Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: May 12, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-26-000006 OLT-26-000022

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

Applicant/Appellant: Manga Hotels (Spadina) Inc. Subject: Site Plan Description: To permit the development of a hotel including a 19-storey building and a 14-storey building connected by a single-storey podium Reference Number: 21 250663 STE 10 SA Property Address: 182-184 Spadina Avenue Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-26-000006 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-26-000006 OLT Case Name: Manga Hotels (Spadina) Inc. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Applicant/Appellant: Manga Hotels (Spadina) Inc. Subject: Minor Variance Description: To permit the development of a hotel including a 19-storey building and a 14-storey building connected by a single-storey podium Reference Number: A0646/25TEY Property Address: 182-184 Spadina Avenue Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-26-000022 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-26-000006

Heard: March 10-11, 2026 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel / Representative*

Manga Hotels (Spadina) Inc. Daniel Angelucci Jason Park

City of Toronto Michelle LaFortune

Miyako Panalaks Self-represented*

DECISION DELIVERED BY C.I. MOLINARI AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1This matter involves appeals filed by Manga Hotels (Spadina) Inc. (“Appellant”) against the City of Toronto (“City”) arising from the refusal of a Minor Variance (“MV”) application and the failure of the City to make a decision within the prescribed timeframe for a Site Plan Control (“SPC”) application (together “Applications”), pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”) and s. 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act. The Applications affect the lands known municipally as 182-184 Spadina Avenue (“Spadina”) (“Property”), located on the west side of Spadina, north of Queen Street West (“Queen”), with frontage on both Spadina and Cameron Street (“Cameron”).

2The Property is an L-shaped through-lot with an area of 1,136.74 square metres (“m²”), with 24 metres (“m”) of frontage on Cameron and 15 m of frontage on Spadina.

3The Property abuts a 10-storey mixed-use building to the north and a six-storey office building to the south. On the west side of Cameron is a 14-storey residential building, with a municipal address of 38 Cameron (“Cameron Condo”).

4The Property is designated ‘Mixed Use Areas’ in the City Official Plan (“COP”), which permits mixed-use or single-use commercial, residential and institutional buildings, including a hotel, and is within the Protected Major Transit Station Area for the Queen-Spadina Station (“Q‑S PMTSA”).

5Site-specific Zoning By-law 762-2023 (“ZBL 762”) zones the Property ‘CR 3.5 (c.2.0; r2.5) SS2 (x856)’ which permits the development of a hotel with a 15-storey building fronting on Cameron (“Cameron Building”) and a 14‑storey building fronting on Spadina (“Spadina Building”), connected by a single-storey podium.

6The SPC application was submitted in December 2021, a Notice of Complete Application was issued in January 2022, and a Notice of Approval with conditions was issued in January 2025.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

7The Appellant requested that the MV and SPC appeals be heard together. With no objection from the City, the Tribunal ordered that they be heard together pursuant to Rule 16 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

8The Appellant also requested that the SPC appeal be adjourned sine die. With no objection from the City, the Tribunal granted the request.

MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION

9The MV application was submitted in August 2025 to increase the maximum permitted density and height of the Cameron Building from 15-storeys (44.4 m) to 19‑storeys (57 m). It was revised in September 2025 to reduce the setback between the Cameron Building and the Spadina Building from 13 m to 12.80 m, increase the maximum height of the rooftop patio from 53.25 m to 54 m, reduce the maximum length of the Spadina Building from 22.10 m to 21.52 m to correctly align with the surveyed lot dimensions depicted on Diagram 1 of ZBL 762, and to add a rooftop ladder access as a permitted projection.

Amendment to the Application

10The MV application was further revised ahead of the merit hearing (“Revised Application”) to increase the minimum setback along Cameron and adjust the building dimensions to match the surveyed lot dimensions.

11It was Mr. Angelucci’s submission that the amendment to the Application was minor and that no further notice should be required as per ss. 45(18.1) and 45(18.1.1) of the Act.

12The Tribunal agreed with Mr. Angelucci and determined that the revisions were minor and that no further notice was required.

Revised Application

13The Revised Application consisted of the following MVs:

1. an increased height from 44.4 m to 57 m for the Cameron Building;
2. a rooftop ladder access as a permitted projection;
3. an increased maximum non-residential gross floor area (“GFA”);
4. revised minimum setbacks; and
5. corrected dimensions.

14Diagram 3 of ZBL 762 (“Approved Diagram 3”) illustrates the maximum heights, the maximum projections beyond the maximum height, the minimum setbacks, and the required separation of “main walls”. The Revised Application seeks to substitute Approved Diagram 3 with a revised diagram (“Revised Diagram 3”) and to facilitate the adjusted heights and dimensions thereon. The various MVs are highlighted in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1: Revised Diagram 3

STATUS REQUESTS

15Miyako Panalaks, an architect and resident of the Cameron Condo, requested Party status to the MV appeal, citing concerns related to the height of the Cameron Building.

16With no objections, Ms. Panalaks was granted Party status to the MV appeal as she had a genuine and direct interest in the matter and could assist the Tribunal in making its decision.

17Eric Cher, Kathleen Boychuck, Valeria Gibson, and Simon DeSilva-Naimji requested Participant status, raising land use planning concerns regarding whether the Revised Application is minor, the height and scale of the development, sunlight and shadow impacts, views, privacy, traffic, loading, emergency access, noise, wind, idling pollution, neighbourhood character, livability, quality of life, and the environment.

18With no objections, Mr. Cher, Ms. Boychuck, Ms. Gibson, and Mr. DeSilva-Naimji were granted Participant status to the MV appeal, as they each have a genuine and direct interest in the matter and could assist the Tribunal in making its decision.

19The Participants’ concerns were either addressed by the witnesses, not related to the Revised Application, or would be more appropriately dealt with through the SPC application.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

20The hearing of an MV appeal is conducted as a hearing de novo, and the Tribunal must be satisfied that the following four tests set out in s. 45(1) of the Act (“Four Tests”) have been met:

• the MVs maintain the general intent and purpose of the official plan;
• the MVs maintain the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law;
• the MVs are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; and
• the MVs are minor in nature.

21In determining an MV appeal, the Tribunal must also have regard to the relevant matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act, as well as to the decision of the City, if any, and the information it considered in making its decision, in accordance with s. 2.1(1) of the Act. Further, under s. 3(5) of the Act, any decision of the Tribunal affecting planning matters must be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024 (“PPS”).

WITNESSES

22For the Appellant, the following witnesses were qualified as experts in the fields indicated:

• Dermot Sweeny – Architecture
• Kenneth Chan – Transportation Engineering
• Bruce Hall – Land Use Planning

23The City did not call any witnesses and participated in the hearing in an observational capacity only. Ms. LaFortune made no opening or closing submissions on behalf of the City and did not conduct any cross-examination.

24Ms. Panalaks did not call any witnesses and was not qualified as an architect for the purpose of advancing her case. Her involvement in the hearing consisted of making opening and closing statements, making submissions, and cross-examining Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Chan.

EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS

25Ms. Panalaks requested Party status based on concerns regarding the increase in height of the Cameron Building proposed through the Revised Application. At the hearing it became clear that her objection to height was grounded in broader concerns related to scale, density, and shadow impacts. She also expanded the scope of her concerns, raising additional issues including her view that the Revised Application is not minor, lacks precedent, is incompatible with the surrounding residential neighbourhood, is out of scale with neighbouring hotels, and would result in impacts on traffic, livability, and community character. She submitted that the increased height and density would exacerbate congestion, strain infrastructure, and undermine balanced urban development, resulting in negative effects on the surrounding neighbourhood. Through her questioning of the witnesses, she also addressed the traffic study recommendations related to traffic, access, and loading from Cameron, characterizing them as not viable.

26Given that the Appellant did not object, Ms. Panalaks’ expanded concerns were considered by the Tribunal, but only to the extent that they relate to the Revised Application and not to what was approved under the ZBL 762. In that respect, the Tribunal considered her submissions regarding the increase in height and scale, the associated shadowing impacts, and her position that the Revised Application is not minor. The Tribunal found her additional concerns regarding congestion, strain on infrastructure, the undermining of balanced urban development, and the traffic study recommendations to be indistinguishable from the permissions already established through ZBL 762 and therefore not matters directly attributable to the Revised Application.

27The following provides a review of the evidence and submissions for each Variance and the proposed conditions for the Revised Application (“Conditions”), followed by evidence and submissions on whether the Variances have proper regard to the applicable matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act, are consistent with the PPS, and meet the Four Tests.

Variance 1 – Height

28The Revised Application seeks to vary Article 900,11.10, Exception 856, Provision (D) of ZBL 762, in order to increase the maximum building height at various parts of the Cameron Building as follows: from 44.4 m to 57.0 m, from 41.00 m to 54.0 m, from 28.00 m to 28.50 m, from 7.00 m to 7.20 m, as highlighted in orange on Revised Diagram 3 (“Variance 1”).

29Mr. Hall advised that Variance 1 is required to facilitate the addition of four storeys to the Cameron Building, with the height of the building adjacent to Spadina remaining unchanged. He opined that the increase in height and density is reconciled by the slender built form of the Cameron Building, which has a very small floor plate of 400 m² at the upper levels, compared to typical floor plate sizes of 750 m² to 850 m² for mixed-use buildings, and more than 1,000 m² for office buildings. He stated that the small floor plate results in a four-storey increase in height for only a modest increase in density. He added that maintaining the 14-storey height of the Spadina Building, as requested by the City, maintains proportionality with the adjacent Spadina right-of-way and aligns with the COP’s built form policies for Spadina.

30Mr. Sweeny stated that the increased setbacks and reduced floor plate of the Cameron Building reduce the overall massing and help to offset the increase in height. Relying on a comparative shadow study of the development permitted under ZBL 762 and the Revised Application, he opined that the incremental increase in shadowing is minimal and results in a marginal increase in shadow on the courtyard to the north and on the Cameron Condo at certain times of the year, with no significant adverse effects. Further, relying on an addendum to the wind study undertaken for the Proposed Development, he proffered that there are no concerns or negative wind impacts due to the additional four storeys.

31Mr. Sweeny opined that the additional height, together with the step-backs, setbacks and reduced floor plate, represents very good urban design with no significant negative impacts on the public realm, surrounding streets, public spaces, parks, or adjacent properties. He further opined that the proposed development fits within the anticipated level of intensification for the area and, due to its proximity to existing and planned transit, contributes to a walkable precinct that reduces car dependency.

32Mr. Hall noted that Variance 1 is consistent with other approved MV applications and with the existing and planned built context. He opined that the additional height is modest and compatible with the existing and planned context, and that the associated impacts are appropriately mitigated.

33Ms. Panalaks submitted that Variance 1 represents a substantial increase in height and density given the 26.67 percent (“%”) increase in overall size compared to what is permitted through ZBL 762, and disregards prior community feedback and planning principles.

Variance 2 – Rooftop Ladder Access

34The Revised Application seeks to vary Article 900.11.10, Exception 856, Provision (F)(iii) of ZBL 762 in order to add a rooftop ladder access to the list of permitted equipment and structures that may project beyond the maximum permitted heights shown on Diagram 3, to a maximum of 4.5 m (“Variance 2”).

35Mr. Hall noted that Variance 2 was previously excluded and is required to be added to the list of permitted encroachments in order to comply with building code requirements.

36Ms. Panalaks did not address Variance 2 in her submissions or in her cross-examination.

Variance 3 – Maximum Non-Residential Gross Floor Area

37The Revised Application seeks to vary Article 900.11.10, Exception 856, Provision (G)(ii) of ZBL 762 in order to increase the maximum permitted GFA for non‑residential uses from 12,000 m² to 13,000 m² (“Variance 3”).

38Mr. Sweeney advised that the Proposed Development would yield a GFA of 12,754 m², whereas the MV Application requests an additional 250 m² for a total of 13,000 m², to account for construction tolerances and programming adjustments.

39Mr. Hall advised that Variance 3 is required to accommodate the four additional storeys to the Cameron Building and that no changes are proposed to the maximum GFA for an eating establishment or for residential uses. It was his opinion that the increase in density is modest and can be reconciled with the slender built form and the small floor plate of approximately 400 m² at the upper levels such that it results in modest increase in density.

40Ms. Panalaks submitted that the additional hotel rooms (accommodated through the increase in GFA) would exacerbate traffic, noise, and operational activity on Cameron.

Variance 4 – Minimum Setbacks

41The Revised Application seeks to vary Article 900.11.10, Exception 856, Provision (H) of ZBL 762 in order to increase the minimum setbacks of portions of the Cameron Building as follows: from 1.65m to 2.25 m, and from 3.0 m and 5.0 m to 5.5 m, as highlighted in blue on Revised Diagram 3 (“Variance 4”).

42Mr. Hall advised that, as a result of discussions with the City, the increased setbacks to Cameron and to the south lot line result in a shift in the Cameron Building slightly to the east, and a smaller building floorplate and increased separation from the adjacent building to the south.

43Ms. Panalaks did not address Variance 4 in her submissions or in her cross-examination.

Variance 5 – Dimensions

44The Revised Application seeks to decrease the dimensions of the buildings along the north property line as follows: from 22.80 m to 22.11 m, from 13.0 m to 12.88 m, and from 22.10 m to 21.53 m, as well as increase a dimension on the south property line from 2.3 m to 2.77 m, as highlighted in green on Revised Diagram 3 (“Variance 5”).

45Mr. Hall advised that Variance 5 is required in order to revise the various building dimensions along the north property line to align with the lot dimension of 61.77 m on Diagram 1 of ZBL 762.

46Ms. Panalaks did not address Variance 5 in her submissions or in her cross-examination.

Proposed Conditions

47The Conditions are as follows:

(i) prior to the issuance of the first above-grade building permit for the development, the owner shall provide a cash contribution of $150,000 to the City of Toronto, which will be used towards community services and facilities, cultural space and/or streetscape improvements within Ward 10, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review, in consultation with the Ward Councillor;

(ii) the cash contribution shall be indexed upwardly in accordance with the Statistics Canada Non-Residential Construction Price Index for Toronto reported quarterly for the period from the date of the Committee of Adjustment decision to the date of payment; and,

(iii) if the cash contribution has not been used by the City for the intended purpose(s) set out in these conditions within three (3) years from the date of the Committee of Adjustment decision, any portion of the cash contribution may be redirected for another purpose at the discretion of the Executive Director, Development Review, in consultation with the Ward Councillor, provided that the purpose is identified in the Toronto Official Plan and will benefit the community in the vicinity of the development.

48Mr. Hall opined that the Conditions appropriately implement the Proposed Development and the Variances.

45Ms. Panalaks did not address the Conditions in her submissions or in her cross-examination.

Matters of Provincial Interest and the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024

48Mr. Hall opined that the proposed development has proper regard to the applicable matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act as it will: incorporate several sustainable design and performance features that exceed the Toronto Green Standard; be serviced with adequate municipal services, create approximately 150 jobs; provide 280 hotel suites and ancillary uses (i.e., restaurant, conference space), meeting a demand for visitor accommodations and supporting the fiscal and economic well being of the City and Province; provide a logical location for transit-oriented development; maintain a safe, comfortable and accessible pedestrian environment; and provide streetscape improvements along the street frontages and deploy a built form which is well-designed and contextually appropriate.

49Mr. Hall further opined that the proposed development is consistent with the PPS as the Property is located within the Downtown Toronto Urban Growth Centre and the Q‑S PMTSA, which are designated to accommodate significant population and employment growth. It was his opinion that, as the hotel development provides a mix of commercial uses within a compact built form and creates new employment opportunities in proximity to planned and existing transit, the hotel development will contribute towards meeting or exceeding the minimum intensification targets for the Q‑S PMTSA. In addition, he opined that it provides an appropriate transition in built form between Spadina and Cameron, in consideration of the existing and planned built context.

50Further, Mr. Hall noted that the Property is within an urban settlement area and a strategic growth area, and has convenient access to planned and existing transit connections. In his opinion, the existing land use permissions established through ZBL 762 would be better optimized through the MVs, which appropriately leverage the Property’s excellent locational attributes to create new opportunities that align with the PPS.

51Ms. Panalaks did not address s. 2 of the Act nor the PPS in her submissions nor in her cross-examination.

52The Tribunal accepts Mr. Hall’s uncontroverted opinion evidence in this regard and finds that the MVs have sufficient regard to the applicable matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act and are consistent with the PPS.

The Four Tests for a Minor Variance

General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan

53Mr. Hall opined that the Variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the COP, the Downtown Plan secondary plan, and Q‑S PMTSA policies by delivering a compatible scale of transit‑oriented intensification within a designated growth area. He stated that the height and density are modest and context‑appropriate, supported by a massing strategy that maintains light, privacy, and shadow control, provides a gradual transition to adjacent residential areas, and enhances the public realm with active frontages and streetscape improvements. He further opined that the development optimizes the Property’s locational attributes, supports employment and the downtown visitor economy through the provision of 280 hotel suites, and aligns with evolving provincial and municipal policy directions promoting compact, mixed‑use growth near higher‑order transit, reinforcing the downtown’s role as an economic hub.

54Ms. Panalaks did not address the COP in her submissions.

55The Tribunal accepts Mr. Hall’s uncontroverted opinion evidence with respect to the First Test and finds that the Variances meet the general intent and purpose of the COP as they are modest and appropriate for lands designated Mixed Use Areas in the COP.

General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law

56Mr. Hall opined that the MVs maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. He explained that the permissions established through ZBL 762 already permit a mid‑rise built form with defined heights, massing, setbacks, and non‑residential GFA. The variances allow a modest increase in hotel GFA and height to the Cameron Building, offset by increased setbacks, while leaving the Spadina Building unchanged. In his view, the resulting built form remains consistent with the approved zoning, maintains appropriate relationships to adjacent streets and buildings, and meets the ZBL objectives for functional, safe and compatible development. It was his opinion that the MVs uphold the intent of both ZBL 762 and ZBL 569, which promotes vibrant, mixed‑use, walkable neighbourhoods.

Desirable for the Appropriate Development or Use of the Property

57Mr. Hall opined that the approved development and the MVs are desirable for the appropriate development of the Property. In his view, the proposal efficiently optimizes a well‑located downtown site by providing additional hotel suites that respond to strong demand for visitor accommodation, support the City’s tourism and cultural sectors, and generate new employment opportunities. He noted that the development would enhance the streetscapes along Spadina and Cameron, replace an underutilized surface parking lot with a contemporary mixed‑use building, and contribute positively to the pedestrian realm and local retail environment. He also identified that the additional hotel supply would be beneficial to the broader housing context by reducing pressure on the rental market from short‑term accommodations. He further referenced the Appellant’s commitment to providing a community benefit contribution under s. 45(9) of the Act as reinforcing the appropriateness of the proposal.

58Mr. Sweeney opined that the Revised Application represents very good urban design with no significant negative impact on the public realm, streets, public spaces or parks, or adjacent properties.

59Mr. Chan opined that the marginal increase in traffic associated with the Revised Application would have a minimal impact on the operation of traffic on Cameron.

Minor in Nature

60Mr. Hall opined that the MVs are minor in nature, emphasizing that the test is based on impact rather than numerical deviation. He noted that the increase in GFA to represents an 8% density increase, and the resulting four‑storey height increase to the Cameron Building reflects the City’s direction to locate additional height along Cameron, while maintaining the approved height on Spadina. He opined that the added height is focused where it has the least impact, and any incremental shadowing is limited in duration and extent, with the increased west and south setbacks and the minor adjustment to the separation between the two blocks further mitigating massing and overlook impacts. In his opinion, the updated sun/shadow, wind, traffic, servicing, and noise/vibration studies demonstrate that the MVs result in very minor or negligible impacts and remain largely consistent with ZBL 762.

61Mr. Hall also indicated that the updated Traffic Impact Study, Shadow Study, Functional Servicing Report, and Traffic, Noise and Vibration Study submitted with the MV application demonstrate the Variances will result in very minor, if not negligible, development impacts largely consistent with ZBL 762.

62Ms. Panalaks submitted that the increase in height and density is not minor, as it represents a 26.67% increase, and that the proposed scale of a 19-storey tower is too large, inappropriate, and incompatible with the surrounding residential context. She added that the increase in height and density will “exacerbate issues related to congestion, infrastructure strain, and neighborhood character, undermining the intent of balanced urban development”.

63The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Hall that the test of a variance being minor is not quantitative but rather based on impact. On its own, the magnitude of the percentage increase is neither informative nor determinative of whether a variance is minor. Ms. Panalaks’ concerns related to the increase in height and density impacting congestion, infrastructure, and neighbourhood character are unsubstantiated. The Tribunal finds that the resulting incremental shadowing and impacts, beyond those produced by the height, density and setbacks approved under ZBL 762, are minimal, and that Variance 1, Variance 3 and Variance 4 meet the test of being minor in nature.

64With respect to Variance 2 and Variance 5, the Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted evidence and finds that they are individually and collectively minor in nature as they do not impact the built form or the public realm in any meaningful way.

Summary Opinion and Submissions

65Mr. Hall opined that the modifications reflected in Revised Diagram 3 are predominantly technical in nature, implement the urban design direction requested by the City (including increased setbacks and a reduced floor plate of the Cameron Building), correct errors in Approved Diagram 3, and address inadvertent omissions.

66Mr. Sweeney noted that the increased setbacks and reduced floor plate reduces the overall massing, thereby offsetting the increase in height, and opined that the incremental increase in shadow is minimal and appropriate. It was his recommendation that the Appeal should be allowed and the Revised Application be approved.

67Mr. Hall stated that the resulting 19‑storey building reflects the evolving planned and built context of the area and represents a desirable form of development within the Q‑S PMTSA, supporting the delivery of visitor accommodations on an underutilized downtown site.

68It was Mr. Hall’s opinion that the Variances have proper regard for s. 2 of the Act, are consistent with the PPS, meet the Four Tests individually and cumulatively, are suitable for the optimization of the Property in a manner consistent with municipal and provincial policy objectives, do not create adverse planning impacts for the surrounding neighbourhood, represent good land use planning, are in the public interest, and should be approved.

69Ms. Panalaks submitted that the Variances significantly exceed what was originally contemplated and ignore longstanding community concerns. She urged the Tribunal to deny the appeal considering its scale, lack of precedent, and potential negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

70The Tribunal prefers the opinion evidence of Mr. Hall, Mr. Sweeney, and Mr. Chan in support of the Revised Application and finds that Ms. Panalaks’ submissions were not persuasive nor supported by any meaningful analysis, and in some instances were not relevant to the Revised Application.

71The Tribunal finds that Ms. Panalaks’ submissions regarding additional hotel rooms exacerbating traffic, noise, and operational activity on Cameron are not distinguishable from the permissions already established under ZBL 762. Further, her concerns regarding impacts on the property to the north were not substantiated, are not supported by the evidence, and are evidently not shared by the owner of that property, given that they did not seek status in these proceedings.

72The Tribunal notes that the test for a variance to be minor is qualitative and impact-based, and finds that the increase in height does not result in adverse impacts on surrounding properties, including the Cameron Condo.

73The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted opinion evidence of Mr. Sweeney that the resulting built form represents good urban design, is compatible with the existing and planned context, and fits within the anticipated level of intensification for this transit‑supported area. The Tribunal also accepts the opinion of Mr. Hall that Variance 1 meets the Four Tests. The Tribunal is satisfied that the additional height is appropriately moderated by the slender built form of the Cameron Building, including its reduced floorplate and increased setbacks, which lessen overall massing and mitigate potential impacts. The comparative shadow analysis demonstrates that any incremental shadowing beyond what is permitted under ZBL 762 is minimal, limited in duration and location, and does not result in significant adverse effects.

74The Tribunal further accepts the uncontroverted opinion evidence of Mr. Hall that Variances 2, 3, 4 and 5 meet the Four Tests, and finds that Variances 2 and 5 are technical in nature, Variance 3 is necessitated by the increase in height and will not result in measurable or adverse impacts, and Variance 4 serves to mitigate any effects of the increase in height.

75The Tribunal finds that the Variances have regard to the matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act and are consistent with the PPS, including the policies promoting efficient use of land, infrastructure, and transit‑supportive development.

76Further, the Tribunal finds that the requested Variances, together with the Conditions, individually and cumulatively maintain the general intent and purpose of the COP and ZBL, are desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and are minor in nature, and thereby meet the Four Tests. The Tribunal concludes that the Variances appropriately mitigate potential impacts, represent good land use planning, and are in the public interest.

77The lack of involvement in the hearing by the City and the owner of the property to the north further supports the conclusion that any impacts of the Variances are either appropriately mitigated or minor.

78The Tribunal therefore allows the appeal and authorizes the Variances subject to the Conditions set out in the Order below.

ORDER

79THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the minor variance appeal is allowed, in part, and the variances to Zoning By-law No. 762-2023 are authorized, subject to the following conditions:

i. prior to the issuance of the first above-grade building permit for the development, the owner shall provide a cash contribution of $150,000 to the City of Toronto, which will be used towards community services and facilities, cultural space and/or streetscape improvements within Ward 10, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review, in consultation with the Ward Councillor;

ii. the cash contribution shall be indexed upwardly in accordance with the Statistics Canada Non-Residential Construction Price Index for Toronto reported quarterly for the period from the date of the Committee of Adjustment decision to the date of payment; and

iii. if the cash contribution has not been used by the City for the intended purpose(s) set out in these conditions within three (3) years from the date of the Tribunal decision, any portion of the cash contribution may be redirected for another purpose at the discretion of the Executive Director, Development Review, in consultation with the Ward Councillor, provided that the purpose is identified in the Toronto Official Plan and will benefit the community in the vicinity of the development.

80THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that, in accordance with s. 114(16) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, the Site Plan Control appeal is adjourned sine die.

81The Member is not seized of the Site Plan Control appeal.

“C.I. Molinari”

C.I. MOLINARI 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.