Toronto (City) v. Mainline Planning Services Inc., 2025 ONTLAB 323

Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253

Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2025-04-11

24 214880 S45 01 TLAB

Toronto (City) vs Mainline Planning Services Inc, 2025 ONTLAB 323

Issuance Date:

April 11, 2025

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER Section 45(12), subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the "Act")

Appellant(s):

Applicant(s):

Property Address:

1040 MARTINGROVE RD.

COA File No.:

24 152323 WET 01 MV (A0234/24EYK)

TLAB Case File No.:

24 214880 S45 01 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

March 25, 2025

Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:

N/A

Decision Delivered By:

TLAB Vice-Chair: A. Bassios

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Owner

1040 MARTINGROVE GP INC.

Applicant

Appellant

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013, Chapter 60.20.20.10.(1)) does not list a “Vehicle Dealership” as a permitted use in the Employment Industrial Zone.

2The City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment (COA) approved a variance to permit a car rental agency (Vehicle Dealership) for Units 8 and 9, 1040 Martin Grove Rd (subject lands).

3The City of Toronto (City) appealed the decision of the Toronto Committee of Adjustment (COA), resulting in this Hearing.

4The site is designated Core Employment Area and zoned Employment Industrial in Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013. It is located in the Hwy 409 and Dixon Rd area of the former City of Etobicoke.

5Prior to the Hearing date, the TLAB was advised that the Parties had come to a settlement of the issues and therefore the Hearing was convened as a settlement hearing.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

6Provincial Interest - S. 2

A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest, enumerated as (a) – (s) in the Planning Act.

7Provincial Policy – S. 3

A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (‘TLAB’) must be consistent with the 2024 Provincial Policy Statement (‘PPS’) and conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe for the subject area (‘Growth Plan’).

8Variance – S. 45(1)

In considering the applications for variances from the Zoning By-laws, the TLAB Panel must be satisfied that the applications meet all of the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act. The tests are whether the variances:

maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-laws;
are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
are minor.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

9Travis Van Wyk was qualified as an Expert Witness to provide evidence in support of the settlement.

10The policies in Chapter 4.6 of the Toronto Official Plan aim to provide protection of Employment Areas within its Core Employment Area and General Employment Area policies to secure future economic viability. The intent of the policies is to protect established industries and the future use of employment lands from incompatible activities which could negatively constrain employment area operations.

11Official Plan Policy 4.6.1 permits all types of manufacturing uses as well as warehousing, storage facilities, offices and vehicle repair and services, amongst others. The Zoning By-law, which implements Official Plan policies, does not include a Vehicle Dealership (the definition of which includes the rental or lease of vehicles) as a permitted use.

12The Parties propose that two conditions be attached to the approval of this variance:

a. The sale and lease of vehicles is prohibited; and

b. The majority of the gross floor area shall be reserved for office uses and other non-retail uses, including storage, cleaning, and servicing of vehicles.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

13This is an uncontested Hearing for the purposes of approving two conditions to the variance approval and which have been agreed to by the Parties as part of a settlement of the issues between them. In the interest of consensual resolution of disputes, deference will be given to a settlement provided that the joint submission falls within the range of reasonable outcomes.

14I note that as a settlement, this case has no precedential value since any findings of fact are for the limited purpose of ensuring that the settlement is not contrary to the Planning Act.

15Mr. Van Wyk advised that the proposed first condition of the settlement, to exclude the sale or lease of vehicles, would narrow the proposed use to car rental services only and, in his opinion, this presents a vehicle-related use which fits within the context of the surrounding area and would not disrupt the operations of the Core Employment Area.

16The second proposed condition would maintain the majority of the gross floor area to be reserved for office uses and other non-retail uses including storage, cleaning and servicing of vehicles, thus ensuring that the majority of the gross floor area would be reserved for uses permitted in the Core Employment Area designation.

CONCLUSION

17I concur with Mr. Van Wyk that the limitations which would be placed on the operation of the car rental agency via the proposed conditions of approval mitigate the potential for conflict between the proposed car rental operation and the broader employment area uses.

18I agree that the proposed variance, mitigated by the proposed conditions of approval, maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, is minor and desirable for the use of the land.

DECISION AND ORDER

19The Appeal is allowed in part.

20A variance to Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013, Chapter 60.20.20.10.(1)) to permit a car rental agency (“Vehicle Dealership”) on the subject lands is authorized subject to the following conditions:

a. The sale and lease of vehicles is prohibited; and

b. The majority of the gross floor area shall be reserved for office uses and other non-retail uses, including storage, cleaning, and servicing of vehicles.

A. Bassios

Panel Member