City of Toronto - Item -…

City of Toronto - Item - 2021.TE25.3. Relevant to Lifetime Developments and business partner Stephen Diamond/ DiamondCorp. The latter likewise as Chair to the conflated Downtown/Waterfront Revitalization effort in 2019-2023. Facts now part of OFHA 2429 (and its associated preliminary UN application) per Canada's new housing as a human rights imperative - as correspondingly formalized by happenstance in 2019. Moreover, involving a number of highly problematic criminal claims related to two major private downtown real estate purchases that are fundamentally pertinent to the still necessary intergovernmental "revitalization mandate." In fact, ideally to the betterment of it.

This complaint (and a number of official others backing those same facts) involves 111-125 River Street and 200 Queen's Quay West. The applicant is a CAJ member and threatened criminal witness in matters currently belabored in housing four years beyond the original municipal claims (and a decade beyond the underlying federal ones.) There is an interim Council-passed amendment in recognition of alleged involved crimes and multiple other associated legal violations in this case as further tied to two serious Government of Canada issues (one preexisting and, critically, both still ongoing) subject to subsequent whitewashing covering up those very facts and serious presented wrongdoing since by these two governments - notably in housing. This now implicates the GC and City of Toronto (and specific officials) in matters of misfeasance further to the original claims related, for example, to Simpson v. Canada (2020). Consequently with much broader legal and public implications. Ones that only spill over to the PPS as currently drafted.

The City of Toronto already blames the Ontario government for overwriting its limited housing powers (as they allege) and the new PPS underscores this point as developers may wrongly seek intervention by the OLT or Minister - and really without legitimate appeal by other parties. Likewise there is an increasingly toxic perception of the OLT and skewed rulings made today already giving developers infinite means of appeal to try and overwrite efforts specifically to prevent abuses - such as the amendments attached to TE 25.3. That was utilized purposefully as a necessary stopgap measure to address multiple violations of laws and human rights as credibly outlined. Especially when courts were not immediately, and remain (un)available, stemming from access to justice being delayed or denied (including intentionally). No doubt this absolutely requires better formal intergovernmental acknowledgement, including around those current directives and the specific involved facts. However, the PPS as it now exists, appears mainly (if not only) to further undermine such allowances. Especially when, if not properly amended going forward, and as the public are ever made aware of this case, it will likely do far more damage.

More so, should the Provincial Minister and Premier also fail to help ensure this broader complaint is rightly addressed. Right now there is a suggestion that the current delay/inaction, exists (at least in part) to coerce submission of the applicant in these matters, while any appeal given new rules may only wrongly green light the applications and compound these problem dealings anyway. Whether as they exist today, or as the municipality’s new 1331 bylaw would allow developers to simply apply again minus the previous amendments. No harm no foul. Even as crimes are already acknowledged. Similarly, direct Ministerial intervention on behalf of the developers would serve as a "get out jail free' pass to everyone behaving badly (involved officials to date included) which is only part of why this is still being pursued in higher legal and international human rights realms. Meanwhile, with more attention slowly being drawn to it and the unfortunate truths it represents by now recognized outsiders.

The expectation currently is that the OLT or Minister may look (and continues to intend) to override such City amendments and (the PPS) will allow matters to go forward in violation of multiple real estate, criminal and human rights laws associated in good faith with the original “mandate” but violated in this specific case as a step beyond (already known) others over the past decade. Not exclusively tied to the RTA, but rather also equity rights of private family and Canada Lands Company properties, as alleged sold unlawfully and/or in a dubiously unethical manner to Lifetime and DiamondCorp (as business partners and while Mr. Diamond was Chair). Including through alleged fraud, coercion, conflicts of interest; and without all necessary permissions or resolutions in violation of the “mandate.”

In this one scenario alone, as part of the questionably premature displacement of more than (at least five) individuals as tenants (as recognized “units”), an unknown number of others in additional scenarios (e.g. rooming house inhabitants which are another estimated half dozen)…and the applicant… in an entirely more complicated scenario. The City on behalf of the developers are also claiming the small variant of five vs. six (or more) individuals, apparently to help absolve their business partners of any such larger required RTA/legal/human rights responsibilities. Or, as this PPS then also permits them to do, regardless. The “mandate” was being knowingly long skirted in grey areas of real estate laws in private sales through unlawful means increasingly impacting working and middle-class individuals.
Something this case represents in a way that looks particularly bad. Especially to those who are educated, pay taxes, vote, and tend to have strong opinions about perceived government corruption in ways that may impact them or someone they know. Never mind associated development gone awry.

Allowing developers to renege on any such associated responsibilities, whether by the aforementioned, or say, having the City Planner alone - and apart from majority Council rulings - determine a response that is not agreed-upon by all parties in regard to this (wrongly dragged out) case is a highly debatable legal issue. Alternately, for developers to simply make new applications not tied to the existing ones - or, importantly attached amendments - is also treading into very murky and ugly legal territory. At the same time, permitting an (expected winnable) appeal to the Province by the same developers with deep pockets, would also be a major potential problem for all governments. Particularly when this may end up part of either formal public inquiries and/or equally harsh private legal penalties. Regardless, as better resolutions are obviously needed. Heap on multiple recent associated legal human rights rulings as now applicable, and it means more associated cases will likely only be overturned in court against the government, if not developers themselves, thusly presenting other potential (likely class action) claims and future problems related to the PPS “quick pass.” Who does Ontario really wish to be responsible and hold accountable?

Associated legal considerations around, for example, “right of first refusal.” Ironically, both the City of Toronto and housing advocates have long cited lack of transparency around such private dealings, and the inability of municipalities to ensure this more openly in property acquisitions/being allowed the same right as already afforded in Quebec. The idea major cities in one Province may be afforded something like this that another is not, seems an unlikely legal argument the government would ever win. So why not have Ontario address it head on? Give it to them. This was a contributing factor to this case, and known others, which the PPS doesn't appear to help remedy. In fact, will arguably make the already egregious development reality and presented facts related to this, that much worse. Consider the separation of Planning from Council decisions in these regards, where everyone can simply say “not our responsibility” and get away with it no matter what catastrophic harm is caused in development. Then finger point. Until they can’t. Already a major problem that the PPS needs to help nip in the bud.

I urge the Minister to help make certain this government comes out looking its best, by ensuring that any unresolved cases (that is, already in the pipeline whether as yet legally appealed or not) as formally recognized in anyway prior to this going forward - will be enshrined into these rules and protected according to the intent of the "revitalization mandate.” Recognizing the existing disparity in such cases and difficulty of citizens to date to defend themselves (or others). To do so with good faith consideration of associated private housing/real estate laws as intended equitable and human rights protections. Such as that which the City of Toronto has acknowledged in this cited demolition/building amendment where the applicant has unique recognized rights, in these same unusual extended claims, but as do potential others too, with stakes likely relevant to the RTA. And whereas, the issue of the Queen’s Quay sale should be reviewed in light of presented facts in this case.

However, also to ensure associated timelines are not allowed to linger for years as an obstruction of justice. Or to strong-arm citizens as potential legal appellants. Particularly where associated criminality is already preliminarily established. At the same time, to ensure that either the PPS streamlining, or bylaws like 1331 established since this case was presented, do not afford developers yet more opportunities to circumnavigate such original amendments (again, representing other cases apart from this) or the “revitalization mandate.” Committing crimes, having their hands slapped, then simply making new applications that ignore those original legally intended directives and stop lights. Or appealing to the Minister if that doesn’t work. Keeping in mind, fundamental violations of Charter rights - especially on a foreseeable mass scale - is now a far bigger potential problem for government going forward as a consequence of development already left as a “wild west” of misconduct virtually without oversight. Certainly without punitive deterrents.

Moreover, ensure that both private home (and associated business) equity and human rights interests, as outlined, are not being (further) enabled or violated by the PPS and/or likewise the power of development wrongly emboldened (more than it is already) to do whatever it wants. Furthermore, it would bode well for the Minister to formally address this case on a good will intergovernmental basis, rather than support any more misconduct that might ever be interpreted in any way as wrongfully complicit. Currently the Ford government is operating apart from any known wrongdoing cited to date in these specific regards. Stepping up to acknowledge this through the PPS, by example, would be a helpful step in keeping the provincial government in the public and courts good graces. This may be an intergovernmental problem, but currently Ontario has an opening to redeem itself from overlapping issues already tied to misconduct in the Greenbelt scandal, as this case also involves former Mayor John Tory and his Aide, Steevan Sritharan (now employed by the Province), along with Mr. Diamond as Chair given wince-worthy cited conflicts of interest and open violations of housing (among other) rights.