Cartareal Corporation N.V. v. Toronto (City), 2026 CanLII 9710

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 02, 2026

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-23-001079

OLT-24-000714

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

Applicant and Appellant:

Cartareal Corporation N.V.

Subject:

Application to amend the Zoning By-law-Refusal or Failure to make a decision

Description:

To permit a 64-storey mixed-use building containing 704 residential units

Reference Number:

22 198152 STE 11 OZ

Property Address:

505 University Avenue

Municipality/UT:

Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-23-001079

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-001079

OLT Case Name:

Cartareal Corporation N.V. v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant:

Cartareal Corporation N.V.

Subject:

Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description:

To permit a 64-storey mixed-use building containing 704 residential units

Reference Number:

24 118172 STE 11 OZ

Property Address:

505 University Avenue

Municipality/UT:

Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-24-000714

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-24-000714

OLT Case Name:

Cartareal Corporation N.V. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 29 (11) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 18

Appellant:

Cartareal Corporation N.V.

Description:

Designate 505 University Avenue as a heritage property

Reference Number:

By-law 505-2024

Property Address:

505 University Avenue

Municipality/UT:

Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-24-000726

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-24-000726

OLT Case Name:

Cartareal Corporation N.V. v. Toronto (City)

Heard:

November 25, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Cartareal Corporation

Mary Flynn-Guglietti

City of Toronto

Daniel Elmadany

481 Uni Investments Inc.

Jonathan Marun-Batista Maggie Bassani (in absentia)

INTERIM DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BOBKA AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This Hearing event pertained to appeals filed pursuant to ss. 34(11) and 22(7) of the Planning Act (“PA”) following the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to render decisions within the required timeframe regarding applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) with respect to the property municipally known as 505 University Avenue (“Subject Property”).

2The proposed development was to permit a 64-storey mixed-use building containing 704 residential units, a 12-storey office podium and 4 storeys of below-grade parking.

3The Tribunal was informed before the start of this Hearing event, that the appeal filed pursuant to s. 29(11) of the Ontario Heritage Act (“OHA”) was formally withdrawn and it was not considered by the Tribunal.

4The Parties reached a settlement which was brought forward for the Tribunal’s consideration at this Hearing event.

CONSOLIDATION

5While a motion had been contemplated regarding consolidation of the matters, no formal ruling had yet made as to whether these matters should be consolidated or heard together.

6The Parties were in agreement and submitted that consolidation would be appropriate in this case. As the matters involve the same property and evidence would be presented by the same expert witnesses, the Tribunal found it appropriate to consolidate the matters in accordance with Rules 16.1 and 16.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

HEARING

7Upon review of their respective Curricula Vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty forms, the Tribunal qualified Michael Goldberg to provide opinion evidence in land use planning and Christopher Borgal to provide opinion evidence in heritage architecture.

Background

8The ZBA was filed with the City on August 29, 2022, and its purpose was to redevelop the subject site with a 64-storey mixed use tower containing 46,683 sq. m of residential gross floor area (“GFA”), 24,919 square metres (“sq. m”) of office GFA and 460 sq. m of retail GFA (“Original Submission”).

9The OPA was filed with the City on February 20, 2024, and would exempt the Subject Site from the office replacement Policy 6.14 of the City’s Downtown Secondary Plan (the “Downtown Plan”), among other matters.

10On October 8, 2025, City Council passed a resolution endorsing the approval, in principle, of the ZBA and OPA applications and requesting that the Tribunal withhold its Final Order until certain conditions are satisfied. These conditions relate to heritage, servicing, design, transportation and view corridor, among other matters.

Subject Property

11Mr. Goldberg provided the Tribunal with a detailed overview of the Subject Property’s location and context. It is generally flat and is located on the northeast corner of University Avenue and Edward Street in the Downtown area of the City. It is rectangular in shape, is 3,328 sq. m in size, with frontage of approximately 48 metres (“m”) on University Avenue and frontage of approximately 68.4 m on Edward Street.

12The following shows the aerial context of the Subject Property:

(Exhibit 3, page 2)

13The Subject Property is:

a. Currently occupied by a 20-storey commercial office tower with retail at grade containing 22,115 sq. m of office GFA;

b. Zoned Commercial-Residential Zone CR 7.8 (c4.5; r7.8) SS1 (x2197) pursuant to the City’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law 569-2013 which permits mixed-use buildings to a maximum height of 76.0 m;

c. Designated as Mixed-Use Areas on Map 18 – Land Use Plan in the City’s Official Plan (“OP”)

d. Located within the Downtown Plan and is subject to policies that guide development in the Downtown and near existing and planned rapid transit stations;

e. Located in proximity to three subway stations (St Patrick station, Queen’s Park station, and Osgoode station); and,

f. Identified within five Ministerially-approved Protected Major Transit Station Areas (“PMTSAs”) including St Patrick (SASP 610), Queen’s Park (SASP 611), Dundas (SASP 604), Osgoode (SASP 609), and College (SASP 603).

14As explained by Mr. Goldberg, the Subject Property is “surrounded by, and in close proximity to, a mix of tall high density residential, mixed-use, institutional, and office buildings. Numerous tall buildings are approved and exist within the area of the Subject Site and throughout the Downtown Area …” including:

i. An existing 14-storey SickKids Foundation office building (525 University Avenue) to the immediate north;

ii. An existing 5-storey University of Toronto institutional building (124 Edward Street) to the immediate east;

iii. A 55-storey mixed use building (481 University Avenue) currently under construction to the immediate south; and

iv. An approved 64-storey mixed use building (500-522 University Avenue) to the immediate west.

15Regarding the context of the area, as stated by Mr. Goldberg, the Subject Property is:

within immediate walking proximity and access to existing subway stations and surface transit and is located in a part of the City where tall dense buildings exist, are approved, and where additional significant population and employment growth is planned and directed... [It is] well served by community facilities, indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, public and private, educational and other institutional facilities … [It] is within close walking distance to a large concentration of employers … [including] the Health Sciences District, and the University of Toronto … [and is near] existing transit, shops, services, restaurants, commercial, institutional uses, and entertainment uses. (Exhibit 1, page 10, paragraphs 4.35 – 4.36)

Proposed Development

16As explained by Mr. Goldberg, the Architectural Plans prepared by BDP Quadrangle Architects, dated June 12, 2025, (which are attached to the Settlement Offer endorsed by City Council) include two sets of plans providing two development permissions for the Subject Property:

• Option 1 includes additional non-residential use on the 3rd and 4th floors of the proposed building; and

• Option 2 includes affordable housing on the 3rd and 4th floors of the proposed building in place of additional non-residential uses.

17As described by Mr. Goldberg, the draft instruments, contained in the settlement proposal and before the Tribunal, incorporate both of the development permissions and with regard to the draft ZBA, in order to use “… the second development permission, a holding symbol is used respecting residential uses on a portion of the building for affordable housing which will require the owner to enter into an agreement with the City to secure the provision of affordable housing.”

18The following chart was provided comparing the Original Submission with the Revised Proposal:

Table 1: Site and Building Statistics

Original Submission (August 2022)

Revised Proposal (June 12, 2025)

Option 1

Option 2

Site Area

3,328 sq. m. (0.8ac)(0.3 ha)

3,328 sq. m. (0.8ac)(0.3 ha)

Total GFA

72,062 sq. m

61,041 sq.m.

60,569 sq.m.

Total Residential GFA

46,683 sq. m

57,439 sq.m.

59,716 sq.m.

Total Non-Residential GFA

24,919 sq. m

3,602 sq.m.

853 sq.m.

Floor Space Index

21.65

18.34

18.20

Dwelling Units

704 Units

(100%)

856 Units

(100%)

892 Units (100%)

incl. 36 affordable

One-bedroom

400 (56.8%)

550 (64.3%)

579 (64.9%)

Two-bedroom

168 (23.9%)

214 (25%)

222 (24.9%)

Three-bedroom

136 (19.3%)

87 (10.2%)

91 (10.2%)

Amenity Space

2,846 sq.m.

3,603 sq.m.

(4.2 sq.m./unit)

3,603 sq.m.

(4.0 sq.m./unit)

Indoor Amenity Space

1,428 sq. m

2,707 sq.m.

(3.16 sq.m./unit)

2,707 sq.m.

(3.0 sq.m./unit)

Outdoor Amenity Space

1,418 sq. m

896 sq.m.

(1.1 sq.m./unit)

896 sq.m.

(1.0 sq.m./unit)

Height

64 storeys

(206.89 m + 6 m MPH)

63 storeys

(211.9 m + 6 m MPH)

63 storeys

(211.9 m + 6 m MPH)

Podium Height

12 storeys

(48.09 m)

20 storeys (existing building to be commemorated at a height of 81.5 m)

Parking

255

80

78

Resident

171

65

63

Visitor

84

15

15

Bicycle Parking Spaces

814

879

901

(Exhibit 1, pages 11-12, paragraph 5.3)

19In both Options 1 and 2, Mr. Goldberg highlighted several important features of the settlement proposal including, but not limited to:

a. Council approved the application to demolish the existing 20-storey heritage-designated office building (with a height of 81.5 m) under section 34(1)2 of the OHA, with conditions, including that:

i. the existing building be carefully dismantled; and

ii. the Queenston Limestone be salvaged and re-used in the new mixed-use building reconstruction (to a height of 20 storeys) to commemorate the heritage building;

b. The total height of the proposed 63-storey building (including all projections) is 217.9 m, which implements the proposed amendment in the draft OPA with regard to the View Corridor of City Hall;

c. The tower addition on the reconstructed 20-storey heritage building will be set back from the surrounding property lines as follows:

i. By a minimum of 9.5 m from the west lot line (University Avenue);

ii. By a minimum of 12.5 m from the north lot line;

iii. By a minimum of 15 m from the east lot line; and

iv. By a minimum of 3 m from the south lot line (Edward Street).

d. There are two levels of underground parking proposed, with a maximum of 80 spaces;

e. Commercial/retail space is planned along University Avenue wrapping around the corner to face Edward Street, where the residential lobby is accessed;

f. There will be a total of 3,603 sq.m of amenity space, consisting of 2,707 sq.m of indoor amenity space (on the ground, 2nd, 13th and 22nd floors) and 896 sq.m of outdoor amenity space (on the 2nd, 13th and 22nd floors), which meets the City’s requirement;

g. There will be a Privately-Owned Publicly Accessible Space (“POPS”) of approximately 413.6 sq. m located in front of the residential lobby and the adjacent amenity space; and

h. Driveway access will be along the eastern lot line, to/from Edward Street, and will access the loading spaces and the underground parking ramp (which leads to the two levels of underground parking);

20Mr. Goldberg identified the key differences between the two options:

• Option 1 will include non-residential uses on the 3rd and 4th floors with a minimum setback of 8 m from the north property line. Option 2 will have affordable residential units on the 3rd and 4th floors and as such will have an increased setback of approximately 12.5 m to accommodate functional units in order to avoid units that are too deep. • Option 1 will replace the existing office space by a minimum of 16.3% (being 3,602 sq.m. of the existing 22,115 sq.m.) • Option 2 will include a minimum gross floor area of 2,416 square metres for affordable housing units for an affordability period of at least 40 years and minimum of 853 square metres of non-residential uses at-grade, with implementation secured in a Holding Symbol as generally set out in the Draft ZBA. (Exhibit 1, page 13, paragraph 5.5)

21As explained by Mr. Goldberg, the OPA will “exempt the proposed development from policy 6.1.4 of the City’s Downtown Secondary Plan, which requires 100% replacement of non-residential uses within the Health Sciences District ...” and it will also permit the intrusion within the protected City Hall view corridor.

22The ZBA will implement the proposal through zoning standards including, but not limited to, permitted setbacks, maximum density (GFA), parking rates, building projections, and building height.

Planning Opinion

23Mr. Goldberg opined that the proposal represents “a well-organized site layout that contains appropriate height, density, setbacks, massing, and heritage reconstruction ….”

24It was his opinion that the proposal had regard to relevant matters of provincial interest under s. 2 of the PA as:

• The proposed transit-oriented development will contribute to the efficient use of transportation, sewage and water services; • Redevelopment of the subject site represents the orderly development of a safe and healthy community; • The development will add a range of residential units to the existing stock of housing; • The Subject Site is an appropriate location for growth and development; • The design is sustainable, will support public transit, and is pedestrian oriented; • The cultural heritage values of the existing heritage building will be appropriately commemorated and the full 20 storey reconstructed height as detailed in the Revised HIA, as supported by the engineering and technical heritage studies; and • The built form is well-designed and includes an enhanced streetscape that is accessible, attractive, and increases connection thus contributing to a vibrant sense of place. (Exhibit 1, page 16, paragraph 7.6)

25Regarding the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”), he stated that the proposal is consistent with same, as it:

… redevelops the lands in a manner that optimizes the use of land and infrastructure at this location in the Downtown, supports access to transit, and promotes an appropriate form, scale, massing and site-specific response to the reconstruction of the existing 20-storey heritage office building, while providing for a new mixed use development that is in close proximity to higher order transit. (Exhibit 1, page 15, paragraph 7.4)

26He specified that the proposal is an example of intensification in an appropriate location, would contribute a range of unit types, including units which are suitable for families (in both Options), as well as the potential for affordable housing units (if Option 2 is selected).

27In terms of the Municipal planning policy context, Mr. Goldberg highlighted that the proposed development implements and satisfies the City’s Official Plan (“OP”) policies regarding Growth Management, The Downtown: The Heart of Toronto, Living Downtown, Bringing the City Together: A Progressive Agenda of Transportation Change, Public Realm and Built Form, Heritage Conservation, Housing, and Mixed-Use Areas.

28Mr. Goldberg said that the proposed settlement conforms to the policies of the Downtown Plan in terms of the scale and location of growth in the Downtown area, as well as the requirements for Mixed Use Areas, built form, shadow impacts, separation distances, and housing. In addition, the proposal meets the requirements of OP Amendment No. 524 and 540 – Downtown Plan PMTSAs and Chapter 8 of the OP relating to transit-supportive development for MTSAs and PMTSAs and will “contribute to the transit-supportive intensification that supports population growth and contributes to meeting the minimum population target.”

29Finally, Mr. Goldberg also opined that the proposal met the applicable City Guidelines, including the:

a. Tall Building Design Guidelines, May 2013/Downtown Tall Buildings Vision and Supplementary Guidelines, July 2012;

b. Tall Building Design Guidelines, May 2013;

c. Downtown Tall Buildings Vision and Supplementary Design Guidelines, July 2012;

d. Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities; and

e. Pet Friendly Design Guidelines and Best Practices for New Multi-Unit Buildings.

30Mr. Goldberg concluded that the proposal will “appropriately accommodate the new development while incorporating reconstruction of the 20 storey heritage building, provides for appropriate tower setbacks to adjacent lot lines and provides for an approximate mix of uses.” He opined that the proposal had regard for the matters of provincial interest, is consistent with the PPS, conforms with the City OP and the Downtown Plan, and is in the public interest.

31Mr. Goldberg spoke to the conditions contained in the Settlement Offer and City Council resolution and said they were appropriate. He recommended that the Tribunal approve the subject OPA and ZBA applications, in principle, and withhold its Final Order, subject to the conditions.

Heritage Policy Opinion

32As described by Mr. Borgal, the existing 20-storey building, which was originally constructed for the Shell Oil Company, is clad in Queenston limestone and was designed in the Modern Classical Style.

33The revised proposal would allow an intrusion into the protected view of City Hall and permit the demolition of the existing building to accommodate a 63-storey tower plus a mechanical penthouse.

34He stated that:

The original 20-storey building demolition will include dismantling, salvage and reconstruction re-using original materials while adhering to the original exterior design of the 20-storey building including its one-storey podium wings. Identified attributes, including the stone cladding, the design of the original building and its features, and the location of the original building on the Site will be reconstructed. (Exhibit 2, pages 3-4, paragraph 12)

35Mr. Borgal initially completed a Heritage Impact Assessment in August 2022, which was updated in August 2025 in support of the amended proposal. He explained that demolition is requested in this case due to structural concerns with the existing 20-storey building, which stems from an “imbalance in the stiffness between the flexibility of the structural steel frame and that of the stiff Queenston Limestone masonry exterior ….” This imbalance will eventually cause the stone to crack under the stress and repairing the cracks would result in a “patchwork of mis-matched stones” as this type of limestone is no longer available for such repairs. He opined that repairing the stone in this manner would accelerate the loss of the heritage value.

36Moreover, the:

… slender form of the building means it is also subject to torsional, or twisting, loads with the bending most severe at the corners at the lower portion of the tower. Consequently, visible distress to the building was found through cracking for over five storeys at the northeast, southeast and southwest corners of the facades. The cracks have seen repeated repairs, but the repairs are unable to address the structural issues that are the root cause of the ‘‘overstressing” of the buildings stone exterior. (Exhibit 2, page 5, paragraph 22)

37For the above reasons, and in keeping with applicable policy documents (including the PPS, the OHA, and the City OP), Mr. Borgal explained that it was not recommended to preserve the existing building in situ, but rather:

… in this circumstance, the integrity of the heritage property has been assessed and demolition, as a last resort, is the only option to extend the life of the property to allow it to continue to express its cultural heritage value in an altered form. (Exhibit 2, page 5, paragraph 24)

38Mr. Borgal concluded that the proposal’s method of dismantling the existing building and reconstructing it using the salvaged Queenston limestone “is the only available approach to commemorate the former Shell Oil Building's cultural heritage value such that its presence will be conveyed at this prominent corner along University Avenue for generations to come.” He further opined that this approach will ensure that the majority of the identified heritage attributes will continue to be expressed which aligns with the relevant PPS and City OP policies.

39Mr. Borgal explained that there would be no adverse heritage impact to the view corridor as:

… the proposed tower is acceptable in this instance as the impact on the protected silhouette is minimal, is not sufficient to undermine the visual prominence of City Hall, and the silhouette of the west tower of City Hall remains legible. As one moves west along Nathan Phillips Square, the proposed building is viewed separately from City Hall and no longer has an impact on the protected view … The draft OPA includes policies to ensure visual impacts will be mitigated through measures such as articulation of the building façade and materiality selection, chosen in consultation with City Staff, to ensure the development appears distinct from and subordinate to City Hall. (Exhibit 2, pages 8-9, paragraphs 35-36)

40Finally, Mr. Borgal expressed his support for the heritage-related conditions.

FINDINGS

41The Tribunal was provided with detailed and uncontroverted evidence from Messrs. Goldberg and Borgal who were each qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in their respective fields. Both witnesses were aligned in their support for the settlement. It was their combined evidence that the proposed development:

a. has regard for the matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the PA;

b. is consistent with the PPS;

c. conforms to the City OP;

d. will ensure that the heritage attributes are commemorated and remain in the public realm and in the Downtown core;

e. represents good planning; and,

f. is in the public interest.

42It is noted that the added Party, 481 Uni Investments Inc., had no objections to the proposed settlement.

43The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted opinion evidence of Messrs. Goldberg and Borgal and finds that the proposed development meets the legislative and policy requirements. Specifically, the Tribunal finds that the proposal satisfies the policies in the City OP, including those related to Growth Management, Mixed Use Areas, Housing, Built Form, and Heritage. Further, the proposal satisfies the policies of the Downtown Plan and the requisite City Guidelines, including the City Tall Building Guidelines and the Growing Up Guidelines.

44The proposed development represents a compact, well-designed built form that will incorporate the reconstruction of the 20-storey heritage building and commemorate the important heritage resources. It is in a suitable location, provides for appropriate tower setbacks to adjacent lot lines, is compatible with the existing and planned area context and supports intensification.

45The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposal will allow for an appropriate mix of uses, and offers new housing, including family-sized units, thereby ensuring a mix of housing options and densities. It is transit-supportive, pedestrian-oriented, represents an efficient use of land and infrastructure, and contributes to a complete community within five delineated PMTSAs.

46The Tribunal has had regard to the matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act and to the decisions of the City (including the City Council resolution of October 8, 2025, endorsing the Settlement Offer) and the information it had before it as required under s. 2.1 of the Act.

47Based on the evidence, as well as the submissions of the Parties, the Tribunal is satisfied that the draft instruments appropriately reflect the settlement, as presented, and include suitable mechanisms to implement the two options.

48The Tribunal finds that the thoughtful design, preservation of heritage attributes, preservation of the view corridor, proximity to transit, employment and amenities, compatibility with the surrounding area and provision of much-needed new housing options all contribute to the Tribunal’s finding that this proposed development, as implemented through the draft OPA and ZBA, represents good planning and is in the public interest.

INTERIM ORDER

49The Tribunal Orders THAT the joint request of the Parties is granted and Tribunal File No. OLT-23-001079 and Tribunal File No. OLT-24-000714 are consolidated, in accordance with Rules 16.1 and 16.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

50The Tribunal FURTHER Orders THAT the appeals are allowed, in part, on an interim basis contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph [51] below, and the Official Plan Amendment set out in Attachment 1 to this Interim Order, and the Zoning By-law Amendment set out in Attachment 2 to this Interim Order, to be generally in accordance with the architectural plans prepared by BDP Quadrangle Architects, dated June 12, 2025, in Exhibit 1, are hereby approved in principle.

51The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon confirmation by the City Solicitor, of the following pre-requisite matters:

a. The Tribunal has received, and approved, the Official Plan Amendment submitted in a final form, confirmed to be satisfactory to the Executive Director, Development Review and the City Solicitor; and

b. The Tribunal has received, and approved, the Zoning By-law Amendment submitted in a final form, confirmed to be satisfactory to the Executive Director, Development Review and the City Solicitor; and

c. The owner has, at its sole expense:

i. provided a detailed Reconstruction and Commemoration Plan prepared by a qualified heritage consultant that is substantially in accordance with the reconstruction and commemoration strategy set out in the Heritage Impact Assessment dated August 22, 2025, prepared by GBCA Architects, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning;

ii. entered into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City for the property at 505 University Avenue substantially in accordance with plans and drawings prepared by BDP Quadrangle Architects, dated June 12, 2025, and submitted in conjunction with the Heritage Impact Assessment, dated August 22, 2025 prepared by GBCA Architects, and in accordance with the Reconstruction and Commemoration Plan required in c.i. above, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning, including execution and registration of this agreement, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor;

iii. submitted a revised Functional Servicing Report and Stormwater Management Report, Hydrogeological Review, including the Foundation Drainage Report ("Engineering Reports") to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Review;

iv. secured the design and provided financial securities in respect of any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure identified in the accepted Engineering Reports, to support the development, all to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Review, should it be determined that improvements or upgrades are required to support the development, according to the Engineering Reports accepted by the Director, Engineering Review;

v. 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, 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;

vi. submitted an updated Transportation Impact Study or Addendum, and updated Parking and Loading Study or Addendum, to reflect revisions to site circulation, loading, parking and access for the development, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services;

vii. submitted a revised Travel Demand Management Plan acceptable to, and to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the General Manager, Transportation Services, and that matters arising from such study be satisfactorily addressed, and secured if required;

viii. submitted an updated Noise Study or Addendum, including any required third party peer review, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review; and

ix. where a zoning provision is requested to be added to the Draft Zoning By-law Amendment arising from Paragraph 7.e. of Confidential Appendix A to the report (September 26, 2025) from the City Solicitor, an updated View Corridor Analysis respecting the protected view of City Hall will be provided to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review and the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning.

52The Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment and the issuance of the Final Order.

53If the Parties do not submit the final drafts of the Official Plan Amendment and the Zoning By-law Amendment, and provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order set out in paragraph [51] above have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order, by Tuesday, December 1,2026, the Applicant and the City shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by that date, as to the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of the Official Plan Amendment and the Zoning By-law Amendment and issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.

54The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by Telephone Conference Call to determine the additional timelines and deadline for the submission of the final form of the instruments, the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisites and the issuance of the Final Order.

“S. Bobka”

S. BOBKA 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