It is amazing how lucky we are, but we are squandering opportunities to work with others. I don't understand why the politicians have dug in their heels on this one rather than be pragmatic and realise that we can't fund such a park from scarce public funds. Hopefully the OMB or higher levels of government can bring sanity to this.

True, same happened a couple years ago with the proposal by Oxford to redevelop over the corridor,... since there was a Casino involved in the plans the city quickly shot down that idea,
it would have generated the city 50-60 million dollars a year in much needed revenue and kick start a new mega-development that would have included a hotel, new convention-retail plaza/entertainment centre, that would also have generated another large amount of money and jobs, Oh well:confused:
 
True, same happened a couple years ago with the proposal by Oxford to redevelop over the corridor,... since there was a Casino involved in the plans the city quickly shot down that idea,
it would have generated the city 50-60 million dollars a year in much needed revenue and kick start a new mega-development that would have included a hotel, new convention-retail plaza/entertainment centre, that would also have generated another large amount of money and jobs, Oh well:confused:

What Oxford proposed (and still very much in play, as mentioned) was building on their existing footprint with decking over the rail corridor as an add-on - quite different from this particular proposal.

AoD
 
Then they should be willing to pay higher taxes to fund it, no?

We'll have to see about that. :-(

It is a LOT of money. That's one part of the leverage ORCA has. (And they are targeting that with their radio ads) It would be hard to target one area of town with some sort of surcharge.

* a tax on AirBnB in the area
* local improvement surcharge on condo fees

Maybe someone should put that to the councillor or the local associations. Start some crowdfunding now.

I myself support a park, but I certainly feel like over $1B is too much. Too much to support at once certainly. How does a steel supported structure, basically a huge green roof reach anywhere near that level of cost?

I don't know if the sides on this issue are prepared for a compromise. Possibly let ORCA have east of Spadina, the area to the west entirely to the park.
 
We'll have to see about that. :-(

It is a LOT of money. That's one part of the leverage ORCA has. (And they are targeting that with their radio ads) It would be hard to target one area of town with some sort of surcharge.

* a tax on AirBnB in the area
* local improvement surcharge on condo fees

Maybe someone should put that to the councillor or the local associations. Start some crowdfunding now.

I myself support a park, but I certainly feel like over $1B is too much. Too much to support at once certainly. How does a steel supported structure, basically a huge green roof reach anywhere near that level of cost?

I don't know if the sides on this issue are prepared for a compromise. Possibly let ORCA have east of Spadina, the area to the west entirely to the park.

It is only a large amount if you have to spend it right away. Not allowing ORCA to proceed leave open the possibility of a park to be built at this location when the final decision is made to do so at the city's leisure. That's what's important especially since the core is growing denser by the day.

AoD
 
Exactly. You have to plan and finance over many, many years. It's going to cost a lot because it's a big job requiring some real engineering finesse. It's not your everyday urban park they're proposing to build. Done right, it would be the crown jewel of Toronto parks.
 
The bottom line to all of this remains: Where are the deeds to ownership of the USRC land, let alone the air-rights above it? (Which btw, does not necessarily follow as being the case on a federally regulated corridor)

Don't you think it's just a little odd that no-one has produced any yet? And failing that, produce the documents from the Land Registry in lieu of the actual deeds?
 
An interesting document attached to the Refusal Report to be discussed at City Council this week

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/te/comm/communicationfile-74991.pdf

I am writing to you on behalf of The Toronto Terminals Railway Co. Ltd (hereinafter “TTR”) and Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter “CN”).

TTR and CN have entered into an agreement with Craft Acquisitions Corporation (hereinafter “Craft”) and P.I.T.S. Developments Inc. (P.I.T.S.) to sell their development rights and property strata over, under and within that portion of the Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) roughly bounded by Blue Jays Way (on the east), Bathurst Street (on the west), Front Street (on the north) and Ice Boat Terrace (on the south) (the “Property”).

Pursuant to its agreement with Craft and P.I.T.S., CN and TTR consented to P.I.T.S. filing the above referenced Official Plan Amendment application to permit Mixed Use high density development within the Property.

TTR and CN own 100% of all property rights above 27 feet above the top of the rail of the track in the USRC (including the former CN High Line Rail Corridor and Bathurst North Yard) and own in perpetuity rights to lands beneath the 27 foot horizontal to identify locations for and to construct and maintain, on the surface, subsurface and through the 27 feet of the corridor permanent facilities, columns, subsurface structures, and utilities as may be required to support any building/construction that TTR or CN may wish to create permanently or temporarily above the 27 foot horizontal boundary.

TTR and CN USRC Property Strata were created as a result of the sales of the USRC by TTR in 2000 to GO Transit and the High Line rail corridor and Bathurst North Yard by CN to Metrolinx in 2010 and 2001 with these rights being expressly retained by CN and TTR for the purpose of future development of buildings and structures within and above the USRC and former CN High Line rail corridor and Bathurst North Yard.

The OPA application seeks to develop the northern portion of the CN and TTR Property Strata for a mixed-use, highdensity development and provides the opportunity for open space (including a public park) on the southern portion. The private OPA provides the City with an opportunity to create a public park on approximately half of the railway corridor.
 
That's the first concrete proof ORCA actually has the air rights (which the city has long refuted, and which ORCA has said all along), right?
Which means they own everything except for Puente de Luz and the Metrolinx piece by Spadina.
So that also means the city would definitely have to expropriate...and it seems pretty significant given how little fanfare it's gotten. Nice find, @ChesterCopperpot .
Should be some good drama before all this is resolved.

(And I missed the ending on first read. It also says CN and TTR are part of the appeal to the OMB, along with the developers, so they're all in- positioning themselves for a fight and/or a good expropriation cheque... Definitely getting interesting.)
 
The city hasn't refuted it for a while. It doesn't mean that the city still isn't planning to expropriate.

The city doesn't really care if they expropriate from TTR or ORCA.

The fight is of course going to be expropriation value - which I believe is going to be less than ORCA wants people to think. The amount of infrastructure spending to make this "land" developable as an asset is so expensive that the base land value is likely next to nothing. The whole point of ORCA's OPA application is to try and make the site look like an absolutely prime development spot. It's not.
 
Well then, CN and TTR will be able to produce their deeds to the land and the details of the sale of the City of Toronto's Esplanade Corridor to them?

This should be interesting. Btw: The First Nations sold North America to me. Because I say so. It came with the Brooklyn Bridge. Excellent heads-up TJ, but as with any land transaction, the ownership of the deed being sold must be made clear.

Someone's in for a hell of a shidstorm somewhere on this. This isn't for the OMB to decide unless someone can show clear title to their ownership of the USRC (mostly the Esplanade Corridor) and when it was bought from the City of Toronto, and that action done within the purview of necessary Federal and Provincial agencies, one of which, btw, is the Parliament of Canada, just a tad more than an agency.

OMB? Try Superior or Supreme Court. Where's my bag of popcorn?

Clarification: To be clear, not all of the now contested land is contained and described by the Esplanade Corridor Tripartite Agreement, which is somewhat less than what's now 'under contention', but it is the *core* of the land area now disputed.

I'll dig later to the area claimed by 'The Parliament of Canada' and as referred to and used for decisions examined and based upon that by the Supreme Court of Canada. Areas aside were bought by the rail companies at the time (mostly CP and GTR), and some land even exchanged with the City in lieu of the formation of the Esplanade Corridor. This is all detailed in SCC decisions and Provincial Statutes on behalf of the City of Toronto, with multiple references by the SCC in later numerous decisions specifically on ownership and the responsibilities/liabilities that came with that legal stasis. The reference to the 'Parliament of Canada' and (gist) "for the use of the People" occurs in many if not all those multiple rulings against the railways.

Is there a ruling that the Railways haven't tried to test the various governments on in court over the years? I'm just so shocked that they'd be trying it yet again now.

Bring it on!

P.S: Let's suppose the Railways did somehow attain title to the Esplanade Corridor. Then all they have to do is produce the deeds and details of same to stop this endless charade.

If indeed (pun fully intended) they do have one (them), then one has to wonder...where are they? And why have they not shown so far?

What a curious affair. Indeed.

Quick review for now, for any readers not familiar with the extensive examination of this matter in this and other strings:
Supreme Court of Canada

Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. City of Toronto, (1910) 42 S.C.R. 613

Date: 1910-02-15

The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company Appellants;

and

The City of Toronto Respondent.

(Toronto Viaduct Case.)

1909: November 29, 30; 1910: February 15.

Present: Girouard, Davies, Idington, Duff and Anglin JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE BOARD OF RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA.

Railways—Jurisdiction of Board of Railway Commissioners—Deviation of tracks—Separation of grades—"Highway"—Dedication— User—Public way or means of communication—Access to harbour—Navigable waters—Construction of statute—"Special Act" -—R.S.C. 1906, c. 37, ss. 2(11) (28), 3, 237, 238, 241; 56 V. c. 4S(D.).

Prior to 1888, the Grand Trunk Railway Company operated a portion of its railway upon the "Esplanade," in the City of Toronto, and, in that year, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company obtained permission from the Dominion Government to fill in a part of Toronto Harbour lying south of the "Esplanade" and to lay and operate tracks thereon, which it did. Several city streets abutted on the north side of the "Esplanade," and the general public passed along the prolongations of these streets, with vehicles and on foot, for the purpose of access to the harbour. In 1892, an agreement was entered into between the city and the two railway companies respecting the removal of the sites of terminal stations, the erection of overhead traffic bridges and the closing or deviation of some of these streets. This agreement was ratified by statutes of the Dominion and provincial legislatures, the Dominion Act (56 Vict. ch. 48), providing that the works mentioned in the agreement should be works for the general advantage of Canada. To remove doubts respecting the right

[Page 614]

of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to the use of portions of the bed of the harbour on which they had laid their tracks across the prolongations of the streets mentioned, a grant was made to that company by the Dominion Government of the "use for railway purposes" on and over the filled-in areas included within the lines formed by the production of the sides of the streets. At a later date the Dominion Government granted these areas to the city in trust to be used as public highways, subject to an agreement respecting the railways, known as the "Old Windmill Line Agreement," and excepting therefrom strips of land 66 feet in width between the southerly ends of the areas and the harbour, reserved as and for "an allowance for a public highway." In June, 1909, the Board of Railway Commissioners, on application by the city, made an order directing that the railway companies should elevate their tracks on and adjoining the "Esplanade" and construct a viaduct there. Held, Girouard and Duff, JJ. dissenting, that the Board had jurisdiction to make -such order; that the street prolongations mentioned were highways within the meaning of the "Railway Act"; that the Act of Parliament validating the agreement made in 1892 was not a "special Act" within the meaning of "The Railway Act" and did not alter the character of the agreement as a private contract affecting only the parties thereto, and that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, having acquired only a limited right or easement in the filled-in land, had not such a title thereto as would deprive the public of the right to pass over the same as a means of communication between the streets and the harbour.
[...continues at great length and detail...]
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/9855/index.do

Take special note: "the general advantage of Canada."
 
Last edited:
So I guess it boils down to, it's nice everyone has very interesting plans for this piece of land, with various degrees of practicality and actual financial viability.
But we have a ways to go before it's even entirely clear who has the right to do anything. ORCA at least seems to have a leg up on the city but what it all adds up to remains clear as mud.

(One would presume lawyers for the City and/or ORCA are aware of this contested status but so far it's basically been a battle of renderings, winning over the hearts and minds of the voting public, largely irrespective of legal realities.)
 
So I guess it boils down to, it's nice everyone has very interesting plans for this piece of land, with various degrees of practicality and actual financial viability.
But we have a ways to go before it's even entirely clear who has the right to do anything. ORCA at least seems to have a leg up on the city but what it all adds up to remains clear as mud.

(One would presume lawyers for the City and/or ORCA are aware of this contested status but so far it's basically been a battle of renderings, winning over the hearts and minds of the voting public, largely irrespective of legal realities.)
Just running out the door, so quick replay. Yes! You've got the gist of it.

And it's curious not only that we've hear nothing in the press from the City on this, it's curious that we've heard *nothing in the press from anyone political* (civic reps besides).

I could detail the responses I have gotten personally, it might just muddy the impact of their planned responses in the public forum. I suspect things are far more complex behind the scenes, and every level of governance is terrified that multiple massive deals have....ummm...'not being fully compliant with the law'.

With ORCA banging on the bomb with a sledgehammer, one wonders how long the silence in the public realm can endure for?

If *anyone* reading this is aware of the rail companies providing name and detail to purchase agreements for the USRC inside the Esplanade Corridor, please provide. I will gladly research it, because I can find nothing to buttress their claim of ownership. Quite the contrary, I see fees and costs assigned to the Rail Cos *for their use of the Corridor* as detailed in Agreements, and now we find them telling us how they can sell what is ours?

Hey...
More later, must run, keep up the conversation, as it sparks my digging on this. Quick point: The City and QP appear to be deeply complicit in abrogating SCC decisions that clearly uphold the ownership of City and "People of Canada" on this matter.

All of them have massive skeletons to hide...
 

Back
Top