply of loading capacity for Building C. The provision of two loading spaces as opposed to four would otherwise meet the minimum general loading space requirements outlined in ZBL 569-2013 – general intent and purpose of the ZBL 569-2013 is maintained
Variances 3 and 4 – Exception 310 does not include specific provisions pertaining to the supply of vehicle parking spaces and defers to the standards found in ZBL 569-2013
iv. Does the requested variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.
- The area supports designated mixed-use areas located along Eglington and makes use of land and infrastructure. The area is well served by existing and planned transit is located approx. 350 metres. east of the planned Kipling-Eglinton Station and approx. 500m west of the planned Islington-Eglinton Station currently under construction.
22It was Mr. Doherty’s evidence the variances individually and cumulatively will facilitate the orderly development of the Subject Property for a use and in a manner that is appropriate, desirable and consistent with the principles of good land use planning by addressing neighbourhood concerns, regarding inter alia comprehensive planning for the use and development of this site, provision for a complete community which includes parks and outdoor spaces, parking and traffic control. The Tribunal notes that no conditions were sought by the City with respect to the Minor Variance Applications.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
23Having considered the uncontroverted viva voce testimony and supporting affidavit of Mr. Doherty and having reviewed the accompanying documentation, the Tribunal finds that the proposal application represents an appropriate and desirable optimization of the lands located and supports a multi-phased, mixed-use development with outdoor amenities located at 250 Wincott Drive and 4620 Eglinton Avenue West in the City of Toronto
24The Tribunal finds that the Proposed Variances have regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in section 2 of the Act and represent good planning.
25The Tribunal finds that the Application is consistent with the PPS 2024 as it emphasizes the priority of a full range of housing options and permits and facilitate all types of residential intensification, promoting densities for new housing and the use of existing infrastructure.
26The Tribunal finds that the four tests established in subsection 45(1) of the Act, are satisfied as articulated by the evidence of Mr. Doherty that the variances are minor in nature, are desirable for the appropriate development of the area, maintain the general intent and purpose of the CTZBL and maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.
THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:
27The Tribunal having been asked to consider an application that has been amended from the original application, and the Tribunal having determined as provided for in subsections 53(35.1) and 45(18.1.1.) of the Planning Act, no further notice is required.
28The Tribunal orders that the appeal is allowed and the Minor Variances to the City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 are authorized.
29The Tribunal orders that provisional consent is to be given subject to the Conditions set out in Schedules A and B (pages 6 and 7) to this order.
30The Tribunal orders on consent that the appeal of the Site Plan Application is adjourned sine die.
31The Tribunal may be spoken to if there are any issues implementing this Order.
“Jackie Denyes”
JACKIE DENYES
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.