|
Municipal - Planning (4). Voices of Willowdale Inc. v. City of Toronto
In Voices of Willowdale Inc. v. City of Toronto (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court dismissed a JR, this against an OLT decision "to adopt a zoning by-law to permit the construction of a three-story apartment building for people leaving homelessness. The new development would be in addition to the existing four-story building on the property, which houses 600 senior citizens.":[8] The sole issue before the Tribunal was whether the proposed development would be compatible with the existing Willowdale Manor. Before the Tribunal, the Common Interest Parties submitted that for the new development to be compatible with Willowdale Manor, the new development should be restricted senior citizens leaving homelessness.
....
ii. The decision is consistent with the Provincial Planning statement
[38] The Tribunal also heard submissions on whether restricting the proposed development to senior citizens is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS). The Tribunal found that limiting the new development to senior citizens would be inconsistent with the PPS and impermissible.
[39] Decisions affecting planning matters "shall be consistent with" policy statements issued under the Planning Act, including the Provincial Planning Statement: Planning Act, s. 3. Section 4.4 of the PPS states that it must be implemented in a manner that is consistent with the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In other words, any planning decision must comply with the Human Rights Code and the Charter.
[40] The Tribunal found that limiting the entire Subject Property to senior citizens would be inconsistent with the PPS because it would limit the occupancy of the proposed building in a way that violates the equality rights in Human Rights Code and the Charter. Section 3 of the Human Rights Code, and s. 15 of the Charter provide that every person has the right to equal treatment without discrimination with respect to age.
[41] While there are circumstances under which age restrictions have been permitted, the Tribunal found that the evidence did not to support the Applicant’s position that the new development should be zoned for senior citizens only. The Tribunal found, "regulating the user of the land or regulating based on concerns about who the occupants are or will be, constitutes people zoning and is illegal, absent specific legislative exception."
[42] The Chair agreed with the Tribunal’s decision adding the words "for senior citizens" to the zoning by-law would unreasonably limit the occupancy based on age and would be inconsistent with the PPS. The Chair, therefore, found that the Tribunal’s decision was reasonable.
[43] While the words "illegal" and "impermissible" may not be the language I would have used, it was reasonable for the Tribunal to find that limiting the zoning to senior citizens would be inconsistent with the PPS and not appropriate in these circumstances. It was also reasonable for the Chair to uphold that finding.
|
