Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 04, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000668

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Applicant/Appellant: 5799 Yonge Street Limited Partnership

Subject: Zoning By-law

Description: to permit the expansion of the permitted non-residential uses and allow additional non-residential uses above the second storey

Reference Number: 25 134322 NNY 18 OZ

Property Address: 5799-5915 Yonge Street and 46 and 47 Averill Crescent

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-25-000668

OLT Case Name: 5799 Yonge Street Limited Partnership v. Toronto (City)

Heard: January 22, 2026 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties 5799 Yonge Street Limited Partnership City of Toronto

Counsel Michael Foderick Aleah Lavalley-Lewis Jonathan Nehmetallah (in absentia) Ray Kallio

DECISION DELIVERED BY A. MASON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This is the decision arising from a merit hearing considering an appeal by 5799 Yonge Street Limited Partnership (“Appellant”) under s. 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (“Act”), of a zoning by-law amendment approved as By-law 855-2025 (“By-law”) by Council for the City of Toronto (“City”) for the properties at 5799-5915 Yonge Street and 46 & 47 Averill Crescent (“Lands”). Although the By-law was approved, the version adopted by Council modifies the permissions for non-residential uses for the Lands from what was sought by the Appellant in their application and recommended for approval by City staff. The Appellant seeks an Order from the Tribunal, under s. 34(26) of the Act, modifying the approved By-law to reflect the approvals initially sought in the zoning by-law application to expand the permitted non-residential uses and allow for additional non-residential uses across all blocks of the Lands.

2The City attended the merit hearing in opposition to the modification of the By-law; however, it did not present an expert witness, evidence or legal submissions to that end.

3Where there is an appeal of a zoning by-law under s. 34(19) of the Act, the Tribunal must consider whether the modifications requested are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (“PPS 2024”), conforms with applicable provincial plans, the City of Toronto Official Plan (“Official Plan”) and North York Centre Secondary Plan (“Secondary Plan”), and whether such modifications represent good planning. In making its decision, the Tribunal must also have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act, and the information and material that Council received in relation to the matter under s. 2.1(2).

4Having considered the uncontested evidence and submissions of the Appellant, the Tribunal finds that the requested modifications to the approved By-law meet the applicable policy and legislative tests and constitute good planning. The Tribunal orders the appeal is allowed and the By-law is amended as set out in this Decision.

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND

5The Lands are located at the southeast corner of Yonge Street and Cummer Avenue and cover 15.1 hectares. The site is identified as within the Finch Protected Major Transit Station Area (Finch PMTSA), being approximately 550m north of the Finch Subway Station.

6Originally, an official plan amendment and site-specific zoning by-law amendment were submitted for the Lands in 2011 to create a new mixed-use project with three development blocks and four towers. That application was approved through a settlement with the City, reflected in Site Specific Zoning By-law 64-2021 (“By-law 64-2021”) that amends the former City of North York By-law 7625 and OPA 208. Importantly, the approvals provided for a minimum of 10,000 square meters of gross floor area devoted to office uses across the development.

7In 2020, the City initiated a further official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment for the Lands, increasing the height and density of the towers in Block 2 from 28 to 37 storeys and 34 to 40 storeys, in exchange for an expanded community recreation facility. These modifications were implemented in Site Specific Zoning By-law 75-2021 (amending the former By-law 64-2021), and OPA 519 (amending the former OPA 208).

8Today, Block 1, containing two towers connected by a seven-storey podium, is constructed, and the residential component is occupied. In March 2025, facing leasing challenges for the non-residential and office component of the development, the Appellant submitted further applications for official plan amendment (“Official Plan Application”) and zoning by-law amendment (“Zoning Application”). These applications requested to replace references to “Office” with “Non-residential” (although continuing to include “Office” and ancillary uses) to allow for flexibility of a wider range of non-residential uses across the entirety of the Lands to expand potential leasing opportunities. The Zoning Application was required to remove the existing zoning restrictions limiting the non-residential use across the development to “Office” and to permit the additional non-residential uses above the second floor (without the additional of new gross floor area).

9A Decision Report (“Report”) recommending approval of the Official Plan Application and Zoning Application was brought forward to Council for adoption. Council adopted the proposed draft Official Plan Amendment, which was adopted as recommended and enacted as By-law 856-2025. In contrast, the Zoning Application was adopted with modifications and enacted as By-law 855-2026, amending Site Specific Zoning By-law 64-2021 and amending the former City of North York By-law 7625.

10By-law 855-2025 modified the requested changes in the Zoning Application and what Staff recommended for approval in the Report in two ways:

1. Specific non-residential uses that were permitted in floors 1-2 in all three phases of the development (in Site Specific Zoning By-law 64-2021) were removed from the permitted uses in Phases 2 and 3, as follows: i. Car rental agencies*, ii. Dry-cleaning and laundry collecting establishments, iii. Retail stores, including grocery, supermarkets and pharmacies, iv. Restaurants, including take-out, and v. Studios*.

(*Pursuant to s. 5(a)(iii) of Bylaw 64-2021, these uses were also permitted below grade on all three phases, which was not proposed to be altered in the Zoning Application or Staff recommended approval).

2. Specific additional non-residential uses, which under bylaw 64-2021 were not explicitly permitted at all, were requested changes in the Zoning Application and what Staff recommended for approval on all floors and all phases “first floor and above” were instead restricted to Phase 1 only i. Clubs, ii. Commercial schools, iii. Pinball and video game arcades, iv. Commercial recreational facilities, and v. Service shops.

11The Appellant appealed By-law 855-2025 seeking to have the Tribunal modify it to provide for the permissions requested in the Zoning Application and recommended by staff for approval in the Report.

DO THE APPELLANT’S REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS TO BY-LAW 855-2025 MEET THE STATUTORY AND POLICY TESTS?

12The Appellant presented Michael S. Goldberg, a Registered Professional Planner and Member, to provide a written witness statement and viva voce opinion evidence on its behalf. The Tribunal qualified Mr. Goldberg to provide land use planning opinion evidence in this matter.

13Mr. Goldberg testified that, under the PPS 2024, the Lands are located in a Strategic Growth Area and a Major Transit Station Area serviced by Higher Order Transit and Frequent Transit. Mr. Goldberg opined that the requested modifications to By-law 855-2025 are consistent with PPS 2024 policy 2.4.1.2 that supports achieving complete communities within strategic growth areas by expanding the list of non-residential uses, thereby increasing leasing opportunities and filling the non-residential gross floor area across the development more expeditiously. From this, Mr. Goldberg opined that the Appellant’s requested modifications are consistent with the relevant PPS 2024 policies.

14With respect to the relevant Official Plan policies, Mr. Goldberg testified that the proposed modification to By-law 855-2025 conforms to the policies in s. 4.5 directed at Mixed Use Areas. Mr. Goldberg opined that the expansion of non-residential uses across the development will increase the range of commercial uses, thereby creating a wider range of employment uses, contributing to a complete community and potentially reducing car dependency.

15Mr. Goldberg testified that the proposed amendments to By-law 855-2025 conform with the policies in Official Plan Amendment 570 that implements a framework facilitating transit supportive development through delineation of Protected Major Transit Station Areas. Mr. Goldberg opined that since the Lands are within the Finch PMTSA, the proposed modifications will contribute to meeting the employment density target of 350 residents and jobs per hectare.

16Overall, Mr. Goldberg opined that the proposed modifications to By-law 855-2025 to permit an expanded list of non-residential uses throughout all phases of the development are consistent with the PPS 2024, conform to the Official Plan and Secondary Plan, contributing to a complete community by providing greater flexibility in non-residential uses at a prime location. As a result, Mr. Goldberg opined that approval of the modifications is warranted by the Tribunal, would be in the public interest and represents good planning.

17In considering the uncontroverted written and viva voce evidence presented by Mr. Goldberg, the Tribunal is persuaded that the Appellant’s proposed amendments to By-law 855-2025 that increase the permitted non-residential uses across all phases of the development satisfies the applicable policy and legislative tests. Specifically, the Tribunal is satisfied the proposal would implement and meet the applicable Mixed Use Area policies in the Official Plan and Secondary Plan. Further, the uncontroverted opinion of Mr. Goldberg that the proposed amendments are consistent with PPS 2024 policies for Protected Major Transit Station Areas is persuasive. The Tribunal accepts that a broader range of non-residential uses beyond the original “Office” approvals is necessary to reflect the changing leasing environment that has occurred since the original By-law 855-2025 was approved. Further, the Tribunal is convinced that by expanding the use of non-residential uses in By-law 855-2025 for both the constructed Phase 1 and the unconstructed Phase 2 and 3, the Lands will be more able to effectively and quickly achieve the overarching policy objective of a complete and functional community in an important and strategic transit location.

ORDER

18THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal by 5799 Yonge Street Limited Partnership under subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, is allowed, in part, and the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is approved.

2. Zoning By-law No. 64-2021 is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.

3. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk to format the zoning by-law in Attachment 1, as may be necessary, for record keeping purposes only.

“A. Mason”

A. MASON 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