Once the Notice of Intention is issued, the building is protected under the Ontario Heritage Act (demolition permits are rendered void), even if the actual designation takes awhile to be put in place.
Toronto Estonian House shareholders vote in favor of new Estonian center

<The original building dates back to 1891, with two additions built in 1963 and 1976 to expand the building for use by various entities, including the Estonian Credit Union (ECU), Heinsoo Insurance, the Consulate General of Estonia in Toronto, a café, a store and a shooting range operated by the Toronto Estonian Rifle and Pistol Club (TERP). The facilities have also been in regular use by the Toronto Estonian Schools, Estonian boy scouts and girl guides, a number of choirs and a folk dance troupe, among other diaspora community organizations.

In recent years, however, both the long-term economic viability of the Estonian House as well as the state of the building itself, in need of prohibitively costly overhauls, have been ongoing sources of concern.

According to a letter by CPA Linda Veltmann, current TEM board treasurer, published by Canadian-Estonian paper Estonian Life, TEM shareholders in April 2012 approved with 97.5 percent support directing the board to "solicit viable proposals for Estonian House 2 leveraging the value of our existing land asset." The board made two attempts to redevelop the property as a joint condominium building-community center in the current location, in January and September of 2016, with both deals falling through after proving too risky in the board's judgement. Veltmann also noted that the TEM has no capital reserves to pay for significant repairs to the current property.>
That's the Estonian House - Montgomery Sisam - Revera Living

You mean Montgomery Sisam

Preliminary Report here:

This one appears headed for a refusal report. The heritage restoration aspect of this proposal is highly desirable, so is more seniors housing.......but issues........

From the report:

Built Form, Planned and Built Context The application, in its current form, presents significant built form concerns. Staff will consider Sections 2.3.1 (Healthy Neighbourhoods), 3.1.2 (Built Form), 3.1.3 (Built Form - Tall Buildings), 4.1 (Neighbourhoods) and 4.5 (Mixed Use Areas), and OPA 343 which applies to Broadview Avenue.

The property at 958 Broadview Avenue is a deep but narrow property. The depth of the lot is 135 metres, backing onto the ravine, and the frontage along Broadview Avenue is 37.5metres. In addition, the property is further constrained by the fact that the 135 metres of depth is adjacent to the backyards of lowrise residential properties that are designated Neighbourhoods. Policies in the Official Plan state that new development adjacent to Neighbourhoods will transition appropriately and be compatible with those Neighbourhoods. Moreover, a lot with a width of 37.5 metres presents significant challenges to accommodate a tower, which typically require 12.5 metre setbacks to the side lot lines and should transition down to Neighbourhoods. For these reasons, OPA 323 identified this site for a low-rise or mid-rise building as appropriate development, which would still allow for the intensification of the site, as per the requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan, and which would fit contextually within the surrounding existing and planned context. A proposal that has a mid-rise building closer to Broadview Avenue -and that is compatible with the designated heritage property - and a low-rise portion to the rear would be a proposal that could meet the intent of both the Official Plan and OPA 343.

In addition to the above, staff also note the following preliminary concerns with the current proposal: •The proposed height of 18 storeys, whereas a mid-rise building would be a more appropriate fit within the existing and planned context; •The proposal's inadequate transition to lowrise neighbourhoods to the south; •The proposed tower's failure to meet tall building setbacks (12.5 metres from the north and south side lot lines) and the proposal's reliance on the position of the existing tower to the north to achieve the appropriate 25-metre tower separation; •The proposal's impacts to light, view and privacy to surrounding properties and the public realm •The relationship of the proposal's 6-storey portion at the rear of the site with the lowrise neighbourhoods to the south, which presents privacy and overlook concerns as the proposal only provides a 7.5 metre setback to the backyards of those lowrise neighbourhood properties; •The proposal's ability to enhance the public realm; and •The appropriateness of the proposal's current relationship to the designated heritage building.
- 12.5m setbacks are irrelevant as south is neighbourhoods and north is a very significant apartment block which this achieves 25m from, and which is unlikely to ever be demolished or replaced. impact to light is minimal as shadows go north into the ravine. Privacy to the neighbourhoods to the south is a concern - but given the direct adjacency of an already existing 23 storey building.. I'd say it's not that huge.

Generally the refusal report here seems like a crock of crap, as is typical along Broadview. Why must every single development along here go through a lengthy LPAT hearing to get approved?
I had a look. There is very vague wording when it comes to erosion and the stability of the slope. A lot of qualifications. If that slope goes, so does the on-off ramp at Bloor-Danforth. All it takes is a climate-changey torrential rain from the sound of it. Fun times.