Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
March 30, 2026
CASE NO.:
OLT-26-000092
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Appellant
Midtown-Yonge Properties Inc
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application
Description:
ZBA to permit the development of a 49-storey mixed-use building integrated into the existing 12-storey office building
Reference Number:
21 249631 STE 12 OZ
Property Address:
1-13 St Clair Avenue W
Municipality/UT:
City of Toronto
OLT Case No:
OLT-26-000092
OLT Case Name:
Midtown-Yonge Properties Inc. v. Toronto (City)
BEFORE:
BITA M. RAJAEE
Monday, the 16th
MEMBER
day of March, 2026
UPON APPEAL having been brought pursuant to section 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) by Midtown-Young Properties Inc. (“Applicant”) resulting from the refusal by the Council of the City of Toronto (“City”) of an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment, required to facilitate a mixed-used development on lands known municipally as 1-13 St. Clair Avenue West in the City (“Subject Property”);
AND THE TRIBUNAL, at this first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) having marked as Exhibit 1 the Affidavit of Service of Rochelle Vasquez, sworn on March 5, 2026, attesting to proper Notice having been given for this CMC, and confirming that no further Notice is required for this proceeding;
AND THE TRIBUNAL having received the following requests for Party status and addressing them as follows:
The Badminton and Racquet Club of Toronto (“BRCT”)
BRCT is located adjacent to, and south of, the Subject Property. It raised concerns with the Applicant’s proposed development, stating that it has the potential to directly affect BRCT’s: daily operations (by creating intensifying wind conditions); existing infrastructure (resulting from servicing and construction demands); and future development prospects (as the proposal has been created without consideration for BRTC’s future development of its land). Additionally, a narrow private lane solely owned by BRCT extends behind the Subject Property and provides the only vehicular access to the BRCT Site as well as access to the rear of certain properties on Yonge Street, and it is not clear how the proposed development will impact this laneway.
The other Parties did not object to the addition of BRTC as a Party.
The Tribunal considered the written status request received and the submissions of BRTC’s Counsel and determined that it had demonstrated reasonable grounds to be added as a Party. BRTC has direct interest in the Appeal, the request complies with the requirements of the Act and the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), and BRTC’s involvement would assist the Tribunal and allow it to make a fulsome decision. Thus, the Tribunal granted Party status to BRTC.
Allenby Gardens Home Corp. (“Allenby”)
Allenby is located adjacent to, and south of, the Subject Property. It raised concerns with the Applicant’s proposed development, including but not limited to: the height of the proposed building; wind issues; servicing capacity; vehicle access; relationship of the proposal with the designated heritage building; compatibility and fit of the proposal with the surrounding lands including the shared lane and the potential development of the Allenby lands; and lack of compliance of the proposal with the City’s Guidelines.
The other Parties did not object to the addition of Allenby as a Party.
The Tribunal considered the written status request received and the submissions of Allenby’s Counsel and determined that it had demonstrated reasonable grounds to be added as a Party. Allenby has direct interest in the Appeal, the request complies with the requirements of the Tribunal’s Rules, and Allenby’s involvement would assist the Tribunal and allow it to make a fulsome decision. Thus, the Tribunal granted Party status to Allenby.
Gerenby Investments Limited and 281984 Ontario Limited (“Gerenby”)
Gerenby is located adjacent to, and west of, the Subject Property. It raised concerns with access, congestion, and safety issues arising from the proposed development. Gerenby raised particular concern with the shared laneway between the neighbouring properties, which is the main access point, and the impact of the development on the laneway, including concern with impact on businesses surrounding the Subject Property. Gerenby also raised concerns regarding construction of the proposed development, and indicated that there was a lack of clarity regarding the plans for the proposed development.
The Applicant, the City, and Allenby did not object to the Party status request.
BRTC objected on the basis that Gerenby had not demonstrated a genuine planning interest in this matter. It submitted that Gerenby had raised issues that have to do with the laneway. BRTC owns the laneway. Therefore, it can and will raise issues regarding the laneway. Gerenby’s attendance is not required. Furthermore, Gerenby’s status request did not adequately justify adding them as a Party, and it should bring a motion instead to give all Parties a better understanding of why their presence is necessary in this proceeding. In response to the Tribunal’s question on whether BRTC would suffer prejudice if Gerenby was added, BRTC’s Counsel stated that increasing Parties unnecessarily would increase costs and cause delays. Furthermore, as the owner of the laneway, it was the appropriate Party to be speaking about issues that surround the laneway.
Regarding the motion, the other Parties indicated that they would continue to not object to the request and would likely not participate in the motion.
Gerenby, in reply, explained that the impact of the proposed development on it was obvious on its face, as an adjoining landowner. Additionally, the laneway, which is used extensively by Gerenby and its clients, appears to be an integral part of the proposal. Thus, its participation is necessary and would assist the Tribunal.
The Tribunal determined that:
A motion was unnecessary. All information required for it to make a decision had been presented at the CMC, which was the appropriate venue for Party status requests to be considered. Moreover, the Parties had not demonstrated that information was outstanding that could not be provided at the CMC. Thus, the Tribunal determined that it would make a decision on the status request, rather than scheduling a motion.
The Party status request was granted to Gerenby, as it had demonstrated that it has a direct interest in the Appeal and meets the requirements of being a Party as outlined in the Tribunal’s Rules. If Gerenby raised issues that were duplicates of those raised by BRTC, then they could be combined and addressed once at the Hearing. If it raised issues that opposed those raised by BRTC, then BRTC could bring evidence to respond, and this would assist the Tribunal in making a decision that considered all relevant factors relating to this proposal. Thus, Gerenby was an appropriate Party in this matter and was added.
AND THE TRIBUNAL having received no requests for Participant status;
AND THE TRIBUNAL confirming the Parties’ awareness of Tribunal-led mediation and giving direction for the Parties to reach out to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator in writing if they would like a mediation assessment;
AND THE TRIBUNAL at the CMC having scheduled a second CMC to take place on Thursday, May 28, 2026 at 10 a.m., by video conference, with the following details:
Parties 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/765631861
Access code: 765-631-861
Parties 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
Persons 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) 497-9391 or (Toll-Free) 1-888-455-1389. The access code is: 765-631-861.
Individuals 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.
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.
AND THE TRIBUNAL, discussing the Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List (“IL”) and giving an Order that the PO and IL, or a status update, are to be provided by the Applicant to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator by Thursday, May 21, 2026 to be reviewed at the second CMC;
NOW THEREFORE,
THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:
- The following are Parties in the proceeding:
a. The Badminton and Racquet Club of Toronto;
b. Allenby Gardens Home Corp.; and
c. Gerenby Investments Limited and 281984 Ontario Limited.
The Procedural Order and Issues List, or a status update, are to be provided to the Tribunal by Thursday, May 21, 2026.
A second Case Management Conference is scheduled as detailed above.
No further Notice is required.
This Member is not seized but may be contacted through the Case Coordinator should procedural issues arise.
“Matthew D.J. Bryan”
MATTHEW D.J. BRYAN
REGISTRAR
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: 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
CMC Attendance List
Party Name
Counsel
Midtown-Yonge Properties Inc.
Cristin Hunt
David Bronskill (in absentia)
City of Toronto
Cameron McKeich
The Badminton and Racquet Club of Toronto
Robert Wood
J. Pitman Patterson (in absentia)
Allenby Gardens Home Corp.
Calvin Lantz
Gerenby Investments Limited and 281984 Ontario Limited
Michael Carlson