PEM (Weston) Limited Partnership and PEM (Weston) GP Inc. v. Vaughan (City), 2026 CanLII 16293

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 17, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000288 OLT-25-000733 OLT-25-000892 OLT-26-000088

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

Applicant/Appellant: PEM (Weston Limited Partnership and PEM (Weston) GP Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: The permit the development of 2 mixed use residential and commercial buildings and 1 residential building Reference Number: OP.24.009 Property Address: 3790 Highway 7 Municipality/UT: Vaughan/York OLT Case No: OLT-25-000288 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000288 OLT Case Name: PEM (Weston) Limited Partnership and PEM (Weston) GP Inc. v. Vaughan (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 Reference Number: Z.24.021 Property Address: 3790 Highway 7 Municipality/UT: Vaughan/York OLT Case No: OLT-25-000289 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000288

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

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision Reference Number: 19T-24V005 Property Address: 3790 Highway 7 Municipality/UT: Vaughan/York OLT Case No: OLT-25-000290 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000288

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

Applicant/Appellant: 2371933 Ontario Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: 42-storey and 45-storey mixed-use residential buildings Reference Number: OP.21.006 Property Address: 7520, 7540 and 7560 Weston Road Municipality/UT: Vaughan/York OLT Case No: OLT-25-000733 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000733 OLT Case Name: 2371933 Ontario Inc. v. Vaughan (City)

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

Applicant/Appellant: 2371933 Ontario Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: 42-storey and 45-storey mixed-use residential buildings Reference Number: Z.21.009 Property Address: 7520, 7540 and 7560 Weston Road Municipality/UT: Vaughan/York OLT Case No: OLT-25-000734 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000733

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

Applicant/Appellant: Kingsmoor Developments Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit a development consisting of three mixed-use towers ranging in height from 32, 35 and 38 storeys Reference Number: OP.21.026 Property Address: 177 Whitmore Road Municipality/UT: Vaughan/York OLT Case No: OLT-25-000892 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000892 OLT Case Name: Kingsmoor Developments Inc. v. Vaughan (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 a development consisting of three mixed-use towers ranging in height from 32, 35 and 38 storeys Reference Number: Z.21.055 Property Address: 177 Whitmore Road Municipality/UT: Vaughan/York OLT Case No: OLT-25-000893 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000892

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Subject: Site Plan Description: To permit a development consisting of three mixed-use towers ranging in height from 32, 35 and 38 storeys Reference Number: DA.22.007 Property Address: 177 Whitmore Road Municipality/UT: Vaughan/York OLT Case No: OLT-25-000894 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000892

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

Applicant/Appellant: Gallu Construction Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit the development of 5 residential towers, a mid-rise office building, a public park and 5 privately owned publicly accessible spaces Reference Number: OP.23.009 Property Address: 3899 Highway 7 Municipality/UT: Vaughan/York OLT Case No: OLT-26-000088 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-26-000088 OLT Case Name: Gallu Construction Inc. v. Vaughan (City)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Gallu Construction Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit the development of 5 residential towers, a mid-rise office building, a public park and 5 privately owned publicly accessible spaces Reference Number: Z.23.017 Property Address: 3899 Highway 7 Municipality/UT: Vaughan/York OLT Case No: OLT-26-000089 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-26-000088

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6

Request by: City of Vaughan Motion for: Directions Heard: February 12-13, 2026, by Video Hearing and Telephone Conference Call

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
City of Vaughan (“City”)	Raj Kehar, Colin Dougherty
PEM (Weston) Limited Partnership and PEM (Weston) GP Inc. (“PEM Weston”)	Mark Flowers, Grace O’Brien
2371933 Ontario Inc. (“SKY”)	Jennifer Evola, Signe Leisk
Kingsmoor Developments Inc. (“Kingsmoor”)	Paul M. DeMelo, Daniel Angelucci
Gallu Construction Inc. (“Gallu”)	Daniel Artenosi, Justine Reyes

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN T. MASTORAS ON FEBRUARY 12-13, 2026, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION AND PRELIMINARY MATTERS

1This matter is a Motion for Direction by the City, under s. 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act (“OLTA”) primarily seeking:

1. The adjournment of a Merit Hearing regarding the PEM Weston appeals (“PEM Appeals”) under the Planning Act (“Act”) scheduled to commence on March 23, 2026;

2. A hearing to be scheduled, to hear together the common transportation issues in the PEM Appeals together with the common transportation issues in the SKY Property Group Inc. (“SKY Property”) appeals (“SKY Appeals”), and the Kingsmoor Development Inc. (“Kingsmoor”) appeals (“Kingsmoor Appeals”);

3. The consolidation of all of the above noted matters (together, the “Appeals”), to be heard together as a Phase 1 Consolidated Transportation Hearing (“Phase 1 Consolidated Transportation Hearing”).

2The above referenced appeals include different, Site Specific, high density, mixed-use towers, all under various subsections of the Planning Act (“Act”), confirmed for the purposes of the Motion, in the recently-updated Title of Proceedings above, from the Tribunal.

3At the outset of the Motion Hearing, the Tribunal confirmed on consent of all Parties present, that a Verbatim Recorder (Arbitration Place), had been provided prior approval to record the proceedings, under the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”).

4The Tribunal also initially clarified that as a result of recently submitted appeals from Gallu, under sections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Act (“Gallu Appeals”), the OLT Case Nos. OLT-26-000088/89, were established by the Tribunal, and Gallu is recognized as an Appellant Party before the Tribunal, having been served directly with this Motion by the City.

5Furthermore, the Tribunal can now confirm that a first event for the Gallu Appeals has been scheduled as a Case Management Conference (“CMC”), on Monday March 16, 2026. This first CMC is essential in determining if any other Parties or Participants should be recognized by the Tribunal, having received proper Notice of the scheduled CMC, as proceedings with the Gallu Appeals continue.

6Additionally, for the purposes of this Motion, all of the matters fall within the recently adopted Weston and Highway 7 Secondary Plan (“W7SP”), and the newly adopted Vaughan Official Plan 2025 (“VOP 2025”), both of which are currently before the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (“MMAH”), awaiting Ministerial approval.

7Where applicable, the Tribunal may refer to this group of four Site Specific W7 Area Applications/Appeals (together, as the “W7 Area Applications/Appeals”), all of which also fall within a Protected Major Transit Station Area (“PMTSA”), and within the Weston 7 Transportation Master Plan, 2025 (“TMP”), for consideration of the Tribunal.

EXHIBIT LIST

8The Notice provided for this Motion Hearing was properly circulated to all Parties, and is marked along with all Exhibits under the Tribunal’s consideration as listed below:

1. Affidavit of Service, signed by Natalia Manasesero (January 28, 2026);

2. Applicant/City Motion Record (January 28, 2026);

3. City Book of Authorities;

4. Response to Motion (OLT-25-000288)(“PEM Weston”);

5. Response to Motion (OLT-25-000892)(“Kingsmoor”);

6. Response to Motion (OLT-25-000733)(“SKY”);

7. SKY - Book of Authorities;

8. Response to Motion (OLT-26-000088)(“Gallu”);

9. Gallu – Updated Book of Authorities (February 12, 2026);

10. Affidavit of Service, signed by Yasmeen Lewis (February 10, 2026)(PEM Weston);

11. Affidavit of Service, signed by Nathan Vickers (February 5, 2026)(SKY);

12. Affidavit of Service, signed by Christopher J. Drew (February 11, 2026) (Kingsmoor);

13. Affidavit of Service, signed by Justine Reyes (February 11, 2026)(Gallu); and,

14. PEM Weston Book of Authorities.

APPLICANT / CITY MOTION

9As a general overview, these W7 Area Applications/Appeals fall within the recently adopted W7SP by the City, bounded by Fieldstone Drive, Chrislea Road, and Portage Parkway to the north; the Highway 400 corridor to the east; the Highway 407 corridor, Rowntree Dairy Road, and Trowers Road to the south; and Ansley Grove Road and Whitmore Road to the west.

10In more precise detail, the City Motion is seeking the following Tribunal directions:

1. An Order to adjourn the merit hearing of the PEM (Weston) Limited Partnership and PEM (Weston) GP Inc. (“PEM”) appeals under the Planning Act that are scheduled to commence on March 23, 2026 (the “PEM Appeals”) to facilitate common transportation issues in the PEM Appeals to be heard together with common transportation issues of certain other appeals filed in the Weston Road and Highway 7 Secondary Plan Area (the “Weston 7”);

2. An Order that a hearing be scheduled to hear together the common transportation issues in the PEM Appeals together with the common transportation issues in the SKY Property Group Inc. (“SKY Property”) appeals and Kingsmoor Development Inc. (“Kingsmoor”) appeals in the Weston 7 (the “Phase 1 Consolidated Transportation Hearing”);

3. An Order that the City may add further appellants in the Weston 7 to the Phase 1 Consolidated Transportation Hearing that have common transportation issues, by way of subsequent motion(s) made prior to the case management conference referenced in paragraph 4 below, and that the decision on the current motion is without prejudice to the hearing of such subsequent motion(s);

4. An Order scheduling a case management conference on or after May 4, 2026, to establish the dates and hearing procedure for the Phase 1 Consolidated Transportation Hearing; and

5. Such further and other relief as counsel may request and the Tribunal may permit.

11The Motion further submits that a number of other Site Specific applications have recently been filed with the City, including an existing completed project noted below:

1. Smart Centres has submitted an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Application for the lands known municipally as 57, 101, and 137 Northview Blvd, which are located in the northeast quadrant. The proposed development consists of a community consisting of 8 residential and 2 mixed-use development blocks, containing 3,962 residential units;

2. RioCan has submitted an Official Plan Amendment for the entirety of the southeast quadrant (with the exception of the existing Costco and gas station).The proposed development is a mix of uses including retail, office, residential and community uses with approximately 13,000 residential units;

3. Morguard Investments Limited has filed an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for the lands known municipally as 7600 Weston Road, which are located in the southwest quadrant. The proposed development contemplates a high-density mixed-use residential community consisting of nine buildings with a total of 4,388 residential units; and,

4. As mentioned above, an existing development at lands known municipally as 7777 Weston Road and 3600 and 3700 Highway 7, which has 783 residential units and is currently constructed.

12These matters are not currently before the Tribunal. Furthermore, and important to note, is that the City references a separate Tribunal Decision, issued as an Interim Order on March 18, 2025 (OLT- 22-004652), related to a nearby property municipally known as 7887 Weston Road, and owned by Wedgewood Columbus Limited (“Wedgewood Lands”).

13The Wedgewood Lands Interim Order allowed, in part, a draft Official Plan Amendment and draft Zoning By-law Amendment including draft Holding provisions, which were approved in principle, permitting a high-rise, mixed-use residential development. The development is comprised of four towers (36, 39, 46, and 49-storeys) respectively, rising from two podiums, with street-front commercial space and a total of 2,339 residential units. This was a Phase 1 Decision, that is awaiting the scheduling of a Phase 2 Hearing (expected in September 2026), that will determine final details associated with the proposed Instruments (“Wedgewood Decision”).

14While the City raised this matter as a reference point, it acknowledged that the Wedgewood Proposal is on a separate path, however, the City asserts that “residual [transportation] capacity is now substantially utilized, and any further development in the Weston 7 [Area] is dependant on future transportation improvements and corresponding population and jobs caps that have been planned for in the TMP.”

15Following the Wedgewood Decision, the Tribunal also noted that the City had pursued remedies related to the Wedgewood Decision, including both a Request for Review (“RFR”), under the Tribunal’s Rules, and a Motion for Leave (“MFL”). The RFR was dismissed by the Executive Chair of the Tribunal, and the MFL was denied by the Divisional Court, on December 12, 2025.

16Despite the above, Counsel for the City submits that these W7SP Applications/Appeals, maintain a commonality of Transportation-related issues that are expected to come before the Tribunal. These common issues include reference to the following issues:

i. Is the TMP the appropriate assessment of transportation capacity in the Weston 7?

ii. Is the 26,000 people and jobs development threshold noted in the TMP the appropriate cap for the Weston 7 from a transportation perspective? Are the quadrant caps appropriate from a transportation perspective?

iii. Does the density proposed in the development applications fit with the development threshold for the Weston 7 area and the quadrant caps as identified in the TMP from a transportation perspective?

iv. Do the individual TISs provide the necessary information including background traffic, trip generation, forecasted background and total forecasted traffic, etc. to assess the development application in the context of the Weston 7? If not, what information should be provided in each and all of the TISs?

v. What is the appropriate methodology that each and all individual TISs should apply to assess background traffic, trip generation, future forecasts, total future traffic, etc., to assess whether an individual development is feasible from a transportation perspective?

17Much of the rationale behind the City’s Motion is captured in the documents submitted (Exhibit 2), however, the Tribunal heard a lengthy submission, that will be more accurately captured in transcripts expected to follow from the Verbatim Recorder.

18The City also shared its Oral Reply to the Responding Parties’ submissions, confirming that it had not submitted its Reply evidence, three-days prior to the Motion Hearing, which is normal practice within the Tribunal’s Rules.

19Importantly, however, during the course of the Motion Hearing, the above noted proposed Issues were the subject of very detailed criticism from the Responding Parties, and, in the end, the City showed a willingness to further define what a final draft Issues List (“IL”) may contain, subject to the direction of the Tribunal.

20Counsel for the City asserted that the Appeals, individually, and collectively, maintain a dependency on future transportation infrastructure, and all W7 Applications/Appeals currently exceed the W7SP Area-recommended densities, presently before the MMAH, as adopted by the City.

21The City submitted that there is no prejudice to the SKY and Kingsmoor Appeals, since there are no Merit Hearing dates scheduled for these matters, however, acknowledged that there is some prejudice associated with the PEM Appeals, if the scheduled Merit Hearing were to be adjourned. Counsel for the City insisted that “public interest and benefits of good transportation planning” outweigh any prejudice in this instance.

22Finally, Counsel for the City submitted that the TMP is the only study that covers the entire Weston and Highway 7 Area (“W7 Area”) and anticipates population and jobs growth in the range of 64,900 people, which could only be accommodated with appropriate infrastructure improvements, noting that anything beyond a Population and Jobs Cap (“P&J Cap”) of 26,000 people would be very difficult to surpass. The City asserted that the future impact of other development applications/appeals that are pending, will also be impacted by these Growth Targets.

RESPONDING PARTY SUBMISSIONS

PEM Weston

23Counsel for PEM Weston led the Respondents’ Motion submissions on behalf of PEM Weston, with the consent of the other three Respondents, all of whom adopted PEM Weston’s evidence, during their oral submissions.

24PEM Weston requested the following relief on the Motion:

a. An Order dismissing the Motion in its entirety;

b. In the alternative:

i. An Order dismissing the City’s request at paragraph 1 of its Notice of Motion, to adjourn the merit hearing of PEM’s appeals under the Planning Act (the “PEM Appeals”), which hearing is scheduled to commence on March 23, 2026 (the “PEM Hearing”);

ii. An Order dismissing the City’s request at paragraph 2 of its Notice of Motion in relation to the PEM Appeals; and

iii. An Order that the PEM Hearing will proceed in accordance with the Procedural Order issued by the Tribunal on December 15, 2025, as amended by the Tribunal’s Order dated January 14, 2026 (the “PEM Procedural Order”);

c. Such other and further relief as Counsel may request and the Tribunal will allow.

25The PEM Weston applications were submitted to the City in June 2024 and deemed complete on November 25, 2024. The PEM Weston applications seek to redevelop the lands municipally known as 3790 Highway 7, in the City, with three high-rise residential/mixed-use buildings containing a total of approximately 1,621 residential units, amenity space and at-grade commercial uses (“PEM Proposal”).

26PEM Weston notes that they are the only Respondent to the Motion with lands situated in the northwest quadrant within the W7SP, and the others are in the southwest quadrant. PEM Weston submits that through its Transportation Mobility Plan, dated June 2024, it is concluded that the PEM Proposal “is expected to have a minimal impact on the surrounding transportation network that would not result in any new capacity concerns or needs for additional mitigation measures that would not already be required resulting from the background development traffic and growth.”

27The PEM Weston Merit Hearing as scheduled on March 23, 2026, on consent of the City, also included Canadian Tire Properties Inc. and Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited (“Canadian Tire”), as the owner and tenant of the lands municipally known as 3850 Highway 7, Woodbridge. Canadian Tire was granted Party Status to the PEM Weston Merit Hearing, uncontested by the City and PEM Weston, for the sole purpose of ensuring appropriate mitigation for noise levels emanating from the Canadian Tire lands.

28The PEM Proposal was appealed to the Tribunal on March 28, 2025, and Counsel asserted that the SKY Appeals (September 2025) and Kingsmoor Appeals (October 2026) that followed, were never mentioned by the City, in relation to a Procedural Order and Issues List (“PO/IL”) submitted to the Tribunal, on consent (November 24, 2025). This PO/IL was approved by the Tribunal and was intended to guide the proceedings of the March 23, 2026, 12-day, Merit Hearing of the PEM Appeals.

29PEM Weston Counsel, asserted that at no time during Tribunal considerations, related to the scheduling of the Merit Hearing, did the City propose a phasing of the PEM Appeals, noting that there were approximately ten separate Transportation Issues, among a total of 40 Issues, approved on consent of the Parties.

30Additional concerns from PEM Weston, to the City assertion that hearing matters separately may result in inconsistencies with Tribunal decision-making, which is problematic, include the following:

a) The potential for inconsistencies with the Tribunal’s decision-making should not be a factor, referencing the City’s inclusion of the Wedgewood Decision, within this Motion, for instance;

b) A Phase 1 Consolidated Transportation Hearing would not negate this possibility, noting only that these Appeals are currently involved with the potential of up to 31 identified potential development sites; and,

c) That the PEM Proposal, which is located within the northwest quadrant of the W7 Area, is quite distinguishable from the others currently before the Tribunal, especially as it is expected to “guide the orderly and contiguous implementation of transportation infrastructure improvements” in the area;

31The very detailed PEM Weston Response (Exhibit 4), concluded that the uniqueness of the PEM Proposal, warrants a comprehensive Merit Hearing, including “all planning aspects of an application,” and that this Motion should be refused and dismissed.

Kingsmoor

32Kingsmoor is the owner of lands municipally known as 117 Whitmore Road, in the City (“Kingsmoor Lands”), which is also within the southwest quadrant of the W7 Area.

33Kingsmoor is seeking approval to permit the development of three mixed-use buildings with heights of 32, 35, and 38-storeys, with a shared podium structure of varying heights. The proposal would include 1,172 dwelling units, 885 parking spaces, retail space along the Highway 7 and Whitmore Road frontages, parkland dedication and a privately owned, publicly accessible landscaped courtyard. A Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) of 93,500 square metres (“m²”) of residential gross floor area and 1,520 m² of non-residential GFA is proposed, resulting in a density of approximately 9.5:1 ratio, being the ratio of GFA to the area of the lot (“Kingsmoor Proposal”).

34Kingsmoor Counsel, more specifically, outlines the MMAH options regarding any potential approval of the W7SP, elaborating on the proposed P&J Cap (Exhibit 5, paras.14-15), and fundamentally disagrees with the City’s attempts at establishing a P&J Cap through the W7SP and related TMP.

35Kingsmoor Counsel, also reiterated the position shared by all Responding Parties, that a P&J Cap is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and that the objectives of the City in seeking a Phase 1 Consolidated Hearing, were clearly suspect, inappropriate and inapplicable. Counsel further emphasized that the TMP has no standing and representative of a “tool” that has no details.

36Kingsmoor Counsel, also expands on the Transitional policies in the VOP 2025, referencing appeals already in progress, and its inapplicability to these W7SP Area Applications/Appeals, resulting from their submission timeframes, respectively (Exhibit 5, paras.16-21). Kingsmoor Counsel submitted that only the VOP 2010, should be applied in these circumstances regarding Transition, absent a Secondary Plan previously, and that the City should have assessed these W7SP Area Applications in accordance with policies in-force at the time that they were deemed complete.

37As a general summary, Kingsmoor is also seeking that the Motion be dismissed for reasons that follow:

a) The Wedgewood Decision “does not preclude” the Kingsmoor Proposal from proceeding, as it relates to transportation capacity;

b) The Kingsmoor Transportation Impact and Parking Study (“Kingsmoor TIS”) (March 2022), preceded the Wedgewood Transportation Impact Study (“Wedgewood TIS”) (October 2024), and was one of the elements under consideration by the Tribunal, in the Wedgewood Decision, which included analysis of the Kingsmoor TIS, at that time;

c) This Motion is retroactive in nature, and is resultingly procedurally unfair, inappropriate, and unsubstantiated, in dealing with a thoroughly-completed, and detailed Kingsmoor Proposal. The submission includes that the City deemed the Kingsmoor Proposal as having submitted complete applications in March 2022 (“Kingsmoor OPA & ZBA”) and April 2022 (“Kingsmoor SPA”); and,

d) The City’s opportunity to critique and argue the methodologies used in the Kingsmoor TIS, has effectively expired.

38Regarding the “commonality of issues”, Kingsmoor contends that despite opportunities for City staff to rebut methodology in reference to the Kingsmoor TIS, nevertheless, the City deemed the Kingsmoor Proposal complete and, thus, Kingsmoor asserted that “the mere existence of potential common witnesses and issues is not sufficient to warrant consolidation or hearing together.”

39Furthermore, Kingsmoor suggests that the demand on Tribunal resources would be significant, based on the City’s Motion expectations, and that the Tribunal’s procedural framework/fairness is diminished, resulting in unnecessary delays, costs, and prejudice to the Responding Parties.

40Finally, regarding the City assertion that there is a risk of “contradiction” in the decision-making process, Kingsmoor submits that there is also risk, related to any decision that may be made by the Tribunal, as the Parties await any results pending from the MMAH, on the VOP 2025 and the W7SP, and any related P&J Cap.

SKY

41The SKY Response requested that the Motion be dismissed in its entirety, on the basis that the requested relief:

a. does not meet the criteria for consolidation or hearing together pursuant to established jurisprudence;

b. is outside of the jurisdiction of the [Tribunal] and the right of all appellants to a hearing de novo pursuant to the [OLTA] and the [Act];

c. is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as there is no instrument before the Tribunal capable of area-wide adjudication; and

d. such further reasons advised by counsel and which the Tribunal may allow.

42Furthermore, SKY Counsel states that should the Tribunal grant the Motion, SKY opposes the setting of a CMC on or after May 4, 2026, and requests a CMC at the first available opportunity, along with any other relief that Counsel may request, and the Tribunal may allow.

43SKY Counsel suggested that the SKY request for the scheduling of a Merit Hearing at its first CMC, on January 28, 2026, was refused by the Tribunal, and was later corrected by the Tribunal, in that the SKY Appeal was held in abeyance, reconfirming that a second SKY CMC was scheduled for February 18, 2026, and was never denied the opportunity to schedule a Merit Hearing.

44SKY is the owner of lands municipally known as 7520, 7540, 7560 Weston Road, in the City. The original SKY Proposal, located in the southwest quadrant of the W7 Area, was deemed complete on February 18, 2022, consisting of two residential towers with proposed heights of 45 and 47-storeys, a four-storey podium, and ground floor commercial uses (“SKY Original Proposal”).

45In addition to numerous related-studies through the Pre-Application Consultation process, SKY submitted a further Transportation Impact Study (“SKY TIS”) in response to City and Regional Municipality of York (“Region”) requirements with a 2041 horizon, for the entirety of the southwest quadrant as part of the W7SP Area study process. The SKY TIS was submitted with updates on approximately, three separate occasions as prepared by Nextrans Engineering.

46The SKY Original Proposal did not advance, partly attributable to the anticipated W7SP Area analysis that was ongoing. SKY continued with its engagement with the City during an intervening period, beginning in May 2022, both in relation to the TMP (June 2023) and the W7SP Area consultation process.

47Following the revised submissions in May 2025, SKY is currently proposing a development consisting of two mixed-use residential buildings with proposed heights of 42 and 45 storeys respectively, supported by a four-storey podium with a total of approximately 952 residential units, with 734.88 m² of ground-floor commercial space, serviced by 824 parking spaces and 670 bicycle parking spaces. The proposed development has a FSI of 8.76 (“SKY Proposal”). This also included an updated SKY TIS.

48The SKY TIS was further updated as part of the revised SKY Proposal, prepared in accordance with City and Regional guidelines, and the TMP, among other municipally-initiated transportation plans. Notwithstanding these efforts, the SKY appealed to the Tribunal, given the absence of a decision by the City.

49SKY Counsel, among a number of similar arguments from all Respondents, critiqued City submissions regarding the TMP, and its relevance, including its own consultant’s assessment as follows (Exhibit 6, TAB 3, pg.681):

• Contrary to paragraphs 61 and 64 of the Affidavit of Chris Tam to my knowledge, the term “development cap” is not utilized in the TMP. The TMP is ultimately a model utilized to predict travel demand and anticipate the potential impact of developments collectively within a study area on the transportation network. In order to create a Transportation Master Plan, one must estimate populations in the study area, as well as matters such as modal splits and trip generation. These estimates help to create models to create travel demand forecasts but are not intended to be caps on development.

50SKY Counsel reiterated the importance of the Wedgewood Decision, in that it maintains a number of similarities with the SKY Proposal, and the parallel challenges experienced with the City in the course of its own process. SKY highlights the reasons for dismissal of the City’s arguments through the Wedgewood Decision (Exhibit 6, para. 29), and generally concurs with the Tribunal’s findings.

51Furthermore, SKY Counsel disagrees with the City as it relates to the assertion that the Wedgewood Decision resultingly restricts “residual [transportation] capacity” for other W7SP Area projects, without new and enhanced infrastructure improvements.

52SKY submissions continued further with a similar focus on procedural fairness, and the right to a de novo hearing for all Appellants, considering each matter that comes before the Tribunal on a Site Specific basis. Additionally, with the increase in appeals moving ahead, procedural fairness, may further come into question as it could appear to other landowners, who may become appellants with their own matters, have been excluded by not having been afforded a fulfulsome opportunity to participate in deliberations of the Tribunal, and without their knowledge of a Phase 1 Consolidated Transportation Hearing.

53Finally, SKY submits that with the W7SP and VOP 2025 currently before the MMAH, the City has inappropriately attempted to further influence the Minister’s decision, as recently as January 27, 2026, through its efforts to make the VOP 2025, retroactively applicable to all W7SP Area current and pending development applications.

GALLU

54The Gallu applications date back to August 2022, and following public consultation, were finally deemed complete on July 28, 2023. Gallu is seeking permission to develop a total of five high-rise buildings with heights ranging from 28 to 38-storeys, containing a total of 1981 residential units, an eight-storey midrise office building, and a 1,603 m² public park, with a proposed five privately-owned, publicly accessible spaces (“Gallu Applications”). As noted above, the first CMC is scheduled for March 16, 2026.

55Gallu submits that there are unique differences between the TMP, undertaken by WSP Canada Inc. (“WSP”), on behalf of the City, and those specifically included in the Gallu Applications. In particular, Counsel submitted that although the TMP states that it “does not purport to establish any population or density limits within the study area, nor could it do so in law,” the TMP was “being undertaken in parallel with the City’s preparation of the Proposed W7SP.”

56Gallu Counsel asserted that issues related to Transportation cannot be the “tail that wags the dog” as it relates to guiding Site Specific densities in such matters and referenced the City of Toronto example of the Yonge and Eglinton Secondary Plan scenario a number of years ago, which attempted to cap densities, that was eventually significantly increased through MMAH review.

57Gallu Counsel submitted that “the City’s central objective [is] to establish a population and jobs cap for lands within the Proposed W7SP area”, which poses jurisdictional challenges for the Tribunal, as referenced in the Gallu Response (Exhibit 8, pgs.16-18). Furthermore, the Gallu position is that the “in-force policy regime” should continue, consistent with the Wedgewood Decision, and any changes rest solely with the MMAH.

58Gallu Counsel further submits that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to establish a sweeping growth management policy for all lands within the Proposed W7SP Area, and that Site Specific matters under appeal should be heard de novo, by the Tribunal.

59Furthermore, Gallu Counsel submitted that the Gallu Applications satisfy the Transition protocols within the adopted VOP 2025, having been deemed complete in July 2023, despite their view that the City’s intention is to reverse its Transition provisions, and that to “entangle future” Site Specific applications, is an attempt to further implement growth management policies by the City. Gallu Counsel asserted that this will have an adverse impact on the approximately 31 potential sites within the W7SP Area, that have been identified.

60Finally, Gallu Counsel insisted that the TMP should not “dictate or predetermine” policy priorities but should rather respond to them. The Gallu position further reinforces the rationale used in the Wedgewood Decision, and also further suggests that the City’s motives seek to use the “Tribunal’s adjudicative process to effectively establish terms of reference for transportation studies on an ex post facto basis.” Other arguments focus on the concern around the duplication of evidence that will transpire, and future adverse impact on those applications not yet before the Tribunal, negatively affecting the existing procedural framework, including issues of natural justice and procedural fairness with current and other landowners over time.

61In summary, the TMP, as a non-statutory and separate document, should not be used as a policy tool to determine land use policy, growth management policy, and as a method of limiting densities and population, in this or any other instance, but should only be used to help guide the approval process with planning instruments under the Act.

62In conclusion, therefore, the Gallu Response asks that the Tribunal deny the Motion.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

63Through this same Tribunal Member’s recent CMC Decisions concerning the SKY Appeals and Kingsmoor Appeals, both of which were held in abeyance until the Tribunal provides direction regarding the Motion, some background information regarding the W7SP was deemed contextually important, for the general reader.

64To reiterate, the W7SP was initiated in 2018 and was finally, formally adopted by City Council in October 2025, forming part of Volume 2 of the also recently-adopted VOP 2025. Both the W7SP and VOP 2025 were submitted, as adopted by the City, before the MMAH on November 10, 2025, for consideration and approval, which have recently been winding down the public consultation process.

65As a general overview, the extensive time, effort and applied expertise given to these and other City policies during such an expanding period of strategic growth and renewal in this critical transportation corridor, in some respects, has been unprecedented.

66In particular, the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre (“VMC”), to the east, demonstrates a spectacular degree of new density, and population growth, with more opportunities for growth anticipated as it continues to evolve, with new and dynamic proposals.

67Similarly, in the W7 Area, there is a lengthy history of residential development, with varying built-forms and densities, also with an expected, significant density increase in the coming years, as these and other development applications move ahead.

68There also exists a diverse array of substantial commercial “big box” style retail, an assortment of industrial properties, and smaller, independent service-oriented businesses that have evolved over many years, that are critical to the economic well-being of the W7 Area.

69The W7 Area has also clearly been established as a strategic growth centre, with differing challenges, resulting from its unique proximity to the west of the VMC and Highway 400. Many of these issues were made evident in the analysis and determinations from the Tribunal, in the Wedgewood Decision.

70All Parties appeared to acknowledge these unique characteristics, which have important implications in a number of respects, although as evidenced through this Motion Hearing, these W7 Area Appeals, have demonstrated different opinions and perspectives, with particular concern regarding P&J Cap policies, and the City’s TMP relevance.

71It should be stated that the length of time it has taken the City, over the course of many years, to reach the point of adoption of both the VOP 2025 and the W7SP, has created some serious challenges for these W7SP Area Motion Respondents, along with other landowners, planning future re-developments.

72There is no doubt, that the City’s adoption of these policies may have been a difficult challenge for municipal decision-makers, considering the fact that the Tribunal continues to hear matters based on the VOP 2010. However, it is also important to be cognizant of extensive due-diligence from each of these W7SP Area Motion Respondents to date, who deserve the utmost respect, in their efforts to revitalize this critical growth and transportation corridor.

73Through this Motion Hearing, the Tribunal is confronted with the difficult challenge of balancing Site Specific density objectives, combined with its obligation to ensuring procedural fairness, on matters only within its jurisdiction, and must make its determinations in a reasonable fashion, having considered all of the submitted evidence and argument.

74The Tribunal must weigh the realities as presented from both the City’s perspective, and that of the W7SP Area Responding Parties to the Motion, who have the statutory right, under the Act, to pursue their ultimate objectives, within the legislative and policy framework that exists.

75After careful consideration of all Motion submissions, and in particular, the unique circumstances involved, the Tribunal is persuaded by submissions from Counsel for the City and has determined that it would be prudent to hear together, the appeals from PEM Weston, SKY, and Kingsmoor, through the “scoped lens” of a Phase 1 Transportation Hearing process. The Tribunal has removed the word “Consolidated”, to more accurately reflect Tribunal Rule 16.3, which, through this direction, more appropriately applies in these circumstances.

76As a core element in its findings, the Tribunal finds that the scope, relevance, applicability, and potential implications of the City TMP should be tested fully through a focussed hearing applicable to the potential build-out of the W7SP Area.

77The Gallu Appeals, are also expected to be heard together through this Phase 1 Transportation Hearing, following a first CMC, as scheduled on March 16, 2026, which, may properly crystalize through a further Motion for Direction in this regard from the City.

78The Tribunal acknowledges the City’s recognition that there is some prejudice to the PEM Appeals but has also determined that the request for a CMC for the Phase 1 Transportation Hearing should be scheduled at the earliest possible time, in order to mitigate any further prejudice to the PEM Appeals, and any others. As a result, the Tribunal opted to consult PEM Weston and the City, around possible adjourned dates in the immediate future, which the Order reflects below.

79Therefore, in the interest of ensuring procedural fairness, primarily as it impacts the PEM Appeals, and maintaining respect for the Tribunal timing regarding the remaining W7 Area Appeals, the Tribunal determined the following directions resulting from the Motion:

a) The Tribunal will grant the Motion request, in part, and the PEM, SKY, and Kingsmoor Appeals, respectively, shall be heard together for the purposes of a Phase 1 Transportation Hearing, scheduled to commence Monday August 10, 2026, for 10 days, by video conference. Parties are directed to focus on common transportation issues, that consist of a “carefully-scoped” effort to minimize the number of issues for consideration of the Tribunal, and cognizant of some of the jurisdictional challenges with such a Hearing, that have been made evident through this Motion;

b) The CMC date for this Phase 1 Transportation Hearing is scheduled to commence on Monday, March 23, 2026, beginning at 10 a.m. by video conference, whereby a “carefully-scoped” draft final Procedural Order and Issues List, shall be established with the cooperation of the Parties, and any appropriate abridgement of the usual timelines as needed;

c) The Merit Hearing for the PEM Appeals is adjourned, and shall be rescheduled to commence on Monday, October 26, 2026, for 10 days, by video conference;

d) A Case Management Conference in the matter of the PEM Appeals, is also scheduled to commence on Thursday, March 26, 2026, whereby the Tribunal will consider an updated final Procedural Order and Issues List, and the current Procedural Order in place for the PEM Appeals, shall be rescinded;

e) The CMCs currently scheduled for the SKY Appeals (February 18, 2026), and Kingsmoor Appeals (February 19, 2026), respectively, shall remain in the Tribunal calendar for the purposes of determining any future Merit Hearing considerations around timelines, unless Parties associated with these matters advise the Tribunal otherwise. Procedural Orders for these matters should likely follow, the timing of which, can be determined at each respective second CMC, on the dates referenced.

f) The Gallu Appeals, shall continue in the normal course before the Tribunal, with a first Case Management Conference scheduled to commence on Monday, March 16, 2026;

g) The City is directed to provide the final draft PO/IL related to the Phase 1 Transportation Hearing to the Parties, on or before Monday, February 23, 2026; and,

h) The Parties are directed to submit the final draft PO/IL related to the Phase 1 Transportation Hearing to the Tribunal, on or before Monday, March 9, 2026, for its review and consideration;

80The hearings are scheduled to proceed by video as follows:

Monday, March 23, 2026 at 10 a.m. (1-day CMC Hearing) GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/709076365 Access code: 709-076-365 Audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (Toll Free) 1-888-299-1889 Audio-only access code: 709-076-365

Thursday, March 26, 2026 at 10 a.m. (1-day CMC Hearing) GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/709076365 Access code: 709-076-365 Audio-only line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (Toll Free) 1-888-299-1889 Audio-only access code: 709-076-365

Monday, August 10, 2026 at 10 a.m. (10-day Merit Hearing) GoTo Meeting: https://meet.goto.com/348282861 Access code: 348-282-861 Audio-only line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (Toll Free) 1-888-299-1889 Audio-only access code: 348-282-861

Monday, October 26, 2026 at 10 a.m. (10-day Merit Hearing) GoTo Meeting: https://meet.goto.com/348282861 Access code: 348-282-861 Audio-only line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (Toll Free) 1-888-299-1889 Audio-only access code: 348-282-861

81Parties and/or Participants and/or Observers are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before it begins to test their video and audio connections.

82Parties and/or Participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

83Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to it by calling in to an audio-only telephone line.

84Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the event to ensure that they are properly connected at the correct time. Questions prior to the event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator.

85As of March 30, 2026, all hearing events are governed by the Tribunal’s Artificial Intelligence Practice Direction. This Practice Direction requires a party, participant, or witness to include a declaration within each submitted document if generative AI was used to create or generate content.

86Finally, the Tribunal is again appreciative of the respectful cooperation between Counsel for all of the Parties present. For the benefit of all Parties, the Tribunal Member has apprised the Case Coordinator, that should there be a desire for Tribunal-led mediation related to any matter in these circumstances, that they be considered a priority, from a scheduling perspective, if requested, on consent, to help expedite any resolution of issues.

ORDER

87UPON MOTION to the Tribunal by the City of Vaughan for adjournment and hearing together of common transportation issues of various appeals before the Tribunal, and after the hearing of the motion,

88THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Motion for Direction from the City of Vaughan, is granted, in part, and the Tribunal provides the following Directions for the purposes of the appeals before the Tribunal:

1. Pursuant to Rule 16.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, Tribunal File Nos. OLT-25-000288, OLT-25-000733 and OLT-25-000892, shall be heard together for the purposes of a Phase 1 Transportation Hearing, scheduled for 10 days commencing Monday, August 10, 2026;

2. A Case Management Conference expected to guide the proceedings of the Phase 1 Transportation Hearing, which shall consider a scoped, final draft Procedural Order and Issues List, is scheduled on Monday, March 23, 2026;

OLT-25-000288

3. Pursuant to Rule 17 Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Motion request to adjourn and reschedule the Merit Hearing for Tribunal File No. OLT-25-000288, is granted, and now rescheduled as a Merit Hearing, to commence on Monday, October 26, 2026, for 10 days;

4. A Case Management Conference in the matter of Tribunal File No. OLT-25-000288 is scheduled to commence on Thursday, March 26, 2026, to consider a final draft Procedural Order and Issues List, which shall guide the proceedings of the re-scheduled Merit Hearing;

5. The current Procedural Order in matter of Tribunal File No. OLT-25-000288, is rescinded;

OLT-25-000733 and OLT-25-000892

6. The recently scheduled Case Management Conferences for Tribunal File Nos. OLT-25-000733, and OLT-25-000892, respectively, shall hereby proceed in the normal course before the Tribunal, as scheduled;

OLT-26-000088

7. The matter of Tribunal File No. OLT-26-000088, being appeals by Gallu Construction Inc., shall continue in the normal course before the Tribunal, with a first Case Management Conference scheduled to commence on March 16, 2026.

89Nothing in this Decision and Order precludes the City of Vaughan from filing subsequent motions regarding the addition of any further appellants to this Phase 1 Transportation Hearing, with a commonality of transportation issues.

90All other directions in this Decision are so ordered.

91The Member is not seized on this matter, however, remains available to assist the Parties in the lead up to the above referenced Case Management Conferences.

92There will be no further Notice.

“Steven T. Mastoras”

STEVEN T. MASTORAS 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.