Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 10, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000355

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

Applicant/Appellant: 123 Wynford Inc.

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

Reference Number: 22 184095 NNY 16 OZ

Property Address: 123 Wynford Drive

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000355

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000355

OLT Case Name: 123 Wynford Inc. v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant/Appellant: 123 Wynford Inc.

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

Reference Number: 22 184095 NNY 16 OZ

Property Address: 123 Wynford Drive

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000356

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000355

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 33(9) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18

Subject: Alteration Application

Reference Number: 2024.CC18.20

Property Address: 123 Wynford Drive

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000623

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000355

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34.1(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18

Subject: Demolition Application

Reference Number: 2024.CC18.20

Property Address: 123 Wynford Drive

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000624

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000355

Heard: August 6, 2024 to August 16, 2024 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative*

123 Wynford Inc. (“Applicant”)

D. Bronskill

City of Toronto (“City”)

J. Amey J. Zuidema

Greater Toronto Chapter of the Nation Association of Japanese Canadians (“NAJC”)

S. Spitz

Don Mills Residents Inc. (“DMRI”)

A. McKellar*

decision DELIVERED BY STEVEN COOkE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1On October 18, 2024, the Tribunal issued an Interim Order to approve the Official Plan Amendments (“OPA”) and the Zoning By-law Amendments (“ZBA”) pursuant to sections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (“Planning Act”), with reasons to follow. In addition to the Planning Act appeals, the Tribunal has considered and approves the appeal pursuant to sections 34.1(1) and 33(9) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 18 (“OHA”).

2The Applicant proposes to develop two residential buildings, that will incorporate the parts of the existing designated heritage building located at 123 Wynford Drive (“subject site”), in the City.

3At the outset of this Hearing, the Tribunal was informed that the Applicant has worked with the City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”) to resolve natural heritage matters through a new proposal. Because these issues had been addressed to the satisfaction of the City and TRCA, TRCA no longer has objections to the proposed development and did not participate in the Merit Hearing.

WITNESSES

4The following individuals provided testimony:

Applicant:

1. Michael Goldberg – Land Use Planning
2. Cliff Korman – Architectural and Urban Design
3. Andrew Pruss – Heritage Planning

City

1. Georgia Kuich – Heritage Planning
2. Maryam Sabzevari – Urban Design
3. Marian Prejel – Land Use Planning

NAJC

1. Lynn Deutscher Kobayashi – President of the NAJC Toronto Chapter
2. Dr. Henry Tsang – Architect

SUBJECT SITE AND AREA CONTEXT

5The Tribunal was informed that a two-storey designated heritage building (designated in 2023) sits near the center-east portion of the subject site. The heritage building was constructed to be the home of the Japanese Canadian Cultural Centre (“JCCC”) in 1963, until the community outgrew the facility and moved in 1999. In 2001, the Noor Cultural Centre purchased the subject site and made alterations to the original build heritage building.

6The Applicant proposes to develop two towers on the subject site. Building A is proposed to have a height of 52-storeys, and Tower B would have a building height of 48-storeys. Building B would also include elements of the existing heritage building. Between the two towers, a proposed 358 parking spaces, and 1,204 bicycle parking spaces are planned. There is a total of 1,192 proposed dwelling units proposed, which consists of 114 three bedroom (12% of total units), 238 two bedroom (20% of total units), 758 one bedroom (63.6% of total units), and 52 studio units (4.4% of total units)

7The subject site is 12,138 metres squared (“m²”) in size. It is bordered by the Don Valley Parkway (“DVP”) on the west. Wynford Drive is located immediately to the north with 76.2 metres (“m”) of frontage. To the immediate east of the subject site is existing apartment buildings. Wynford Drive wraps around these buildings as the street orientation turns south towards Eglinton Avenue.

8The subject site is located in the Wynford neighbourhood, which is generally east of the DVP, north of Eglinton, west of the Charles Sauriol Conservation Area, and up to the north edge of Concorde Place. The Wynford neighbourhood has a mix of building types, including many tall apartment buildings, and tall and mid-sized buildings.

9Mr. Goldberg informed the Tribunal that the neighbourhood is going through a phase of development and/or redevelopment with various buildings planned or approved in the immediate area due to the Wynford LRT station, which is a major transit station nearby along Eglinton Avenue East.

10Mr. Goldberg stated that the subject site is in the Mixed Use Areas land use category in the City Official Plan (“OP”), while the southern part of the site is in a Natural Areas and Parks category. Lands next to the DVP are also Mixed Use Areas, while lands on the east side of Wynford Drive and Concorde Place are identified as Apartment Neighbourhoods in the City OP.

[PLANNING ACT](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)

11It was the expert opinion of Mr. Goldberg that the proposed development has regard for those matters of Provincial interests.

12Section 2(a) of the Planning Act calls for the Tribunal to have regard to “(a) the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions”. Mr. Goldberg stated that the proposed development protects the subject sites natural and ecological features by the proposed setbacks and buffers that are approved by both the TCRA and the City.

13It was the evidence of Mr. Goldberg that the subject site is located within an identified Major Transit Station Area and has existing public transit infrastructure already in place, and that the proposed development will include a range of housing options and dwelling unit sizes and will promote the development of a healthy walkable community. In his opinion, these contribute significantly to his professional opinion that the proposed development meets various aspects of s. 2 of the Planning Act.

14Section 2(d) of the Planning Act on, “the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest”, is of particular interest in relation to this proposed development. Mr. Goldberg informed the Tribunal that the proposed development will conserve features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, and archaeological interest. It was the opinion of Mr. Goldberg that the proposed development aims to preserve the heritage features of the existing building by setting the new tower at least 10 m back from the key element being the heritage façade.

15Mr. Pruss testified that the protection of important architectural, cultural, or historical features is being carried out through a plan explained in a 2022 Heritage Impact Assessment (“HIA”), 2023 Memo, and February 2024 Heritage Materials. Mr. Pruss gave the opinion that the proposed OPAs and ZBAs align with the goals of provincial interests set out in Section 2(d) of the Planning Act.

City

16In the opinion of Ms. Kuich, the Applications do not consider Section 2 (d) and (r) of the Planning Act, which focus on important provincial interests like protecting features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological, or scientific value and promoting well-designed buildings that create a strong sense of place. She stated that the subject site has a heritage designation that features important buildings and landscape that reflect its cultural ties to the Japanese Canadian community. The cultural heritage value of the subject site has been identified through the Designation By-law and the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value and Heritage Attributes. Ms. Kuich explained that she includes several aspects of the property as having heritage value, including the building itself, its location nestled in the ravine, its connection with the landscape design, interior and exterior features, and its links to the Japanese Canadian community and famous Canadian architect, Raymond Moriyama.

17The Heritage Permit Application before the Tribunal under the OHA, plans to change the protected heritage property by building two towers of 45 and 48 storeys and demolishing the existing heritage building and heritage features. Ms. Kuich's opinion was that this would result in the loss of the property’s cultural heritage value and most of its key heritage features, rendering it unable to be preserved as required by the Planning Act.

18In Ms. Prejel's expert testimony, the Planning Act establishes a land-use planning system guided by provincial policy that incorporates important provincial concerns into both provincial and local planning decisions.

19Ms. Prejel stated that the Provincial interests for a decision-maker must have regard for various items, including the efficient use of municipal infrastructure and transportation. Development should be in an orderly and appropriate location for the growth and development of healthy and safe communities. These public interest issues are key planning principles, which the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”) and the Growth Plan explain how to meet.

20Ms. Prejel believes that while the proposal considers many provincial interests in the Planning Act, it does not properly address section 2(d) - protecting features of important architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological, or scientific value. According to Ms. Prejel, the subject site is expected to be developed, but the proposal before the Tribunal does not adequately protect its cultural heritage values, features, and character.

Provincial Policy Statement 2020

21Mr. Goldberg explained that s. 1.1.3.4 of the PPS states that development standards should support growth, rebuilding, and a compact design while reducing risks to public health and safety. He believed the proposed height and density fit well with the area and create a compact development that helps support the mix of residential units planned.

22Mr. Goldberg stated that the proposed development meets the objectives of s. 1.4 of the PPS. It encourages new housing that makes good use of land, resources, infrastructure, and public services. It also supports the use of active transportation and public transit.

23It was the opinion of Mr. Goldberg that the proposed development is consistent with the PPS policies in s. 2.6.1 and 2.6.3. These policies state that significant built heritage resources will be conserved and protected, and development is not permitted unless significant heritage resources are conserved. Mr. Goldberg stated that by retaining the front 12 m of the heritage building as the podium of the proposed Tower B, it would preserve the façade of the building and other key elements of the heritage building and is consistent with the policies of the PPS.

24According to Mr. Pruss, the conservation plan in the updated proposed development will properly protect the cultural heritage value and important features of the subject site. If any important feature is affected, steps are taken to reduce the impact. This approach supports a strong sense of place and good design in buildings and cultural planning.

25It was the expert opinion of Mr. Pruss that the proposed development was consistent with PPS s. 1.7.1(e) and 2.6.1.

City

26The Tribunal was advised by Ms. Prejel that the PPS provides direction on matters of provincial interest in land use planning and development, as referenced in Section 2 of the Planning Act. The PPS establishes the policy framework for land development and use, with objectives that include creating strong, healthy communities, managing resources, and protecting public health and safety.

27The Tribunal heard evidence from Ms. Prejel regarding the application of s. 1.1.1(g) and 1.1.3.2(a) and (b) of the PPS, which require that healthy, liveable, and safe communities be supported by the provision of necessary infrastructure and public service facilities. The Tribunal was also directed to s. 1.1.3.3, which requires planning authorities to identify suitable locations for intensification and redevelopment. The City OP, in implementing these PPS directions, delineates areas of the City for growth and requires that built form be compatible with both existing and planned contexts. The subject site is designated as Mixed Use Areas, intended to accommodate anticipated growth in retail, office, and residential uses, though the OP acknowledges that not all Mixed Use Areas will experience the same scale or intensity of development.

28Ms. Prejel explained that s. 1.2.1 of the PPS directs that planning be undertaken through a coordinated, integrated, and comprehensive approach, both within and across municipal boundaries, and in consultation with relevant governments, agencies, and boards. In this manner, the management of natural heritage, cultural heritage, and archaeological resources is to be addressed.

29Ms. Prejel maintained that the proposed development, which contemplates the dismantling and reassembly of a designated heritage building, fails to satisfy the relevant policy objectives in s. 1.7.1 (e), 2.6.1. and 2.6.2 of the PPS. She submits that the PPS requires the conservation of significant built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes, and that planning authorities must ensure that development or site alteration on adjacent lands does not negatively impact the heritage attributes of protected properties. In her view, the proposal does not adequately address these requirements.

30Ms. Prejel opined that the proposed development is not consistent with the PPS because it does not adequately conserve the cultural heritage values and attributes of the subject site.

Growth Plan 2020

31Mr. Goldberg stated that the Growth Plan aims to, among other things, build complete communities that offer more options for living, working, shopping, and playing. It encourages that new developments provide more housing choices to meet the needs of people at all life stages, increase intensification to help limit urban sprawl, and reduce traffic jams by improving access to more transportation options. He believed that the proposed development is in line with the Growth Plan because it supports compact, lively complete communities, making the best use of land and infrastructure to support growth.

32Mr. Goldberg highlighted to the Tribunal various sections of the Growth Plan. The proposed development is an infill development, providing intensification of an urban lot that has existing municipal infrastructure services and local amenities, that is located on a public transit bus route, and within close proximity of two major transit stations.

33Section 4.2.7 of the Growth Plan states that:

Cultural heritage resources will be conserved in order to foster a sense of place and benefit communities, particularly in strategic growth areas.

34Mr. Pruss referred the Tribunal to Growth Plan Sections 1.2.1 and 4.2.7. He stated that the proposed development applications conform to the Growth Plan's general objectives. He also noted that the development includes a heritage conservation strategy to appropriately conserve the cultural heritage value and attributes of the subject site, fostering a sense of place in the neighbourhood and benefiting the community.

City

35Ms. Prejel stated that municipalities in Ontario are required to establish clear population and employment targets, and the Guiding Principles set out in Section 1.2.1 underpin the policies relating to land development, resource management, and public investment. The Growth Plan further requires municipalities to undertake integrated planning to manage growth to the horizon of the Plan, with the objective of achieving an urban form that optimizes the use of infrastructure, particularly along transit and transportation corridors.

36She opined that Section 2.2.1.4 of the Growth Plan defines complete communities as mixed-use neighbourhoods that provide residents of all ages and abilities with convenient access to daily needs, including local stores, services, and public facilities. Section 2.2.1.4(e) further supports the development of complete communities characterized by a compact built form and vibrant public spaces, including open areas.

37Ms. Prejel stated that Section 3.2 of the Growth Plan addresses infrastructure policies, with Section 3.2.1.1 requiring coordinated land use and infrastructure planning and investment, and Section 3.2.2 emphasizing the need for coordination within the transportation system. The Growth Plan also contains policies regarding cultural heritage resources in Section 4.2.7, which underscore the importance of conserving cultural heritage to foster a sense of place and to benefit communities, particularly within strategic growth areas. Municipalities are encouraged to develop official plan policies and strategies for the identification, use, and management of cultural heritage resources.

38The Tribunal was informed by Ms. Prejel that the City’s OP builds upon the Growth Plan by incorporating heritage conservation policies that recognize cultural heritage as integral to sustainable development and placemaking. These policies are integrated throughout the OP and promote the preservation of significant heritage buildings and structures, as well as the protection of public views of these resources. Section 5.2.5 of the Growth Plan provides that intensification and density targets are to be regarded as minimum standards. She stated that the OP contains policies that are consistent with the direction of the Growth Plan.

39In the opinion of Ms. Prejel, the proposed development before the Tribunal, particularly as it relates to the designated heritage building on the subject site, does not adequately address the requirements of the Growth Plan or the OP with respect to heritage conservation.

OFFICAL PLAN

40Mr. Goldberg stated that the proposed development would keep the subject site designated as Mixed Use Areas. He stated that the Healthy Neighbourhoods policies are met by the placement of the buildings and related facilities, which are designed to fit well with the nearby taller buildings. Service areas for loading, garbage collection, and access to underground parking are hidden and will not be seen by people walking nearby. The parking will help harmonizes the nearby planned high-quality transit, which will help reduce car use and traffic on nearby streets.

41In addition, Mr. Goldberg informed the Tribunal that local recreational facilities, parks, and other community services are close enough to walk to or reach by a short transit ride. Expanding the ravine area on the subject site, with a possible future walking path to the south, is a public benefit that protects parts of the larger ravine and valley system. It also offers possible walking routes through the neighborhood, encouraging walking and easier access to transit.

42The proposed development includes active ground-level spaces for retail and a private area facing Wynford Drive. It was Mr. Goldberg's opinion that the design around these entrances creates a lively and inviting space for pedestrians, which could improve walking connections in the neighbourhood. Landscaping will highlight the entrances and make them easy to find and use. He informed the Tribunal that trees will be saved where possible, and new trees will be planted to improve the existing greenery. All design elements aim to make it easier for people to walk and connect to the neighbourhood's walking paths. Expanding the natural heritage area on the subject site and to the south will add more public green space, more places to plant trees, and more walking paths within this area. In his opinion, Mr. Goldberg stated that the proposed development conforms to the City OP Public Realm Policies.

43In Mr. Goldberg's opinion, the proposed development conforms with the Built Form policies of the City OP by including active ground-level spaces like retail on Wynford Drive, and a private amenity area facing Wynford Drive. The design around these entrances creates a lively and inviting area for pedestrians, improving walkways within the neighbourhood. Landscaping will highlight the entrances and make them clear and easy to access.

44Regarding Section 3.1.3.5 of the City OP, which states that development should fit with its current and planned surroundings, the subject site is in an area of growth in high-density housing and jobs due to easy access to transit. Buildings here include a mix of offices, residential, and retail units in different sizes. The proposed development of the two mixed-use buildings is located near similar or planned tall buildings within the designated Apartments Neighbourhood, and is located 265 m from the Wynford LRT station.

45It was Mr. Goldberg's opinion that the proposed development is designed to balance the building’s shape, size, and density, so it fits well with the current and planned surroundings. The buildings will keep enough light, views, and privacy, and will not cause harmful shadow effects on nearby properties or public spaces.

46Mr. Korman opined that the proposed development is well planned to fit with the surrounding area. The layout, direction, height, floor sizes, overall shape, distances from the street, building steps, and space between the two buildings are all suitable and have the appropriate regard to the Tall Building Design Guidelines.

47Mr. Korman informed the Tribunal that the proposed changes to the heritage building include lifting it to grade level to increase its visibility from the street.

City

48The Tribunal was directed by Ms. Prejel to Section 3.1 of the City OP, which addresses policies pertaining to the Built Environment. Section 3.1.1 specifically addresses the public realm, which is identified in the Plan as a principal organizing element of the City and its neighbourhoods, and is recognized as supporting both population and employment growth, as well as contributing to the overall quality of life.

49Ms. Prejel stated that the policies set out in Section 3.1.1 of the City OP are intended to ensure that development is compatible with the existing or planned context. These policies emphasize the importance of appropriately framing streets, parks, and open spaces, and minimizing the impacts of servicing and vehicular access on both the subject site and adjacent properties. It was her opinion that to achieve these objectives, the policies require consistent street setbacks, the massing of buildings to frame streets and open spaces in a respectful manner, appropriate transitions in scale to neighbouring buildings, and the reduction of shadow impacts on public spaces.

50Ms. Prejel opined that the Built Form policies state that new development will be located and organized to fit within its existing or planned context. The policies provide directions on the organization of entrances and uses; vehicular access, parking, and servicing areas; building massing and design; how buildings address adjacent streets and provide amenities; and the provision of indoor and outdoor amenity space in multi-unit residential developments.

51The City OP includes Tall Building policies stating that tall buildings are the most intensive form of growth and identifying that not every site is appropriate for a tall building. Ms. Prejel informed the Tribunal that tall buildings should only be considered where they can fit into the existing or planned context, and where the site’s size, configuration, and context allow for the appropriate design criteria to be met. The existing and planned context of the area is designated Apartment Neighbourhood. The heights of the existing residential buildings in the area range in height from 21-storeys to 37-storeys, except for two mid-rise buildings which have heights of six and nine-storeys.

52Ms. Prejel noted that recent approvals by the Tribunal for developments in the Wynford-Concorde area have established a height hierarchy, with the tallest buildings situated at the intersection of Eglinton Avenue and Wynford Drive and building heights decreasing in a northerly direction toward the CP Rail line. These approvals confirm the planned context of the area as a tall building community, with new developments ranging from 42 to 53 storeys. She opined that the subject site is located within an area identified for growth through tall buildings, and new development is expected to be consistent with these recent approvals.

53Section 3.1.6 of the City OP identifies cultural heritage as an integral component of sustainable development and place-making. The conservation of cultural heritage is recognized as essential to the City's character and supports a range of social, cultural, economic, and environmental objectives.

54Section 3.1.5.4 of the City OP identifies that properties on the Heritage Register will be conserved and maintained consistent with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Ms. Prejel stated that the OP states that proposed alterations and development to a property on the Heritage Register must ensure that the integrity of the heritage property’s cultural heritage value and attributes is retained, prior to work commencing on the property and to the satisfaction of the City. Where a Heritage Impact Assessment is required, it will describe and assess the potential impacts and mitigation strategies for the proposed alteration, development or public work. In addition to cultural heritage, the conservation of natural heritage is also an important element of heritage conservation in the City.

55Ms. Prejel testified that the PPS requires planning authorities to provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing types and densities to meet the projected needs of current and future residents by directing new housing to locations where adequate infrastructure and public service facilities exist or are planned. The City's OP contains housing policies, which require that a full range of housing, in terms of form, tenure, and affordability, be provided and maintained across the City and within neighbourhoods to address the needs of residents. The matter of housing, particularly relates to the provision of family-sized units within this proposed development.

56Ms. Prejel stated that the City OP identifies Mixed Use Areas as the primary locations for accommodating the majority of anticipated growth in retail, office, and service employment, as well as a significant portion of new housing in the City over the coming decades. The proportions of commercial and residential uses are expected to be varied across Mixed Use Areas. The OP sets out specific development criteria for Mixed Use Areas, outlining the requirements for new development within these areas.

57The Tribunal was informed that Section 4.5.2(c) of the City OP identifies that, in Mixed Use Areas, development will locate and mass new buildings to provide a transition between areas of different development intensity and scale, as necessary to achieve the objectives of the OP, through means such as providing appropriate setbacks and/or a stepping down of heights, particularly towards lower scale Neighbourhoods. Ms. Prejel told the Tribunal that although development is anticipated in Mixed Use Areas, the proposed development does not adequately address the OP policies regarding heritage matters.

58In the expert opinion of Ms. Prejel, while the subject site is designated for residential growth, the proposed development does not satisfactorily address the relevant City OP policies, particularly those pertaining to heritage conservation.

59Ms. Sabzevari testified that Section 3.1.1 of the City OP sets out the importance of public realm spaces, including streets, as fundamental organizing elements of the City and its neighbourhoods. The policies emphasize that public realm elements are to provide safe and comfortable routes for all modes of transportation, accommodating users of all ages and abilities. She informed the Tribunal that the OP encourages active transportation and public transit use.

60It was Ms. Sabzevari's evidence that the proposed development does not make a meaningful contribution to the public realm along Wynford Drive, due to insufficient setbacks. She explained that in her view, the proposed development results in uncomfortable and unsafe wind conditions along Wynford Drive, which could discourage active transportation and the use of public transit stops on this street.

61Ms. Sabzevari opined that Section 3.1.3 of the City OP stresses that new developments should enhance the overall quality of urban design in the City. The policies call for assessing the subject site's intensification conditions and how the proposal fits its surroundings. The OP defines 'existing context' as what currently exists, including cultural and natural features like the designated heritage building, nearby landscape elements in the ravine system, and the common tower-in-the-park style with large setbacks and spacing. The policies encourage developments that support community life and public spaces, while protecting the privacy of nearby buildings through proper setbacks and spacing.

62Additional built form policies related to tall buildings are set out in Section 3.1.4 of the City OP to address their impacts on matters such as privacy, wind and shadow effects, and open spaces. The Tribunal was informed that these policies were intended to ensure that tall buildings fit within their existing or planned context through their design, including the base building and tower components. Ms. Sabzevari stated that the Tall Buildings policies in Section 3.1.4 state that not every site is appropriate for tall buildings, and that tall buildings should only be considered where they can fit into the existing or planned context, and where the site’s size, configuration, and context allow for the appropriate design criteria to be met.

63In Ms. Sabzevari's opinion, the proposed development has not demonstrated tall building designs that will reduce negative physical and visual impacts on its context, including how it addresses the existing designated heritage building, the neighbouring property, and Wynford Drive.

64Regarding City OP Section 3.1.3.1 and 3.1.3.5, Ms. Sabzeravi informed the Tribunal that it directs that developments be organized to fit with their existing and planned contexts through a range of measures. The configuration, orientation, floor plate, setbacks, and design of Tower B are directly related to its response to the designated heritage building, but does not appropriately address the designated heritage building.

65She stated that City OP Section 3.1.3.1(c) requires that the main entrance of a building be located on the prominent building façade facing the public street. In this case, the main entrance of Building A is not oriented toward the prominent façade on Wynford Drive, and would face east toward the internal driveway.

66Ms. Sabzevari testified that Section 3.1.3.5 of the City OP directs that developments fit their context and provide appropriate street proportions by stepping back the massing and reducing building footprints above the street wall height. The proposed tower floor plates in both buildings exceed the maximum tower floor plate identified in the City Tall Building Design Guidelines. The combination of the floor plate size, tower height, and minimal setbacks has resulted in significant wind impacts throughout the site and the adjacent public realm.

67Ms. Sabzevari stated that Building A provides a two-metre setback from the property line on Wynford Drive, for the first two floors. She informed the Tribunal that the setback is further encroached by a balcony above level two and architectural elements above level one. The limited setback, together with the restricted space on the public boulevard, does not permit enhancement of the public realm or the establishment of a street wall that is organized to fit with its existing and planned context, promote civic life and use of the public realm, or improve safety and pedestrian comfort as directed by the City OP

68It was the expert opinion of Ms. Sabzevari, that the proposed development and appeals do not conform with the policies of the City OP.

DESIGNATED HERITAGE BUILDING

69Mr. Pruss informed the Tribunal that the two-storey building designed by renowned Canadian architect Raymond Moriyama was designated under Part IV of the OHA by City By-law No. 810-2023 on September 6, 2023.

70Mr. Pruss opined that the current two-storey heritage building on the site is empty because its original institutional users have moved out for different reasons. The building is over 60 years old and needs to be used and regularly maintained. The planned development is a chance to preserve the heritage building and bring it back to life with a new active user.

71In the testimony of Mr. Pruss, Building B is set back from Wynford Drive, and uses the preserved heritage building as its base. The plan to protect the building involves stabilizing, keeping, and temporarily moving more than half of the northern part of the building approximately 21 m, while protecting, saving, breaking into panels, storing on-site, and rebuilding the southern part. From the Witness Statement of Mr. Pruss, a description of the conservation plan is as follows:

Building Exterior

a. Preservation. The retention in-situ of a heritage attribute: the northwest board formed concrete pylon.

b. Building relocation. The stabilization, temporary relocation and reinstatement of the northern portion of the existing building to a depth of approximately 21 metres. This portion will be moved back to its original location and will be raised in height 3.8 metres. The setback and orientation of the building will remain the same. The relocated portion will be unaltered and conserved in its entirety, including the retention of existing doors and windows, and the elevated terrace on the north, east and west.

c. Partial disassembly and reassembly. The protection, salvage and panelization, storage on-site and reinstatement of elements from the southern portion of the building. This includes the temporary dismantle of original precast panels in original modules, panelization of wood screens and block infill flanking doors, and reinstatement of partial west, east and south elevations.

d. Reconstruction. Reconstruction of the north stairs with the addition of an accessibility ramp maintaining the elevated relationship of north terrace to north grade, and reconstruction of three board-formed concrete pylons.

e. New construction. New basement east and west elevations to accommodate grade changes and introduction of parking and loading access, designed to be subordinate, compatible and distinguishable.

Building Interior

f. Building relocation. The temporary relocation and reinstatement of the northern portion of the existing building to a depth of approximately 21 metres will include the retention of interior elements, including the lobby in its entirety, the second floor/mezzanine in its entirety, light fixtures, and one full bay of the auditorium hall portion of the building.

g. Partial disassembly and reassembly. Reinstatement of the double-height central auditorium hall facing west, and its salvaged cedar plank ceiling.

Landscape

h. Preservation. Retention in situ and rehabilitation of the ravine landscape including the slab stone stair at the northwest corner, the three slab stone stairs descending to the creek level, the slab stone bridge (to be replaced due to failure), and the granite elements.

i. Disassembly and reassembly. Salvage, relocation and reconstruction of the sculpture in the center of the forecourt, now level with Wynford Drive and generally on axis with the north entrance of the heritage building.

72Mr. Pruss explained that the way the existing building was built is important to consider for the planned conservation approach, especially regarding the planned recovery, sectioning, and restoration of heritage features. He stated that the conservation plan fits well because the building is modern and mainly made from prefabricated parts that were put together on-site. Because of this, the building can be taken apart easily without damaging the prefabricated parts and then put back together again.

73The Tribunal was informed that the conservation plan is to preserve all the identified heritage features. A large part of the building will be moved completely, and many heritage features will be moved on-site. Other eternal heritage features independent of Building B may be moved during the development stages and reinstalled in consultation with City Heritage Planning Staff.

74Mr. Pruss directed the Tribunal's attention on the number of examples in the City of developments where heritage attributes were partially disassembled and reassembled.

75Mr. Pruss testified that the revised proposed development conservation strategy will protect the cultural heritage value, features, and character of the subject site while reducing visual and physical impacts. The proposed development, in his view, will maintain the property’s heritage integrity. A Heritage Impact Assessment has been provided to describe and evaluate potential impacts and mitigation measures. The 2022 HIA was included with the original application. After revisions, the 2023 Memo and February 2024 Heritage Materials were submitted. Mr. Pruss informed the Tribunal that a revised HIA that includes these updates can be submitted as a condition of approval.

76He further stated that a Heritage Easement Agreement may be signed before any on-site removal or relocation, also as a condition of approval. The existing building and landscape will be preserved. Several features will remain in place, and a large part of the building will be stabilized, temporarily moved, and then restored. Mr. Pruss stressed that heritage buildings can be relocated within their property if certain conditions are met. It was Mr. Pruss opinion that the proposed development conforms with the City OP policy on heritage building relocation. Furthermore, it was his opinion that the proposed ZBA complies with the overall objectives of OP policies related to heritage.

City

77Ms. Kuich gave evidence that, in her view, the Applications do not properly address Sections 2(d) and 2 (r) of the Planning Act, which protect important architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological, or scientific features and promote well-designed buildings that create a strong sense of place. She pointed out that the site is protected under heritage laws that include buildings and landscape features linked to the Japanese Canadian community. The subject site's cultural heritage value is recognized through the Designation By-law and the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value and Heritage Attributes. Ms. Kuich also explained that these features include the building itself, its location in the ravine, its connection to the landscape design, both interior and exterior features, and its ties to the Japanese Canadian community and to the architect, Raymond Moriyama.

78The Heritage Permit Application now before the Tribunal under the OHA plans to change the protected heritage property by building two towers of 45 and 48 storeys and tearing down the existing heritage building and related heritage features. Mr. Kuich believed that these changes would result in the loss of the property’s cultural heritage value and most of its important heritage features, rendering it impossible to preserve the property as required by the Planning Act.

79Ms. Prejel gave evidence that, although the proposal meets several provincial goals in the Planning Act, it does not properly address Section 2(d), which focuses on protecting important architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological, or scientific features. She agreed that development of the subject site is expected; however, she believes the proposal before the Tribunal does not adequately protect the site’s cultural heritage values, features, or character.

80The City OP in Section 3.1.5.4 indicates that properties on the Heritage Register will be preserved and cared for in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Ms. Prejel testified that this requires any changes or development to a property on the Heritage Register must keep the heritage property’s cultural value and features intact before work starts and to the City’s satisfaction. If a Heritage Impact Assessment is needed, it will explain and evaluate the possible effects and ways to reduce harm from the proposed changes, development, or public work.

NAJC

81Lynn Kobayashi, in her capacity as President of the NAJC Greater Toronto Chapter, appeared before the Tribunal to provide non-expert evidence to provide context to the cultural importance of the designated heritage building. Her testimony was intended to inform the Tribunal of the heritage significance of the Japanese Canadian Cultural Centre to the Japanese community, as well as the architectural value of the design by Raymond Moriyama.

82The NAJC was established in 1947 in Toronto, with the objective of representing Japanese Canadians in their pursuit of citizenship rights and to address the injustices experienced by the community during World War II. Ms. Kobayashi stated that the NAJC has evolved to provide education against racial discrimination, provide research regarding racial discrimination, and promote racial equality.

83The Tribunal was advised by Ms. Kobayashi that the NAJC has expressed concern regarding the Heritage Conservation Strategy, which proposes the temporary relocation of portions of the built form to the southern area of the subject site. The NAJC has identified the potential for damage to significant heritage features during the relocation process as a particular concern.

84Ms. Kobayashi further noted that, in the Heritage Conservation Strategy, no distinction is made between the relative value of the various heritage attributes identified in relation to the proposed changes. All heritage attributes are treated as equivalent, without differentiation between attributes such as the building's scale, form, and massing, and those such as the bronze plaque identifying the architect and general contractor.

85The Tribunal was advised that the NAJC, as well as the broader Japanese Canadian community, would be directly affected by the proposed development due to the anticipated loss of a historic community space. Ms. Kobayashi stated that the NAJC seeks to preserve the historic function of the subject site as a community space while ensuring appropriate recognition of its history and significance.

86Dr. Tsang provided evidence that, in his opinion, Raymond Moriyama is among Canada’s most significant and influential architects. Dr. Tsang further opined that Mr. Moriyama’s work demonstrates cultural diversity, Canadian identity, and a forward-looking approach. The evidence presented identified several notable projects attributed to Mr. Moriyama, including the Canadian War Museum, Toronto Reference Library, Ontario Science Centre, and the Scarborough Civic Centre.

87Dr. Tsang indicated that Mr. Moriyama achieved international recognition through his architectural work, specifically referencing the Canadian Embassy in Tokyo and the National Museum of Saudi Arabia.

88Dr. Tsang informed the Tribunal that the JCCC represented Mr. Moriyama’s first major project. Dr. Tsang’s evidence was that, through this building, Mr. Moriyama’s architectural approach reflected the immigrant experience, promoted cross-cultural understanding, and contributed to the development of community buildings intended to celebrate culture.

89Dr. Tsang was of the opinion that the design of the JCCC by Mr. Moriyama incorporates a roofline intended to reflect the contours of the Don Valley, a blend of wood and concrete textures, and large windows designed to provide views of the surrounding landscaping and to capture moonlight.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

90In determining this matter, the Tribunal accepts and adopts the uncontested land use planning evidence and expert opinions provided by the expert witnesses of the Applicant. The Tribunal is persuaded by the evidence that the proposal promotes efficient development of land, accommodates a range of appropriate mixed uses, intensifies uses within the settlement area, and contributes to the range of housing options, and in particular, with the increase in three-bedroom dwelling units as desired by the City.

91The Tribunal has considered the concerns raised by the NAJC or DMRI but was not persuaded that the concerns they have raised are either sustainable given the evidence offered in support of the planned development or otherwise bears relevance to the land use planning merits of the proposal.

92The Tribunal finds that the proposed development is consistent with the policy direction established by the PPS, and conforms to the relevant directives established by the Growth Plan 2020, and as maintained by the City OP. The Tribunal is further satisfied that the proposal has due regard for matters of Provincial interest, is consistent with the principles of good land use planning and is in the greater public interest. More significantly, the proposal furthers the goals and objectives of the Provincial planning regime to increase housing opportunities.

93After reviewing the evidence related to the OHA appeals, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed dismantling and reassembly of the heritage building is appropriate. The Applicant’s counsel consistently emphasized the Applicant’s commitment to working with both the City and NAJC to preserve the heritage features of the façade and interior with the Japanese Community and Raymond Moriyama in mind. The Tribunal also considered Mr. Pruss’s evidence, which demonstrates that similar properties throughout the City successfully integrate historical elements with new construction. Although, relocating the heritage building on the subject site is not ideal, the Tribunal believes that reassembling the front 12 m façade at street level best preserves and external and internal elements of the heritage building.

ORDER

94THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the City of Toronto (“City”) is to consent to the demolition/removal of the structure at 123 Wynford Drive in accordance to the recommendations of the Heritage Conservation Strategy;

95THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the City of Toronto is to consent to the alteration of the structure at 123 Wynford Drive with terms and conditions as in accordance with the recommendations of the Heritage Conservation Strategy;

96AND THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeals of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments are approved in part. The Final Order is withheld until such time as the Tribunal has been advised by the City Solicitor that:

a. the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments are in a form satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and City Solicitor;

b. the owner has addressed all outstanding issues raised by Engineering and Construction Services regarding this proposal in its memorandum dated May 23, 2023, or as that memorandum may be updated, to the satisfaction of the City’s Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;

c. the owner has at its sole expense provided a revised Traffic Impact Study, including:

i. acceptable Transportation Demand Measures which the plans shall satisfy the Toronto Green Standard AQ 1.1;

ii. a sight line study to support the proposed driveway location; and

iii. the adequacy of the pick-up and drop-off supply, traffic impacts to the road network and recommended mitigation measures to address any impacts; all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, the General Manager, Transportation Services, and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

d. the owner has at its sole expense provided a Functional Servicing Report and Stormwater Management Report, including the Foundation Drainage Report ("Engineering Reports") to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, and the General Manager, Toronto Water;

e. the owner has at its sole expense designed and provided financial securities for any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure identified in the accepted Engineering Reports, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and the General Manager, Toronto Water, should it be determined that improvements or upgrades are required to support the development, according to the accepted Engineering Reports; and

f. 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 the infrastructure to support the development, according to the accepted Engineering Reports and Traffic Impact.

“Steven Cooke”

STEVEN COOKE

VICE-CHAIR

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.