Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: June 09, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000003
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 280 Viewmount Limited Partnership
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Description: To permit a thirty-three storey mixed use residential building
Reference Number: 22 241838 NNY 08 OZ
Property Address: 278 and 280 Viewmount Avenue
Municipality/UT: City of Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000003
OLT Case Name: 280 Viewmount Limited Partnership v. Toronto (City)
Heard: June 3, 2026 by written hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
280 Viewmount Limited Partnership City of Toronto
Joe Hoffman Jamie Dexter
266 Viewmount Development Inc. 274 Viewmount Development Inc.
Eileen Costello
decision DELIVERED BY d. chipman AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision and Order arises from a written settlement hearing involving an appeal under 34(11) of the Planning Act, R. S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (“Act”), regarding the City of Toronto’s (“City”) failure to issue a decision within the statutory prescribed timeline with respect to an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) to the City’s Zoning By-law 569-2013 as amended, with respect to the lands municipally known in the year 2025 as 278 and 280 Viewmount Avenue.
2As a result of successful mediation discussions the Parties proffered, on consent, planning instruments for the Tribunal consideration at the hearing.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
3The Tribunal received and considered the uncontradicted written evidence of Sheliza Rajan, a Registered Professional Planner, a member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute and Canadian Institute of Planners.
4Ms. Rajan through her written submission reviewed the following policy documents, as well as the following City of Toronto staff reports:
a) The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13
b) Provincial Planning Statement (2024)
c) City of Toronto Official Plan
d) Official Plan Amendment No. 540
e) City-wide Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended
f) Tall Building Design Guidelines
g) Growing Up Guidelines
SITE CONTEXT
The Subject Property is located approximately 150 metres west of the Allen Road Expressway and approximately 1.03 kilometres north of Eglinton Avenue West, which is identified as a Transit Priority Corridor. The Property has frontage on Marlee Avenue, a major street designated as a Mixed Use corridor.
THE SETTLEMENT
5The proposal before the Tribunal reflects a 38-storey mixed-use building with a 4- to 6-storey base, resulting in an overall height of 126.6 metres, inclusive of the mechanical penthouse. The development will contain a total gross floor area of approximately 23,799 square metres (“sq m”), of which approximately 23,567 sq m are dedicated to residential uses and 232 sq m to non-residential uses, yielding a site density of 15.0 Floor Space Index. In this context, Ms. Rajan considers the proposed development to be an appropriate and desirable form of intensification.
6The Settlement Proposal included a number of key changes that collectively addressed issues raised by the City, including:
an increase in the tower setback from the east lot line from 4.5 metres to 10.0 metres to provide increased tower separation;
an increase in the base building setback from the east lot line from 1.5 metres to 5.5 metres to meet light, view and privacy standards for east-facing windows;
the introduction of a 2.0 metre setback to the base building from Viewmount Avenue at Levels 1-4 to expand the public realm;
the introduction of a 1.5 metre setback (inset) to the ground floor from Marlee Avenue;
the removal of east-facing balconies within the base building;
the removal of east-facing and north-facing projecting balconies within the tower;
the proposed layby parking along Viewmount Avenue was removed and replaced by introduction of two short-term parking spaces at the ground level;
an increase in the corner rounding at the corner of Marlee Avenue and Viewmount Avenue from 5.0 metres to 6.0 metres; and
the introduction of various canopies and other wind mitigation measures throughout the building.
7Ms. Rajan opined that the proposed settlement, and the revised implementing planning instrument, inclusive of the conditions set forth by the Parties, has appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest under section 2 of the Act. In her view, the site represents an appropriate location for high-density, mixed-use development due to its proximity to existing frequent and higher-order transit. The proposal will deliver new housing in a compact built form while making efficient use of existing infrastructure. Furthermore, the settlement is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, as it promotes intensification on an underutilized site that is well served by municipal services.
8Ms. Rajan stated that the proposed planning instrument conforms with the City’s Official Plan, as it will increase the housing supply through a built form that provides a mix of housing types and promotes the efficient use of municipally serviced land.
9Ms. Rajan addressed the concerns raised by 266 and 274 Viewmount Developments Inc. in her written testimony. She stated that, although the proposed tower setbacks to the north and east are 10.0 metres somewhat less than the 15 metres recommended in the Tall Building Design Guidelines, the Guidelines expressly contemplate flexibility in their application, particularly when considered cumulatively. She further noted that the 10.0 metre tower setbacks to the north and east were evaluated by the City and determined to be acceptable in light of the existing, planned, and potential future development context.
CONCLUSION
10Having accepted the uncontradicted evidence of Sheliza Rajan, the Tribunal finds that the proposed ZBA along with the conditions set forth is consistent with, conforms to, and is in keeping with applicable policies and guidelines of the Province of Ontario and the City.
11Based on the written evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the planning instrument as revised and the agreed upon conditions set out below, pursuant to the settlement agreement, meets the required legislative tests, represent good planning, are in the public interest, and warrants approval as set out in Attachment 1.
12Further, the Tribunal is of the view that the Settlement reached by the Parties is fair and reasonable and the resulting ZBA represents good planning and is in the public interest. The Tribunal commends the Parties in working collaboratively and engaging in productive mediation in order to reach a settlement in these proceedings.
INTERIM ORDER
13THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, in part and the Draft Zoning By-law Amendment is approved in principle, as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.
14The Tribunal will withhold issuance of its Final Order until the Tribunal receives confirmation from the City Solicitor that:
a. the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendment is to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Executive Director, Development Review;
b. the owner has submitted a Rental Housing Demolition Application to the City of Toronto;
c. the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning or their designate has approved the Rental Housing Demolition Application under Chapter 667 of the Toronto Municipal Code pursuant to Section 111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, to permit the demolition of the five (5) existing rental dwelling units on the lands, and the Owner has entered into an agreement, and has registered a related restriction on the lands to ensure that subsequent owners of the lands assume the obligations of that agreement or has made other arrangements determined to be acceptable at the discretion of the City Solicitor, to secure, among other matters, the following:
d. the provision of an acceptable Tenant Relocation and Assistance Plan for all Eligible Tenants of the five (5) existing rental units proposed to be demolished, addressing financial compensation and other assistance to lessen hardship, including the provision of rent gap payments, which Plan shall be developed in consultation with, and to the satisfaction of, the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and secured to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor;
e. the owner has satisfactorily addressed the Transportation Services and Engineering and Construction Services matters in the Engineering and Construction Services Memorandum dated September 5, 2023, and any outstanding issues arising from the ongoing technical review (including provision of acceptable reports and studies), as they relate to the Zoning Bylaw Amendment application, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Transportation Review, Development Review and the Director, Engineering Review, Development Review;
f. the owner has submitted to the Director, Engineering Review, Development Review, for review and acceptance, a Functional Servicing Report to determine the storm water runoff, sanitary flow and water supply demand resulting from this development and whether there is adequate capacity in the existing municipal infrastructure to accommodate the proposed development;
g. the owner has made satisfactory arrangements with the Director, Engineering Review, Development Review, and has entered into a financially secured agreement with the City for the design and construction of any improvements to the municipal infrastructure, should it be determined that upgrades are required to the infrastructure to support this development, according to the accepted Functional Servicing Report accepted by the Director, Engineering Review, Development Review;
h. the owner has submitted a revised Travel Demand Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning; and
i. the owner has at its sole cost and expense facilitated the City undertaking a peer review of the submitted Noise and Vibration Assessment and secured any recommended mitigation measures in the amending by-law, all to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review.
14If the Parties do not submit the final draft of the Zoning By-law Amendment, and provide confirmation that the contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order above have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order, by Friday, December 11, 2026 the Applicant and the City shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by that date as to the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of the draft Zoning By-law Amendment and request for issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.
15In the event the Tribunal fails to receive the required status report, and/or in the event that the contingent pre-requisites are not satisfied by the date indicated above, or by such other deadline as the Tribunal may impose, the Tribunal may then dismiss the Appeal.
16The Panel will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Zoning By-law Amendment(s) and the issuance of the Final Order.
17The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by Telephone Conference Call to determine the additional timelines and deadline for the submission of the final form of the instrument and the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order.
“D. Chipman”
D. CHIPMAN
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.
ATTACHMENT 1