IMO if we could be proactive about it, instead of demolishing them for big residential-only condo buildings, the Sterling houses should be encouraged through zoning and City programs to become over time another area like Kensington/Mirvish Village/Baldwin St. with small shops etc. in converted houses. Keep the fine grain but up the urbanism.

There's also no real standard approach route to the south Junction Triangle area around MoCA from Bloor Street from the north. If you're walking along Bloor Street there's no real sense that there's an interesting mixed use area to the south that you could walk down to. Making Sterling the gateway to this area would help knit things together. Perth could have been this approach, but unfortunately it's going to be mostly closed-off repetitive residential with those townhomes built and the future development to the north instead of activating it with mixed use. (Imagine those townhomes were instead a commercial development with storefronts and offices, workspaces, etc. like the building up at Wallace on the Railpath. Too bad.)

Pedestrianization would be good on that section of Sterling too — the street is so narrow.
 
Last edited:
concrete_and_light said:
IMO if we could be proactive about it, instead of demolishing them for big residential-only condo buildings, the Sterling houses should be encouraged through zoning and City programs to become over time another area like Kensington/Mirvish Village/Baldwin St. with small shops etc. in converted houses. Keep the fine grain but up the urbanism.

There's also no real standard approach route to the south Junction Triangle area around MoCA from Bloor Street from the north. If you're walking along Bloor Street there's no real sense that there's an interesting mixed use area to the south that you could walk down to. Making Sterling the gateway to this area would help knit things together. Perth could have been this approach, but unfortunately it's going to be mostly closed-off repetitive residential with those townhomes built and the future development to the north instead of activating it with mixed use. (Imagine those townhomes were instead a commercial development with storefronts and offices, workspaces, etc. like the building up at Wallace on the Railpath. Too bad.)

Pedestrianization would be good on that section of Sterling too — the street is so narrow.
Click to expand...
Very interesting idea, that would really be the cherry on top for bringing this area of the west end back to life. I'm sure the existing homeowners will be filing noise complaints ad nauseum on the first guy brave enough to open a restaurant in their precious residential strip. Very common of Dundas west, where people move into units above bars, complain about the nose and as such the resteraunts prohibit guests from sitting outside to avoid the wrath of a city staff who are all too eager to issue fines.
 
The newly updated rendering with the 20 storeys now is in the DB.

PLN-CA Presentation Material - 1425 Bloor St W - Presentation Material-8.jpg
 
ProjectEnd said:
Ooooooooof:

globalnews.ca

Toronto neighbourhood group opposes development, gets hit with legal fees - Toronto | Globalnews.ca

Members of a west Toronto neighbourhood association are being ordered to pay $10,000 after fighting a development project.
globalnews.ca globalnews.ca
Click to expand...

In the absence of an evidence-based finding of vexatiousness, the judge's ruling is legally dubious and morally offensive. It reads as SLAP lawsuit, and I would advise the group in question to consider filing a complaint w/the Judicial Council seeking the judge's removal from the bench.

No matter one's position on any given issue, people should have the freedom to reasonably pursue actions in court.

If the action is unreasonable, in most circumstances, the other party can move to dismiss and the judge can make that ruling early on..........

Awarding costs is reasonable............if one can establish malevolence or otherwise entirely unreasonable conduct w/o legal justification. But not for anything less. (in my opinion)
 
Northern Light said:
In the absence of an evidence-based finding of vexatiousness, the judge's ruling is legally dubious and morally offensive. It reads as SLAP lawsuit, and I would advise the group in question to consider filing a complaint w/the Judicial Council seeking the judge's removal from the bench.

No matter one's position on any given issue, people should have the freedom to reasonably pursue actions in court.

If the action is unreasonable, in most circumstances, the other party can move to dismiss and the judge can make that ruling early on..........

Awarding costs is reasonable............if one can establish malevolence or otherwise entirely unreasonable conduct w/o legal justification. But not for anything less. (in my opinion)
Click to expand...

This shows a real misunderstanding of the legal system in which costs are an essential feature in ensuring it is a serious decision to pursue cases and that thought is put into the merits before doing so.

If there were no potential costs consequences, even for well meaning parties, society would be far more litigious than it is. By awarding $10k instead of the $80k costs sought, the judge was going purposely more easy on the appellants than the law technically says they should have, which would have been partial indemnity costs of 40 to 60% of the amount sought (amounts which don't come from nowhere, we're a country of laws and these principles, yes subject to judicial discretion but that discretion is not absolute, are set out in the Courts of Justice Act and related regulations and interpreting caselaw). But despite going noticeably easy on the appellant, you think there should be a complaint.

Costs awards are frequently not collected, btw, so if anyone is going out of their way to be difficult here, it is KingSett for insisting the group pay the award.

Edit to add:

I read the full article an not just your comment, and this is about OLT costs, I see. Similar principles though. If the judge did not order OLT costs payable, that undermines the OLT system. They had no choice, and would have been appealed if they found the OLT ordered costs not payable.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
In the absence of an evidence-based finding of vexatiousness, the judge's ruling is legally dubious and morally offensive. It reads as SLAP lawsuit, and I would advise the group in question to consider filing a complaint w/the Judicial Council seeking the judge's removal from the bench.

No matter one's position on any given issue, people should have the freedom to reasonably pursue actions in court.

If the action is unreasonable, in most circumstances, the other party can move to dismiss and the judge can make that ruling early on..........

Awarding costs is reasonable............if one can establish malevolence or otherwise entirely unreasonable conduct w/o legal justification. But not for anything less. (in my opinion)
Click to expand...
It's important to understand the unique circumstances of this situation and the actors driving it. Rereading the decision is good grounding (particularly 38 and 39): https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onlt/doc/2023/2023canlii16815/2023canlii16815.html

Not much more that I can say publicly other than Ms. Sweeny has long-tried the patience of staff and anyone who has delt with her to the point that there's allegedly both general legal action, as well as a formal Law Society compliant against her conduct...

A Torontonian Now said:
This shows a real misunderstanding of the legal system in which costs are an essential feature in ensuring it is a serious decision to pursue cases and that thought is put into the merits before doing so.

If there were no potential costs consequences, even for well meaning parties, society would be far more litigious than it is. By awarding $10k instead of the $80k costs sought, the judge was going purposely more easy on the appellants than the law technically says they should have, which would have been partial indemnity costs of 40 to 60% of the amount sought (amounts which don't come from nowhere, we're a country of laws and these principles, yes subject to judicial discretion but that discretion is not absolute, are set out in the Courts of Justice Act and related regulations and interpreting caselaw). But despite going noticeably easy on the appellant, you think there should be a complaint.

Costs awards are frequently not collected, btw, so if anyone is going out of their way to be difficult here, it is KingSett for insisting the group pay the award.
Click to expand...
Precisely.
 
ProjectEnd said:
It's important to understand the unique circumstances of this situation and the actors driving it. Rereading the decision is good grounding (particularly 38 and 39): https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onlt/doc/2023/2023canlii16815/2023canlii16815.html

Not much more that I can say publicly other than Ms. Sweeny has long-tried the patience of staff and anyone who has delt with her to the point that there's allegedly both general legal action, as well as a formal Law Society compliant against her conduct...
Click to expand...

Helpful, I will read it when I get a chance, and offer further comment when I'm duly informed.
 
SLAPP suits are always a concern, but I don't think they're getting SLAPP'ed here...
 
Is Ms. Sweeny the head of the South Junction Triangle GROWs Neighbourhood Association?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top