This was unexpectedly quick! Explains all of the recent eye candy we've seen online. I'm sure there's still plenty of red tape in the way but this is a big step forward.
 
Here is the decision.

Edit - The PDF attachment feature isn't working so here is a link: https://we.tl/t-WXhtOb1o8P (ignore - there is no longer a free WeTransfer option)

Here is another attempt: https://www.transfernow.net/dl/20210512tMbYOdo9 -- Warning - lots of ads on this. Follow the link then wait a few seconds for the download link to appear in the middle of the screen.
 

Attachments

  • PL180211-MAY-12-2021.pdf
    8.3 MB · Views: 169
Last edited:
As obnoxious as I find this ruling is, the silver lining here is that The City if done right may have found a way to privately fund their Rail Deck dream. I'll agree though, it will likely far from what The City had originally envisioned. /sigh

That said, I don't think this spat is over yet. Probably far from it.
 
There is a potential appeal to Divisional Court on question of law only. The City would need to seek leave to appeal. I would anticipate a staff report to City Council seeking these instructions, if they weren't given in advance.
What is the likelihood the city would win the appeal to divisional court on question of law?
 
What is the likelihood the city would win the appeal to divisional court on question of law?
Given that this was a high-profile decision, heavily litigated, issued by a panel of three LPAT members, it seems extremely unlikely that the LPAT made a fundamental error of law. This is over. LPAT is the appeal body. It has made its decision.
 
Given that this was a high-profile decision, heavily litigated, issued by a panel of three LPAT members, it seems extremely unlikely that the LPAT made a fundamental error of law. This is over. LPAT is the appeal body. It has made its decision.
Wow so rail deck park is dead. More condos in City Place. Just what we needed lol.
 

Back
Top