Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
April 16, 2026
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-25-000228
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant
4875 Dundas St. West Residences Limited
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Refusal of request
Description:
To permit the development of a 45-storey residential tower with a 4-storey podium containing commercial uses
Reference Number:
24 143269 WET 03 OZ
Property Address:
4875 Dundas Street West
Municipality/UT:
Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No:
OLT-25-000228
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-25-000228
OLT Case Name:
4875 Dundas St. West Residences Limited v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant
4875 Dundas St. West Residences Limited
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application
Description:
To permit the development of a 45-storey residential tower with a 4-storey podium containing commercial uses
Reference Number:
24 143269 WET 03 OZ
Property Address:
4875 Dundas Street West
Municipality/UT:
Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No:
OLT-25-000229
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-25-000228
Heard:
April 13, 2026 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
4875 Dundas St. West Residences Limited (“Appellant”)
C. Lantz, C. Jordan
City of Toronto (“City”)
S. Messina, D. Abimbola in absentia
827149 Ontario Ltd. (“Rabba Foods”)
A. Lu, M. Helfand in absentia
Maximum Property Management Ltd. (“Maximum”)
C. Hunt, D. Bronskill in absentia
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY william r. middleton ON april 13, 2026 AND interim ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1A hearing was held on April 13, 2026 by the Tribunal pursuant to Rule 12 of the OLT Rules of Practice and Procedure, (“Hearing”) to consider a settlement of the Appellant’s appeal that had been concluded with the City in December, 2025, following private mediation held the month prior (“Settlement”).
2The materials before the Tribunal were the affidavit of Lincoln Lo, comprising 175 pages (“Affidavit”) and a draft interim Order prepared by the Appellant’s counsel. Mr. Lo is a well-experienced urban planner and was qualified without objection from any Party to provide expert land use planning opinion evidence at this hearing. The Affidavit, together with the oral evidence of Mr. Lo, was tendered by the Appellant with the consent of all Parties.
ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
3The following table from the Affidavit summarizes the changes from the Appellant’s original proposal as reflected in the Settlement:
Table 2 – Statistical Comparison
Original Proposal (April 2024)
Settlement Proposal (December 2025)
Site Area Existing
2905.3 sq.m
2,905.3 sq.m
Building Height Storeys Metres (Top of Roof) Metres (Top of MPH)
45 storeys 144.1m 150.1 m
42 storeys 138.8 m 144.8 m
Gross Floor Area Proposed Residential Proposed Retail Total Project GFA
33,458 sq.m 461 sq.m 33,919 sq.m
33,419 sq.m 500 sq.m 33,919 sq.m
Density (FSI)
11.67
11.67
Dwelling Units Studio One-Bedroom
0 (0%)
0 (0%) 333 (75%)
Original Proposal (April 2024)
Settlement Proposal (December 2025)
Two-Bedroom Three-Bedroom Total Dwelling Units
273 (56%) 174 (36%) 41 (8%) 488 units (100%)
67 (15%) 45 (10%) 445 units (100%)
Amenity Space Indoor Amenity Space Outdoor Amenity Space Total Amenity
984 sq.m (2.02 sq.m/unit) 982 sq.m (2.01 sq.m/unit) 1,966 sq.m
890 sq.m (2 sq.m/unit) 890 sq.m (2 sq.m/unit) 1,780 sq.m
Vehicular Parking Residential Visitor/Commercial Total Vehicle Parking
214 spaces 7 spaces 221 spaces
214 spaces 7 spaces 221 spaces
Bicycle Parking Spaces Long-Term Short-Term Total Bicycle Parking
332 spaces 35 spaces 367 spaces
303 spaces 31 spaces 334 spaces
Loading Type ‘C’ Type ‘G’
1 space 1 space
1 space 1 space
4The planning instruments proposed under the Settlement are an amendment to the City’s Official Plan (“OPA”) and an amendment to the City’s Zoning By-law (“ZBA”) to accommodate the development described in the table set out in paragraph [3] above pertaining to the site municipally known as 4875 Dundas Street West in the City (“Site”). The Site currently is occupied by a 10-storey rental building with an approximate height of 32 metres (“m”), which contains a total of 56 rental units consisting of one 1- and 55 2- bedroom apartments. As noted by Mr. Lo, recently, there has been considerable redevelopment activity in the approximate area surrounding the Site including many tall towers each with +200 or more residential units as well as mixed use areas.
5The Settlement proposes a maximum GFA of 33,919 square metres (“sq m”), of which a maximum of 33,419 sq m are for residential uses and a minimum of 500 sq m are for non-residential at-grade retail uses. A total of 445 residential dwelling units are proposed, of which 56 are rental replacement units. The final unit mix of the Settlement will be determined at the site plan stage; however, the Applicant has committed to provide a minimum of 10% of the units as three-bedroom units and approximately 15% of the units as two-bedroom units. The Settlement has a FSI of approximately 11.67, which is the same as the original proposal made by the Appellant, which had been refused by the City.
6The proposed Dundas Street West-facing street wall is 5 storeys (21.6 metres), with a 2 metre (“m”) step back above the ground floor and a 2 m stepback above the 4th floor. Portions of the streetwall are set back between 3 and 10 m to the front lot line. From the west lot line, a portion of the street wall is set back up to 6.9 m to provide a recessed residential entrance and to provide separation to the existing windows and mural on the adjacent building at 4879 Dundas Street West. From the east lot line, a portion of the streetwall is set back up to 6.7 m to provide a recessed entry to a future retail entrance.
7A 10-m setback is provided from the Dundas Street West frontage (north) to the tower portion of the building (floors 6 and above). No setback encroachments (e.g. balconies) shall be permitted on the front façade of the tower portion of the building facing Dundas Street West. In Mr. Lo’s opinion, these minimum setbacks, step backs and maximum heights work in conjunction to facilitate a comfortable public realm that reinforces the base portion, visually limits the prominence of the tower portion, and emphasizes the pedestrian scale and character of the existing neighbourhood.
8As outlined by Mr. Lo, the Settlement will deliver a combination of indoor and outdoor amenity space. This includes a total of 890 sq m of indoor amenity space and a total of 890 sq m of outdoor amenity space, for a total of 1,780 sq m . This equates to a minimum rate of 2.0 sq m of indoor and outdoor amenity space per dwelling unit, respectively.
9Mr. Lo further opined as follows:
(a) The Settlement has had regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act;
(b) The Settlement is consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement (“PPS”) as it supports the optimization of land use and infrastructure and delivers a high-density mixed-use building in a location that is intended to support growth and development. It locates mixed-use intensification in a delineated Protected Major Transit Station Area (“PMTSA”) within walking distance to the Islington subway station and will aid the City in meeting its minimum density targets for Major Transit Station Areas (“MTSAs”);
(c) The Settlement conforms with the policy objectives and requirements of the City’s Official Plan and all applicable secondary plan and building guideline policies;
(d) the Settlement provides for an appropriate scale of intensification, given the subject site’s location in a “strategic growth area” and PMTSA along a major arterial road with frequent transit service. Intensification on the Subject Site is strongly encouraged by the applicable policy framework. The policy directions at both the Provincial and City levels emphasize the efficient and optimal use of land and infrastructure and encourage the integration of land use planning and transportation planning. Optimizing the use of land and infrastructure and creating new housing options in areas such as this that are well-served by transit and other municipal infrastructure is in the broad public interest;
(e) The development proposed under the Settlement is contextually appropriate and will represent a high-quality architectural addition to the area. It will fit harmoniously with the existing and planned built form context, including the Islington Village “main street” character. It will be compatible with the height and massing of existing, approved and proposed developments in the surrounding area. In response to feedback from City staff, the height of the proposed tower has been limited to 42-storeys and the design and height of the podium carefully constructed to provide an appropriate base building for this context; and
(f) The Settlement as implemented through the proposed Interim Orders will meet all applicable municipal and provincial planning tests, represents good planning and is in the public interest.
10The Tribunal found Mr. Lo to be a forthright and credible witness and agrees with and relies upon his above-noted analysis which was unchallenged at the Hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the development contemplated under the Settlement, and the associated OPA and ZBA, is consistent with the PPS, 2024, conforms to the City’s Official Plan policies and requirements, constitutes good planning and is fair, reasonable and in the overall public interest.
INTERIM ORDERS
11THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS ON AN INTERIM BASIS THAT:
(1) these appeals are allowed in part and the draft Official Plan Amendment attached hereto as Appendix A and the draft Zoning By-law Amendment attached hereto as Appendix B are approved in principle, subject to the satisfaction by the Appellant of the conditions set out in Appendix C hereto (“Conditions”); and
(2) The Tribunal’s Final Order shall be withheld until such time that the Tribunal has been advised by the City’s solicitor that the Conditions have been satisfied by the Appellant; and
(3) The Appellant shall seek the Tribunal’s Final Order by Thursday, December 31, 2026, failing which the Appellant shall provide a status update on that matter by that date.
12This Vice-Chair shall remain seized of this proceeding for all matters arising from the above Interim Orders and in respect of the Final Order to be sought by the Appellant.
“William R. Middleton”
WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON
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.
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX ‘C’
CONDITIONS
- the final form and content of the draft Official Plan Amendment is to the satisfaction of the Appellant, the Executive Director, Development Review, and the City Solicitor;
- the final form and content of the draft Zoning By-law is to the satisfaction of the Appellant, the Executive Director, Development Review, and the City Solicitor;
- the Owner has, at its sole cost and expense:
- submitted a revised TIS, inclusive of a vehicle maneuvering diagram, acceptable to, and to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services;
- provided a revised Public Utility Plan, including Quality Level A data, to determine and confirm the location of utilities and tree planting to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the Executive Director, Environment, Climate and Forestry;
- provided a Soil Volume Plan, a Landscape Plan, showing street trees, and section drawings to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the Executive Director, Environment, Climate and Forestry;
- addressed all outstanding issues raised by the Executive Director, Environment, Climate and Forestry, in their memorandum dated September 5, 2024, as they relate to the application, including submitting an application to Injure or Remove Trees, and as it relates to tree planting, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Environment, Climate and Forestry;
- submitted a revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report to demonstrate that the existing sanitary 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 Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;
i. if the accepted Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report requires any new municipal infrastructure or upgrades to the existing municipal infrastructure to support the development, then either:
the owner has secured the design, construction, and provision of financial securities for any new municipal infrastructure, or any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure identified in the accepted Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, to support the development, in a financial secured agreement, all to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Review, Development Review; or
the required new municipal infrastructure or upgrades to existing municipal infrastructure to support the development in the accepted and satisfactory Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report are constructed and operational, all to the satisfaction to the Director, Engineering Review, Development Review.
- addressed all outstanding issues raised by Development Engineering in the memorandum, dated September 17, 2024, and revised on October 29, 2024, to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Review, Development Review;
- submitted a revised Pedestrian Level Wind Study, including a Wind Tunnel Study, that identifies any required mitigation measures to be implemented and secured through the zoning by-law and/or site plan control process to resolve wind safety exceedances and to improve pedestrian comfort, all to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning; and
- provided a revised Compatibility and Mitigation Study, Air Quality, Dust, Odour, Noise and Vibration study to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review.
City Council has approved the Rental Housing Demolition Application (24 143880 WET 03 RH) in accordance with Chapter 667 of the Toronto Municipal Code pursuant to Section 111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, to permit the demolition of the 56 existing rental dwelling units on the lands, and the owner has entered into, and registered on title to the lands, one or more agreements with the City, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor, securing all rental housing-related matters necessary to implement City Council's decision, including:
- replacement of the existing 56 rental housing units, including the same number of units, bedroom type and size and with similar rents; and
- an acceptable Tenant Assistance Plan addressing the right for existing and former tenants to return to a replacement rental unit.