Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 19, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-001146

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

Applicant and Appellant: SG Adelaide Ltd.

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

Description: To permit development 65-storey residential/mixed-use building comprised of 600 dwelling units

Reference Number: 20 120404 STE 13 OZ

Property Address: 110-112 Adelaide Street East & 85 Lombard Street

Municipality/UT: Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001146

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001146

OLT Case Name: SG Adelaide Ltd. v. Toronto (City)

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

Appellant: SG Adelaide Ltd.

Subject: Site Plan

Description: To permit development 65-storey residential/mixed-use building comprised of 600 dwelling units

Reference Number: 20 120404 STE 13 OZ

Property Address: 110-112 Adelaide Street East & 85 Lombard Street

Municipality/UT: Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001147

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001146

Heard: March 16, 2026, by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
SG Adelaide Ltd.	J. Park
City of Toronto	H. Waller
St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association	S. Kavanagh*

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C. HARDY ON MARCH 16, 2026 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

BACKGROUND

1This Decision and Order relate to a hearing to consider a settlement proposal concerning appeals brought pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Planning Act”) and s. 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A from the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to render decisions within the prescribed timelines regarding applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and Site Plan Approval (“SPA”) (together referred to as “applications”). The appeals were filed by SG Adelaide Ltd. (“Appellant”) regarding lands municipally known as 110-112 Adelaide Street East and 85 Lombard Street in the City (together referred to as the “subject property”).

2On February 28, 2020, 110 Adelaide Street East Inc. (“110 Adelaide”), the previous owner of the subject property, submitted a ZBA proposing a mixed-use 42-storey tower with a four-storey podium, 287 residential units, 66 parking spaces, 317 bicycle parking spaces, 25,015 square metres (“sq m”) of gross floor area (“GFA”) and a density of 19.15 Floor Space Index (“original proposal”). On June 8, 2020, the ZBA application was deemed complete. On November 30, 2020, the City hosted a virtual Community Consultation Meeting which resulted in two resubmissions on April 14, 2022 and December 22, 2022. On August 4, 2022, 110 Adelaide submitted a SPA, which was deemed complete on February 21, 2023.

3The Appellant acquired the subject property in 2023, following which a resubmission of the applications was filed on April 8, 2024. The resubmission increased the proposed height to 65-storeys with a six-storey podium along Adelaide Street East and a 10-storey podium extending north to Lombard Street (“revised proposal”). The revised proposal included increases in the number of residential units and total GFA.

4On May 28, 2024, the City held a virtual Community Consultation Meeting for the revised proposal, following which the revised proposal was presented to the Design Review Panel on July 17, 2024. On November 6, 2024, the Appellant appealed the City’s failure to make a decision on the applications to the Tribunal.

5At the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) convened on February 28, 2025, the Tribunal granted Party status to St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association (“SLNA”) and granted Participant status to several individuals and entities. A second CMC was convened on April 17, 2025, wherein the Tribunal scheduled a nine-day merit hearing.

6Following the second CMC, the Parties engaged in mediation and several without prejudice discussions resulting in a settlement of the ZBA appeal, which was endorsed by City Council at its meeting held on December 16 and 17, 2025. SLNA is not opposed to the settlement proposal.

7The Parties propose to adjourn the SPA appeal sine die to allow time to finalize various conditions.

SITE CONTEXT

8The subject property is a through lot fronting on both Adelaide Street East and Lombard Street. It is approximately 1,306 sq m in size with 31.5 metres (“m”) of frontage along Adelaide Street East and 15.9 m of frontage along Lombard Street. The subject property is located in the Downtown Yonge East neighbourhood, directly north of the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District and is currently improved with a four-storey commercial building and surface parking lot.

9Located to the west of the subject property are a variety of residential and mixed-use multi-storey buildings, including 77 Lombard Street. North of the subject property is a through lot with zoning approval for a 72-storey mixed-use building. Located to the east of the subject property are a variety of commercial and residential buildings of various heights, including 95 Lombard Street. Of note, some of the buildings to the east are designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18. Directly south of the subject property is St. James Park, to the west of which is St. James Cathedral.

10The subject property is well served by higher order transit and regional transit and is part of the approved delineated Protected Major Transit Station Area (“PMTSA”). Located within a 400-m radius are two stations on the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) Line 1 Yonge-University subway and Union Station is located approximately 770 m from the subject property. There are also a number of streetcar and bus routes located in close proximity to the subject property.

HEARING

11The materials that the Tribunal had before it in considering the settlement proposal were: the Affidavit of Peter F. Smith sworn on March 11, 2026, together with composite exhibits, which was marked as Exhibit 1; Joint Document Book, which was marked as Exhibit 2; draft ZBA; and draft Interim Order.

12Mr. Smith is a registered professional planner with over 45 years of experience in planning matters. He is a partner with Bousfields Inc. and he was qualified by the Tribunal, on consent, to provide opinion evidence on land use planning matters.

Settlement Proposal

13The settlement proposal contemplates a mixed-use 66-storey building atop a three-storey podium with retail uses at grade and on Level 2, office space on Level 3, and residential uses above (“proposed development”). The proposed development has a GFA of 38,500 sq m, 555 residential units, 14 vehicular parking spaces, and 621 bicycle parking spaces.

14The proposed development includes many revisions to the revised proposal, which were detailed in Mr. Smith’s Affidavit. During his evidence, Mr. Smith highlighted what he referred to as the most important revisions resulting from mediation, Community Consultation Meetings, and concerns raised by the Participants. These revisions include:

• increased setbacks along Adelaide Street East at grade to improve the pedestrian realm;

• reduced base building height in keeping with other buildings along Adelaide Street East;

• use of revised materials and architectural design to be more sympathetic to the surrounding heritage character;

• reduced podium heights to address resident and City staff concerns regarding buildings to the east and west of the subject property;

• reduced base building height and increased setbacks at the northwest corner;

• increased tower floor plate size to allow a more functional tower;

• revised architectural expression of the tower to be more sensitive to the heritage context, including views of St. James Cathedral;

• the addition of one storey to the tower while generally maintaining the metric height of the building;

• simplified balcony design to mitigate views and privacy from adjacent buildings; and

• addition of a second underground parking level.

15In addition to his detailed written Affidavit, Mr. Smith provided viva voce contextual and planning rationale in support of the proposed development and draft ZBA. He provided a thorough analysis of the proposed development against relevant policies and concluded that the draft ZBA, that will facilitate the proposed development, has sufficient regard for matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act, is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”), conforms with the City Official Plan (“OP”), including the Downtown Secondary Plan, and constitutes good planning.

16The Parties jointly requested that the Tribunal allow the appeal in part and approve the proposed ZBA attached as Attachment 1 to this Order, in principle. The Parties further requested that the Tribunal adjourn the SPA appeal sine die.

Policy and Regulatory Framework

17In his written Affidavit, Mr. Smith reviewed s. 2 of the Planning Act, noting that the subject property is currently underutilized, is planned for growth and intensification, and the proposed development will fit within the existing and planned context of the area. Overall, Mr. Smith opined that the settlement proposal and draft ZBA were supportive of the policy directions set out in the Planning Act.

18Mr. Smith explained that, since the filing of the original proposal, there have been many changes to the policy and regulatory context, which has resulted in an increased emphasis on transit-supportive intensification. He reviewed Bill 23 / Housing Action Plan acknowledging that, while it is not a statutory test, it did amend various pieces of legislation to promote the construction of 1.5 million homes by 2031, with the City pledging an additional 285,000 residential units. This provincial direction has resulted in tangible changes to the policy framework of the City with an increased emphasis on a balance between intensification and built form impacts.

19In his Affidavit, Mr. Smith reviewed the PPS, noting that the policy directions in the PPS are aimed at building complete communities with a mix of housing options to promote efficient development. Mr. Smith explained that many of the PPS policies relate back to the subject property being located within a strategic growth area, as defined by the PPS, where intensification and growth should be directed. Further, the subject property is part of the Downtown area and within two approved PMTSAs, where growth is encouraged. It was Mr. Smith’s opinion that the proposed ZBA is consistent with relevant policies in the PPS and with the PPS overall.

20The subject property is located within the Downtown on Map 2 (Urban Structure) of the OP, which is an area promoted for a mix of residential and non-residential growth. The land use designation identified on Map 18 (Land Use Plan) applicable to the subject property is Mixed Use Areas, which allows a broad range of commercial, residential, and institutional uses in mixed use buildings. Mr. Smith noted that the proposed development is predominantly residential with retail and office components, which are all permitted by the Mixed Use Areas designation. In his Affidavit, Mr. Smith provided a detailed review of the urban design policies set out in the OP, concluding that the proposed ZBA conforms with the OP.

21Mr. Smith opined that the proposed development, which will be implemented by the ZBA, conforms with the policies set out in the Downtown Secondary Plan. The Downtown Secondary Plan provides additional policy framework detail for the Downtown and Central Waterfront areas shown on Map 2 of the OP. The Downtown Secondary Plan designates the subject property Mixed Use Areas 2 – Intermediate, which allows for tall buildings, and further, policy 6.34 allows higher density for proposed buildings in close proximity to higher order transit.

22Site and Area Specific Policy 517 (“SASP 517”) applies to the Downtown area. The intent of SASP 517 is to ensure sufficient setbacks and separation distances between tall buildings to create conditions that are livable and acceptable from a built form perspective. SASP 517 sets out required setbacks, noting that relief can be sought from these standards through rezoning or minor variances, providing certain criteria are met. In Mr. Smith’s opinion, the proposed development will allow intensification without resulting in unacceptable sky view, shadow, or wind impacts. He noted that the inclusion of the condition requiring limiting distance agreements prior to development proceeding will ensure that separation distances are maintained.

23Official Plan Amendment 524 (“OPA 524”) establishes a framework to facilitate transit-supportive development through the delineation of PMTSAs. When the province approved PMTSA amendments, including OPA 524, it introduced minimum density policies emphasizing the importance from a provincial and municipal policy perspective of increasing density in areas close to higher order transit, such as the subject property.

24In his written Affidavit, Mr. Smith addressed the Participant statements with detailed responses and opinions. During his testimony, he explained that many of the Participants’ concerns arose from residents in buildings adjacent to the subject property who were opposed to the separation distance from the 10-storey podium in the revised proposal. Mr. Smith explained that the podium along Lombard Street was reduced from 10-storeys to three-storeys to alleviate these concerns. The proposed development also includes changes to the overall massing and architecture to respond to concerns regarding compatibility. Changes that were implemented to the podium heights, balcony placement, and the redesign of the tower mitigate many of the issues raised by the Participants regarding built form impacts, setbacks, lack of transition, sky views and privacy.

25Mr. Smith explained that the proposed development is not currently permitted by the zoning, and as such, the ZBA will introduce site specific exceptions to allow the proposed development to proceed on the subject property. He recommended that the Tribunal allow the appeal, in part, as it was his opinion that the draft ZBA, which will facilitate the proposed development, will enhance the area by intensifying an underutilized site in the Downtown area. He reviewed the conditions included in the City Council resolution and opined that they are commonly requested and appropriate in this circumstance.

ANALYSIS AND DISPOSITION

26The Tribunal accepts the uncontested opinion evidence of Mr. Smith and finds that the draft ZBA has appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act, is consistent with the PPS, and conforms with the OP, including the Downtown Secondary Plan.

27The Tribunal accepts the opinions of Mr. Smith that the proposed development will fit within the existing and planned built form context by intensifying the subject property with a transit-supportive mixed-use development. The significant legislative changes that have taken place since the submission of the original proposal have placed an emphasis on transit-supportive intensification, such as the proposed development.

28The draft ZBA is consistent with the PPS as it will facilitate intensification on the subject property, which is located in approved PTMSAs associated with the King and Queen subway stations and located in the Downtown area where growth is encouraged. The draft ZBA conforms with, and implements, the policies of the OP and Downtown Secondary Plan, facilitating a development that will contribute to the provision of a range of housing types with retail and commercial uses located in the podiums. Further, the proposed building height and massing are compatible with the existing and planned context. The reduced podium heights have been thoughtfully designed to provide appropriate “breathing room” for the residential buildings to the east and west of the subject property.

29The Tribunal finds that the draft ZBA, which will facilitate the proposed development, represents good land use planning in the public interest. The Tribunal allows the appeal in part and approves the draft ZBA in principle for the reasons set out above. The Tribunal will withhold issuance of its Final Order until it has been notified by the Parties that the preconditions, set out in paragraph [32] below, have been satisfied.

30The Tribunal commends the Parties for working collaboratively to resolve the outstanding issues and reaching a settlement of the ZBA appeal.

INTERIM ORDER

31THE 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 paragraph [32] below, and the Zoning By-law Amendment, set out in Attachment 1 to this Interim Order, is hereby approved in principle.

32The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order, contingent upon confirmation of the City solicitor, of the following pre-requisite matters:

a) the Tribunal has received, and approved, the final form and content of the draft Zoning By-law Amendment, confirmed to be to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Executive Director, Development Review, in consultation with other appropriate divisions;

b) the Tribunal is advised that the owner has at its sole cost and expense:

i. submitted a revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, Hydrogeological Review, including the Foundation Drainage Report (“Engineering Reports”) to demonstrate that the existing sewer system and watermain and any required improvements to them, have adequate capacity and supply to accommodate the development of the lands, to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Review, Development Review, in consultation with the General Manager, Toronto Water;

ii. secured the design and provided financial securities in respect of any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure identified in the accepted Engineering Reports, to support the development, all to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Review, Development Review and the General Manager, Toronto Water, should it be determined that improvements or upgrades are required to support the development, according to the Engineering Reports accepted by the Director, Engineering Review, Development Review, and the General Manager, Toronto Water;

iii. ensured that implementation of the accepted Engineering Reports does not require changes to the proposed amending By-law or that any required changes have been made to the proposed amending By-law to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review, the Director, Engineering Review, Development Review, and the City Solicitor, including the use of a Holding ("H") By-law symbol regarding any new municipal servicing infrastructure or upgrades to existing municipal servicing infrastructure, as may be required; and

iv. entered into, and registered on title to the lands, limiting distance agreements with each of the neighbouring property owners to the immediate west and east fronting on Adelaide Street East, to which the City will be a party, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review, and the City Solicitor that ensure the respective setbacks and separation distances shown on Confidential Appendix B to the report (December 2, 2025) from the City Solicitor.

33This Vice Chair will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Zoning By-law Amendment and the issuance of the Final Order.

34The Parties shall either request a Final Order or provide the Tribunal with a written status update on or before six months from the issuance of this Order as to the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of Zoning By-law Amendment and issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.

35The Site Plan appeal is hereby adjourned sine die.

36This Vice Chair may be spoken to if any issues arise implementing this Order.

“C. Hardy”

c. hardy

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.

ATTACHMENT 1