Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 26, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000954

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

Appellant: 1001081495 Ontario Inc. and 1001081493 Ontario Inc. c/o 1000781695 Ontario Inc.

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

Description: To permit the construction of a 49-storey residential tower with podium

Reference Number: 25 153994 NNY 18 OZ

Property Address: 36, 38 and 40 Avondale Avenue

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-25-000954

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000954

OLT Case Name: 1001081495 Ontario Inc. v. Toronto (City)

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

Appellant: 1001081495 Ontario Inc. and 1001081493 Ontario Inc. c/o 1000781695 Ontario Inc.

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

Description: To permit the construction of a 49-storey residential tower with podium

Reference Number: 25 153994 NNY 18 OZ

Property Address: 36, 38 and 40 Avondale Avenue

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-25-000956

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000954

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A.

Appellant: 1001081495 Ontario Inc. and 1001081493 Ontario Inc. c/o 1000781695 Ontario Inc.

Subject: Site Plan

Description: To permit the construction of a 49-storey residential tower with podium

Reference Number: 25 153975 NNY 18 SA

Property Address: 36, 38 and 40 Avondale Avenue

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-25-000957

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000954

Heard: February 13, 2026, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
1001081495 Ontario Inc. and 1001081493 Ontario Inc. c/o 1000781695 Ontario Inc.	Jason Park Daniel Angelucci
City of Toronto	Matthew Longo Rachel Godley (in absentia)
Oulahen Team Realty Inc.	David Bronskill

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BOBKA ON February 13, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) for appeals filed by 1001081495 Ontario Inc. and 1001081493 Ontario Inc. c/o 1000781695 Ontario Inc. (“Applicant/Appellant”) pursuant to ss. 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act and s. 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act regarding the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to make decisions within the required timeframe on applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and a Site Plan Approval (“Site Plan”) to facilitate the development of a 49-storey residential tower with five-storey podium (“Proposal”) on the property municipally known as 36, 38, and 40 Avondale Avenue (“Subject Site”).

2The Subject Site is on the north side of Avondale Avenue, approximately 50 metres (“m”) east of Bales Avenue. It is generally square in shape, has a total area of approximately 1,260 square metres, with approximately 35 m of frontage on Avondale Avenue and a depth of approximately 35.9 m. Currently, there are three one- to two-storey single detached dwellings thereon which each front onto Avondale Avenue and have driveway access from same.

3The Subject Site is within a Protected Major Transit Station Area, is located within proximity of the Sheppard-Yonge Subway station and served by Toronto Transit Commission Bus Route #97.

NOTICE

4The Tribunal canvased Counsel, who raised no issues with the service of the Notice of the CMC. The Tribunal is in receipt of the Affidavit of Service sworn by Christopher J. Drew on January 27, 2026, which was marked as Exhibit 1, and confirms that Notice was adequately served. As such, no further Notice is required.

STATUS REQUESTS

5In advance of the CMC, the Tribunal received two requests for Party status from Oulahen Team Realty Inc. (“Oulahen Team”) and, together, Haochuan Wu and Guichan Tang (“Wu/Tang”), who raised the following:

a) Oulahen Team: Their lands are located immediately to the north of and approximately 50 feet to the east of the Subject Site, and three towers with heights of 29 storeys, 39 storeys and 45 storeys were approved by the Tribunal in 2023. They raised concerns regarding the Proposal’s setbacks for both the proposed base building and tower element which may negatively impact the Oulahen Team lands.

b) Wu/Tang: They own the property at 46 Avondale Avenue. They raised concerns that the Proposal’s overlook onto their property violates the privacy protection of the City’s Tall Building Design Guidelines, will have a significant shadow impact, and will feature insufficient parking.

6Mr. David Bronskill attended as Counsel for the Oulahen Team request, and no one appeared on behalf of the Wu/Tang request.

7Prior to consideration of the requests, the Tribunal stood down to determine whether any message regarding technical or log in difficulties had been received from Haochuan Wu or Guichan Tang; however, no emails or calls had been received. The Tribunal proceeded to consider the requests.

8Mr. Bronskill explained that his client intended to bring one or two witnesses (in the disciplines of planning and urban design) that would contribute to the Tribunal’s understanding regarding the Proposal and any potential revisions.

9Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant had no objections to the request by the Oulahen Team; however, objected to the Wu/Tang request. Mr. Park highlighted the requirement under Rule 8 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure that a Party is to participate fully in the proceeding, including attending all hearing events and that in granting Party status, the Tribunal must be satisfied that “the person’s presence is necessary to enable the Tribunal to adjudicate effectively and completely.” Mr. Park suggested that the requestors had not demonstrated through their written request that their presence was necessary and were not present to speak to this at this CMC.

10Counsel for the City did not take a position on the requests for Party status.

11Upon consideration, the Tribunal determined that Oulahen Team has a direct interest in the matters and would assist the Tribunal in the fair and complete adjudication of these matters, and granted them Party Status in the OPA, ZBA, and Site Plan appeals.

12In the Notice for the CMC, it states: “Attendance by the requestor, or their representative, at the CMC is required for all status requests. Where a requestor, or their representative, fails to attend the CMC, the presiding Member may refuse to consider or dismiss the status request in their absence.”

13As neither Haochuan Wu or Guichan Tang, nor their representative, attended the CMC, the Tribunal’s questions regarding the request could not be answered. The written request did not demonstrate why their presence was necessary. The Tribunal denied the request for Party status.

CONSOLIDATION

14While these matters were joined together administratively for efficiency for the purposes of this CMC, no formal ruling had yet been made as to whether they should be consolidated or heard together.

15The Parties submitted that consolidation of the OPA and ZBA matters would be appropriate in this case, which could be heard together with the Site Plan matter. This approach would allow the Parties the option of having the Site Plan matter adjourned at a later date, if so desired. As the matters involve the same property and evidence would be presented by the same expert witnesses, the Tribunal found this approach to be appropriate and granted the request.

TRIBUNAL-LED MEDIATION

16Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant advised that they were agreeable to mediation and were having early conversations with the City. Counsel for the City confirmed their awareness of Tribunal-led mediation but made no commitment to mediation at this time. Counsel for the Oulahen Team expressed his client’s desire to participate in any mediation.

17The Tribunal reminded the Parties that, if interested in Tribunal-led mediation, they could contact the Case Coordinator to begin a mediation assessment.

NEXT STEPS

18Prior to the CMC, the Parties submitted a draft Procedural Order (“PO”), including the City’s Issues List, for consideration by the Tribunal. Mr. Bronskill advised that his client’s Issues List would be available the following week. Given the issues identified, the Applicant/Appellant and the City anticipated calling four or five witnesses each, while Oulahen Team, as stated above, anticipated calling one or two witnesses. The Parties jointly requested that a 12-day Hearing on the merits (“Hearing”) be set in November 2026 or January 2027, subject to availability on the Tribunal’s calendar.

19Following a brief discussion, the Tribunal agreed with the proposed path forward and scheduled a 12-day Video Hearing to commence on Monday, January 11, 2027, at 10 a.m. It is noted that the Tribunal will not be sitting on Monday, January 25, 2027.

20Parties 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:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/344779885

Access code: 344-779-885

21Parties 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 GoTo Meeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

22Persons 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: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (Toll Free) 1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 344-779-885.

23Individuals 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.

24The Parties were also directed to provide the revised PO, including Issues List, for consideration on or before Friday, February 27, 2026.

25Finally, the Tribunal highlights that as 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.

ORDER

26The Tribunal Orders that:

a) Party status is granted to Oulahen Team Realty Inc.;

b) Matters OLT-25-000954 and OLT-25-000956 are consolidated; and will be heard together, with OLT-25-000957;

c) A 12-day Hearing on the merits is scheduled as outlined in paragraph [19]:

d) The revised draft Procedural Order, including Issues List is to be provided to the Tribunal for consideration by Friday, February 27, 2026.

27No further Notice is required.

28The Member is not seized but may be available for case management, should the Tribunal’s calendar permit.

“S. Bobka”

S. BOBKA

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.