CBC Investigates
Toronto councillor pushes for planning changes that benefit developer despite ties to company
Ethics expert says Di Ciano should have disclosed relationship
By John Lancaster, Jennifer Fowler, CBC News Posted: May 17, 2016 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: May 18, 2016 1:57 PM ET

Toronto Coun. Justin Di Ciano requested a key change to a planning report last Wednesday that is to the benefit of Etobicoke-based home builder Dunpar Developments Inc. — a developer with which Di Ciano has had personal and professional ties.

Dunpar wants to build 72 townhomes and a three- to four-storey commercial building in an area of Mimico that is currently used predominantly for industrial and commercial purposes. Numbered companies controlled by Dunpar own three properties in the Judson lands, the city's name for the space south of Judson Street, which runs between Royal York Road and Islington Avenue.

In a report, city planners recommended against allowing any new residential development on the site because it sits right beside one of Canada's busiest rail corridors and an expanding Metrolinx train maintenance facility.

The Judson lands, planners said, are as close as nine metres to the massive rail corridor — far less than the 30-metre guidelines adopted by Canadian municipalities in 2013 — something that would create safety and noise concerns if they're developed.

A group of local residents also urged councillors not to rezone the land.

But Di Ciano and other members of Toronto's planning and growth committee voted 4-2 last Wednesday to adopt his request to reject the planners' recommendation. Instead, committee members added Di Ciano's recommendation that the Judson lands be rezoned for mixed use, including residential development.

When asked by CBC's John Lancaster why he wanted the staff report amended, Di Ciano said city planners, Metrolinx planners and the community groups who all opposed rezoning the lands "got it wrong."

"What came through the planning process was flawed," he said. Although the report recommended against building homes beside the rail maintenance facility, Di Ciano claimed "we've been developing next to rail yards for the last 25 years, intensely."

Later in an email, the councillor added that rezoning the land to allow mixed use would also help create more commercial space and jobs.

Councillor's brother worked for Dunpar


CBC News has learned that Di Ciano has had ties to Dunpar for several years.

His twin brother, Julien Di Ciano, worked as a project manager for Dunpar starting in 2008 and also sometimes acted as the company's spokesperson.

When asked last Wednesday why he voted, Di Ciano told CBC News his brother doesn't work there anymore. In the past, the councillor has stated he would abstain from voting on issues related to the developer.

Di Ciano's lawyer repeated that claim in an email to CBC News, saying Julien Di Ciano left Dunpar in July 2015 and that the councillor "never voted on any such applications while his brother worked for Dunpar."

However, CBC News has discovered that Justin Di Ciano voted on another Dunpar application — this time before Etobicoke York Community Council — in January 2015. In that instance his vote was to the benefit of Dunpar and in line with city staff recommendations.

CBC News has also learned that in January 2009, before Di Ciano was elected, he and a family member closed a deal to purchase a newly built townhome in a Dunpar development in Etobicoke. Land-registry records show they paid $434,149.

Di Ciano sold the townhome May 2 for $856,500. It is one of only a handful that overlook a small park in the development and the sale price set a record for the complex.

Dunpar named in Di Ciano audit


In October 2010, after Di Ciano lost a narrow race for the Ward 5 seat in Etobicoke, a citizen complaint prompted the city's compliance audit committee to request an independent examination of his campaign financial statement.

Auditors identified at least 12 apparent violations of the Municipal Elections Act, two of which were related to unreported campaign spending connected to Dunpar.

The first concerned a letter distributed to some Ward 5 residents in which Dunpar executive Mark Mintzer described Di Ciano as "the best possible candidate to bring this community to the next level."

Auditors found Di Ciano's campaign didn't report the cost of printing and distributing the Dunpar endorsement. When asked by auditors to explain the discrepancy, Di Ciano stated the Dunpar executive acted without authorization from the campaign. But the auditors determined Di Ciano was "not forthcoming" about his brother's employment with Dunpar.

Auditors from Froese Forensic Partners also found that Di Ciano's campaign used a charity's name to rent a school gym for a campaign event. The gym was booked under the name of PACT Urban Peace Alliance — a charity that is located in a Dunpar building. Dunpar owner John Zanini sits on PACT's board of directors.

The $727 cost was picked up by Di Ciano's brother but went unreported in what was deemed an "apparent contravention" of the Municipal Elections Act. Despite the report's findings, the city's audit committee decided not to take action against Di Ciano.

In an email to CBC News, Di Ciano's lawyer said the councillor never accepted the Dunpar endorsement and that he "lost that election and contributes that unwarranted endorsement for the reason he lost."

Later, during the 2014 campaign, Di Ciano co-founded the Jean Augustine Centre for Young Women's Empowerment in Etobicoke. The centre is part of PACT and is located in the same Dunpar building.

Di Ciano's lawyer minimized Dunpar's involvement with PACT, saying that PACT founder David Lockett is "solely responsible for strategic direction." CBC News has discovered that Lockett has also acted as a leasing agent for some of Dunpar's commercial properties.

[...]

Planning staff: Judson lands too close to rail lines for homes

During Wednesday's meeting, Councillors Di Ciano, David Shiner, Christin Carmichael Greb and John Campbell voted to support the amendments. Councillors Kristyn Wong-Tam and John Filion voted instead to support the original recommendations by city planners.

The study, called the Mimico-Judson Secondary Plan, took three years and cost $200,000.

It found the Judson lands would be as close as nine metres to the busy freight and commuter rail lines. Planners also noted that the Judson lands are within 30 metres of the Metrolinx Willowbrook train-maintenance facility and that guidelines recommend new homes should not be built within 300 metres of such facilities.

At last Wednesday's planning and growth committee meeting, a local residents' group urged the councillors not to rezone the lands, saying people who live farther away from the facility and across the street from the proposed townhome complex often complain about noise and vibration. The 16-cylinder, 4,000 horse power diesel locomotives need to idle through the night at the maintenance facility when temperatures dip below -5 C.

The staff report explains the Metrolinx facility will also expand to a 24-hour-a-day operation.

Speaking generally about the the Judson lands, Metrolinx spokesperson Anne Marie Aikins told CBC News that "people have to realize a lot more trains will be passing through there every hour. It's going to be very noisy, lights on 24/7 for security reasons, and we want people to know that."

Note: PACT's website was updated in the past few days to say that the Jean Augustine Centre is now operated solely by Jean Augustine.

John Lancaster can be contacted at: john.lancaster@cbc.ca or 416-205-7538
 
See point above, and read the background on this case. It *IS* in demand. That's what this whole issue is about.
The issue here isnt whether or not there is demand, the issue is that city council voted to re-zone a piece of land from industrial use to residential use while going against recommendations from the experts stating that this should not be done.

Metrolinx recognizes the importance to keep this zoned as industrial, which s why they are now challenging this re-zoning. I have yet to hear Metrolinx come out and say that they are exploring selling air-rights over Willowbrook; last I heard, they were interested in *increasing* industrial activities in the yard. That's the reason I pointed out your Hudson Yard's reference as it has very little to do with Willowbrook.
 
The issue here isnt whether or not there is demand, the issue is that city council voted to re-zone a piece of land from industrial use to residential use while going against recommendations from the experts stating that this should not be done.
Metrolinx aren't stating that at all. They *favour* "mixed use". See attached document below. The contention in this case is "mixed use" v "employment" on this particular strip of land next to the Mimico Yard.
Metrolinx recognizes the importance to keep this zoned as industrial, which s why they are now challenging this re-zoning. I have yet to hear Metrolinx come out and say that they are exploring selling air-rights over Willowbrook; last I heard, they were interested in *increasing* industrial activities in the yard. That's the reason I pointed out your Hudson Yard's reference as it has very little to do with Willowbrook.
The idea of putting the new yard at below grade (trenched) is mine, Amare. It would satisfy many of the concerns *warranted or not* of the locals. That's now the third time I've made the point. It also allows for later decking over to satisfy the original City staff proposal, as attached in my previous post, of "Low Scale Employment" buildings on the Judson street plot.

http://www1.toronto.ca/City Of Toronto/City Planning/Community Planning/Files/images/M/Mimico-Judson Preferred Demonstration Plan.jpg

Those *proposed* buildings, which could even be Metrolinx ones, can go over tracks. It would of course require your looking at the City's proposed use for you to realize that. It would be a win-win-win for all. And it would make an OMB appeal that much easier, as Metrolinx can ask for stipulations for the category of "Mixed Use" that applies. Meantime, the "Employment" category can be satisfied by building above the tracks, all that can be written in as site specifics in a decision.
 

Attachments

  • Metrolinx on Judson.png
    Metrolinx on Judson.png
    258.4 KB · Views: 422
Last edited:
The idea of putting the new yard at below grade (trenched) is mine, Amare. It would satisfy many of the concerns *warranted or not* of the locals. That's now the third time I've made the point. It also allows for later decking over to satisfy the original City staff proposal, as attached in my previous post, of "Low Scale Employment" buildings on the Judson street plot.
So the plan would be to spend unnecessary money to accommodate a development and/or developments where it wouldnt be warranted? That would be a tremendous waste of resources especially in a city where money could be put into other infrastructure projects. Selling air rights would not net nearly enough cash to offset your proposal. I dont see how this would be a win for anybody except for the developer.
 
I dont see how this would be a win for anybody except for the developer.
lol...you haven't seen any point all along. Di Ciano doesn't have a hope, Metrolinx get their new yard space, no matter what, and as a consolation to neighbours and the City, "low scale employment" is erected above the below grade tracks when a developer (who might well be Metrolinx themselves) erects above them.
http://www1.toronto.ca/City Of Toronto/City Planning/Community Planning/Files/images/M/Mimico-Judson Preferred Demonstration Plan.jpg

Willowbrook would not attract significant attention from developers because there would be very little demand for residential or commercial uses around this area of South Etobicoke.
So where did Di Ciano come from?
Justin Di Ciano wasn't present at a city council meeting Wednesday where his colleagues approved a controversial land planning report that will benefit a developer with whom the Etobicoke councillor has had ties.[...]The amended plan benefits Etobicoke-based Dunpar Developments, which owns three properties on the land and has a proposal to build 72 townhomes and a commercial building there. Dunpar also has a conditional offer to buy a piece of the land where a cement-batching plant is currently located.
[...]
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/council-vote-1.3624139
 
Last edited:
If anyone is wondering what was said at the Planning and Growth Management Committee, here is the May 11, 2016 meeting. This part of property is talked about here: youtube.com/watch?v=LXzAY7EfYxE&t=106m40s
Metrolinx speaks between 2:29:00 and 2:50:00 in the video.

At the city council meeting on June 8, 2016 Jennifer Keesmaat gave a presentation and takes questions from council members till about 1:40:00 in the video. youtube.com/watch?v=LHcqYWHuxJ8&t=33m0s
There is a big break and then its talked about again at 7:16:44 and the vote is at 7:28:30.
 
If anyone is wondering what was said at the Planning and Growth Management Committee, here is the May 11, 2016 meeting. This part of property is talked about here: youtube.com/watch?v=LXzAY7EfYxE&t=106m40s
Metrolinx speaks between 2:29:00 and 2:50:00 in the video.

At the city council meeting on June 8, 2016 Jennifer Keesmaat gave a presentation and takes questions from council members till about 1:40:00 in the video. youtube.com/watch?v=LHcqYWHuxJ8&t=33m0s
There is a big break and then its talked about again at 7:16:44 and the vote is at 7:28:30.

Just watched roughly two hours from the first link you posted. Very, very interesting. Very uneven performance by the cmte members, sometimes sharp questions, sometimes maudlin, or worse. If I were a cmte member, I'd have challenged a few of the presenters on some of the finer points, such as "coach v. railyard"...and indeed, the Metrolinx planner straightened that out, albeit many of his points were lost on the cmte members. Some of the members and presenters' grasps of procedure were astoundingly poor. e.g: Grimes asking about the existing service complex as to whether there was community consultation or not. (He does same in the full chamber later too) That was obvious baiting, but a number of them were doing that. They had an agenda well beyond neutrality. The "third largest property owner rep" (the name eludes me) on the east of Royal York wanted more time to interact with Planning....a thoroughly reasonable stance considering the complexity. She was given an ultimatum: "Do you want this decided here today or before the OMB". Whoaaa...I would have lost it had that been me, and thrown the question back at them: "Do YOU want this to go before the OMB!" Some developers can be quite sensible on these issues. Some are just plain greedy slimes.

The OMB is where this will get a proper hearing, unless it's settled behind closed doors...and an odd query from the cmte chair on that: (gist) To Metrolinx planner: "Do you make your reports and meeting public?". It's a very valid question, when asked by someone with nothing to hide, which certainly isn't the case with this Planning Cmte. One City apparatchik chimed in "We have had three reports sent to us" which is par for any of the interested parties. Contrary to the provincial FOI legislation, the vast majority of municipal business in Ontario is still done behind closed doors, and reports not made available to the public. And many council meetings that don't fall within the guidelines that allows them to be closed are in fact closed.

What is interesting is the Metrolinx claim that "Block F" was not on their radar to buy or expropriate. It should be. But that's incidental to the issue here.

It's way past late, but this is compelling stuff, and asks more questions than it gives answers to. Metrolinx certainly acted rationally in announcing an appeal to the OMB. If this were a lower court, a higher court justice would slam the proceedings.

Incredible heads-up geek! Many thanks for this. More comment after watching Keesmat's presentation.

Edit to Add: Just watched the Keesmat appearance. She performed very well, especially considering some of the inane questions. Some of the councillors get top marks for being informed and visionary, Shiner, Mihevic and Thompson especially.

Some of the legal questions raised in this and the Metrolinx Construction strings came up and were answered, specifically Metrolinx appearing before the OMB before resorting to using their powers to expropriate, albeit the (ostensibly City Clerk) answered (gist) "subject to a legislative vote"....which I question as per expropriation, and as per zoning/planning, the Minister of Muni Affairs and Housing can alone impose it under the Muni Act.

I'll continue watching this later today. The presentation in the full chamber vastly more accountable than the cmte. And that *five letters from Metrolinx* had been supplied, one of them following the farcical cmte affair.
 
Last edited:
A little bit of media coverage by Torontonist on one of the most idiotic planning decisions made in the City of Toronto's history. It's a great read as it goes in depth and explains the whole situation in simple terms.

http://torontoist.com/2016/09/judson-street-dunpar-zoning-change-justin-di-ciano-john-tory/
Excellent 'heads-up' Amare! The author is none less than Sean Marshall, one of the moderators for this publication, and a contributor to this string. I'm about to read it now.
 
Whoa! Excellent 'heads-up', just glanced at it before reading intently, more comment later.

[...]
A transcript of the hearing, obtained by CBC News, shows Di Ciano refused to answer when asked if Dunpar owner Zanini was paying his legal bills. Di Ciano also refused to answer if he was paying his own legal bills. Di Ciano's lawyer had advised him not to answer the questions.

In June, days after CBC news reports detailed Di Ciano's past ties to Dunpar, the lawsuit was dropped. The case was supposed to go to trial weeks later. CBC News asked Di Ciano why the lawsuit was withdrawn but he declined to answer. [...]
One has to be careful drawing inference, let alone conclusions from such information.....but...

Further thought: No-one will be taking closer note of this than Metrolinx' counsel for the pending OMB hearing.
 
Last edited:
How can they apply for building permits if this is before the OMB?
upload_2018-1-19_18-4-58.png

upload_2018-1-19_18-7-7.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-1-19_18-4-58.png
    upload_2018-1-19_18-4-58.png
    76.7 KB · Views: 629
  • upload_2018-1-19_18-7-7.png
    upload_2018-1-19_18-7-7.png
    75.1 KB · Views: 621
They're applying for industrial units there: not townhomes. Maybe we're about to hear about a settlement here?

42
 

Back
Top