Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: January 30, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000538 OLT-24-000627

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Queen Street Post Inc.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Refusal to adopt the requested amendment

Description: To permit the development of 272 residential units

Reference Number: 23 210259 STE 09 OZ

Property Address: 1117 Queen Street West

Municipality: City of Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000538

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000538

OLT Case Name: Queen Street Post Inc. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Queen Street Post Inc.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit the development of 272 residential units

Reference Number: 23 210259 STE 09 OZ

Property Address: 1117 Queen Street West

Municipality: City of Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000539

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000538

OLT Case Name: Queen Street Post Inc. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 33(9) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Queen Street Post Inc.

Subject: Refusal of Heritage Alteration

Description: To permit the alteration of the subject property

Property Address: 1117 Queen Street West

Municipality: City of Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000627

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000627

OLT Case Name: Queen Street Post Inc. vs. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34.1(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Queen Street Post Inc.

Subject: Appeal of refusal

Description: To permit the demolition of heritage attributes on the subject property

Property Address: 1117 Queen Street West

Municipality: City of Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000628

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000627

OLT Case Name: Queen Street Post Inc. vs. Toronto (City)

Heard: December 3 to 11, 2025 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Queen Street Post Inc.

Michael Foderick Jonathan Nehmetallah Aleah Lavalley-Lewis

City of Toronto

Daniel Elmadany Jason Davidson

DECISION DELIVERED BY ERIC S. CROWE AND INTERM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision arises from the seven-day Hearing of the appeals filed by Queen Street Post Inc. (“Applicant”) against the City of Toronto (“City”), pursuant to ss. 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”), for its refusal of applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”). In addition, appeals were filed by the Applicant pursuant to ss. 33(9) and 34.1(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act (“OHA”), regarding the refusal for a Heritage Alteration Permit (“HAP”) and Demolition Permit (“DP”) The appeals under the Act and the OHA (collectively herein referred to as the “Appeals”) are to be heard together, pertaining to the lands municipally addressed as 1117 Queen Street West (“Subject Site”), in the City.

2The Applicant’s proposed development (“Development Proposal”), after several revisions, is to redevelop the former Postal Station “C” building (“Heritage Building”) with a 27-storey building with a total of 261 units. The Subject Site is located within the ‘West Queen West’ policy area of Site and Area Specific Policy (“SASP”) 566 and the West Queen West Triangle Lands (“Triangle Lands”).

3Considerable evidence was presented from the Procedural Order and Issues List, such as intensification, setbacks, stepbacks, wind, design, and separation distance. However, the core issue in this Hearing involved whether the requested OPA permits a 27-storey tower and does the development proposed fit within the existing and emerging physical context of the planned character of Queen Street West (“QSW”), which includes the planned King-Liberty GO Station (“GO Station”), and within the Triangle Lands.

4For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal approves the development application as the Tribunal finds the proposed built form and massing have appropriate regard for the applicable matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS 2024”), conforms to the City Official Plan (“OP”), and has appropriate regard for applicable guidelines. The Development Proposal constitutes good land use planning and is in the public interest, and the Development Proposal appropriately conserves the cultural heritage value of the Subject Site and complies with municipal heritage policy, recognized professional standards, and best practices in the field of heritage conservation in Canada.

THE APPLICATIONS

Original Development Applications and Original Permit Requests (2023)

5There were three different revised applications submitted to the City. The original development applications anticipated the retention of the Heritage Building at the base of a 29-storey residential tower. These applications were to alter and demolish heritage attributes of the Heritage Building under ss. 33 and 34(1) of the OHA.

6The Subject Site was designated under Part IV of the OHA through By-law No. 961-2023, which was approved by City Council on October 12, 2023.

7On December 17 and 18, 2024, City Council designated the West Queen West Heritage Conservation District (“HCD”) by By-law No. 1368-2024 (“HCD By-law”) and adopted the West Queen West HCD Plan (“HCD Plan”). The HCD By-law and HCD Plan were appealed by the Applicant on February 10, 2025. The HCD appeal remains outstanding and the HCD Plan is therefore, not in force.

January Development Applications and January Permit Requests (2025)

8The Development Proposal was revised from the original submission to respond to City comments (“Revised Proposal”). Under the Revised Proposal, the Heritage Building continued to be incorporated into the base of a proposed tower. The Heritage Building’s east, west, and north elevations were retained, along with two 5.5 metre (“m”) returns of the south elevation, at its east and west ends.

May Development Applications and May Permit Requests (2025)

9The Revised Proposal was further revised to respond to City comments. The general conservation strategy did not change between the January, 2025 and May, 2025 development applications and revisions. The Heritage Building facades will remain in situ and the tower will extrude from the rear building elevation. All conservation measures described, including reinstatement of openings and alterations for accessibility remain part of the May, 2025 permit requests.

10The Development Proposal currently contemplates a total Ground Floor Area (“GFA”) of approximately 18,615 square metres (“m²”), including 17,683 m² of residential GFA and 932 m² of non-residential GFA (“Current Proposal”). The Current Proposal will result in an overall density of 14.36 Floor Space Index (“FSI”) based on a site area of 1,296.5 m². The unit count of the Current Proposal has been reduced from 272 units to 261 units; however, the Current Proposal will continue to provide 18% that are two-bedroom units and 10% that are three-bedroom units, aligning with the direction provided within the Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities Guidelines (“Growing Up Guidelines”).

SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

11According to the Participants, The West Queen West Community Post (“WQWCP”) and West Side Community Council (“WSCC”), both of whom are active community groups and were made Participants in this proceeding, described the City’s neighbourhood of West Queen West renowned for its vibrancy, cultural dynamism, entrepreneurial spirit, and diversity. West Queen West represents the historic main street commercial development in the City in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century and continues its role as a civically and culturally important place anchored by landmark buildings, which include the Great Hall, Theatre Centre, Heritage Building (Subject Site), Drake Hotel, and Gladstone House Hotel. According to the Participants, these properties and others built between 1880-1920, are significant to the heritage of the West Queen West neighbourhood.

12The Subject Site is located at 1117 QSW and is located within a Protected Major Transit Station Area (“PMTSA”) surrounding the planned GO Station and bordered by QSW to the north. South of the Subject Site is Lisgar Park. Lisgar Park is a 0.9 acre hardscape park with playground facilities, constructed in conjunction with the two residential towers at 6 Lisgar Street (21 storeys) and 15 Abell Street (19 storeys).

13To the immediate north of the Subject Site, on the north side of QSW, is a row of two- and three-storey buildings with retail at-grade and residential uses above, between Beaconsfield Avenue and Lisgar Street (1124–1138 QSW). The properties at 1128–1134 QSW are listed on the City’s Heritage Register.

14To the immediate east of the Subject Site, on the east side of Lisgar Street, is The Theatre Centre (1115 QSW), located within the former Carnegie Library building.

SUBJECT SITE (Applicant (Bissett) Visual Evidence, Exhibit 6)

LEGISLATIVE TEST

15When considering appeals filed pursuant to ss. 22(7) and 34(11) of the Act, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act; and the Proposed Development must be consistent with the PPS 2024; must conform to the City’s OP, be in the public interest; and represent good planning.

ORDER OF EVIDENCE AND WITNESS

16It was agreed upon by the Parties that the following order of evidence and witnesses would govern the Hearing:

For the Applicant:

1. Michael Bissett, Land Use Planning;

2. Ralph Giannone, Architecture and Urban Design; and

3. Phillip Evans, Heritage Architecture; and

For the City:

4. Adrian Phillips, Urban Design; and

5. Doris Ho, Land Use Planning.

17Evidence in support of the applications was provided by the above noted witnesses. All experts were duly qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in their above noted field.

18The individuals qualified to provide expert opinion evidence adopted their Written Witness Statements and Reply Witness Statements, with such added minor corrections as required and noted during their oral evidence.

19The Tribunal notes that both City witnesses, Adrian Phillips (Urban Design) and Doris Ho (Land Use Planning), are qualified as experts for the first time before the Tribunal.

ISSUES

20The Parties have agreed that all the heritage issues have been resolved and the the Parties have removed certain other issues relating to loading, servicing, and transportation in advance of the Hearing by consenting to certain conditions in the event of an approval.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

Applicant

21The Applicant submits the Current Proposal is a landmark building on a unique landmark site. The design of the Current Proposal conserves the cultural heritage value and attributes of the Heritage Building and respects its surrounding context and character. The Current Proposal will contribute to the evolution of the QSW corridor while accommodating intensification and new housing that is appropriately scaled relative to its surroundings. The Current Proposal introduces 261 new residential units, provides non-residential space, and creates a privately owned publicly accessible space (“POPS”), which will enhance the public realm.

22The Applicant requests that all four appeals be allowed, and that the Tribunal withhold its final order, subject to conditions.

City

23The City contends the Current Proposal is not appropriate and undermines the specifically tailored planning framework that appropriately directs the mid-scale height, scale, form, and massing of development along QSW and taller heights away from QSW adjacent areas. The Current Proposal, for a 98 m tall building on the Subject Site, in such close proximity to QSW, in this location, represents significant overdevelopment, would maximize intensification rather than optimize the use of land and infrastructure, and fails to enhance QSW’s sense of place and character, and is simply not appropriate.

24The City requests that the Tribunal dismiss the OPA and ZBA appeals. The Current Proposal contemplated through those planning instruments does not have regard for matters of provincial interest under s. 2 of the Act, is not consistent with the PPS 2024, and fails to conform to City’s OP policies. It is not good planning, does not represent good urban design, and is not in the public interest.

POSITION OF THE PARTICIPANTS

25WQWCP and WSCC raised the following relevant land use planning concerns:

• Heritage, the built form (the physical volume it presents);

• The building’s relationship with a key public square (Lisgar Park);

• Reliance on the deferred GO Station;

• Precedent; and

• The potential for a viable community space.

In addition, parking, loading, waste removal are issues that have been resolved prior to the hearing.

26The remaining issues are addressed by the Parties, as discussed further below.

ANALYSIS

Site and Area Specific Policy 566

27The Subject Site is subject to SASP 566, which was developed from the QSW Planning Study (“Planning Study”) and implemented through OPA 445. SASP 566 directs development and public initiatives on Queen Street-fronting properties between Bathurst Street and Roncesvalles Avenue (i.e. the West Queen West area and Parkdale Main Street area).

28The Planning Study, completed in 2020, informed OPA 445 (SASP 566), which was adopted by City Council in September 2020. The Subject Site is within the boundary of OPA 445, which was subsequently appealed to the Tribunal. At the time the OPA/ZBA applications were filed in September 2023, OPA 445 was under appeal and not in force. The Applicant sought and was granted Party status in the appeal.

29A settlement hearing for the appeals was held on November 10, 2023. Prior to the Parties reaching a Settlement, the Applicant reached an agreement with the City to adjourn its appeal sine die.

30The Tribunal Decision and Order (Tribunal file No. OLT-22-002046) issued November 29, 2023 (“OLT-22-002046 Order”), approving OPA 445 provided:

21THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeals are allowed in part and order that the Official Plan Amendment No, 445 of the City of Toronto is modified as follows: […]

f. With respect to the land municipally known as 1117 Queen Street West, this Decision and Order on OPA 445 is without prejudice to the disposition of the site-specific development application for the land municipally known as 1117 Queen Street West with respect to the application of policies 2.2., 2.2.4, 3.5.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.8, 5.9, 6.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 6.2.9, 6.5, 8.2.1 and 8.2.2.

31The Applicant’s witness, Mr. Bissett, advised that the listed policies above are without prejudice to the disposition of the site-specific development application. He interprets this to mean that, while the policies are relevant to his evaluation of the Current Proposal, they do not prejudice the disposition of the applications, and therefore are relevant but not determinative.

32In Mr. Bissett’s opinion, the Current Proposal has appropriate regard for the policy directions in proposed OPA 445 (SASP 566), recognizing that several policies are without prejudice to the site-specific development application.

33City staff confirmed in a letter dated November 7, 2023 to the Applicant (“November 7 Letter”) (Exhibit 16) that:

in the event your client’s site specific application proceeds to a hearing before the Tribunal the City will not argue that the listed policies are determinative for your client’s application.

34The City submits the intention behind the November 7 Letter was to allow for the Tribunal to determine whether to apply the Clergy principle on a site-specific basis as it relates to certain policies of SASP 566. The City submits the Clergy principle is discretionary and does not prevent the application of modern standards, consistent with the public interest and based on most current planning information.

35According to the City, all witnesses have provided an evaluation of the applications and their conformity with SASP 566; the applications have undergone three resubmissions, as recent as May 2025, and a revised draft ZBA in November 7, 2025 since the Tribunal approved SASP 566 in November 2023. These revisions also post-date the November 7 Letter, where the Applicant is knowingly making revisions in a changed policy context, and the Applicant is inconsistently applying the principle and is “grocery shopping” for whichever policy, new or old, that in their opinion, supports their Current Proposal.

Findings

36The City’s witnesses acknowledged SASP 566 is not determinative of the character of QSW and have asked the Tribunal that SASP 566 reinforces the planned vision and character of QSW, that has been carefully managed and developed over time, and to refuse the applications on the basis that it does not conform with these policies.

37Even though the City’s witnesses have evaluated the policies in-effect at the time of applications and evaluated the new policies that came into effect post-applications,

the Tribunal agrees with the Applicant’s counsel, that the City cannot argue that these appeals should be refused on the basis of policies that are not determinative and to which the Subject Site is expressly without prejudice.

38The City submits the Applicant is knowingly making revisions (three) in a changed policy context, since the City staff’s November 7 Letter, and as it relates to SASP 566, it represents the most up to date planning framework for QSW and should be afforded significant weight in the Tribunal’s decision on these applications.

39The Tribunal finds SASP 566, relevant to the applications which have been addressed in various policy sections noted below; however, the Tribunal cannot ignore the Tribunal Order that reaffirms the without prejudice to the Subject Site.

40Therefore, the Tribunal has recognized the legal status of without prejudice on the Subject Site from the noted policies of SASP 566, specifically Policies 2.2, 2.2.4, 3.5.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.8, 5.9, 6.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 6.2.9, 6.5, 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 that are referenced in the OLT-22-002046 Order.

41The Tribunal does not find it necessary to determine whether the Tribunal should apply the Clergy principle since it has found the legal status of SASP 566 is without prejudice to the Subject Site based on the OLT-22-002046 Order and the City staff’s November 7 Letter to the Applicant, confirming same.

TORONTO OFFICAL PLAN

Protected Major Transit Station Areas

42The Subject Site is within a PMTSA, and issues were raised as to whether the applications were considered optimizing or maximizing density or intensification.

43SASP 687 sets out that the King-Liberty PMTSA is planned for a minimum population and employment target of 250 residents and jobs combined per hectare (“ha”), exceeding the PPS 2024 minimum density target of 150 residents and jobs combined per ha.

44Mr. Bissett testified the Current Proposal is consistent with the PPS 2024 policies that seek to optimize the use of land and infrastructure, and to encourage growth and intensification in Strategic Growth Areas, particularly PMTSAs. He advised the Subject Site is located within 200 m of the planned GO Station and is within the ‘Regeneration Areas’ designation.

45According to Mr. Bissett, the policy supports development that is beyond a mid-rise scale when it can be accommodated within walking distance to higher-order transit. Given the Subject Site’s proximity to the GO Station, its ‘Regeneration Areas’ designation and its position along an Avenue, the proposed tower form is appropriate and directly supports the intent of the OP in intensifying Avenues. The OP specifically permits increased densities on lands within 500 m of planned higher order transit stations within delineated PMTSAs.

46During the course of the Hearing, the entrance of the planned GO Station came into question. Mr. Bissett testified that, while the City has not provided direction with respect to measuring distances from properties to planned or existing transit stations, the Subject Site is within 200 m of the planned GO Station, as referenced in the Site Plan Drawing for the proposed Metrolinx Station (Exhibit 31). According to Mr. Bissett, given Policy 8.6a) introduced by OPA 540, a density of 8 FSI or more is permitted on the Subject Site. While the Current Proposal includes a proposed density of 14.36 FSI, OPA 540 provides for a density of 8 FSI or more and thus conforms with Policy 8.6a).

47In contrast, Ms. Ho initially emphasized a walking distance of 750 m, from the Subject Site to the station, placing the station at the outer edge of the 800 m PMTSA radius. Ms. Ho relied on this to argue against the appropriateness of the proposed height and density. However, during cross-examination, Ms. Ho acknowledged that the actual distance could be closer to what Mr. Bissett indicated.

48The City submits the Policies of Chapter 8 (Policies 1 to 8) do not establish any minimum requirement, but rather establish maximum permissions. Ms. Ho testified, the words “or more” allow greater densities beyond the 6 or 8 FSI, without amendment to the OP. Under cross-examination, Ms. Ho asserted that Policy 6 provided a maximum FSI, in spite of the words “or more”.

49The City, in closing submissions, advised it has not taken the position that densities identified in Policy 6, whether a) or b) are a bar to the applications, and instead, that the planned context in the policies of Chapter 8 provide upper end guard rails on development intensity and height expectations within PMTSAs, which may be exceeded in appropriate circumstances, when considering all applicable policies and how that development fits within the existing and planned context.

Findings

50Ms. Ho and Mr. Phillips both relied on a City map, which was prepared by City staff, which showed a walking distance of approximately 750 m from the Subject Site to the planned GO station. Ms. Ho, on cross-examination, advised she relied on City staff to produce such maps for the radius and she relied on this for her analysis. Neither City witness questioned City staff and both accepted the distance, as shown. Although there were arguments made on the entrance of the planned GO Station and the center of the GO Station, these arguments did not substantiate any reasonable proof that the Subject Site is not within 200 m of the planned GO Station.

51In regard to Chapter 8, Policy 6, PMTSA Policy Direction, The Tribunal finds Ms. Ho’s interpretation and explanation that Policy 6 provided a maximum FSI, in spite of the words “or more” and the words “or more” allow greater densities beyond the 6 or 8 FSI, without amendment to the OP, somewhat confusing.

52On cross-examination, Ms. Ho acknowledged that her interpretation of the FSI permitted differed from the interpretations of multiple City staff in recent City Council reports, which demonstrate how FSI permissions are actively being applied in planning applications today.

53Although the Tribunal finds the majority of Ms. Ho’s testimony forthright and unwavering, her evidence of the determination of FSI, specifically her interpretation of “or more” for the Subject Site with opposite views to those of her City colleagues, makes it difficult for the Tribunal to understand her interpretation.

54In addition, in regard to Ms. Ho’s testimony in her initial statement of the distance of approximately 750 m from the Subject Site to the planned GO Station, which would affect the FSI, the Tribunal understands her relying on the City staff for the maps and measurements; however, does give her evidence less weight in this respect since on cross-examination it was determined that the Subject Site is 200 m from the planned GO Station.

55The Tribunal accepts and prefers the evidence of Mr. Bissett, who informed the Tribunal the OP does not generally include density limitations, and specifically does not do so in the case of the Subject Site. The Tribunal agrees the OP permits an FSI of at least 6 or 8 (8 or more FSI is permitted for sites within 200 m of a planned station and 6 FSI or more is permitted for sites within 200 to 500 m of a planned station).

56Therefore, the Tribunal finds, based on the evidence, the Subject Site is within 200 m of the planned GO Station, as referenced in the Site Plan Drawing for the proposed GO Station (Exhibit 31), and the planned density for this Subject Site is not 1 FSI, but 8 FSI or more, consistent with the policy framework for PMTSAs.

57The Tribunal does not find, as suggested by the Applicant’s counsel, that the City witnesses “had major fundamental gaps in their knowledge of the applicable policies”, “were ill-informed with respect to the PMTSA policy context”, and that they were inexperienced since it was both their first time appearing before the Tribunal.

58Other than these two examples of Ms. Ho’s testimony, the Tribunal found Ms. Ho and Mr. Phillips’ testimony forthright. The Tribunal gave the same weight to, except for the two examples of Ms. Ho’s testimony and the planned and existing context of Mr. Phillips testimony, the Applicant’s witnesses even though the Applicant’s counsel suggested giving “little weight” to the evidence of City witnesses “given their lack of experience and fundamental errors in analysis”.

59The Tribunal agrees with City counsel in relation to Mr. Giannone’s written statement. Mr. Giannone’s urban design analysis, in his statement, did not have the depth of analysis needed to clearly articulate the urban design evidence. However, the Tribunal did find Mr. Giannone’s oral evidence in-depth and persuasive, as well as being supplemented with the planning instruments he prepared. Even though the Tribunal found Mr. Giannone and other witnesses more persuasive, in regard to urban design and the existing and planned context, the Tribunal found Mr. Phillips’ evidence extensive and visual evidence balanced and appropriate for this Hearing.

Tall Building Design Guidelines

60Several issues were raised by the Parties in relation to lot size, floor plates, and setbacks and stepbacks within the Tall Building Design Guidelines (“TBDGs”).

61Mr. Bissett testified the TBDGs include sections related to site context (section 1.0), heritage conservation (section 1.6), site organization (section 2.0), tall building massing (section 3.0), and pedestrian realm (section 4.0). Among other matters, the TBDGs recommend that tower floor plates be limited to 750 m² (Policy 3.2.1), that tall building towers be set back 12.5 m from side and rear property lines, and provide a separation distance of 25 m between towers on the same site (Policy 3.2.3). In Mr. Bissett’s opinion, the design of the Current Proposal is generally in keeping with the TBDGs.

62Mr. Bissett testified the proposed 27-storey tower will fit within the existing and emerging context around the GO Station and within the Triangle Lands, where the tallest buildings are located in the vicinity of the Subject Site. The existing and emerging context in the vicinity of the Subject Site includes high-rise towers up to 29 storeys in height and the tallest height located immediately to the south of Lisgar Park, approved prior to the planned GO Station. Setbacks have been provided to ensure an appropriate transition through physical separation, affording ample sunlight and sky views for streets, as well as existing parks and open spaces.

63In Mr. Bissett’s opinion, the Current Proposal provides for appropriate transition to adjacent lower scale areas. The Current Proposal provides a maximum floorplate of 750 m² and will maintain a separation distance of more than 25 m from the closest existing, approved, or future tall buildings. Additionally, the Current Proposal conserves and integrates the existing Heritage Building in a manner that is consistent with good heritage conservation principles.

64Mr. Phillips testified the planned context and existing context, as detailed in SASP 566, is for a mid-rise built form, as planned along QSW. This guideline notes that not all sites are suitable for tall buildings. According to Mr. Phillips the Current Proposal does not conform to Policy 1.3 of the TBDGs. Tall buildings should respect the scale of the local context and display an appropriate transition in height and intensity, especially when adjacent to areas of differing land use, lower-scale built form, and heritage properties. According to Mr. Phillips, the few tall buildings that have been approved on QSW within the SASP area have achieved substantial tower setbacks and appropriate transition to the lower- and mid-scale existing and planned built form context of QSW.

65In contrast, Mr. Bissett advised the Current Proposal will provide tower separation distances exceeding the TBDGs, which recommends a minimum of 25 m separation between towers. According to Mr. Bissett, the combination of adequate tower separation and the slender floorplate results in adequately limited shadow impacts both on the ‘Neighbourhood’ designated lands to the north, and the public realm along QSW.

Findings

66The Tribunal finds Mr. Bissett’s testimony persuasive that higher towers have already been approved outside of the PMTSA boundary, including 340 Dufferin Street and 1266 QSW.

67The Tribunal agrees with the Applicant’s counsel’s submission that, although Mr. Phillips suggested applying a standard of 19 m to 20 m setbacks, the only policy providing guidance on setbacks is SASP 566, which generally calls for 5 m setbacks and additional stepbacks above 16.5 m in Policy 5.4.1. According to the Applicant the Current Proposal exceeds these requirements by providing a 4.5 m setback at the base building and an additional 4 m setback at the top of the Heritage Building. This totals 8.5 m in setbacks, with an average setback of 11.8 m due to the building’s curvilinear design.

68Therefore, the Tribunal finds the proposed setbacks are appropriate from a heritage perspective, exceed applicable policy guidance, and involve no angular plane considerations. In addition, Policy 3.2.2 of the TBDGs requires only a 3 m stepback, which the Subject Site significantly exceeds.

Housing / Unit Mix

69Housing and unit mix were also raised by the City as a concern in reference to the draft OPA and ZBA. Ms. Ho testified the OPA and ZBA are not acceptable due to a failure to secure a minimum amount of non-residential uses to support the vitality and character of QSW, and a failure to appropriately secure the dwelling unit mix to support a mix of housing on the Subject Site.

70Mr. Bissett testified, the Current Proposal includes 186 one-bedroom units (71.3%), 48 two-bedroom units (18.4%), and 27 three-bedroom units (10.3%). In his opinion, the Current Proposal is in keeping with the intent of the Growing Up Guidelines.

71Mr. Bissett, in his reply statement, advised the existing planning framework does not require a minimum amount of non-residential uses, that this was not on the issues list, and that the revised draft By-law now includes provision for a minimum amount of non-residential GFA. The exact amount would be determined in consultation with the City.

72Mr. Giannone testified the Current Proposal will deliver 261 residential units in a variety of types and sizes, together with 932 m² of non-residential use along the QSW frontage. Taken together, these elements represent, in his opinion, good architectural and urban design, which is in the broader public interest.

Findings

73The Tribunal finds the Current Proposal includes 186 one-bedroom units (71.3%), 48 two-bedroom units (18.4%), and 27 three-bedroom units (10.3%), which is in keeping with the City’s Growing Up Guidelines. As noted by Mr. Bissett, although the OP does not prescribe unit mix requirements, the Tribunal is satisfied the revised draft By-law includes a clause requiring a minimum of 15% two-bedroom units and a minimum of 10% three-bedroom units, consistent with the City’s Growing Up Guidelines.

Built Form / Compatibility

74Several issues were raised by the Parties on the built form and compatibility of the Proposed Development to the planned and existing context of QSW and the Triangle Lands.

75Mr. Bissett testified that the Current Proposal conforms to the OP as there is no applicable height limit in the OP. According to Mr. Bissett, the Current Proposal will fit within the existing and emerging physical context around the GO Station and within the Triangle Lands, where the tallest buildings are located in the vicinity of the Subject Site. Mr. Bissett advised that, along QSW, the Subject Site is located in an area with tall buildings, which were approved prior to the approval of the King-Liberty PMTSA.

76Mr. Bissett testified that the existing physical context of the surrounding area includes high-rise towers up to 21-storeys directly adjacent to the approved GO Station. More recently, towers of heights similar to the Current Proposal have been approved outside of the PMTSA, including a 24-storey (81 m) tower at 1266 QSW (now subject to a site plan application for a 27-storey (87 m) and a 29-storey (92 m) tower at 340 Dufferin Street).

77Mr. Giannone testified that the configuration of the Subject Site is a good example of a property that is appropriate to accommodate a 27-storey high-rise building which can be deployed in a prominent location and deployed on the Subject Site in a manner which is sensitive to adjacent urban spaces and lower built form context. According to Mr. Giannone the Current Proposal incorporates the heritage elevations along the entirety of the QSW frontage, as well as frontages along the east and west sides and has been sympathetically designed to complement and fit in with the character of the surrounding neighbourhood.

78Mr. Giannone advised that, from an architectural perspective, it is his opinion that the Current Proposal balances heritage and urban design considerations with an appropriate and well deployed amount of density on the Subject Site. The Current Proposal introduces contemporary architecture in a series of elements which anchor and balance this prominent heritage corner.

79Mr. Phillips testified the limited tall building approvals with frontage on QSW in the SASP 566 area (1266 QSW and 1313 QSW, both approved but not constructed) feature significant tower setbacks from the right-of-way – the approval with the closest tall building to QSW is the 19 m tower setback for Parkdale Hub. These significant tower setbacks essentially eliminate the presence of a tall building on QSW. It is therefore his opinion that the proposed 98 m building, set back only 8.5 m from the south side of QSW, is not compatible with its physical context.

80Mr. Phillips testified the Subject Site provides an 8.5 m tower setback to the street. To the rear and west of the Subject Site, in the Triangle Lands, are a number of tall buildings, with the closest tall building in proximity to the Subject Site being the 21-storey building located at 68 Abell Street, which is to the southwest, and is set back approximately 54 m from the south side of QSW. As the building scale increases, the tower setback should also increase to minimize the siting and placement of the tall building relative to QSW to continue to reinforce, rather than encroach on and negatively impact, the low- and mid-scale character of this street and area.

81Ms. Ho testified that while the Subject Site has unique characteristics and adjacencies that would allow for additional height beyond a mid-rise scale, as informed by the width of the right-of-way, a tower form typology does not fit within the established and planned West Queen West character, nor provide the appropriate transition from the taller building heights currently south of the Subject Site and within the Triangle Lands.

Findings

82The Tribunal does not agree with the City witnesses that the proposed tower form does not fit within the established and planned West Queen West character nor provide the appropriate transition from the taller building heights currently south of the Subject Site and within the Triangle Lands.

83The Tribunal has heard evidence that Triangle Lands are characterized by tall buildings up to 21 storeys, constructed over a decade ago, before the area was delineated as a PMTSA. More recently, towers with heights similar to the Current Proposal have been approved outside of the PMTSA, including a 24-storey (87 m) tower at 1266 QSW in 2024 and a 29-storey (92 m) tower at 340 Dufferin Street in 2025.

84The Tribunal is persuaded by the evidence of Mr. Bissett and Mr. Giannone that the proposed tower has been massed in a manner that respects the existing character of the West Queen West corridor and responds to the existing context of taller buildings within the Triangle Lands.

85The Tribunal accepts and prefers the evidence of Mr. Bissett, Mr. Giannone, and Mr. Evans that the Subject Site is demonstrably unique relative to the majority of lots along the corridor. While QSW is generally characterized by narrow, shallow lots with consistent frontages, the Subject Site deviates from this pattern given that it is a stand-alone property with two street frontages and a public park flanking to the west and south. While there are other atypical properties along the corridor, such as the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health lands and the approved tower site at 1266 QSW, which similarly depart from the prevailing lot fabric, this is not the Subject Site and is not representative of the typical pattern.

86SASP 566, Policy 6.1 states that development exceeding the maximum height set out in policy is discouraged, and will only be considered where a proposed development demonstrates its less constrained context in relation to one or more of the following criteria:

• 6.1.1: Location at the intersection of QSW and a major street identified in Map 3 of the OP;

• 6.1.2: Through lots where development will address both street frontages;

• 6.1.3: Deep properties with a lot depth of 40 m or more; and

• 6.1.4: Rear context that supports flexibility for transition to adjacent less sensitive conditions, such as to an existing tall or mid-rise building, Mixed Use Areas designed lands, non-residential uses, or rail corridor.

87All Parties agree that the Subject Site must meet one of the four criteria in Policy 6.1.22. The Applicant submitted that the Current Proposal meets three of the four listed criteria. Mr. Phillips testified that Policy 6.1.4 is partially applicable to the Subject Site because the Subject Site is located adjacent to non-residential uses to the south, Lisgar Park, and as an isolated development site on the block between Lisgar Street and Abell Street, and that this supports some flexibility in additional height beyond the height policy set in Policy 5.3.

88Counsel for the Applicant highlighted an unapproved SASP 566 – redline Excerpt dated September 8, 2023 (Exhibit 25) – in regard to additional height for SASP 566, by City staff, which contains a redline comparison between a proposed modification to SASP 566 approved by City Council in October 2023 and the version approved by City Council in July 2023, and ultimately by the Tribunal. The comparison shows that the phrase “not encouraged” was removed, signaling an intention to allow flexibility for additional height in certain circumstances. The final language is “may be permitted”.

89Policy 6.1 of SASP 566 states:

Development of new buildings or additions exceeding the height set out in Policy 5.3 may be permitted where the existing characteristics or context of the site…is less constrained than the prevailing conditions, as demonstrated through consideration of one or more of the following criteria…

90SASP 566 Policies 6.1 and 6.2 specifically recognizes that “additional heights” may be permitted where certain criteria have been met.

91The Tribunal agrees with the Applicant’s counsel that Policy 6.1.3 permits additional height for “deep properties with a lot depth of 40 m or more”. The land survey shows the Subject Site’s lot depth ranges between 39.53 m and 39.62 m, just short of 40 m. Both Ms. Ho and Mr. Phillips identified the Subject Site’s depth as 40 m in their witness statements. The Tribunal agrees with the Applicant’s counsel’s suggesting that both City witnesses rounded up the number to 40 m, recognizing that the 47 cm and 38 cm differences are immaterial from a planning perspective and that this is the appropriate interpretation of the policy.

92Therefore, the Tribunal finds it reasonable that the Subject Site’s lot depth is 40 m and meets SASP 566 Policy 6.1 criteria with the understanding that SASP 566 is relevant but not determinative.

Impacts

93The City presented evidence of impacts in various capacities from the Proposed Development. Mr. Phillips testified that the location of the 98 m tower with 9.5 m setback from the south side of QSW will limit open views of the sky from the public realm for pedestrians, particularly on QSW, and from Lisgar Park.

94Ms. Ho advised that there may be an impact on the promotion of development and built form in the broader West Queen West area that is well-designed, encourages a sense of place, and provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive, and vibrant, as contemplated in subsection 2(r) of the Act. According to Ms. Ho, the Proposed Development, on the Subject Site, will have negative impacts within this unique context on QSW.

95Mr. Evans testified, the tower above the Heritage Building is not anticipated to present adverse impacts to these heritage resources. Its curved form and contemporary design articulation is intended to allow the heritage resources at-grade to stand out as distinct, with the contemporary architecture reading as “of its time” in contrast to the historic commercial main street character of QSW.

96Mr. Bissett testified that the design of the Current Proposal is distinct along the corridor at a corner site surrounded by open space, with no constraints in terms of tower separation or concerns respecting rear transition to Neighbourhoods. While the Subject Site is adjacent to parkland (Lisgar Park), Lisgar Park’s location to the south will result in no shadow impacts that would impact the utility of the park. The incorporation of the reveal, stepback of the tower, and curved design will provide for an appropriate scale in this context, which emphasizes the Heritage Building’s presence along the street, and also provides for new housing within a Strategic Growth Area.

97According to Mr. Bissett, the setbacks have been revised to accommodate the increased tower floorplate, while continuing to mitigate potential impacts on the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the Heritage Building.

98Mr. Giannone testified that the height of the addition will not negatively impact the experience of someone walking along QSW. As Mr. Giannone described, the Current Proposal will further enhance and animate the street through at-grade non-residential uses and the inclusion of a POPS.

99Ms. Ho testified that there will be impacts on the public realm of QSW in respect of the inappropriate height, scale, and massing of the proposed building, including the unacceptable pedestrian level wind conditions on the public realm and the proposed outdoor amenity space.

100Mr. Phillips advised that Policy 3.1.4.10 of SASP 566 states the tower portion of a tall building should be designed to limit and mitigate pedestrian level wind impacts. The wind study identifies that the proposed building, being taller than its surroundings, will redirect wind to the ground level adjacent to the Proposed Development, and Mr. Phillips identified that higher wind speeds would be anticipated adjacent to Lisgar Park in the spring and winter.

101In regard to wind impacts, Mr. Bissett presented a November 7, 2025 letter from the wind consultant that confirmed that “based on [the] August 2023 wind assessment, wind conditions around the site are appropriate for pedestrian use”. It also noted that the August 2023 assessment did not account for several mitigation measures that will “further improve wind conditions”.

102The Applicant’s counsel submitted, in closing, that the City did not request wind conditions prior to a final order, which is common practice and within their ability. However, if the Tribunal has any residual concern, it can impose a condition that an updated wind study be submitted prior to the issuance of a final order. Ms. Ho acknowledged that attaching a wind condition would be appropriate.

Findings

103In regard to potential impacts on the public realm, the Tribunal accepts and prefers the evidence of Mr. Bissett, Mr. Evans, and Mr. Giannone. The Tribunal finds that, by retaining the Heritage Building in situ, the character of the street is preserved, and the pedestrian experience on QSW is maintained, including the existing two-storey street wall as the primary façade along QSW.

104In regard to the sky view and shadow impacts, all witnesses agreed Lisgar Park’s location to the south will not result in shadow impacts that would impact the utility of Lisgar Park. Mr. Phillips acknowledged there are no net new shadow policies that apply for the Subject Site. Only the standard shadow policies of the OP apply and the Tribunal accepts Mr. Bissett’s evidence that the Current Proposal meets those standard policies of the OP. Mr. Phillips acknowledged that even a mid-rise building built to the maximum extent of SASP 566 would cast shadows on QSW.

105SASP 566 contains no angular plane requirement, unlike other SASPs, which include such provisions partially to mitigate shadow impacts.

106In regard as to whether there are wind impacts and if they can be mitigated, the Tribunal is satisfied that a Pedestrian Wind Study was prepared by RWDI as part of the original applications. The results of the Pedestrian Wind Study were issued in a report, dated August 25, 2023. A Pedestrian Wind Study Addendum was subsequently prepared by RWDI in support of the Current Proposal, dated May 15, 2025. Mr. Bissett advised a Revised Pedestrian Wind Study Addendum, dated November 5, 2025, was prepared by RWDI, which reaffirms and provides further clarification of the Pedestrian Wind Study’s conclusions. The wind consultant advised that the wind conditions around the Subject Site are appropriate for pedestrian use. As noted by the Applicant’s counsel, the City could have requested a new wind study as part of the conditions, which they have not done.

107Furthermore, Mr. Bissett, testified the slender tower massing is designed to minimize the adverse shadow and wind impacts on the public realm. With the existing parkland to the west and south of the Subject Site, there are very limited impacts only to the west in the early morning. To the north, the slender floorplate has a minimal impact on the north sidewalk of Queen, and due to the fact that the building is flanked by Lisgar Park and public streets, as well as recently constructed developments, any concerns respecting cumulative impacts are minimized.

108Therefore, Tribunal is satisfied, as stated in the Revised Pedestrian Wind Study Addendum, any localized mitigation that may be required will be confirmed through further testing at a later design stage (i.e. Site Plan Approval).

109The Tribunal also finds there are no traffic and parking issues and there are no issues with loading, servicing, or the building’s interface with QSW, which were some of the concerns of the Participants.

Precedent

110In regard as to whether the Proposed Development sets a precedent, Ms. Ho and Mr. Phillips both testified that the height, scale, and massing of the Proposed Development have the potential to set a precedent for the form and scale of reurbanization along the Avenue.

111Mr. Phillips added that, if approved, the Current Proposal could potentially be a precedent that would facilitate the development of other tall buildings with similar setbacks to QSW, and that the cumulative impact of tall buildings located in similar proximity to QSW would significantly alter the pattern of open views of the sky from the public realm on QSW, dramatically altering the unique character QSW.

112The Applicant’s counsel submitted the August 12, 2014 staff report, that initiated SASP 566, that explicitly states that the Triangle Lands “will not serve as a precedent for development for other parts of Queen Street West”. The approval of 1266 QSW demonstrates that towers may be permitted within SASP 566 when the right circumstances exist. If additional towers are proposed, it will be due to provincial and municipal policies permitting greater densities within PMTSA areas, an approach that is not inconsistent with SASP 566. Towers within the PMTSA should not be viewed as a precedent for towers outside of it. The Triangle Lands are a unique context.

113Mr. Bissett testified the proposed building location and attributes collectively demonstrate that that the proposed design approach to the redevelopment of the Subject Site is warranted because the Subject Site is unique in and of itself. The Subject Site’s locational and policy context makes it fundamentally distinct from the broader QSW corridor.

114The Tribunal has considered the submissions and jurisprudence in regard to precedent for this proceeding and agrees with respect to these decisions that planning applications that are determined are based on their individual merits. The Tribunal understands there is a legal precedent and a planning precedent. The Tribunal is not unmindful to the fact that planning authorities in future planning applications will use Tribunal decisions as comparable to influence their planning rationales. However, determinations in other cases are neither binding, nor do they fetter the discretion exercised by the Tribunal. The Tribunal can exercise its discretion to cases, with which it has done in this case.

[Ontario Heritage Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-o18/latest/rso-1990-c-o18.html) Appeals

115The HCD was adopted by City Council on December 17, 2024, and was subsequently appealed to the Tribunal. The HCD Plan and HCD By-law are not currently in force.

116Mr. Bissett advised that, while the HCD is not in force, it is his opinion that the Current Proposal has regard for the HCD’s policies. In particular, the Current Proposal will conserve, retain, and incorporate the existing Heritage Building within the design of the proposed building, ensuring heritage attributes are maintained; providing a complementary design which conserves and enhances the cultural heritage value of the District; and conserve and enhance the District’s human scale built form that supports and enhances the pedestrian main street experience through the in situ retention of the Heritage Building as the proposed tower’s base, providing significant setbacks from the Heritage Building’s main face.

117In any event, Mr. Bissett testified that all of the heritage issues have been removed from the Issues List for this Hearing.

118Mr. Evans, a Heritage Architecture witness, provided testimony that the Current Proposal balances multiple objectives on the Subject Site. It conserves the cultural heritage value of the Heritage Building through partial retention and activates it, along with the surrounding heritage fabric of QSW, with residential units and non-residential uses on the ground floor. Mr. Evans testified that the Current Proposal supports intensification over sprawl, in a City Council-adopted PMTSA. Creating ground floor non-residential space within the Heritage Building to carry forward the Subject Site’s longstanding role as a community resource and amenity.

119In Mr. Evan’s opinion, the Current Proposal appropriately conserves the cultural heritage value of the Subject Site, complies with municipal heritage policy, is consistent with the PPS 2024 and recognized professional standards and best practices in the field of heritage conservation in Canada.

120Mr. Evans also noted that, on July 3, 2025, City staff issued a Request for Directions to the Toronto Preservation Board and City Council in respect of the May, 2025 development applications and May, 2025 permit requests. In relation to the revised conservation strategy, the Request for Direction provides:

in this case and in this specific context, the overall height of the building and upper-level massing are not heritage considerations, provided they do not encroach into or reduce or impact the minimum dimensions set out below or further alter or change the requested alterations/demolitions identified in the Conservation Strategy (p. 5).

121Mr. Evan’s advised he agreed with City staff’s comments on this point. While height may, in some cases, be a heritage issue, in his experience height and heritage conservation are often inappropriately conflated. In this case, the exact height of the proposed building does not have significant bearing on the conservation strategy.

Findings

122Any determinations made on the planning applications with an OHA alteration permit application are two distinct applications. Therefore, the Tribunal may determine the merits of a development proposal and whether it conforms with the applicable policies and constitutes good planning within the limited and strict context of the applicable planning framework alone.

123The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Mr. Bissett and Mr. Evans and finds the exact height of the Current Proposal does not have significant bearing on the conservation strategy. The evidence has been shown that the built form will remain through the in situ retention of the Heritage Building.

124The Tribunal finds the heritage approval is not a planning approval. Even though the Tribunal has found no heritage issues, this does not mean the Tribunal has approved the planning instruments automatically. The Tribunal has shown that the planning approval is separate and apart from the heritage issues, and in this case all the planning instruments have been satisfied through the appropriate planning policies and legislation.

125Therefore, based on the uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Evans, the Tribunal finds the OHA appeals are approved.

BOOKS OF AUTHORITIES

126The City presented 10 cases of jurisprudence for the Tribunal to consider. The Applicant provided five cases and one piece of legislation (Evidence Act).

127Although determinations in other cases are neither binding, nor do they fetter the discretion exercised by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has exercised its discretion in referencing all 10 cases from the City and four of the five cases from the Applicant (noted below) based on similar fact patterns or relevance. The other cases not referenced did not have similar fact patterns, or only had minimal relevance to the current case.

City Book of Authorities

128The following cases from the City all reference intensification or maximizing versus optimizing, in regard to development:

• Losani Homes Ltd. v. Hamilton (City), [2010] OMBD No. 683;

• Dundas Residences Inc. v. Toronto (City), 2015 CarswellOnt 20983;

• 1756392 Ontario Ltd. v Toronto (City), 2020 CanLII 38964 (ON LPAT);

• Burlington 2020 Lakeshore Inc. v Burlington (City), 2025 CanLII 1162 (ON LT);

• My Place on 7 Inc. v Vaughan (City), 2025 CanLII 65394 (ON LT) (“My Place”);

• 2606545 Ontario Inc. v Toronto (City), 2025 CanLII 99249 (ON LT) (“2606545 Ontario Inc.”); and

• Cheong Family Holdings Ltd. v Toronto (City), 2025 CanLII 119062 (ON LT).

129Without going into specifics of each case, it can be summarized that the majority of the issues in these cases were intensification. The Tribunal finds the most coherent explanation comes from My Place. The Panel Members, in paragraph [107], provided a detailed explanation on optimizing versus maximizing in regard to development:

Many arguments were presented regarding maximizing versus optimizing the Subject Property. The Tribunal finds that the intent of the legislative framework is to optimize development and not maximize development, so it is not in the public interest to over develop or to focus on “larger” without justifying how that is beneficial for the area. The Tribunal finds that the Subject Property could be intensified as it is underutilized, given that increasing housing is a priority within the country, Province, and City. However, it is necessary to optimally use the Subject Property and not simply maximize the development. As Schedule 13 of the VOP allows the City to meet the minimum density targets, it should be possible to increase the intensification to exceed the minimum target without resulting in an overdevelopment of the Subject Property.

130Similarity in the case at hand, the Tribunal has been provided evidence to show that the Subject Site is in a Strategic Growth Area in a PTMSA and that the City’s minimum density targets have been met; however, as My Place explains, it should be possible to increase the intensification to exceed the minimum target without resulting in an overdevelopment of the Subject Site. As noted previously, the Current Proposal’s strict adherence to applicable guidelines and its respect for heritage considerations further reinforce that the design optimizes, rather than maximizes, the use of land. PMTSA’s allow for greater heights in appropriate circumstances. The Current Proposal makes efficient use of an underutilized property served by frequent transit provided along QSW, is pedestrian oriented, and optimizes the use of land and infrastructure.

1312606545 Ontario Inc. has a similar fact pattern with OPA, ZBA, and OHA appeals. This case can be distinguished from the current case in that the subject site in 2606545 Ontario Inc. was in a character area with strict polices, such as no new net shadows (impacts to Barabara Hall Park), angular plane, and no new tall buildings since the implementation of that SASP. In the present case SASP 566 policies are relevant to this Current Proposal: however they do not prejudice the disposition of the applications and therefore are relevant but not determinative. Unlike in the character area in 2606545 Ontario Inc., where no new tall buildings have been built since the implementation of that SASP, it cannot be said the same in this case. The Tribunal found no impacts to the public realm and no shadow impacts on Lisgar Park, unlike in 2606545 Ontario Inc.

132In The Mahayana Pure Land Temple et al v, 2025 CanLII 54265 the matter dealt with whether a revised draft ZBA was permitted. In paragraph [22] the Member stated:

The Tribunal ruled that reply evidence in the form of a revised draft ZBA replacing the submitted draft ZBA is not allowed as the instrument before the Tribunal for adjudication is the draft ZBA purposefully prepared and submitted by the Applicant and which was confirmed by its experts as good planning.

133The Tribunal finds this is a simplistic view since this Hearing is a hearing de novo. There were three revisions to the Current Proposal, with all City staff deeply involved in reviewing and questioning the relevant planning instruments and studies providing conditions, if approved, including the draft OPA and draft ZBAs. All witnesses agreed that a final order should be withheld to allow the City Solicitor, relevant City staff, and the Tribunal an opportunity to review the final instruments. Ms. Ho and Mr. Bissett confirmed that conditions could include restrictions on balcony and other projections, as well as securing the curvilinear form of the building, minimum non-residential square footage, unit mix, setbacks, reveal, and other built-form characteristics deemed essential to the design. Mr. Evans testified that the heritage approval requires building permit drawings and plans to be provided by the architect prior to any building permit or heritage permit being issued for all or part of the Subject Site. Mr. Evans testified that City staff would not, and could not, approve any deviation from those presented to the Tribunal. The Tribunal finds the Applicant has provided planning instruments and amendments to the Tribunal that generally reflect the development being recommended.

Applicant’s Book of Authorities

134The case Jane Bloor LP v Toronto (City), 2025 CarswellOnt 13090 (“Jane Bloor LP”) refers to the experience of a witness and interpretation of OP policies in regard to limits of mid-rise buildings. As noted above, even though the City’s witnesses testified for the first time before this Tribunal, the Tribunal gave their evidence the same weight as the Applicant’s witnesses, except for a few instances. In reference to the interpretation of OP policies, paragraph [25] in Jane Bloor LP stated:

The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Witt that the use of the term “generally” in the City OP is significant in its interpretation. This language is not prescriptive creating rigidity. Rather, on a plain and ordinary reading, it imports some degree of flexibility in defining the limits of where a mid-rise building ends and a tall building begins by allowing for “generalities” rather than a bright-line rule.

135Similar to this case at hand, the Triangle Lands allow for higher density type buildings and towers, with heights similar to the Current Proposal, that have been approved outside of the PMTSA, including a 24-storey (87 m) tower at 1266 QSW in 2024 and a 29-storey (92 m) tower at 340 Dufferin Street in 2025.

136The case of 1213763 Ontario Inc. v. Toronto (City), 2019 CarswellOnt 108 (“1213763 Ontario Inc.”) references a pre-hearing conference in which a party sought an order from the Tribunal confirming an OPA and SASP did not apply and are not relevant to the applications that are before the Tribunal appeals. The motions regarded the applicability of the Clergy principle. At paragraph [19], 1213763 Ontario Inc. stated:

…The Tribunal also appreciates that the Clergy principle has been developed through Board cases, and while indirectly addressed by the Divisional Court, is not binding precedent. However, the tenets of natural justice and procedural fairness that underlie the principle—that is, that an applicant should have certainty regarding the policies against which its application will be determined, and also know the case it must answer before the Tribunal—is not a principle that this panel is prepared to alter.

137At paragraph [21] of 1213763 Ontario Inc. the Panel Member stated:

The Tribunal will therefore grant 1213’s requested relief in part. The Tribunal finds no basis for 1213’s appeals to be determined in accordance with OPA 419 and SASP 551. Therefore, any issue referring to those policies should be removed from the Issues List as 1213 has requested. If, however, OPA 419 and SASP 551 are in force at the time the Tribunal hears 1213’s appeals, the parties may, consistent with prior Board decisions, make submissions as to how OPA 419 and SASP 551 may be relevant, but not determinative.

138Similarly to the present case, the Tribunal finds that SASP 566 may be relevant, but not determinative.

139The cases of Bahardoust v. Toronto (City), 2021 CarswellOnt 14423 (“Bahardoust”), and Dementia Care (London) Inc. v. London (City), 2023 CarswellOnt 14439 both refer to the Clergy principle. At paragraph [140] of Bahardoust, the Tribunal Panel stated;

As the reviewing court said in Clergy, the Tribunal has the discretion, if the circumstances of the case warrant the application of another principle, to do so. For instance, it may choose in its procedural discretion to consider and apply more recent policies and more modern standards that are consistent with a compelling public interest.

140Similarly in the case at hand, the Tribunal has considered the relevancy of SASP 566.

141The case Dementia Care (London) Inc. v. London (City), 2023 CarswellOnt 14439 is in reference to the Clergy principle, where the Member in that instance did not apply it. Similarly to the circumstance of this case at hand, a Tribunal Order clearly states the Subject Site cannot be prejudiced by certain SASP 566 policies. The Tribunal also finds that, in this case, it is not necessary to apply the Clergy principle.

SUMMARY OF DISPOSITION

142The Tribunal finds the Current Proposal, draft OPA, and draft ZBA have appropriate regard for the applicable matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act, are consistent with the PPS 2024, conform to the City OP, and have appropriate regard for applicable guidelines. The Current Proposal, which provides for new housing within a PMTSA and a design that provides for the adaptive reuse of the conserved Heritage Building, emphasizing the low-rise scale along QSW, represents good planning and is in the public interest. The Current Proposal appropriately conserves the cultural heritage value of the Subject Site, and complies with municipal heritage policy and recognized professional standards and best practices in the field of heritage conservation in Canada.

143All witnesses agreed that a final order should be withheld, if approved by the Tribunal, to allow the City Solicitor, relevant City staff, and the Tribunal an opportunity to review the final instruments.

INTERIM Order

144THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

(a) The appeals with respect to the applications for Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”), Heritage Alteration Permit and Demolition Permit are allowed, in part, on an interim basis, subject to the conditions identified in Attachment 3;

(b) The OPA, set out in Attachment 1 to this Interim Order, is approved in principle;

(c) The ZBA, set out in Attachment 2 to this Interim Order, is approved in principle;

(d) The Member is seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft OPA and ZBA and the issuance of the Final Order with respect thereto; and

(e) The Tribunal may be spoken to should any issues arise in finalizing the OPA and ZBA for final approval.

“Eric S. Crowe”

ERIC S. CROWE

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

Authority: Ontario Land Tribunal Decision issued on ---- and Ontario Land Tribunal

Order issued on --- in Tribunal File OLT-24-000538

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW ###- 202X (OLT)

To adopt Amendment ### to the Official Plan for the City of Toronto with respect

to the lands municipally known in the year 2024 as 1117 Queen Street West.

Whereas the Owner of the lands appealed a proposed official plan amendment to the

Ontario Land Tribunal pursuant to Section 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.

P.13, as amended; and

Whereas the Ontario Land Tribunal, by its Decision issued on --- in File OLT-24-000538

and the Ontario Land Tribunal Order issued on --- in File OLT-24-000538 approved

amendments to the Official Plan for the City of Toronto with respect to the lands;

The Ontario Land Tribunal Orders:

1. The attached Amendment XXX to the Official Plan is hereby in force pursuant to the Planning Act, as amended. Pursuant to Ontario Land Tribunal Decision issued on --- and Ontario Land Tribunal Order issued on --- in Tribunal File OLT-24-000538.

AMENDMENT ### TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN

LANDS MUNICIPALLY KNOWN IN THE YEAR 2024 AS

1117 QUEEN STREET WEST

The Official Plan of the City of Toronto is amended as follows:

1. Chapter 7, Site Area and Specific Policies is amended by adding Site Area and

Specific Policy XXX for the lands known municipally in the year 2024 as 1117

Queen Street West as follows:

XXX. 1117 Queen Street West

(a) A mixed use building with a maximum height of 92.0 metres (exclusive of

mezzanine and mechanical penthouse) is permitted, provided the development conserves and incorporates the existing Postal Station C building.

ATTACHMENT 2

Authority: Ontario Land Tribunal Decision issued on ---- and Ontario Land Tribunal

Order issued on --- in Tribunal File OLT-24-000538

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW ###- 202X (OLT)

To amend Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, with respect to the lands

municipally known in the year 2024 as 1117 Queen Street West.

Whereas the Ontario Land Tribunal, in its Decision issued on --- and its Order issued on

---, 202X, in File OLT-24-000538 in hearing an appeal under Section 34(11) of the

Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P13, as amended, ordered the amendment of Zoning Bylaw 569-2013, as amended, with respect to the lands municipally known in the year

2024 as 1117 Queen Street West; and

Whereas pursuant to Section 39 of the Planning Act, as amended, the Council of a

Municipality may, in a By-law passed under Section 34 of the Planning Act, authorize

the temporary use of land, buildings or structures for any purpose set out therein that is

otherwise prohibited in the By-law;

The Ontario Land Tribunal, by Order, amends By-law 569-2013 as follows:

1. The lands subject to this By-law are outlined by heavy black lines on Diagram

1 attached to this By-law.

2. The words highlighted in bold type in this By-law have the meaning provided

in Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, Chapter 800 Definitions.

3. Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by adding the

lands subject to this By-law to the Zoning By-law Map in Section 990.1, and

applying the following zone label to these lands: CR (x###) as shown on

Diagram 2 attached to this By-law.

4. Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by adding the

lands subject to this By-law to the Policy Areas Overlay Map in Article

995.10.1 and applying the following Policy Area label to these lands: PA4,

as shown on Diagram 3 attached to this By-law.

5. Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by adding the lands

to the Height Overlay Map in Article 995.20.1, and applying the following height

and storey label to these lands: HT 16.0, as shown on Diagram 4 attached to

this By-law.

6. Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by adding the

City of Toronto By-law ###-202X (OLT)

lands to the Lot Coverage Overlay Map in Article 995.30.1, and applying no

value.

7. Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by adding Article

900.11.10 Exception Number CR #### so that it reads:

(###) Exception CR ###

The lands, or a portion thereof as noted below, are subject to the following Site

Specific Provisions, Prevailing By-laws and Prevailing Sections:

Site Specific Provisions:

(A) On lands municipally known as 1117 Queen Street West if the

requirements of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law number] are

complied with, a building or structure may be constructed, used or

enlarged in compliance with Regulations (B) to (Q) below;

(B) Despite regulations 40.5.40.10(1) and (2), the height of a building or

structure is the distance between the Canadian Geodetic Datum of

90.65 metres and the elevation of the highest point of the building or

structure;

(C) Despite regulation 40.10.40.10(1)(2) or (3), the permitted maximum

height of a building or structure is the numerical value in metres

following the letters "HT" as shown on Diagram 5 of By-law [Clerks to

insert By-law number];

(D) Despite regulations 40.5.40.10(3) to (8) and (C) above, the following

equipment and structures may project beyond the permitted

maximum height shown on Diagram 5 of By-law [Clerks to insert Bylaw

number]:

(i) equipment used for the functional operation of the building,

including electrical, utility, mechanical and ventilation equipment,

as well as enclosed stairwells, roof access, maintenance

equipment storage, elevator shafts, chimneys, and vents, by a

maximum of 6.0 metres;

(ii) structures that enclose, screen, or cover the equipment,

structures and parts of a building listed in (i) above,

including a mechanical penthouse, by a maximum of 6.5

metres;

(iii) roof finish build-up may project above the mechanical

penthouse listed in (ii) by a maximum of 1.0 metres;

(iv) architectural features, parapets, and elements and structures

associated with a green roof, by a maximum of 2.2 metres;

(v) building maintenance units and window washing equipment, by a

maximum of 6.0 metres

(vi) planters, landscaping features, guard rails, and divider screens

on a balcony and/or terrace, by a maximum of 2.5 metres;

(vii) antennae, flagpoles and satellite dishes, by a maximum of 3.0

metres; and

(viii) trellises, pergolas, and unenclosed structures providing safety or

wind protection to rooftop amenity space, by a maximum of 4.5

metres;

(E) Despite regulation 40.10.40.10(7), a mezzanine does not constitute a

storey;

(F) Despite regulation 40.10.40.40(1), the permitted maximum gross

floor area of all buildings and structures is 18,800 square metres,

of which:

(i) the permitted maximum gross floor area for residential uses is

17,900 square metres;

(ii) the required minimum gross floor area for non-residential uses

at grade is 250 square metres;

(G) Despite regulation 40.10.40.50(1), amenity space must be provided

and maintained at a minimum rate of 3.0 square metres for each

dwelling unit, of which:

(i) at least 2.5 square metres for each dwelling unit is indoor

amenity space;

(ii) at least 0.5 square metres is outdoor amenity space for each

dwelling unit;

(iii) no more than 25% of the outdoor component may be a green

roof;

(H) The provision of dwelling units must comply with the following:

(i) A minimum of 15 percent of the total number of dwelling

units on the lot must contain minimum of two or more

bedrooms;

(ii) a minimum of 10 percent of the total number of dwelling

units on the lot must contain a minimum of three or more

bedrooms;

(iii) any dwelling units with three or more bedrooms provided to

satisfy (ii) above are not included in the provision required

by (i) above; and

(iv) if the calculation of the number of required dwelling units

with two or three bedrooms results in a number with a

fraction, the number shall be rounded up to the nearest

whole number;

(I) Despite regulation 40.10.40.70(1)(2) or (3), the required

minimum building setbacks are as shown in metres on Diagram

5 of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law number];

(J) Despite Clause 40.10.40.60 and (I) above, the following elements may

encroach into the required minimum building setbacks and main wall

separation distances as follows:

(i) decks, porches, and balconies, by a maximum of 2.0 metres;

(ii) canopies and awnings, by a maximum of 3.0 metres;

(iii) exterior stairs, access ramps and elevating devices, by a

maximum of 2.5 metres;

(iv) cladding added to the exterior surface of the main wall of a

building, by a maximum of 0.7 metres;

(v) architectural features, such as a pilaster, decorative column,

cornice, sill, belt course, or chimney breast, by a maximum of

0.7 metres;

(vi) window projections, including bay windows and box windows,

by a maximum of 1.8 metres;

(vii) eaves, by a maximum of 1.0 metres;

(viii) a dormer, by a maximum of 1.0 metres; and

(ix) air conditioners, satellite dishes, antennae, vents, and pipes, by

a maximum of 1.5 metres;

(K) Despite Regulation 200.5.10.1(1), 200.15.10.10, Table 200.15.10.5

and Table 200.5.10.1, parking spaces shall be provided in

accordance with the following;

(i) a minimum of 0 residential occupant parking spaces for each

dwelling unit, but not exceeding the permitted maximum in

Table 200.5.10.1 for dwelling units in a Mixed Use Building in

Parking Zone A;

(ii) a minimum of 0 residential visitor parking spaces for each

dwelling unit;

(iii) a minimum of 0 parking spaces for every 100 square metres

of gross floor area devoted to non-residential uses, but not

exceeding the permitted maximum in Table 200.5.10.1 for nonresidential

uses in Tier 2 and 4 in Parking Zone A;

(iv) a minimum of 0 accessible parking spaces.

(L) Despite Regulation 230.5.1.10(9), “long-term” bicycle parking spaces

may be located on the third storey of the building;

(M) Despite Regulation 230.5.1.10(4)(A)(ii), the required minimum

dimensions of a stacked bicycle parking space are:

(i) Length of 1.8 metres;

(ii) Width of 0.46 metres; and

(iii) Vertical clearance of 1.2 metres

(N) Despite Regulation 230.5.1.10(10), “short-term” bicycle parking spaces

may also be located in a stacked bicycle parking space;

(O) Despite Regulations 230.5.1.10(9) and 230.40.1.20(1) and (2), both

"long-term" and “short-term” bicycle parking spaces may be located in a

secured room, in a locker, or area on any floor of the building above, at or

below ground level without being subject to any level increment

requirement and may be located more than 30 metres from a pedestrian

entrance to the building.

(P) Despite Regulation 230.40.1.20(2), with regards to the location of “short

term” bicycle parking spaces, does not apply.

(Q) Despite Regulation 230.5.1.10(10), stacked bicycle parking spaces are

subject to the following:

(i) a "long-term" bicycle parking space may be located in a

stacked bicycle parking space; and

(ii) a "short-term" bicycle parking space may be located in a

stacked bicycle parking space;

(R) Despite Clause 220.5.10.1, one (1) Type "G" loading space must be

provided.

Prevailing By-laws and Prevailing Sections: (None apply).

8. Despite any future severance, partition or division of the lands as shown on

Diagram 1 of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law number], the provisions of this Bylaw

shall apply as if no severance, partition, or division occurred.

9. Temporary Use(s):

(A) None of the provisions of By-law 569-2013, as amended, or this By-law

apply to prevent the erection and use of a temporary sales office, which is a

temporary building, structure, facility, or trailer on the lands used

exclusively for the purpose of marketing or sale of dwelling units or

nonresidential gross floor area, on the lands to which this By-law applies for

a period of 3 years from the date this By-law comes into full force and

effect, after which this temporary use permission expires.

ATTACHMENT 3

CONDITIONS

The Heritage Appeals:

With respect the appeals of City Council's refusal to issue permits under subsection 33(9) and 34.1(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Appellant consent to and the City will request that the OLT approve:

a. the alterations to the designated heritage property at 1117 Queen Street West in accordance with Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act to allow for the construction of a new mixed-use building, illustrated on the plans and drawings prepared by Giannone Petricone Associates, dated May 15, 2025 submitted with the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated September 26, 2023, and Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated May 15,2025 on file with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, all subject to and in accordance with a

Conservation Plan satisfactory to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning and subject to conditions as set out below; and

b. the removal of heritage attributes at the designated heritage property at 1117 Queen Street West in accordance with Section 34(1)1 of the Ontario Heritage Act to allow for the construction of a new mixed-use building in conjunction with an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal, illustrated on the plans and drawings prepared Giannone Petricone Associates, dated May 15, 2025 submitted with the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated September 26, 2023, and

Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated May 15, 2025 on file with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, all subject to and in accordance with a Conservation Plan satisfactory to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning and subject to conditions as set out below.

i. that the related Official Plan Zoning By-law Amendments have come into full force and effect;

ii. prior to the issuance of an Ontario Land Tribunal order in connection with the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment appeals for the property at 1117 Queen Street West, the owner shall provide a detailed Conservation Plan, prepared by a qualified heritage consultant, which is substantially in accordance with the conservation strategy set out in the Heritage Impact Assessment for 1117 Queen Street West prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated September 26, 2023, and the Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated May 15, 2025 (including the curved design of the addition, and the reveal), and which details all future conservation e􀆯orts as part of this application, all to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning;

iii. prior to the issuance of an Ontario Land Tribunal order in connection with the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment appeals for the property at 1117 Queen Street West, the owner shall enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City for the property at 1117 Queen Street West in accordance with the plans and drawings prepared by Giannone Petricone Associates, dated May 15, 2025 (including the curved design of the addition and the reveal), submitted with the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated September 26, 2023, and the Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated May 15, 2025, and in accordance with the required Conservation Plan to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, including execution and registration of this agreement, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor;

iv. prior to the issuance of any permit for all or any part of the property at 1117 Queen Street West, including a heritage permit or a building permit, but excluding permits for repairs and maintenance and usual and minor works for the existing heritage building, as are acceptable to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, the owner of the subject property shall:

1. provide a Heritage Lighting Plan that describes how the exterior of the heritage properties will be sensitively illuminated to enhance their heritage character, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning and thereafter shall implement such a plan to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager Heritage Planning;

2. provide an Interpretation Plan for the subject property, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning and thereafter shall implement such plan to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning;

3. submit a Signage Plan to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning;

4. provide a detailed Landscape Plan for the subject properties, satisfactory to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning;

5. provide building permit drawings, including notes and specifications for the conservation and protective measures keyed to the approved Conservation Plan required in Recommendation 2.b, including a description of materials and finishes, to be prepared by the project architect and a

qualified heritage consultant to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; and

6. provide a Letter of Credit, including provision for upwards indexing, in a form and amount and from a bank satisfactory to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, to secure all work included in the approved Conservation Plan and the approved Interpretation Plan;

v. prior to the release of the required Letter of Credit required, the owner shall:

1. provide a letter of substantial completion prepared and signed by a qualified heritage consultant, confirming that the required conservation work and the required interpretive work has been completed in accordance with the Conservation and Interpretation Plans and that an

appropriate standard of conservation has been maintained, all to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; and

2. provide replacement Heritage Easement Agreement photographs to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning.

The OPA/ZBA Appeals

With respect to the appeal of the City Council's refusal of the applications under subsections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, the Appellant will request that the OLT, should it allow the appeals, impose the following conditions of the final order:

a. the owner has submitted a revised Servicing Report, Stormwater Management Report, Hydrogeological Review, including the Foundation Drainage Report ("Engineering Reports") to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, in consultation with the General Manager, Toronto Water;

b. the owner has secured the design and the provision of financial securities in respect of any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure identified in the accepted Engineering Reports, all to support the development, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and the General Manager, Toronto Water, should it be determined that improvements or upgrades are required to support the development, according to the Engineering Reports, accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director,

Engineering and Construction Services and the General Manager, Toronto Water; and

c. the owner has ensured that implementation of the accepted Engineering Reports does not require changes to the proposed amending By-law or that any required changes have been made to the proposed amending By-law to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review and the City Solicitor, including the use of a Holding ("H") By-law symbol regarding any new municipal servicing infrastructure or upgrades to existing municipal servicing infrastructure, as may be required;

d. the owner has provided a detailed Conservation Plan prepared by a qualified heritage consultant that is substantially in accordance with the conservation strategy set out in the Heritage Impact Assessment for 1117 Queen Street West prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated September 26, 2023, and Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated May 15, 2025 (including the curved design of the addition, and the reveal) and details all future conservation efforts

as part of this application, all to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning;

e. the owner has entered into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City for the property at 1117 Queen Street West in accordance with the plans and drawings prepared by Giannone Petricone Associates, dated May 15, 2025 (including the curved design of the addition, and reveal) submitted with the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated September 26, 2023, and Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated May 15, 2025

(including the curved design of the addition, and the reveal), and in accordance with the required Conservation Plan to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning, including execution and registration of such agreement to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor on the lands municipally known as 1117 Queen Street West;

f. the instruments have secured the (1) curved design of the addition, (2) the reveal, (3) and loading Option 2 in the Transportation Addendum dated May 2025, which will require improvements to the laneway and park edge; and,

g. if in finalizing the form of zoning by-law the parties disagree as to whether a holding provision is appropriate, the Tribunal may be spoken to regarding the appropriateness of such request.