Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 02, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002104 OLT-22-003554

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

Appellant: 1042710 Ontario Limited (aka Royal Centre) Appellant: 1096818 Ontario Inc. Jordan, Ryan, and Brittany Fisch Appellant: 1150 Centre Street GP Inc. Appellant: 1163919 Ontario Ltd., 1888836 Ontario Ltd., and 1211612 Ontario Ltd. Appellant: Armland Management Inc. and others Subject: Zoning By-law Description: New City-wide comprehensive zoning by-law Reference Number: By-law 001-2021 Property Address: City Wide Municipality/UT: Vaughan/York OLT Case No: OLT-22-002104 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002104 OLT Case Name: D'Aversa v. Vaughan (City)

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

Appellant: 1042710 Ontario Limited (aka Royal Centre) Appellant: 1096818 Ontario Inc. Jordan, Ryan, and Brittany Fisch Appellant: 1150 Centre Street GP Inc. Appellant: 1163919 Ontario Ltd., 1888836 Ontario Ltd., and 1211612 Ontario Ltd. Appellant: Armland Management Inc. and others Subject: Zoning By-law Description: Transitional by-law Reference Number: By-law 039-2022 Property Address: City Wide Municipality/UT: Vaughan/York OLT Case No: OLT-22-003554 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002104

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6

Request by: City of Vaughan Motion for: To resolve the appeals pertaining to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 (“CZBL”) involving Appeal Nos. 002758, 004768 and 002747 by Armland Management Inc., in whole or in part, as further elaborated within the text of the Decision and Order below Heard: January 28, 2026, in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Armland Management Inc.	R.G. Miller, A. Lusty
City of Vaughan	P. Patterson, L. English, C. Tashos

DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BRAUN AND C. HARDY AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1A summary of the context and extensive background on the history of this matter is set out in a previous Tribunal decision issued on August 25, 2023 (D’Aversa v. Vaughan (City), 2023 CanLII 78842 (ON LT)) and need not be repeated in this Decision.

2In brief, the City of Vaughan (“City”) passed a Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 001-2021 (“CZBL”) on October 20, 2021, which affects all properties in the City, apart from those lands in the Yonge Street and Steeles Avenue area, known as the Yonge-Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan Area.

3At its meeting on March 22, 2022, the City enacted By-law No. 038-2022 to repeal the transition provisions in s. 1.6 of the CZBL and By-law No. 039-2022 to adopt new transition provision for the CZBL in s. 1.6 (“Transition By-law”).

4There was a total of 130 appeals to the Tribunal related to the CZBL and a total of 46 appeals to the Tribunal related to the Transition By-law. In previous decisions, various panels of the Tribunal have provided details with respect to how the CZBL and Transition By-law appeals have been case managed.

MOTION AND REQUESTED RELIEF

5This decision and Order relate to a motion brought by Armland Management Inc. (“Armland”), seeking approval of a partial settlement for Appeal Nos. 002758, 004768, and 002747 (“Appeals”).

6Appeal No. 002758 is Armland’s November 15, 2021 appeal of the CZBL. The Notice of Appeal specified the portions of the CZBL appealed and the lands managed by Armland, which include 9401 and 9471 Jane Street, in the City of Vaughan (“Site”). Appeal No. 004768 is Armland’s April 8, 2022 appeal of certain City-initiated amendments to the Transition By-law. Appeal No. 002747 is a November 15, 2021 appeal by Canadian National Railway (“CN”) of the CZBL as it pertains to lands surrounding the MacMillan Yard, including the Site.

7Following productive settlement discussions between Armland, CN, and the City, all issues relating to the Site were resolved to the satisfaction of the Parties. Accordingly, on consent, Armland requests an Order of the Tribunal:

a. Allowing, in part, the Appeals to the CZBL in respect of the Site;

b. Repealing Exception 14.910 of the CZBL, as adopted on October 20, 2021;

c. Approving Replacement Exception 14.910 of the CZBL, being a new Exception 14.910 in the CZBL, in accordance with Attachment 1 to this decision and Order;

d. Approving, as modified, Schedule F of the CZBL in accordance with Attachment 2 to this decision and Order; and

e. Dismissing the balance of the Appeals, as they pertain to the Site only.

8Materials before the Tribunal include Armland’s Notice of Motion, dated January 13, 2026, and the Affidavit of Paul Lowes, affirmed on January 9, 2026. Mr. Lowes is a Registered Professional Planner and member of both the Ontario Professional Planners Institute and the Canadian Institute of Planners. Based on a review of Mr. Lowes’ curriculum vitae and executed Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty, he was qualified to provide land use planning opinion evidence for the purposes of the present Motion.

SITE CONTEXT AND EFFECT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

9The Site is currently improved with eight buildings, ranging from two to three storeys in height, containing a mix of uses including commercial and residential. The residential uses are set back 113.5 metres (“m”) from the CN property line, with a three-storey commercial building intervening between them and the MacMillan Yard.

10Under the CZBL as adopted, the Site is principally within the General Mixed Use (GMU) Zone with the Environmental Protection (EP) zone traversing the east of the Site. The Site is also subject to Exception 14.910, which is proposed to be repealed and replaced with Replacement Exception 14.910 (“RE14.910”) as requested in Armland’s Notice of Motion.

11The intent of RE14.910 is to align the zoning permissions with the current as-built condition of the site and to consolidate and accurately reflect existing uses and past approvals, including a December 7, 2006 City-approved Minor Variance (A460/06) which is not reflected in the current zoning. The aforementioned Minor Variance modified:

a) the landscape strip along Jane Street;

b) side yard setback to Building H (also known as Building A1);

c) minimum setback for the underground garage; and

d) the setback from a daylight triangle associated with Building H/A1.

12RE14.910 also introduces restrictions of additional uses or development standards not previously contemplated.

13The following modifications to the CZBL are proposed through RE14.910:

a. Prohibiting the following uses within the General Mixed Use (GMU) Zone:

1. Fueling Station;

2. Funeral Services;

3. Hotel;

4. Hotel (Small Scale);

5. Micro-Manufacturing;

6. Place of Assembly;

7. Outdoor Display Area; and

8. Seasonal Outdoor Display area

b. Updating the requirement for an 11 m minimum rear yard setback to refer to the Utility (U) Zone instead of the Transportation Industrial (M3) Zone, as it was referred to in By-law No. 1-88

c. Confirming that the new Note 5 in Table 8-2, which pertains to the new build-to zone requirement, does not apply.

d. Correcting the underground parking structure setback to be a minimum of 0 m instead of 1 m.

e. Correcting the minimum width of the landscape strip adjacent to Jane Street to be 1 m instead of 6 m.

f. Correctly identifying the sight triangle related to Building A1 as being 0 m, whereas the standard was previously omitted.

g. Including a site-specific definition of “Commercial Floor Area” as required for proper interpretation.

h. Miscellaneous other clerical modifications.

14Along with the changes proposed through RE14.910, Schedule F (Area Specific Appeal 2C Map – Lands within 300 m of the MacMillan Yard) in the Appeal Index Reference of the CZBL is proposed to be revised to indicate that the Site is no longer subject to appeal by CN.

15If approved by the Tribunal, the proposed amendments would resolve the Appeals as they pertain to the Site. However, such approval would not resolve the entirety of the appeals brought by Armland, nor all of those brought by CN. The requested approval is not intended to apply to or constrain other lands.

PLANNING OPINION EVIDENCE

16Mr. Lowes opined that RE14.910 represents good planning in the public interest; has regard to the applicable matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act (“Act”); is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”) and conforms with the applicable Official Plans, namely the York Regional Official Plan, 2022 (“YROP”) and the City of Vaughan Official Plan, 2010 (“VOP 2010”).

17In support of his planning opinions, he explained that RE14.910 maintains compatibility measures established through the prior zoning by-law amendment, such as the 113.5 m setback for residential uses from the property line shared with CN, ensuring protection of public health and safety as well as the long-term operation of the CN rail line. He noted that the proposed prohibited uses in the General Mixed Use (GMU) Zone were included at the request of CN. He further explained that maintaining permissions for the existing development, which includes residential uses in townhouse and apartment units and commercial uses in two office buildings, ensures orderly growth, allows efficient use of existing/planned infrastructure including transit, and contributes to a range and mix of housing options and employment opportunities.

18The Site is located along a Primary Intensification Corridor, as identified within the VOP 2010, and is within a future Major Transit Station Area (“MTSA”), as delineated in the YROP. Accordingly, it is considered a Strategic Growth Area and, in Mr. Lowes’ opinion, preservation of the existing mixed-use development that includes a range of housing options and compatible employment uses will assist in meeting minimum MTSA density requirements and continue to support planned transit investments and active transportation infrastructure. Mr. Lowes noted that RE14.910 maintains the boundary of the Environmental Protection (EP) Zone in conformity with VOP 2010 policies which speak to the protection and conservation of features with ecological function.

19The City of Vaughan Official Plan, 2025 (“VOP 2025”) was adopted by the City on October 28, 2025. It remains subject to approval by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and is therefore not yet in force. Although not determinative, Mr. Lowes reviewed the proposed amendment against the VOP 2025. He opined that RE14.910 conforms therewith, noting that it maintains existing environmental zoning protections, as well as low-rise mixed-use policies (including, but not limited to, permitted uses and building types) which have been carried forward from the VOP 2010 into the VOP 2025.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

20Based on the uncontested and detailed written evidence of Mr. Lowes, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed amendments would correct discrepancies between in-force zoning permissions and previous planning approvals bringing the planning framework in line with the current condition of the Site. The amendments allow for the continued efficient use of land and resources, maintaining a mix of uses to support both housing policies and employment policies, including, but not limited to, provision of a range and mix of housing that contributes to MTSA density requirements and supports active transportation and existing/planned transit investments. The amendments proposed also continue to ensure the protection/conservation of ecological functions.

21Accordingly, the Tribunal grants the requested relief, having found the proposed amendments meet the requisite legislative tests and represent good planning in the public interest.

ORDER

22THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:

1. The following Orders recorded in this Decision and approval of portions of the City of Vaughan Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 001-2021 and the City of Vaughan By-law No. 039-2022, where applicable, as attached hereto as Attachments 1 and 2, are without prejudice to the disposition of any other appeal of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 001-2021 and By-law No. 039-2022, and any unapproved portions thereof, such that if those appeals proceed to a subsequent Hearing or Motion either on their own or as may be consolidated with other proceedings, the City of Vaughan will not take the position that the Tribunal ought not to approve the amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 001-2021 or By-law No. 039-2022 on the basis that such amendments deviate from or are inconsistent with the amendments attached hereto as Attachments 1 and 2, as brought into force by these Orders. This does not affect the City of Vaughan’s right to assert that the Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 001-2021 or By-law No. 039-2022 as amended by Attachments 1 and 2 hereto, to the extent brought into force by these Orders, should be applied to specific sites or areas without amendments on the basis that doing so is consistent with the Planning Act and provincial policies, conforms to provincial and official plans, and/or constitutes good planning; and

2. Notwithstanding these Orders, the Tribunal maintains jurisdiction to consider and approve amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 001-2021 and By-law No. 039-2022 as amended herein, as may be appropriate to dispose of any remaining outstanding appeals before the Tribunal.

3. Appeal No. 002758 in OLT Case No. OLT-22-002104 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 001-2021 and Appeal No. 004768 in OLT Case No. OLT-22-003554 to By-law No. 039-2022, being appeals by Armland Management Inc., and Appeal No. 002747 in OLT Case No. OLT-22-002104 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 001-2021, being an appeal by Canadian National Railway Company (“CN”), are allowed in part, and Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 001-2021 is amended as follows:

a. Exception 14.910 is repealed and replaced with a new Exception 14.910 in the form set out in Attachment 1 to this Order;

b. Appeal Index Reference – Schedule F, Area Specific Appeal 2C Map, Lands within 300 m of the MacMillan Yard is deleted and replaced with a new Schedule F, Area Specific Appeal 2C Map, in the form set out in Attachment 2 to this Order; and

4. In all other respects, the Tribunal orders that Appeal Nos. 002758 and 002747 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 001-2021 and Appeal No. 004768 to By-law No. 039-2022 are dismissed as they relate to the following lands, but the balance of the appeals which are not specific to these lands are not dismissed:

a. 9401 and 9471 Jane Street, City of Vaughan.

“S. Braun”

S. BRAUN VICE CHAIR

“C. Hardy”

C. HARDY VICE CHAIR

Ontario Land Tribunal Website: 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