Ontario Land Tribunal finalizes participants for hearing next year on proposed 11-storey residential building near Glen Stewart Ravine
By MATTHEW STEPHENS
A preliminary Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) meeting last week ended in disappointment for a local ravine conservation group after its request for “party status” in an upcoming hearing on a proposed 11-storey residential development at 847–855 Kingston Rd. (at Beech Avenue) was denied.
The Glen Stewart Ravine is a natural area located just south of the proposed development.
The purpose of the OLT’s Case Management Conference online meeting on May 14 was to organize and establish party and participant status for an upcoming hearing in April of 2026.
At the request of the OLT, the Case Management Conference was prohibited from being recorded by anyone who was attending online (including a Beach Metro Community News reporter) without “Prior approval from the Tribunal.”
Reporting on the meeting, however, was permitted.
Attendees at the May 14 conference included legal representative for Gabriele Homes Ltd. (The applicant) Mark Flowers; Jyoti Zuidema representing the City of Toronto; planner Sean Guenther with the City of Toronto; Matthew Rutledge (counsel) and Tim Duncan (co-counsel) for the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA); and OLT member and presenter Carolyn Molinari.
The May 14 meeting kicked off addressing requests for party status from the TRCA, and Beach resident Michael Genin of the Protect Our Ravines Initiative.
The TRCA sought party status based on concerns related to natural hazard matters in connection with Glen Stewart Ravine.
Flowers said he had been in communication with Rutledge and Duncan “several weeks to months,” prior to the meeting, and that he and the applicant had been made aware of the TRCA’s interest.
The TRCA was granted party status by the OLT without any objection from the other parties, on the grounds that their case was of “genuine and direct interest in the matter and could assist the tribunal.”
The Protect Our Ravines Initiative sought party status citing concerns regarding inadequate setbacks from the “erosion hazard,” ecological buffers, removal of trees, and consistency with the official plan in the Mid-Rise Avenue Studies.
The Initiative requested and were granted an extension of the May 4 deadline to request party status by the OLT.
According to Genin, who represented the Initiative, despite “not bringing forth any new issues” that hadn’t already been discussed, he and the Protect Our Ravines Initiative were prepared to bring “ecological and natural” expertise/evidence from local and residential perspectives related to the case, and that they planned to be represented by legal counsel at the upcoming OLT hearing.
“We plan on bringing a more local opinion to this. To bring more depth to some of the issues,” said Genin during the May 14 meeting.
Despite all parties having no objections to the Initiative’s request to extend the deadline to request party status, Flowers mentioned concern regarding the “timing” of their request for party status.
On the matter of the initiative’s request for party status, Flowers objected their request, saying that the timing was late, and that he “never heard from them in advance to suggest that they were going to be seeking party status,” despite previously mentioning that the deadline was not an “absolute deadline per say.”
Among several dissenting arguments, including Protect Our Ravines Initiative members seeking both party and participant status at the hearing, and failing to provide information regarding witnesses, Flowers ultimately argued that the concerns presented by Initiative “directly aligned” with those of the TRCA and city staff.
Following a 10-minute break to consider the Protect Our Ravines Initiative’s party status request, the OLT determined that “an argument isn’t strengthened by repetition,” and denied it party status at the upcoming hearing.
Molinari mentioned that party status could be granted to the Initiative in the future if the OLT is presented with detailed submissions of the Initiative’s concerns addressed directly by the witness through the evidence provided by the party.
Disappointed residents took to the virtual meeting’s chat function to express their disapproval of Flower’s arguments and the OLT’s decision to deny the Initiative party status.
Flowers called out participants using the chat to Molinari, who refused to look or read participants’ comments.
Following Flower’s comment, Molinari requested that no further comments be made by any participants of the meeting.
To the surprise of Molinari, more than 55 requests for participant status at the April 2026 tribunal hearing have been sent, collectively citing concerns regarding height and massing, number of units, school capacity, removal of trees, the environment, animal habitat, erosion and slope stability, inadequate setbacks, developing within the tree canopy drip line, conflict and planning consistency with the Toronto Ravine Strategy, among many other issues.
Development at the site of 847-855 Kingston Rd. has been a contentious topic amongst the community since its initial proposal back in August 2015 for a seven-storey, mixed-use building.
In December 2022, after acquiring the adjacent property at 855 Kingston Rd. two years prior, the developer submitted a revised proposal to construct an 11-storey mixed-use building.
The proposal for development at the site has raised concern amongst many local residents, who have advocated for construction not to encroach on the Glen Stewart Ravine to the south.
An OLT merit hearing has been scheduled for April 13 to May 1, 2026, which will allow each respective party to present their case and cross-examine evidence from other parties.
