Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: January 21, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000774
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Sunfield Glen Cameron Development LP
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: Application for a 55 storey tower
Reference Number: PLAN 24177572
Property Address: 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 28 and 30 Glen Cameron Road
Municipality/UT: Markham/York
OLT Case No: OLT-25-000774
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000774
OLT Case Name: Sunfield Glen Cameron Development LP v Markham (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Sunfield Glen Cameron Development LP
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Reference Number: PLAN 24177572
Property Address: 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 28 and 30 Glen Cameron Road
Municipality/UT: Markham/York
OLT Case No: OLT-25-000775
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000774
Heard: January 15, 2026, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Sunfield Glen Cameron Development LP
Sidonia Tomasella
City of Markham
Maggie Cheung-Madar
Canadian National Railway Company
Doug Pateman Isaiah Banach (in absentia)
Curated North Inc.
Max Laskin David Bronskill (in absentia)
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY nazanin eisazadeh ON January 15, 2026, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision arises from the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) convened on the appeals filed by Sunfield Glen Cameron Development LP (“Applicant”) against the City of Markham (“City”) pursuant to s. 22(7) and s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, for approval of an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) to facilitate the development of a 55-storey residential tower at the lands municipally known as 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 28 and 30 Glen Cameron Road, within the City (“Subject Lands”).
NOTICE
2The Tribunal received the Affidavit of Service sworn by Natalie Hickey dated December 11, 2025, confirming that Notice of this CMC was properly given. The Affidavit of Service sworn by Natalie Hickey was marked as Exhibit 1.
PARTY STATUS REQUESTS
3Two independent Party Status requests were received, the first from the Canadian National Railway Company (“CN Rail”), and the second Curated North Inc. (“Curated North”).
4CN Rail owns and operates numerous rail lines, including the York Subdivision in the City, located in close proximity to the Subject Lands. Counsel for CN Rail submitted that the development of sensitive uses in proximity to railway lines, which experience high traffic train operation, may lead to increased potential for conflict between rail operations and adjacent land uses. Accordingly, CN Rail has a direct interest in the proceedings. Counsel for CN Rail further submitted that CN Rail actively participated in the commenting phase of the applications process and has provided comments including those related to noise, vibration, air quality, and safety. Therefore, Counsel argues, while CN Rail requires a short indulgence to finalize its issues list, the overarching theme of its issues has been well known to the Parties and will not substantially increase the length of Hearing. Further, CN Rail remains engaged in without prejudice discussions with the Applicant to potentially resolve CN Rail’s issues, which may eliminate or scope CN Rail’s overall issues list.
5Curated North is the registered landowner of properties abutting the Subject Lands to the north, municipally known as 17, 19, 21, and 23 Morgan Avenue (“Curated Lands”), which lands have received Tribunal approved OPA and ZBA in September of 2024, permitting a 44-storey residential building. Counsel for Curated North submitted that their client has a direct interest in the proceedings, including issues related to the built form relationship between the Subject Lands and the Curated Lands. Counsel submitted that Curated North does not have any issues to add to the Procedural Order beyond those identified by the City at this time, does not anticipate calling any witnesses, and its involvement will not substantially increase the length of Hearing.
6Counsel for the Applicant advised that they consent to the Party Status requests of both CN Rail and Curated North. Counsel for the City does not raise an objection to either of the Party Status requests.
7The Tribunal, being satisfied that CN Rail and Curated North, respectively, have a direct interest in the proceedings, and that the granting of Party Status will not pose any prejudice to any of the statutory Parties, nor unduly add to the complexity or length of Hearing, so granted Party Status to both CN Rail and Curated North.
PARTICIPANT STATUS REQUESTS
8The Tribunal received three independent Participant Status requests from:
i. 2417219 Ontario Inc.
ii. Joe and Ruth Jenko.
iii. Qin Yu.
9Jae Park attended the CMC on behalf of 2417219 Ontario Inc., and clarified that 2417219 Ontario Inc is the registered property landowner of 26 Glen Cameron Road, located immediately adjacent to the Subject Lands. The Participant Status Request and Participant Statement Form (“Statement Form”) of 2417219 Ontario Inc. states that it has a direct interest in the proceedings as an adjacent landowner and seeks to provide contextual information that it deems relevant to the consideration of the planning issues raised by the proposed development that will be before the Tribunal at the Hearing.
10Neither Joe or Ruth Jenko, nor Qin Yu, attended the CMC. Their respective Participant Forms appear to replicate each other and state, in their entirety, as follows:
We are the residents living in the immediate distance from the Subject Lands. We would like to stay informed and updated on the issues related to this proceeding and all future proceedings. We are not in favour of rezoning the Subject Lands to the ‘Residential Three (R3)” zone in By-law 177-96.
11Both Statement Forms, beyond stating that they reside in the ‘immediate distance”, are silent on where, in relation to the Subject Lands, they precisely and respectively reside.
12Counsel for the Applicant advised, that on behalf of the Applicant, a communication was sent out seeking clarification on the precise residential location or property ownership of the individuals seeking Participant Status. A response was received from Joe and Ruth Jenko, but no response was received from Qin Yu. None of the other Parties had received any further communication from Qin Yu either.
13Counsel for the Applicant advised that Joe and Ruth Jenko’s response provided clarification that satisfied the Applicant that they do in fact reside in close proximity to, and just north of, the Subject Lands, as was demonstrated by Counsel at the CMC through a map view. Accordingly, the Applicant consented to the Participant Status request of Joe and Ruth Jenko.
14Applicant’s Counsel opposed the Participant Status request of Qin Yu on the basis that they failed to respond to the communication seeking clarification on the address of residence or location of property ownership, that they failed to attend the CMC to provide that clarification, and therefore they were not in a position to understand the ownership/residence relationship, nor prepared to accept that there is evidence of a direct interest in these proceedings.
15Counsel for the City took no position on either of the three separate requests for Participant Status.
16The Tribunal, being satisfied that 2417219 Ontario Inc., and Joe and Ruth Jenko’s, respectively, have a direct interest in theses proceedings as neighbouring landowners and/or residents, and that the granting of Participant Status will not pose any prejudice to any of the statutory Parties, nor unduly lengthen the complexity or length of Hearing, so granted Participant Status to both 2417219 Ontario Inc., and Joe and Ruth Jenko.
17The Tribunal denied Participant Status to Qin Yu on the basis of the failure to respond to communications from Applicant’s Counsel for clarification on the nature of the request, the failure to attend the CMC to answer the Tribunal’s questions, and the lack of information contained in their Statement Form, including the failure to include a list of issues or an explanation in support of their position. On the information and materials before it, the Tribunal found there was insufficient evidence to support that Qin Yu has a direct interest in these proceedings, and that granting Participant Status will not be of assistance to the Tribunal in its ultimate deliberations and disposition of the matter.
MERIT HEARING DATES
18The statutory and added Parties agreed that the overarching issues on the applications would require a 12-day Hearing consisting of a total of approximately 9 to 11 witnesses: four to five witnesses to be called by the Applicant; four witnesses to be called by the City; and one to two witnesses to be called by CN Rail. All Parties agreed to late-May/early-June 2026 dates for the Hearing.
19Accordingly, a 12-day Merit Hearing was secured and is scheduled to commence on Tuesday, May 19, 2026, at 10 a.m. by Video Hearing:
20Parties 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://meet.goto.com/996288525
Access code: 996-288-525
21Parties 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
22Persons 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: 996-288-525.
23Individuals 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.
A MOTION HEARING DATE
24Counsel for the Applicant advised that the Parties were engaged in discussions to resolve technical issues between them respecting servicing, and that those conversations were moving in a positive direction. However, Counsel advised that they may reach a stalemate on their disagreement in regard of access to technical modelling. In this event, Counsel advised that prejudice may befall the Applicant in advancing its evidence at the Hearing, and therefore, a motion may be necessary prior to the Hearing for Tribunal direction on the issue. The Parties agreed that securing a motion date in late February or early March of 2026, would allow them the opportunity to continue their resolution discussions, while also providing sufficient opportunity in advance of the Hearing to engage the Tribunal for direction should that be necessary, without jeopardizing the readiness of the Parties to proceed with the Hearing as scheduled.
25Accordingly, a one-day Motion Hearing was secured and is scheduled to proceed on Wednesday, March 4, 2026, at 10 a.m. by Video Hearing:
26Parties 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/927921077
Access code: 927-921-077
27Parties 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
28Persons 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) 1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 927-921-077.
29Individuals 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.
OTHER DEADLINES
30The Parties filed a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) inclusive of an Issues List (“IL”) containing the finalized issues of the City. CN Rail advised that while the theme of its issues has been longstanding and well known to the Applicant, it required a further 10 days to finalize its formal issues list.
31The Tribunal directed that CN Rail is to circulate its finalized issues list to all other Parties within 10 days of the CMC by 5 p.m. on Monday, January 26, 2026.
32The Tribunal further directed that the Applicant is to incorporate CN Rail’s formalised issues into a comprehensive IL within a finalized PO, inclusive of all finalized deliverable deadlines working back from the scheduled Merit Hearing date, that is due to be filed with the Tribunal no later than 5 p.m. on Thursday, January 29, 2026.
ORDER
33THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the following are granted Party Status in these proceedings:
i. Canadian National Railway Company; and,
ii. Curated North Inc.
34THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the following are granted Participant Status in these proceedings:
i. 2417219 Ontario Inc.; and,
ii. Joe and Ruth Jenko.
35THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT a 12-day Merit Hearing will commence on Tuesday, May 19, 2026, at 10 a.m. by Video Hearing pursuant to the details and credentials set out at paragraph [20] of this Decision.
36THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT a one-day Motion Hearing will proceed on Wednesday, March 4, 2026, at 10 a.m. by Video Hearing pursuant to the details and credentials set out at paragraph [26] of this Decision.
37THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTS THAT the finalized Issues List of the Canadian National Railway Company shall be circulated to all other Parties pursuant to the Tribunal’s directions set out at paragraph [31] of this Decision by no later than 5 p.m. on Monday, January 26, 2026.
38THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTS THAT a finalized Procedural Order pursuant to the Tribunal’s directions set out at paragraph [32] of this Decision shall be filed by the Applicant by no later than 5 p.m. on Thursday, January 29, 2026.
39This Member is not seized in respect of the balance of the matters that pertain to this proceeding or of the Hearing on the Merits.
40There will be no further notice.
“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.