Residential Demolition Application -
79 Dunfield Avenue (North Toronto)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council:
(1)refuse to extend the conditions attached to residential demolition permit 366234 respecting 79 Dunfield Avenue;
(2)direct the City Clerk to enter on the collector's roll, to be collected in like manner as municipal taxes, the sum of
$20,000.00, and that such sum shall, until payment thereof, be a lien or charge upon the land in respect of which the
permits to demolish the residential properties were issued; and
(3)receive the report (November 10, 1998) from the City Solicitor.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 14, 1998) from the Commissioner of
Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
To recommend that Council refuse the applicant's request for a fourth extension to the conditions related to a residential
demolition permit at 79 Dunfield Avenue.
Source of Funds:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
(1)That City Council refuse to extend the conditions attached to residential demolition permit 366234, and
(2)That Council direct the City Clerk to enter on the collector's roll, to be collected in like manner as municipal taxes, the
sum of $20,000.00, and that such sum shall, until payment thereof, be a lien or charge upon the land in respect of which
the permits to demolish the residential properties were issued.
Council Reference/Background/History:
At its meeting held on July 6 & 7, 1992 the Council of the former City of Toronto approved the issuance of a permit to
demolish the detached house at 79 Dunfield Avenue. This permit was based on the issuance of building permits to
construct a pair of semi-detached residential buildings on the lot. Council issued the demolition permit on condition that a
new building be erected no later than two years from the day demolition of the existing residential property commenced.
The permit was granted on a further condition that upon failure to complete the new building within the specified time
frame, the City Clerk shall be entitled to enter on the collector's roll, to be collected in like manner as municipal taxes, the
sum of $20,000 for each dwelling unit in the residential property in respect to which this demolition permit is issued and
such sum shall, until paid, be a lien or charge upon 79 Dunfield Avenue.
Demolition of the single family detached house commenced on September 14, 1992. The new buildings were, therefore,
required to be completed by September 14, 1994.
At its meeting held on May 30 & 31, 1994 Council granted a request from the applicant to extend the time for completion
of the new buildings by one year to September 14, 1995.
As a result of concerns that Council was not evenly applying its authority to extend demolition permit conditions, Council
adopted a policy for considering such requests at its meeting held on December 18 & 19, 1995 (Cl.13 of NHC Rpt. No. 1).
Specifically:
A.Decision to Extend
In general, Council will not extend the time period to rebuild unless:
(i)Council is of the opinion, based on a letter from an appraiser appropriately accredited by the Appraisal Institute of
Canada, provided at the sole expense of the applicant, that the project cannot economically proceed in its present form; or
(ii)There has been a change in circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, such as a labour dispute or "Act of
God".
B.Terms of Extension
When allowing extensions, Council will:
(i)Limit the number of extensions to one per application; and
(ii)Limit the time of an extension to one year.
Subsequent to adopting this policy, Council twice more extended the time for completing the new building. At each of its
meetings held on February 12 &13, 1996 and October 28 & 29, 1996, Council extended the time by an additional year,
thus requiring the new building to be completed by September 14, 1997.
Comments:
Since 1992 the proposed redevelopment has changed form several times. While the original replacement building permit
for a pair of semi-detached dwelling remains open, the applicant has been working with the City to expand the nature of
the redevelopment. The latest proposal culminated in a rezoning of 79 Dunfield, and 85 and 97 Eglinton Avenue East to
permit the construction of a 12 storey mixed use commercial-residential building. The applicant's solicitor has advised me
that although this rezoning had been settled in his favour by the board on January 27, 1998, the owner does not intend to
proceed with the project in its current form in the near future.
Council's 1995 decision to adopt a policy for extending demolition conditions was based, in part, on a concern that while
it is reasonable in some circumstances to extend the conditions associated with residential demolitions, unevenly extending
conditions can undermine the basis for and benefits of applying conditions in the first place. I understand the City Solicitor
will be reporting to you separately on his view of this policy and the role it played in his successful defence of Council's
decision to enforce its demolition conditions at 2451 St Clair Avenue West before the Ontario Municipal Board.
Conclusion:
I therefore recommend that Council adhere to its 1995 policy regarding the extension of demolition permit conditions and
refuse the applicant's request for a fourth extension.
Contact Name:
David Brezer, P.Eng
Telephone:(416) 392-0097
Fax:(416) 392-0721
E-mail:dbrezer@city.toronto.on.ca
The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (November 10, 1998) from the City Solicitor:
Purpose:
To update City Council on the application of the former City of Toronto's residential demolition control policy, with
reference to a recent appeal by the owner of 2451 St. Clair Avenue West before the Ontario Municipal Board ("the
Board").
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
$10,000 (plus interest) to be paid to the applicant appellant upon the release of the Board Order regarding 2451 St. Clair
Avenue West. The Monies owing are to come from the Reduction in Prior Year Surplus Account - Account No. 699172.
Recommendations:
That this report be received for information.
Council Reference/Background/History:
On November 27, 1986, Eli Messica, the owner of 2451 St. Clair Avenue West, applied to City Council of the former City
of Toronto for a residential demolition permit under Section 33 of the Planning Act. At its meeting held on April 18, 1988,
City Council authorized the issuance of the demolition permit subject to the City's standard conditions, authorized under
the Act, that:
A new building be erected no later than two years from the day demolition of the existing residential property commenced,
and that upon failure to complete the new building within the specified time frame, the City Clerk shall be entitled to enter
on the collector's roll, to be collected in like manner as municipal taxes, the sum of $20,000 for each dwelling unit in the
residential property in respect to which this demolition permit is issued and such sum shall, until paid, be a lien or charge
upon the lands.
As Mr. Messica demolished the building on June 15, 1988, the new building was to be completed no later than June 15,
1990. Construction on the new building never commenced and between January 1990 and May 1995 Mr. Messica sought
and obtained five separate extensions from City Council, all of which were subject to the standard City conditions.
This particular case had been the cause for some concern for City staff, given the number of extensions granted to Mr.
Messica. In response to a request by Mr. Messica in 1990 that the City waive the conditions attached to his demolition
permit, the City Solicitor, in a report dated April 15, 1990, opined that "allowing one waiver opens the door to others,
hence emasculating the provisions of the [Planning] Act and "creates the potential for unfair treatment between
applicants".
More recently, the former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting of December 18 and 19, 1995 adopted the November 24,
1995 report from the then Acting Commissioner of Buildings and Inspections (who was also the City Solicitor), and
thereby amended the City's residential demolition control policy to read, with respect to extensions:
A.Decision to Extend
In general, Council will not extend the time period to rebuild unless:
(i)Council is of the opinion, based on a letter from an appraiser appropriately accredited by the Appraisal Institute of
Canada, provided at the sole expense of the applicant, that the project cannot economically proceed in its present form; or
(ii)There has been a change in circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, such as a labour dispute or "Act of
God".
B.Terms of Extension
When allowing extensions, Council will:
(i)Limit the number of extensions to one per application; and
(ii)Limit the time of an extension to one year.
In that report, which addressed the number of extensions granted to Mr. Messica, the Commissioner made reference to a
decision of the Board concerning 2361-63 Queen Street East where the Board "in halving the penalty amount, looked at
whether an extension had been granted to ensure the City had acted in an even-handed manner". Given this decision, it was
the opinion of the Commissioner that the City should adhere to a consistent policy regarding residential demolition
control.
Council allowed a sixth and "final" extension on May 8, 1996 for Mr. Messica and notified Mr. Messica about the terms of
the policy as amended.
Notwithstanding this notice, Mr. Messica did not build a new building, and consequently the $20,000 charge was applied
and paid in February of 1997. Mr. Messica subsequently appealed the City's action to the Board.
At the hearing into the matter on September 2, 1996, the Board, in a verbal decision, dismissed the applicant's request for
a further extension and upheld Council's decision to apply a financial charge. The Board noted that the City had
reasonably allowed a number of extensions, had made it clear to Mr. Messica that the terms of the amended policy were to
apply to his request. Importantly, the Board also found that there was a need to "maintain the purpose of the legislation"
and advised that, in coming to its decision, it had had regard for the City's policy and for the consistent manner in which
the City applied that policy.
On the facts of the situation, including Mr. Messica's claim of economic hardship, the Board reduced the amount of the
charge, on equitable grounds, to 50% of the $20,000 imposed by the City. This decision was in keeping with an earlier
Board decision, Anavrin v. City of Toronto, where the Board found that the $20,000 charge was excessive "at a time the
development industry is reeling in difficulty far beyond anything we have seen for the last two decades".
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
It is my opinion, based on the City's experience of defending the former City of Toronto's residential demolition control
policy, that the City should maintain its consistency in applying this policy. In this regard, I concur with the
recommendation contained in the October 15, 1998 report by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development
Services, "Residential Demolition Application- 79 Dunfield Avenue", that Council should refuse the request made by
Compatible Investments Limited for a fourth extension to the conditions attached to the residential demolition permit
issued for 79 Dunfield Avenue.
I also note that the circumstances in the case of 79 Dunfield Avenue are different from those with respect to 2451 St. Clair
Avenue West. As one example, there is no appraiser's report, as required under the policy, pertaining to the most recent
plans for 79 Dunfield Avenue which would justify an extension. Further, in all of the cases heard by the Board on the
matter of residential demolition control, the Board has upheld both the City's refusal to extend the demolition conditions
and the imposition of a financial charge. To allow an extension in the case of 79 Dunfield would, in my opinion,
undermine the City's residential demolition control policy and would create a damaging precedent, particularly as, in the
case of 79 Dunfield Avenue, the developer is simply seeking to reassess its proposal.
Conclusions:
On September 2, 1998, the OMB upheld the City's ability to impose conditions applied to a residential demolition permit
at 2451 St. Clair Avenue West and reduced the amount of the charge by 50%. In making its decision, the Board placed
significant emphasis on Council's clear and consistent policy regarding residential demolition control. Council should
continue to adhere to this policy on a consistent manner.
Contact Name:
Marc Kemerer
Legal Division
392-1228
--------
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of
the foregoing matter, the following communications, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:
-(December 7, 1998) from Ms. Cynthia A. MacDougall, McCarthy Tetrault, addressed to Councillor Michael Walker; and
-December 4, 1998) from Mr. Robert Singer, Compatible Investments Limited
Ms. Cynthia MacDougall, McCarthyTétrault, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the
foregoing matter.
--------
(A copy of the following communications referred to in the foregoing reports, was forwarded to all Members of the
Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on December 9 and 10, 1998 and a copy thereof is on file in
the office of the City Clerk):
-(September 25, 1998) from Mr. John C.T. Inglis, McCarthy Tetrault
-Ontario Municipal Board Decision dated September 29, 1998
