Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Toronto et al v. Toronto (City), 2026 CanLII 35716

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 15, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-26-000109

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Toronto, Toronto Catholic District School Board & Toronto District School Board Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 862 Description: To facilitate mid-rise intensification within certain lands in the City of Toronto Reference Number: OPA 862 Property Address: City Wide Municipality: Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-26-000109 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-26-000109 OLT Case Name: Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Toronto et al v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Toronto & Toronto Catholic District School Board Subject: By-law No. 1569-2025 Description: To facilitate mid-rise intensification within certain lands in the City of Toronto Reference Number: BL 1569-2025 Property Address: City Wide Municipality: Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-26-000110 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-26-000109

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Toronto, Toronto Catholic District School Board & 792 Ossington Inc. Subject: By-law No. 1571-2025 Description: To facilitate mid-rise intensification within certain lands in the City of Toronto Reference Number: BL 1571-2025 Property Address: City Wide Municipality: Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-26-000113 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-26-000109

Heard: Wednesday April 8, 2026 by Video-Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Toronto	Tara Piurko, Jesse White
Toronto Catholic District School Board c/o Toronto Lands Corporation	Tara Piurko, Jesse White
Toronto District School Board	Pitman Patterson, Julie Lesage
792 Ossington Inc.	Eileen Costello
Corporation of the City of Toronto	Cameron McKeich, Marc Hardieiowski (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY N. EISAZADEH ON April 8, 2026, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision arises from the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) convened in the matters bearing Tribunal case file numbers: OLT-26-000109, OLT-26-000110, and OLT-26-000113 (collectively the “Appeals”).

[2] OLT-26-000109 regards the appeals filed pursuant to s. 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”) against the City of Toronto’s (“City”) Official Plan Amendment No. 862, adopted by Zoning By-law No. 1570-2025 (“OPA 862”), described in further detail below, by three appellants: i. Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Toronto (“RCEC”); ii. Toronto Catholic District School Board (“TCDSB”); and iii. Toronto District School Board (“TDSB”).

3OLT-26-000110 regards the appeals filed pursuant to s. 34(19) of the Act against the City’s adoption of Zoning By-law No.1569-2025 (“ZBL 1569-2025”), described in further detail below, by only RCEC and TCDSB.

4OLT-26-000113 regards the appeals filed pursuant to s. 34(19) of the Act against the City’s adoption of Zoning By-law No.1571-2025 (“ZBL 1571-2025”), described in further detail below, by RCEC, TCDSB, and 792 Ossington Inc.

NOTICE

5The Tribunal received the sworn Affidavit of Service of Olivia Morris, sworn March 2, 2026, confirming that Notice of this CMC was properly given in respect of the Appeals. The sworn Affidavit of Service of Olivia Morris was marked as Exhibit 1.

PARTY STATUS REQUESTS

6Two independent Party status requests were received.

7The first is from the Confederation of Residents and Ratepayers Associations in Toronto (“CORRA”). The representative of CORRA, Kerr Randall, was in attendance at the CMC and advised CORRA is not represented by counsel. The Tribunal notes that the status request form for CORRA identifies only Tribunal case file number OLT-26-000113 in respect for which it is seeking status.

8The second is from John Hartley. Mr. Hartley was in attendance at the CMC and advised he is not represented by counsel. The Tribunal notes that the status request form for Mr. Hartley identifies only Tribunal case file number OLT-26-000113 in respect for which he is seeking status.

9Both Party status requests may be broadly summarized as supportive of the City’s decision to exclude lands owned by various school boards from the official plan amendments (“OPAs”) (as defined below) and their respective implementing zoning by-laws (“ZBLs”) (as defined below).

10The granting of Party status was deferred to the next CMC, as explained below in greater detail.

PARTICIPANT STATUS REQUESTS

[11] Four independent Participant status requests were received from the following individuals/organizations: i. Don Mills Residents Inc. (“DMR”), represented by Vanessa Quinn, who was in attendance at the CMC and advised that DMR is not represented by counsel. The Tribunal notes that the status request form for DMR identifies all three Tribunal case file numbers respecting the present Appeals for which it is seeking status. ii. Virginia Johnson, who was in attendance at the CMC, advised she is not represented by counsel. The Tribunal notes that the status request form for Ms. Johnson identifies only Tribunal case file number OLT-26-000113 for which she is seeking status. iii. Andrew Waters, who was not in attendance at the CMC. The Tribunal notes that the status request form for Mr. Waters identifies only Tribunal case file number OLT-26-000113 for which he is seeking status. iv. Muzaffer Pasha, who was not in attendance at the CMC. The Tribunal notes that the status request form for Mr. Pasha identifies only Tribunal case file number OLT-26-000113 for which he is seeking status.

12All four Participant status requests may also be generally summarized as supportive of the City’s decision to exclude lands owned by various school boards from the OPAs (as defined below) and their respective implementing ZBLs (as defined below).

13The granting of Participant status was deferred to the next CMC, as explained below in greater detail.

BACKGROUND AND THE NATURE OF THE INSTRUMENTS UNDER APPEAL

14On March 21, 2023, the City’s Executive Committee adopted Housing Action Plan 2022-2026 – Priorities and Work Plan (“HAP 2022-2026”). Through HAP 2022-2026, City Council directed City Planning to update the City’s Official Plan (“TOP”) and establish as-of-right zoning permissions to expand housing opportunities across the City. On that direction, the Avenues Policy Review proposed modernizing policies and zoning to enable mid-rise buildings along Avenues, as defined under the TOP.

15On February 5, 2025, City Council adopted Official Plan Amendment No. 778 (“OPA 778” – being Phase One of the Avenues Policy Review) which comprehensively updated the Avenues policies, including expanding the network of Avenues by 283 kilometres and directing growth along Avenues generally to the height of mid-rise buildings. Following several appeals, on July 24, 2025, this Tribunal brought OPA 778 into effect City-wide, save for site-specific matters that remain under appeal.

[16] Phase Two of the Avenues Policy Review involved a phased approach, moving from policy to implementation, specifically for Wards 9 and 11 within the City, and has resulted in the following relevant instruments initiated by the City: i. Two OPAs: i. Official Plan Amendment No. 861 (“OPA 861”); ii. OPA 862; and ii. Two ZBLs: i. ZBL 1569-2025; ii. ZBL 1571-2025.

17OPA 861 (implemented by Zoning By-law No. 1568-2025) and OPA 862 are intended to facilitate mid-rise intensification along specific Avenues in Wards 9 and 11 through changes in land use designations from ‘Neighbourhoods’ to either ‘Apartment Neighbourhoods’ or ‘Mixed Use Areas’, where and as appropriate. The specific segments along Avenues that are affected include: Christie Street, College Street, Davenport Road, Dupont Street, Dufferin Street, Dundas Street West, Oakwood Avenue, and Ossington Avenue.

18While OPA 861 specifically applies to lands within Protected Major Transit Station Areas (“PMTSAs”), OPA 862 applies to lands on Avenues outside of PMTSAs.

19The two ZBLs at issue, ZBL 1569-2025 and ZBL 1571-2025, support OPA 861 and OPA 862 by, inter alia, implementing the land use redesignations and updating zoning regulations to allow for appropriately scaled mid-rise buildings of up to six storeys.

20ZBL 1569-2025 applies specifically to lands subject to OPA 862 (lands outside of PMTSAs), while ZBL 1571-2025 applies specifically to lands subject to OPA 861 (lands within PMTSAs).

21At a high-level, the nature of the Appeals relates to the individual appellants’ concerns over their respectively owned lands located along Avenues within the City that were intentionally excluded from the redesignation implementation project under the Avenues Policy Review, and thereby, not included within the OPAs or their associated implementing ZBLs.

APPEALS OF OPA 861

22Counsel for the City explained that, in 2025, it was initially believed that OPA 861 (dealing with lands within PMTSAs) was exempt from appeal. Counsel advised that subsequent clarification through legislative amendments has made it clear that OPA 861 ought to also be exempt from Ministerial approval. Accordingly, a new Notice of Adoption of OPA 861 was issued by the City particularizing appeal rights to this Tribunal (“OPA 861 Appeals”).

23Counsel for the City advised that while some OPA 861 Appeals had already been received, the appeal period had not yet formally expired. Accordingly, the City was awaiting the for the appeal period to expire, and a Tribunal case file number to be assigned, encompassing the OPA 861 Appeals, following which it would seek to move for an order that the OPA 861 Appeals be consolidated, or heard together, with the present Appeals.

24Counsel for 792 Ossington Inc. and counsel for RCEC confirmed that those two appellants have also appealed OPA 861.

MOTION TO DISMISS

25Counsel for the City informed the Tribunal that the Parties had been made aware of the City’s intention to bring a jurisdictional motion seeking to dismiss the appeals of any appellant whose lands identified in their Notice of Appeal is not included within the scope of the instruments under appeal – or in other words, whose lands are not a part of the amendments adopted by City Council, and in particular, school boards with lands outside the scope of the OPAs (“Jurisdictional Motion”).

26After some discussion regarding the logistically optimal next steps, it was generally agreed that the OPA 861 Appeals had to be before the Tribunal and a determination made on the request for an order for either consolidation or a hearing together of the OPA 861 Appeals, together with the present Appeals, so that if such an order is granted there need be only one Jurisdictional Motion brought dealing with all the relevant appeals at issue together.

27It was also generally agreed among the Parties that the most effective path forward was to defer the requests for Party and Participant status to such time as a determination on the Jurisdictional Motion had been made. Should the City be successful on its Jurisdictional Motion, the view was that those appeals at issue would cease to exist from having no standing, and therefore any request for Party or Participant status to those appeals would be moot.

TRIBUNAL RULING

28The Tribunal ruled that the most fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the procedural next steps was to schedule a second CMC on the present Appeals, with the intention that the second CMC would be heard alongside the first CMC of the OPA 861 Appeals, and a motion for an order for either consolidation or a hearing together may be determined.

29The Tribunal further agreed, in principle, that it made the most efficient sense to defer the issue of Party and Participant status until such time as a determination on the Jurisdictional Motion had been made. This is, in part, because pursuant to Rule 8.3 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), any Non-Appellant Party granted status to appeals brought under ss. 17(24) and 34(19) of the Act are restricted in their participation by way of sheltering under only those issues raised by an appellant party, and may only participate fully in the proceeding to the extent that those issue(s) remain in dispute. Given that the Parties were not yet in a position to finalize an Issues List, and the City’s pending Jurisdictional Motion, the Tribunal appreciated that deferral of the status requests made practical sense.

30However, at the very least, deferral of the status requests until the second CMC would allow for any further status requests in respect of the OPA 861 Appeals to be brought forward and addressed together in a more streamlined fashion, for better organization of the concerns raised by all requests, as well as to determine if a Common Interest Class of Parties, under Rule 8.4 of the Rules, is engaged.

31Accordingly, the Tribunal ruled that it shall be at the discretion of the Panel before which the second CMC of the present Appeals, and the first CMC of the OPA 861 Appeals, is heard to determine if the issue of Party and Participant status requests will be addressed at that hearing event, or deferred until after a determination on the Jurisdictional Motion is made.

32It was agreed among the Parties that a date in late May 2026 would afford the necessary amount of time for the OPA 861 Appeals to be assigned a Tribunal case file number, and the appropriate Notice to be issued in respect of the first CMC on the OPA 861 Appeals. The Tribunal indicated that, while efforts would be made to accommodate the schedules of all Parties, counsel, representatives, and those seeking Party or Participant status, ultimately the Tribunal’s calendar would determine the availability of dates for which all stakeholders were expected to make themselves available.

33The second CMC was accordingly scheduled to proceed on Monday, May 25, 2026, the details for which are as set out further below.

34Counsel for TDSB requested that the Tribunal also set out a timetable of deliverable deadlines regarding the City’s Jurisdictional Motion, as the Parties were in general agreement regarding a tentative timetable, and a request for a one-day motion date in July or August of 2026 to be scheduled for oral argument. However, given the uncertainty regarding additional parties arising from the OPA 861 Appeals not yet filed, who may be affected by the Jurisdictional Motion, the Tribunal declined to order the requested timetable. A one-day motion date in late summer within the Tribunal calendar is unlikely to be jeopardized if scheduled at the second CMC on May 25, 2026. The Tribunal also expressed that the Parties need not rely on an ordered timetable to begin their preparation on their respective motion materials.

FURTHER DIRECTIONS

35The Tribunal directs that until such time as a determination has been made respecting the Party and Participant status requests, all prospective parties and participants are to be copied on any and all correspondence with the Tribunal by the Parties.

36The Tribunal further directs that upon a Tribunal case file number being assigned to the OPA 861 Appeals, counsel for the City will reach out to the Case Coordinator to request that the first CMC of OPA 861 be scheduled to be heard alongside the second CMC of the present Appeals on May 25, 2026, in accordance with the directions within this Decision.

37The Tribunal further directs that counsel for the City confer with all other Parties to the present Appeals and the OPA 861 Appeals who will be affected by the City’s Jurisdictional Motion, so that the Parties are prepared to attend the second CMC with a timetable of deliverable deadlines and motion dates with respect to the City’s Jurisdictional Motion, so that same may be scheduled.

38The Tribunal further directs the Parties to confer with one another on the question raised by Mr. Hartley as to whether the ordering of a transcription of the hearing events is appropriate and will be made in this matter.

NEXT CMC HEARING DATE

39A half-day second CMC is scheduled to proceed by video on Monday, May 25, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.

[40] Parties and/or Participants and/or Observers 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/656004293 Access code: 656-004-293

41Parties and/or Participants 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

42Persons 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: +1-647-497-9373 or (toll-free) +1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 656-004-293.

43Individuals 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.

44As 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.

ORDER

45The case management directives above are so ordered.

46There will be no further notice and this Member is not seized, but may be available for case management, should the Tribunal’s calendar permit.

“N. Eisazadeh”

n. eisazadeh MEMBER Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.