Toronto Hudson Toronto Hotel | 45.72m | 14s | Niche | a—A

lmazhari said:
I got an email on behalf of board of directors at 10 Morrison St (Building South of this proposal) saying "10 Morrison Corporation attended the hearing .Superior Court made a decision yesterday in favor of applicant (the hotel). " I don't have a letter regarding the decision. That LPAT link I posted earlier was attached to the email. Believe me , nobody wants this to be a false alarm more than me.
Click to expand...

Do you live in the building? I saw owners facing north seemed to be progressively selling units ahead of this...
 
pajaro said:
Do you live in the building? I saw owners facing north seemed to be progressively selling units ahead of this...
Click to expand...
I do. I guess they knew any nonsense gets approved through LPAT these days. Both East and North looking units will be looking at a blank wall now. I am also an Architect and shocked how none of the other issues stopping this development. Historical, Traffic , Loading, Additional shadows on the park, etc.
 
lmazhari said:
I do. I guess they knew any nonsense gets approved through LPAT these days. Both East and North looking units will be looking at a blank wall now. I am also an Architect and shocked how none of the other issues stopping this development. Historical, Traffic , Loading, Additional shadows on the park, etc.
Click to expand...
I almost bought a north facing unit last year and decided not to because of this project.
There’s also another building coming up on the east side of the building right?
 
lmazhari said:
Both East and North looking units will be looking at a blank wall now.
Click to expand...

that’s an issue that ought to be taken up with the developer of your existing building, not this potential new building. Toronto is growing. It is not the responsibility of the city/province/whatever to keep the property north of your building free from intensification because of the poor layout of the existing building.

Builders should ALWAYS account for the possibility of neighbouring properties developing as well.
 
I reached out to some people with information and I have been told that a ruling was issued today from Superior Court. Apparently there are enough issues of concern contained within the LPAT decision that it will now be sent to Superior Court. Without knowing all the details, it would appear that the judge agrees with the city and that the decision of the LPAT is questionable.

Additionally, there may have been a change of hands in terms of ownership with the hotel (not the actual development).
 
thecharioteer said:
It sounds to me like the appeal has been narrowed to only the heritage issues of the case.
Click to expand...

This explains the delay in this case and why the issues are confined to certain questions.

The Planning Act allows an appeal from the LPAT to Divisional Court on a question of law only - i.e. whether the LPAT made an error in its interpretation or application of the law, as opposed to its findings of fact.

The appellant is required to seek leave to appeal from the Divisional Court. In addition to demonstrating that the appeal is on a question of law, it is also required to show: (a) that there is reason to doubt the correctness of the decision (i.e. "good reason to doubt" the decision is wrong); and (b) that the point of law if of sufficient importance to merit the attention of the Divisional Court, which usually means that it has some systemic implication.

While the ultimate decision will be made by a panel of the Divisional Court and the outcome is not foreclosed, the test for leave is fairly stringent. The fact that leave was granted is a fairly good indicator that the court believes some part of the LPAT decision might be incorrect.

Only time will tell! Counsel for the City on the file are excellent lawyers.

Personally, I hope this decision is overturned, as I think it is nonsensical on the heritage issues.
 
mcornett said:
This explains the delay in this case and why the issues are confined to certain questions.

The Planning Act allows an appeal from the LPAT to Divisional Court on a question of law only - i.e. whether the LPAT made an error in its interpretation or application of the law, as opposed to its findings of fact.

The appellant is required to seek leave to appeal from the Divisional Court. In addition to demonstrating that the appeal is on a question of law, it is also required to show: (a) that there is reason to doubt the correctness of the decision (i.e. "good reason to doubt" the decision is wrong); and (b) that the point of law if of sufficient importance to merit the attention of the Divisional Court, which usually means that it has some systemic implication.

While the ultimate decision will be made by a panel of the Divisional Court and the outcome is not foreclosed, the test for leave is fairly stringent. The fact that leave was granted is a fairly good indicator that the court believes some part of the LPAT decision might be incorrect.

Only time will tell! Counsel for the City on the file are excellent lawyers.

Personally, I hope this decision is overturned, as I think it is nonsensical on the heritage issues.
Click to expand...
It appears to be a little more complicated than that as the development would undermine the heritage status of one of the remaining properties.
 
Remember that:

1) There was an as-of-right approval for a 10-storey building on this property dating back to 2005 (which did not involve conserving the existing buildings).
2) These buildings had no heritage status when the current development application was submitted. The Clergy Principle (that an application ought to be judged on the planning regime in place at the time the application was made) will be in play here.

This is yet another example of the City trying (and failing) to use heritage to stop development. Pretty much the exact same situation played out at 457 Richmond Street West, and the City was not granted leave to appeal the LPAT's decision. So in this case, I would be interested to know what the apparent error in law is.
 
saynotofaux said:
Remember that:

1) There was an as-of-right approval for a 10-storey building on this property dating back to 2005 (which did not involve conserving the existing buildings).
2) These buildings had no heritage status when the current development application was submitted. The Clergy Principle (that an application ought to be judged on the planning regime in place at the time the application was made) will be in play here.

This is yet another example of the City trying (and failing) to use heritage to stop development. Pretty much the exact same situation played out at 457 Richmond Street West, and the City was not granted leave to appeal the LPAT's decision. So in this case, I would be interested to know what the apparent error in law is.
Click to expand...
The city is not "stopping development," it is attempting to preserve heritage. I believe that the heritage designation would supersede the original 2005 Committee of Adjustments decision.
 
Nah this is a case of there is a high profile, well to do lawyer living in the adjacent building who is using his connections and knowledge of the law to drag this out as much as possible.
 
DavidCapizzano said:
Nah this is a case of there is a high profile, well to do lawyer living in the adjacent building who is using his connections and knowledge of the law to drag this out as much as possible.
Click to expand...
That's not indicated on the court documents.
 
I did read them, but the present appeal does not include his terrace. That said, from the original LPAT appeal, the traffic mess on Morrison made more sense as a complaint. The condo representative seemed to pushing that.

Do I detect a past unpleasant lawyerly encounter? 😉
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top