Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
February 25, 2026
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-24-000355
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
European Bakery Supply Inc.
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description:
To permit two mixed-use residential development towers
Reference Number:
22 232811 STE 09 OZ
Property Address:
321-355 Symington Avenue and 350 Campbell Avenue
Municipality/UT:
Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.:
OLT-24-000355
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-24-000355
OLT Case Name:
European Bakery Supply Inc. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
European Bakery Supply Inc.
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description:
To permit two mixed-use residential development towers
Reference Number:
23 104503 STE 09 OZ
Property Address:
321-355 Symington Avenue and 350 Campbell Avenue
Municipality/UT:
Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.:
OLT-24-000356
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-24-000355
Heard:
In writing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel*/Representative
European Bakery Supply Inc.
Jamie Cole Michael Foderick (in absentia)
City of Toronto
Cameron McKeich Adrienne DeBacker
Royce Dupont Investments Inc. and Irving Ungerman Limited and Karl Ungerman Limited
Mark Flowers
Campont Developments Limited
David Bronskill
Perth-Symington-Kingsley Residents' Association
Mark Macdonald* Emily Shepard* (in absentia)
DECISION DELIVERED by carmine tucci AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal is with respect of the appeals filed under sections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) by European Bakery Supply Inc. (“the Applicant”). These appeals arise from the City of Toronto’s (“the City”) failure to issue decisions within the required statutory period on applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”).
2The OPA and ZBA applications concern the lands at 321–355 Symington Avenue and 350 Campbell Avenue (“the Subject Property”). The proposed amendments are intended to permit the development of a mixed-use project consisting of two towers.
3The Tribunal heard that the Parties confirmed that a settlement had been reached and was presented for the consideration of the Tribunal.
SETTLEMENT EVIDENCE AND SUMMARY OPINION
4The Tribunal was presented with the witness statement by Mr. Michael Bissett, a Professional Land Use Planner and Partner with Bousfields Inc., in support of the Settlement.
5The Settlement Proposal presented to the Tribunal contemplates two mixed‑use residential towers of 29 and 39 storeys, connected by a shared five‑storey podium. Retail space is planned at grade along Symington Avenue, with residential units located above.
6A four‑storey above‑grade parking structure remains part of the proposal, situated in the northeast portion of the Site on the 350 Campbell Avenue lands. This parking structure would be adjacent to the CP Rail corridor and partially located within lands designated for Employment uses. Consistent with Official Plan Amendment No. 653 (“OPA 653”), no residential uses are proposed on the 350 Campbell Avenue portion of the Site.
7The proposed 29‑storey tower would be located at the southern portion of the Site and reach a total height of 103.37 metres (“m”), which includes a 7.5‑m mechanical penthouse. The proposed 39‑storey tower, situated at the northern end of the Site, would have an overall height of 133.37 m, also inclusive of a 7.5‑m mechanical penthouse.
8Under the Settlement Proposal, the development would contain 53,376 square metres (“sq m”) of Total Gross Floor area (“GFA”), consisting of 52,289 sq m of residential GFA and 1,087 sq m of non‑residential GFA. This equates to an approximate density of 9.62 Floor Space Index (“FSI”). The amount of non‑residential GFA meets and exceeds the requirements established by OPA 653 and includes space for a community agency, which is being provided as an in‑kind community benefits charge contribution, as described further in his Affidavit.
9The proposal also provides an on‑site parkland dedication at the southern end of the Subject Site, with an area of at least 534.3 sq m. This parkland will be conveyed to the City free and clear of any above‑ or below‑grade physical or title encumbrances prior to the issuance of the first above‑grade building permit for the development.
10Regarding amenity areas, the Settlement Proposal provides a total of 3,307 sq m of amenity space, which includes 2,378 sq m of indoor space and 930 sq m of outdoor space—equating to approximately 4.0 sq m per unit. These amenity areas are planned for the ground floor as well as Levels 2, 5, and 6.
11A dedicated Community Space is proposed on Level 2, with a minimum area of 540 sq m. This space will be designed and built in accordance with the City’s Community Space Tenancy Terms Sheet, except for several site‑specific modifications outlined in paragraph 2 of the Settlement Offer. Users of the community space will also have access to the development’s 43 visitor parking spaces.
12The base building, consisting of Levels 1 through 5, is designed as a shared five‑storey podium reaching 20.27 m in height and fronting Symington Avenue. At grade, the building is proposed to be set back 8.11 m from the Symington Avenue property line, tapering to a 3.0‑m setback at the Site’s northern end near the overpass and rail corridor. Levels 2 through 5 are set back 6.0 m from Symington Avenue.
13Along the southern edge, the ground floor of the podium is set back 7.6 m from the parkland dedication, while Levels 2 through 5 maintain a 5.0‑m setback from the on‑site park. The south façade of the podium incorporates projecting balconies, which may encroach up to 2.0 m into the setback.
14The two towers are visually distinguished from the shared podium by a series of stepbacks and setbacks, including a 4.0‑m stepback at Level 6 on the south façade of the southern tower. The north tower features an average floor plate of approximately 897.4 sq m Gross Construction Area (“GCA”), while the south tower has an average floor plate of roughly 750 sq m GCA. A separation distance of 22.89 m between the two towers is provided.
Revised Settlement Summary
Proposal 2022
Proposal 2023
Proposal 2024
Settlement 2025
Gross Site Area (with Parkland)
5,550.5 sqm
5,550.5 sqm
5,550.5 sqm
5,550.5 sqm
Total GFA Residential Non residential
55,060 sqm 54,380 sqm 680 sqm
52,996 sqm 51,956 sqm 1,010 sqm
52,215 sqm 51,209 sqm 1,006 sqm
53,576 sqm 52,289 sqm 1,087 sqm
FSI
9.92
9.54
9.41
9.62
Total Units Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom
817 31 515 185 86
847 0 623 138 86
837 0 618 135 84
825 27 562 152 84
Total Amenity Indoor Outdoor
3,281 sqm 1,666 sqm 1,615 sqm
3,424 sqm 2,452 sqm 972 sqm
3,355 sqm 3,355 sqm 914 sqm
3,307 sqm 3,307 sqm 930 sqm
Vehicle Parking Residential Visitor
244 189 55
193 148 45
193 148 45
190 147 43
Bicycle Parking LT Residential ST Residential LT Non-Res ST Non-Res
840 749 83 2 6
859 764 85 2 6
924 756 168 3 7
918 743 165 3 7
Loading
2 Type “G”
1 Type “G” 1 Type “G/C”
1 Type “G” 1 Type “C”
1 Type “G” 1 Type “C”
15Mr. Bissett opined that the Settlement Proposal;
Has regard for matters of provincial interest under s. 2 of the Act, is consistent, and does not conflict, with the PPS 2024, conforms, subject to approval of the Zoning By-law Amendment, to the City of Toronto Official Plan,
The proposal represents good planning.
FINDINGS
16On the strength of the uncontradicted expert opinion evidence of Mr. Bissett and upon a review of the applicable provisions of the Act, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed Settlement, is consistent with the applicable policy framework, represents good planning, and is in the public interest.
17The Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal would enable the transformation of an underutilized property into a dynamic, transit‑oriented mixed‑use development within an area identified for growth and revitalization.
18The Tribunal finds that policy directions at both the Provincial and Municipal levels prioritize the efficient and effective use of land and infrastructure and support the coordination of land use and transportation planning.
19The Tribunal concurs that maximizing land and infrastructure utilization and introducing new housing options in well‑serviced, transit‑accessible areas such as this aligns with the broader public interest.
20The Tribunal agrees that the Settlement Proposal is appropriate as it contributes to and strengthens the existing diversity of housing tenures. The planned mix of unit types—including 152 two‑bedroom units (18%) and 84 three‑bedroom units (10%)—provides family‑oriented options that align with the Growing Up Guidelines, while also supporting affordability goals through efficiently sized units.
21From a built form and urban design standpoint, the Tribunal notes that the revised tower heights—39 storeys (133.37 metres, including the mechanical penthouse) and 29 storeys (103.37 metres, including the mechanical penthouse)—are compatible with both the existing and planned built form in the area, including nearby tall buildings reaching up to 36 storeys along the CP Rail corridor. The Site is capable of supporting the proposed towers with adequate setbacks and separation distances, resulting in minimal impacts on the adjacent low‑rise neighbourhood.
22Relocating the greater height from the southern portion of the Site to the northern portion reduces shadow impacts on the parkland and the community garden located to the west. In terms of massing, the Settlement Proposal provides a podium that responds appropriately to the scale of Symington Avenue, the planned on‑site parkland, and neighbouring properties, with two well‑proportioned towers positioned along the Symington frontage.
23The Tribunal considers that the Parties’ Settlement is both fair and reasonable and determines that the resulting Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment constitute sound planning that advances the public interest. The Tribunal also recognizes and appreciates the Parties’ cooperative approach and constructive engagement in reaching this resolution.
INTERIM ORDER
24THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed in part, on an interim
basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite
matters identified in the paragraph below.
25The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon
confirmation of the City Solicitor, of the following pre-requisite matters are satisfied;
(a) the final and content form of the ZBA and OPA is finalized, satisfactory to the Executive Director, Development Review and the City Solicitor;
(b) the Applicant has satisfied all requests for further information and revisions identified in the Engineering and Construction Services memo to City Planning dated June 14, 2024, including but not limited to, a revised Functional Servicing Report to demonstrate the site can be adequately serviced to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Review;
(c) the Owner has made satisfactory arrangements with the City and has entered into the appropriate agreement(s) for the design and construction of any improvements to municipal infrastructure, should it be determined that upgrades and/or road improvements are required to support the development, according to the accepted Engineering Reports and Traffic Impact Study accepted by the Director, Engineering Review and the General Manager, Transportation Services;
(d) the Owner has submitted a revised Environmental Noise and Vibration Assessment, peer reviewed by a third-party consultant on behalf of the City and at the Owner's expense, to the satisfaction of Executive Director, Development Review that shall determine the appropriate Area Class per Section B9 of NPC-300;
(e) the Owner has, at its sole cost and expense, submitted a revised Rail Safety and Risk Mitigation study and it has been peer reviewed to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review;
(f) any necessary studies, including those related to pedestrian level wind impacts, sun shadow, noise and vibration, and compatibility have been completed, and their recommendations addressed to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review;
(g) the Owner has addressed all outstanding issues raised by Urban Forestry, Tree Protection and Plan Review and a soil volume plan and tree planting plan has been accepted by the Supervisor, Urban Forestry, Tree Protection and Plan Review; and
(h) the Owner has entered into and registered on Title to the Lands, an agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act to address the provision of the in-kind contribution to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review, the Executive Director, Corporate Real Estate Management, the Executive Director, Social Development, Finance and Administration, and the City Solicitor, in accordance with the terms set out in Confidential Appendix A to the report (July 14, 2025) from the City Solicitor, which agreement shall be evidence of arrangements for the provision of the in-kind contribution to the satisfaction of City Council.
26The Panel Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and
approving the final draft of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and the issuance of the Final Order.
27If the Parties do not submit the final drafts of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, and provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order as set out above have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order, by Friday, September 25th, 2026, the Applicant and the City shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by that date, as to the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of the draft Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.
28The 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 instrument(s), the satisfaction of the contingent prerequisites and the issuance of the Final Order.
“Carmine Tucci”
CARMINE TUCCI
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.