Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: June 10, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-26-000109 OLT-26-000335
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
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: 792 Ossington Inc.
Appellant: Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Toronto, in Canada
Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Description: To facilitate mid-rise intensification along certain segments of Avenues
Reference Number: 23 126322 CPS 00 TM
Property Address: City Wide
Municipality: Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-26-000335
OLT Case Name: 792 Ossington Inc. et al. v. Toronto (City)
Heard: May 25, 2026 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
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)
Confederation of Residents and Ratepayers Associations in Toronto Randall Kerr*
John Hartley Self-represented*
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY n. eisazadeh ON May s25, 2026, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision arises from the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) convened in the matters bearing Tribunal Case Nos.: OLT-26-000109, OLT-26-000110, and OLT-26-000113 (collectively the “OPA 862 Appeals”); and the first CMC convened in the matter bearing Tribunal Case No.: OLT-26-000335 (“OPA 861 Appeal”).
2The background and nature of the instruments under appeal is captured by the first CMC decision in the OPA 862 Appeals issued on April 15, 2026 (“First CMC” and “First CMC Decision”). The First CMC Decision is appended as Attachment 1 to this Decision. For clarity, the only additional Appellants to the OPA 861 Appeal are 792 Ossington Inc. and the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Toronto, who are represented, respectively, by the same Counsel as Counsel of record for those Parties in the OPA 862 Appeals.
NOTICE
3The Tribunal received the Affidavit of Service of Olivia Morris, dated May 4, 2026, confirming that Notice of the first CMC respecting the OPA 861 Appeal was properly given. The Affidavit of Service of Olivia Morris was marked as Exhibit 1.
REQUEST FOR RECORDINGS AND TRANSCRIPTS
4The Tribunal had received a request from John Hartley, an individual granted Party status at this present CMC, as set out further below, for authorization to take a personal audio-visual recording of the proceedings pursuant to Rule 22.5 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), as well as authorization for a qualified verbatim reporter for the purposes of transcribing a written record of the proceedings pursuant to Rule 22.8 of the Rules.
5Following the granting of Party status, Mr. Hartley advised the Tribunal that he was withdrawing his requests for both the personal audio-visual recording and verbatim transcript for the purposes of this CMC and the City of Toronto’s (“City”) pending jurisdictional motion seeking to dismiss certain appeals (“Jurisdictional Motion”). The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal of Mr. Hartley’s requests. For clarity, no authorization was granted for either of a personal audio-visual recording or for a verbatim transcript of these proceedings. Mr. Hartley was advised that, should he wish to renew either of these such requests for the purpose of the Merits Hearing, or any other hearing in these proceedings, that he was required to submit a fresh written request to the Tribunal. Any future request for audio-visual recordings or verbatim transcripts shall expressly outline the reasons for the request, satisfy the conditions set out in Rules 22.5 and 22.8 of the Rules, and is to be determined on its own merits by the Panel then presiding.
ORDER FOR HEARING TOGETHER
6While the OPA 862 Appeals were joined together administratively for efficiency for the purpose of this CMC, no formal ruling had yet been made as to whether they should be consolidated or heard together.
7Now that the OPA 861 Appeal is before the Tribunal, the Parties seek an order that the OPA 862 Appeals be heard together, alongside the OPA 861 Appeal. The Tribunal agreed that an Order for hearing together pursuant to Rule 16.3 of the Rules is appropriate given the overlap respecting the Statutory Parties, requests for Party and Participant status, the Approval Authority, as well as what will inevitably be some of the issues, should the collective Appeals proceed to a Merits Hearing. Accordingly, the Tribunal granted the request that the OPA 862 Appeals and OPA 861 Appeal be heard together.
CITY’S JURISDICTIONAL MOTION TO DISMISS
8Given that the OPA 861 Appeal is now before the Tribunal, and all Statutory Parties have been formally established, the City is in a position to bring its Jurisdictional Motion. An overview of the nature of the Jurisdictional Motion is set out within the First CMC Decision.
9The Statutory Parties had conferred and agreed that the Jurisdictional Motion could be brought in writing, with a one-day virtual hearing scheduled for the Tribunal’s benefit of hearing key oral argument from the written materials and for the Parties to answer any questions arising therefrom. The Tribunal endorsed this approach as the most just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the Jurisdictional Motion, as well as the following timetable for the service and filing of written motion materials:
i. Friday, June 19, 2026: Moving Motion Materials;
ii. Friday, July 10, 2026: Responding Motion Materials; and
iii. Friday, July 31, 2026: Reply Motion Materials.
10For clarity, the written motion materials are not required to be served on any of the individuals or entities who were granted provisional Participant status, as set out below.
11A one-day Hearing for oral argument of the Jurisdictional Motion has been scheduled to proceed on Wednesday, September 9, 2026. The start time and log in details for the Jurisdictional Motion Hearing are set out at paragraph [27] below.
PARTY STATUS REQUESTS
12Notwithstanding the pending Jurisdictional Motion, which could potentially dispose of the school board appeals in their entirety, and Rule 8.3 of the Rules, which requires that any Non-Appellant Party granted status to appeals brought under ss. 17(24) and 34(19) of the [Planning Act]1 are required to shelter under issues raised by an Appellant Party, there was no objection among the Statutory Parties in addressing the Party status requests at this juncture in order to provide some certainty and a path forward for those seeking status.
13The same two requests for Party status from the First CMC in the OPA 862 Appeals remained before the Tribunal, with no further requests for Party status received for either of the OPA 862 Appeals or the OPA 861 Appeal.
14The first request is from the Confederation of Residents and Ratepayers Associations in Toronto (“CORRA”). CORRA represents resident associations and ratepayer groups in Toronto who have been involved in the municipal process respecting OPA 862 since 2025. CORRA’s request form expresses that it wishes to fully contribute to the adjudication of the OPA 862 Appeals with a focus on community concerns and with the intention of engaging a professional land use planner as an expert witness to be called during the Merits Hearing.
15The second request is from John Hartley. Mr. Hartley’s request form expresses that he is a property owner, taxpayer, resident in close proximity to Etobicoke Collegiate Institute and Our Lady of Sorrows Catholic School, and grandparent of two students within Toronto District School Board institutions, who will therefore be impacted by the outcome of the OPA 862 Appeals. Mr. Hartley’s form further expresses he has had experience as an added Non-Appellant Party in other Tribunal proceedings and is therefore fully aware of the duties and responsibilities required of him in such a role. Mr. Hartley wishes to contribute to the adjudication of the OPA 862 Appeals through conducting cross-examinations of witnesses and to potentially engage a professional land use planner as an expert witness to be called during the Merits Hearing.
16On the written submissions of CORRA and Mr. Hartley, respectively, the Statutory Parties being unopposed, the Tribunal was satisfied that both CORRA and Mr. Hartley hold a direct interest in the OPA 862 Appeals as residents, landowners, and community members that are directly affected by municipal intensification policies within their community. The Tribunal was further satisfied that the granting of Party status to CORRA and Mr. Hartley, respectively, would be of assistance to the Tribunal in providing the unique perspective of the community in resolving the ultimate issues in dispute, and so granted both Party status requests to the OPA 862 Appeals.
17To the extent that CORRA or Mr. Hartley (as the added Non-Appellant Parties) wish to participate in the City’s Jurisdictional Motion, they are directed to communicate and cooperate with Counsel for the City (as the Moving Party), and to file joint materials if required or necessary. For the purposes of clarity and guidance, the Non-Appellant Parties shall not file any independent materials to the Jurisdictional Motion, and in particular, shall not file individual materials in reply to the responding motion materials.
18Pending the outcome of the City’s Jurisdictional Motion, should the appeals of the respective school board appellants challenged by said motion remain alive such that all Parties are required to reconvene a CMC for the purposes of organizing the Merits Hearing, the Tribunal further directs that all Parties work cooperatively to prepare a draft Issues List which expressly sets out those issues under which each of CORRA and Mr. Hartley, respectively, shall be sheltering.
PARTICIPANT STATUS REQUESTS
19At the First CMC in respect of the OPA 862 Appeals, there were four entities and individuals seeking Participant status – they are: Don Mills Residents Inc., Virginia Johnson, Andrew Waters, and Muzaffer Pasha. The determination of their requests was deferred to the present CMC.
20At the present CMC, the Tribunal received a significant volume of additional Participant status requests, as set out in Attachment 2, appended to this Decision. In sum, there are a total of 103 requests for Participant status.
21All status requests may be broadly summarized as landowners, residents, community members, and/or parents of students within the various school board institutions who are directly affected by municipal intensification policies within their community, and more particularly, as those policies may relate to the lands owned by the various school boards. All requests are generally supportive of the City’s decision to exclude the lands owned by various school boards from both OPA 861 and OPA 862 and their respective implementing Zoning By-laws.
22Notwithstanding the pending Jurisdictional Motion, which could potentially dispose of the school board appeals in their entirety, and thereby resolve most, if not all, of the concerns raised in the ‘Participant Status Request Form and Participant Statement Forms’ (“Participant Forms”), there was no objection among the Statutory Parties in addressing the Participant status requests on a provisional basis (as detailed below) at this juncture. This approach provides some certainty to those entities and individuals seeking Participant status, eliminates the requirement for their continued attendance at future hearings, should that be necessary for the purposes of addressing their status requests, and provides guidance on next steps.
23The City advised that, on its review, it appeared that all requests are from residents or landowners in proximity to a school site and/or community members who are affected by the general outcome of both OPA 861 and OPA 862, and therefore, were prima facie valid requests. None of the other Statutory Parties challenged the validity of the requests or opposed the granting of Participant status to any of the individuals and entities who submitted requests.
24The Tribunal notes that a significant portion of the Participant Forms appear to be a verbatim duplicate of a pre-drafted template. Indeed, in many of the Participant Forms there are parenthetical instructional notes for the user that have been left imbedded in the document without care taken to craft and cater the statements to the author’s situational circumstance or concerns for the Tribunal’s assistance and benefit. In this way, many of the duplicative statements serve as more a petition opposing the Appeals rather than a conveyance of the unique voices of community members and their individual particularized concerns.
25The Tribunal acknowledges its mandate to provide for a fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the merits of a proceeding. To this end, the Tribunal is cautious of granting Participant status to hundreds of individuals and entities resulting in a significantly high volume of duplicative statements, particularly where it appears their Participant Forms were the result of a coordinated effort to bring forward as many statements as possible simply to oppose the Appeals. However, given the courteous offers from Counsel for the City and the TDSB to work together towards creating a consolidated table flagging the duplicative statements, noting the individualized statements, and identifying the location of the school site where one is cited, the Tribunal was satisfied that the volume of statements may be organized in such a way as to make them manageable for the benefit of the Tribunal, should the Appeals make their way to a Merits Hearing.
26Accordingly, and given the nature of the Appeals, the Tribunal is satisfied that all 103 of the individuals and entities seeking Participant status hold a direct interest in these proceedings, and therefore, Participant status was granted to all 103 individuals and entities, on a provisional basis. The provisional nature of the Participant statuses granted is conditional upon the outcome of the City’s Jurisdictional Motion, as follows:
i. Should the City be successful on its Jurisdictional Motion, the appeals of the school boards would cease to exist, and therefore, the Participant status requests would be moot. In that event, the submitted Participant Forms shall not be considered further. The remaining Parties to the appeals shall then reconvene a further CMC to organize the Merits Hearing of the remaining Appeals. Notice of that further CMC shall be provided to all individuals and entities set out in Attachment 2. Any further requests for Participant status to the remaining Appeals must then be renewed through a resubmission of a fresh Participant Form no later than 10 days prior to that further CMC, to be addressed at that hearing event as appropriate.
ii. Should the City be unsuccessful on its Jurisdictional Motion, the Participant statuses granted on a provisional basis shall be automatically confirmed, and the Participant Forms for all individuals and entities set out in Attachment 2 shall be included in the record for the purposes of the Merits Hearing. In that event, the Parties shall reconvene a further CMC to organize the Merits Hearing of the OPA 861 Appeal and OPA 862 Appeals. The Merits Hearing will proceed with only those granted Participant status set out in Attachment 2. No further requests for Participant status will be considered without a reasonable explanation for the delay in their submission. In this event, the Parties are further directed as follows:
i. Counsel for the Parties will work cooperatively together towards creating a Participant Statement table of all 103 Participant Forms, flagging those that are duplicative statements, those that are individualized statements, and identifying the location of the school site in proximity to which the Participant resides where one is cited (“Participant Statement Table”). The Participant Statement Table shall be filed with the Tribunal no later than 10 days in advance of that further CMC.
iii. Notwithstanding the provisional nature of Participant status granted, the Tribunal notes some instances in which incomplete Participant Forms were received. The Tribunal directed the following individuals to provide a complete Participant Form by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, June 12, 2026, failing which the Parties may move to have those requests, which have failed to comply, revoked:
i. Amy Kelly;
ii. Andrea Ottensmeyer-Reyes;
iii. Anushe Rabbani;
iv. Daniela Barbosa;
v. Rosie Pokorchak;
vi. Sarah Kinsey;
vii. Stephanie Luis-Silveira;
viii. Susel Munoz;
ix. Tim Maile;
x. Virginia Johnson;
xi. Veronica Cojocari; and
xii. Walied Khogali Ali.
iv. Notwithstanding the provisional nature of Participant statuses granted, there shall be no requirement for the Parties to serve motion materials in respect of the Jurisdictional Motion on any of the provisional Participants.
NEXT HEARING EVENT
27The next hearing event is a one-day motion for oral argument in respect of the City’s Jurisdictional Motion which has been scheduled to proceed by video on Wednesday, September 9, 2026, at 10 a.m.
28Parties and Participants 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/344779885
Access code: 344-779-885
29Parties 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
30Persons 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: 344-779-885.
31Individuals 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.
32As 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
33THIS TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the matters bearing Tribunal Case Nos.: OLT-26-000109, OLT-26-000110, OLT-26-000113, and OLT-26-000335, shall administratively proceed together and shall be heard together for the purposes of the City’s Jurisdictional Motion, as well as the Merits Hearing.
34AND THIS TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT Party status is granted to John Hartley in the appeals bearing Tribunal Case Nos.: OLT-26-000109, OLT-26-000110, and OLT-26-000113.
35AND THIS TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT Party status is granted to the Confederation of Residents and Ratepayers Associations in Toronto in the appeals bearing Tribunal Case Nos.: OLT-26-000109, OLT-26-000110, and OLT-26-000113.
36AND THIS TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT Participant status is provisionally granted to those individuals and entities set out in Attachment 2, appended hereto, and as set out at paragraph [26] of this Decision above, in the appeals bearing Tribunal Case Nos.: OLT-26-000109, OLT-26-000110, OLT-26-000113, and OLT-26-000335.
37AND THIS TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT a one-day motion in the matters bearing Tribunal Case Nos.: OLT-26-000109, OLT-26-000110, OLT-26-000113, and OLT-26-000335, has been scheduled to proceed on Wednesday, September 9, 2026 and in accordance with paragraphs [9] to [11] and [27]to [32] of this Decision.
38The balance of case management directives above are so ordered.
“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.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
Footnotes
- Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13.