Toronto (City) vs Citoronto Investments Limited, 2026 ONTLAB 396
Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
Date:
2026-02-23
25 202235 S45 05 TLAB
Toronto (City) vs Citoronto Investments Limited,
2026 ONTLAB 396
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
February 23, 2026
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Appellant(s):
CITY OF TORONTO
Applicant(s):
D. TANG
Property Address:
131 McCormack St.
COA File No.:
2025 157238WET 05 MV (A0189/25EYK)
TLAB Case File No.:
25 202235 S45 05 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
02/19/2026
Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Panel Member G. Swinkin
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Applicant
Appellant
Party
D. TANG
CITY OF TORONTO
CITORONTO INVESTMENTS LIMITED
M. LAFORTUNE
Y. NURI
J. MIHEVC
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
This appeal before the Toronto Local Appeal Body (“the Tribunal”) concerns the property municipally known as 131 McCormack Street (“the Property”). This street is in the Keele Street - St. Clair Avenue West area.
The Property is improved with an older warehouse building. Although the south side of McCormack Street, where the Property is located, has been the subject of official plan amendments which have re-designated it from Employment lands to Mixed Use and have established Site and Area Specific policies anticipating a mix of residential and non-residential commercial uses, City Council has not yet rezoned this area to conform with the official plan policies. As such, currently, the lands continue to be zoned E-Employment.
The Property is owned by Citoronto Investments Limited. Citoronto has leased the Property to Lands Black Creek Arts and Culture (“Black Creek”).
Black Creek operates what is referred to as the Black Creek Assembly on the Property. From the material filed with the Tribunal and spoken to at the hearing, it appears that the space is a place in which various artists will create and perform their works and events in a performing arts theatre or performance space. The building’s primary assembly space is to be used for video and film screenings, runway and other fashion shows and musical and dance live performances.
The Tribunal is advised that Black Creek is a not-for-profit organization that is integral to the arts and culture scene in the neighbourhood, providing employment for a number of artists. Black Creek oversees and co-ordinates activities on the site. On Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays, the building’s assembly space is available to book, free of charge, for community events, photo shoots, music video shoots and live recordings, for artists who would not be able to otherwise have access to such a space due to financial or other limitations.
The Tribunal was informed that through discussions with the Zoning Examination section of the City, the owner was told that the uses described would be characterized under Zoning By-law 569-2013 as an Entertainment Place of Assembly. The By-law defines that to be “premises used to provide entertainment, such as a theatre, cinema, opera, concert hall or ballet”.
Although that use would be permitted under a mixed use commercial zone category (such as CR or CRE), which is anticipated as the planning implementation process proceeds, it is not permitted under the E zone.
The Tribunal heard from the representative of Black Creek, Andrew Hale, that it has been using the Property for the aforesaid purposes since March, 2022. That has triggered response from the City’s Municipal Licensing and Standards division in the form of pending charges for by-law violation.
The Tribunal understands that there have been ongoing discussions among the owner, the tenant, the City and other community stakeholders in an attempt to work out a productive solution to the issues arising from these circumstances.
This led to the filing of an application to the Committee of Adjustment for temporary relief as a bridge mechanism pending enactment of official plan conforming zoning which would expressly permit the use.
The application was filed by the owner. The Committee did approve it subject to one condition.
That condition was expressed as: “The Entertainment Place of Assembly use be permitted for no more than two (2) years from the date that the Committee of Adjustment decision is final and binding, expiring on July 31, 2027, to provide opportunity for the business to submit a Zoning By-law Amendment application in conformity with the policy direction of Site and Area Specific Policy 437 of the Official Plan, to the satisfaction of the Director, Community Planning, Etobicoke York District”.
The City was not satisfied with the condition as imposed and appealed the decision to the Tribunal.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
- Provincial Interest - Section 2, Planning Act
A decision of the Tribunal shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest, enumerated as clauses a) – (s) in Section 2 of the Planning Act.
- Provincial Policy – Section 3, Planning Act
A Decision of the Tribunal must be consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement for the subject area.
- Variance – Subsection 45(1), Planning Act
In considering applications for variances from the Zoning By-law, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the application meets all of the four tests under Subsection 45(1) of the Planning 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-law;
are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
are minor.
- Settlement - Tribunal Rules 19.1 - 19.4
Settlement before Final Determination
19.1 The TLAB is committed to encouraging Parties to settle some or all of the issues by informal discussion, Exchange and Mediation.
19.2 Parties who arrive at a settlement shall Serve the terms of the proposed settlement on all other Parties and Participants and File same with the TLAB at the earliest possible date.
19.3 The TLAB shall give notice to all Parties and Participants of the date, time and location of the settlement Hearing, and shall thereafter conduct an expedited settlement Hearing on the terms of the proposed settlement.
19.4 Where no Person at the Hearing opposes the proposed settlement or where the TLAB rejects an objection the TLAB may issue an order giving effect to the settlement and any necessary amendments.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
This appeal was originally scheduled to be heard by the Tribunal on November 6, 2025. The Tribunal received a joint request from the Parties that the hearing be adjourned to a later date as the Parties were in settlement negotiations which had not yet reached resolution but that they were optimistic about ultimate resolution.
By way of its Decision and Order issued October 9, 2025, as made by this Member, the Tribunal ordered that the hearing date for the appeal be adjourned from November 6, 2025 to February 19, 2026.
The Tribunal had received from the Parties prior to this hearing date advice that their settlement was achieved and a revised set of conditions had been drafted which the Parties were advancing as the basis for the settlement, with a request that the City appeal be allowed and the new conditions be imposed.
A copy of the signed (but undated) Settlement Offer as executed by the owner and tenant was filed with the Tribunal along with a list of proposed revised conditions.
There was further material filed which mapped out the planing policy evolution in this area through OPA 537 (which incorporated the Keele-St. Clair Secondary Plan into the Official Plan) and SASP 437 (which sets out specific planning policy for McCormack St.) and a demonstration that the variance application would maintain the general intent and purpose of these official plan policies.
The general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law was viewed through the lens of the projected zoning amendment. Although not expressly argued by the Parties, such an argument can reasonably be advanced on the basis that Section 26(9) of the Planning Act does require municipalities to bring zoning by-laws into conformity with the official plan within three years of certain official plan amendments that address Provincial planning policy, such as major transit station areas, as is the case here.
However, the primary argument advanced before the Tribunal was that there has been a fundamental change in official plan policy in this area and that the variance application was simply being treated as a bridge to the ultimate zoning.
Furthermore, with the revision to the conditions, potential adverse effects were directly being addressed in order to avoid negative impacts and ensure proactive mitigation of any consequences of the use.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
This was an application which was approved by the Committee of Adjustment.
The dispute was over the condition as crafted by the Committee of Adjustment.
As articulated in Rule 19.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal encourages Parties to attempt to settle disputes arising out of applications to the Committee of Adjustment.
The Parties here have done just that and this panel will support that achievement.
Based upon the filed material and the representations of the Parties at the hearing, the Tribunal is satisfied that there is no lack of consistency with Provincial planning policy or Provincial interest.
The Tribunal is further satisfied that the requested use variance and proposed management of that use through the device of a temporary approval governed by a set of operational controls meets the tests set forth in Subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.
As such, it is appropriate to endorse the proposed Entertainment Place of Assembly use on a temporary two year basis. The Parties do recognize that measuring the two years from the date of the Committee decision unreasonably reduces the temporary use period and both sides agree that the time period should be measured from the date of issuance of this Tribunal’s order. The Tribunal is in accord with that conclusion.
CONCLUSION
Proposed conditions were filed with the Tribunal. The Tribunal had concern with the drafting of the conditions in that there was not a clean ability to determine final satisfaction of one of those conditions. Under the authority of Rule 19.4 as to amendments, the Tribunal suggested the blending of two of the conditions into a condition which will require that the owner enter into agreement with the City under the authority of Section 45(9.1) of the Planning Act regarding operational obligations during the effective period of the approval.
Ms. LaFortune acknowledged the Tribunal’s concern and accepted the Tribunal’s solution. Mr. Mihevc concurred.
In the result, the City’s appeal will be allowed to the intent that the requested variance will be authorized for a two year period from the date of issuance of the Tribunal’s Decision and Order on the conditions noted below.
Ms. LaFortune did advise that the City should be able to produce and forward to the owner a draft agreement as envisaged by approximately February 27th and Mr, Mihevc was hopeful that the owner would have a response to the draft approximately a week later.
This was in response to the Tribunal’s observation that due to the limited time period of the approval, it would be important that the condition with respect to the agreement should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible,
DECISION AND ORDER
The Tribunal ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the Committee of Adjustment decision is set aside.
The Tribunal FURTHER ORDERS THAT the variance requested to permit use of the Property as an Entertainment Place of Assembly is approved on the following conditions:
The Entertainment Place of Assembly use is to be permitted for no more than two (2) years from the date that this Tribunal Decision is issued, to provide opportunity for the business to submit a Zoning By-law Amendment application in conformity with the policy direction of Site and Area Specific Policy 437 of the Official Plan, to the satisfaction of the Director, Community Planning, Etobicoke York District.
The Owner and Operator shall enter into an agreement with the City pursuant to Section 45(9.1) of the Planning Act, to secure and implement all operational conditions required by the City to the satisfaction of the Director, Community Planning, Etobicoke York District and the City Solicitor. These conditions shall relate to, and include: parking management, queue management, sound mitigation measures and noise-bylaw compliance, signage and patron management, post-event clean-up, security protocols, liquor service limitations, event closing times, and community access provisions.
G. Swinkin
Panel Member