Toronto City Council votes to permit sixplexes in nine wards
Toronto City Council has approved a motion that will allow low-rise sixplexes in a nine wards.
Staff initially recommended that councillors permit sixplexes in detached residential buildings in low-rise residential neighbourhoods city-wide.
'Expanding multiplex permissions will increase new low-rise housing options for Torontonians. New residents in low-rise neighbourhoods can help stabilize declining populations, optimize the use of existing infrastructure, and support local retail establishments and services,' staff said in its report last month.
However, during Wednesday's city council meeting, not all councillors supported the recommendation. Coun. Gord Perks, who is the chair of the housing committee, then put forward a motion that would permit sixplexes in the downtown Toronto and East York wards and in Scarborough North. The remaining wards have the option to join later.
'I'm moving this very reluctantly,' Perks said while presenting his motion.
'I've spent a considerable amount of time and effort working with my colleagues on council trying to find a majority support for doing what this council already committed to in 2023, which is citywide sixplexes, but I've been unable to find that.'
Permitting sixplexes is included in one of the eight initiatives the city must deliver over three years under the Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF) agreement with the federal government in exchange for $471 million.
In a letter in March, the federal government gave Mayor Olivia Chow a June 30 deadline to report to council with opportunities and bylaws to allow more low-rise, multi-unit housing development across Toronto, which includes sixplexes. The letter also provided extended timelines for several other housing initiatives.
'As we work to ensure compliance with over 200 HAF agreements across Canada, we are establishing consequences for non-compliance. In this case, if Toronto does not fully implement the above initiatives and milestones by the newly extended timeline, the federal government will cut funding equivalent to 25 per cent of the annual payment,' the letter read.
So far, the city has received $235.56 million of the $471 million.
Perks said his motion would create some risk with its relationship with the federal government.
'There is a potential that funds that have already been dispersed in the City of Toronto could be clawed back, meaning that affordable housing projects that we already have plans for in the City of Toronto could fall by the wayside,' Perks said.
He shared that some councillors spoke to their Liberal MPs, who told them that the city didn't need sixplexes.
'So, I say to the federal government, if you want, if you want to achieve this citywide, tell the members of your Toronto caucus to stop giving Toronto city councillors mixed messages,' Perks said.
His motion passed.
'I am confident that, as more people see the benefits of missing middle housing, where average rent is $830 cheaper than condos and 65% of units are family-sized, more councillors will also opt in,' Mayor Chow said in a statement following the vote.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
an hour ago
- CTV News
‘We're on the side of kids': Alberta premier pushes back on court injunction against law banning doctors from providing gender-affirming care to youth
Danielle Smith said she welcomes a debate in court after an Alberta judge put a hold on a provincial law that bans doctors from providing gender-affirming care to youth on Friday. On her Saturday radio show, Your Province, Your Premier, Danielle Smith said she believed her government's case was solid, measured, evidence-based – and on the side of young patients that Justice Allison Kuntz said faced 'irreparable harm' if she didn't issue a temporary injunction against the law before it fully came into effect. 'The evidence shows that singling out health care for gender diverse youth and making it subject to government control will cause irreparable harm to gender diverse youth by reinforcing the discrimination and prejudice they are already subjected to,' Kuntz wrote in the judgment. The law, passed late last year but not fully in effect, would have prevented doctors from providing treatment such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy to those under 16. 'I think the court was in error,' Smith said. 'That's part of the reason why we're taking it to court. The court had said there will be irreparable harm if the law goes ahead. I feel the reverse. I feel there will be irreparable harm to children who get sterilized at the age of 10 years old – and so we want those kids to have their day in court. 'We want those who were counselled to have sex change operations prematurely who now feel like they weren't protected to be able to be witnesses so we don't make these kinds of mistakes.' Kuntz wrote that denying access to this care not only risks causing youth emotional harm but also exposes them to permanent physical changes that don't match their gender identity. 'Intentionally or not, the ban will signal that there is something wrong with or suspect about having a gender identity that is different than the sex you were assigned at birth,' Kuntz wrote. 'Gender diverse youth will bear the entire burden of that speculation.' Smith said there's a long history of governments making decisions that have caused harm. 'We had a sterilization of those who were committed to mental institutions that we had to do a major payout on,' she said. 'There are Indigenous women who are challenging their sterilization that happened at the hands of doctors that they want to make a criminal code provision on that–we shouldn't be capricious in taking away a person's right to have children. 'So we want to battle this out,' she added.' And the way you do that is you go to the higher levels of court.' Last month, the Canadian Medical Association and three Alberta-based doctors launched a legal case challenging the constitutionality of the bill, arguing it violates their Charter right to freedom of conscience. Alberta's other two pieces of transgender legislation — banning transgender women from competing in women's sports and preventing youth under 16 from changing their name or pronouns in the school system without parental consent — have yet to be challenged in court. The education bill also requires parents to opt in for their children to receive lessons in school on sexuality, sexual orientation and gender identity. 'Demonizing vulnerable kids': Nenshi Opposition NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi said in a statement that his party was pleased to see the court decision, calling it a 'great day for young Albertans who simply want to live authentically and safely.' 'The court has determined what we already knew that this ban could cause irreparable harm to gender diverse young Albertans,' Nenshi said. 'This was never about doing the right thing: it was always about demonizing vulnerable kids to boost Danielle Smith's political fortunes.' LGBTQ+ advocacy groups Egale Canada and the Skipping Stone Foundation took the case to court, and in a statement Egale said the decision was a 'historic win.' Also listed as applicants in the case are five transgender youth who will be directly affected. Egale's legal director Bennett Jensen said Friday that the decision was a 'huge relief' for the youth involved. '(The legislation) does not solve any real issues in the medical system,' Jensen said in an interview. 'It simply creates them and targets an already very vulnerable, small group of young people with further discrimination, and that's what the judge found.' Despite the Friday decision, Smith expressed confidence moving forward. 'We actually think we've got a very solid case,' she said. 'We think we've been measured, we think we've been evidence-based, and we think we're on the side of kids. 'So we want to see how long that process will play out, but we think it's really important for these issues to be debated in court.' With files from The Canadian Press and Aaron Sousa
CTV News
an hour ago
- CTV News
DHL Express Canada workers ratify new agreement, move to end strike and lockout
DHL containers are transported on the tarmac at John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport in Hamilton, Ont., Wednesday, March 26, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Nick Iwanyshyn TORONTO — Canada's largest private sector union says a three-week lockout and strike at DHL Express Canada is due to end because workers ratified a new agreement. Unifor says the four-year agreement reached with the delivery company was ratified with 72 per cent support from members. It includes a 15.75 per cent wage hike, pension increases for hourly workers and a new pension for owner-operators. The agreement also features increases to short- and long-term disability payments, new mental-health benefits, a rise in severance and updated language around artificial intelligence, robotics and work-from-home policies. The agreement impacts more than 2,100 DHL Express Canada employees who work as truck drivers, couriers and in warehouse and clerical roles. They were locked out after midnight on June 8 and went on strike hours later. Unifor now says DHL workers will return to work after the ratification but offered no definite timeline. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 28, 2025. The Canadian Press
CBC
an hour ago
- CBC
Hudson's Bay landlords don't want Ruby Liu to move in, but retailer still has a shot
Social Sharing A group of Hudson's Bay's landlords don't want to transfer more than two dozen leases to B.C. billionaire Weihong (Ruby) Liu, but the department store still has a chance to get its way. The Bay, which filed for creditor protection in March, ran a process over the last several months to find buyers for leases belonging to it and Saks Canada. It agreed to sell up to 28 spaces to Liu. Three leases were transferred to her without any hiccups because they're in B.C. malls she owns, but another 25 are at properties held by a who's who of Canadian commercial real estate firms. Landlords for 23 of those sites oppose the transfer. Several have said in court they've been "very troubled" with their interactions with Liu and have had "no productive discussions, no meaningful disclosure." Liu insists if the court hands her the leases, landlords will warm to her and her plan to open a new department store in their properties. While the disagreement could serve as a roadblock to the Bay closing on its agreement with Liu, lawyers not involved in the case say the retailer has another route it can take to get a deal done. That route lies in changes to the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) — Canada's main insolvency law — made in 2009, said Jeff Lee, a Saskatoon-based partner at MLT Aikins LLP. The changes laid out three criteria courts must consider when asked to assign leases to a new tenant. WATCH | Who is Ruby Liu? Who is Hudson's Bay benefactor and billionaire Ruby Liu? 3 days ago Duration 6:16 Ruby Liu, a billionaire with a big vision, now has legal permission to take over the leases of three former Hudson's Bay department stores located at three malls already under her ownership. For more on the new Bay benefactor, we're joined by retail analyst Carl Boutet. The first is whether or not the sale has the support of the monitor, a court-appointed, independent third party which helps guide businesses through creditor protection. In the Bay's case, the monitor is Alvarez & Marsal. It has yet to reveal whether it supports the Liu deal and did not respond to requests for comment. "Before any court application is brought forward, typically the company will test that out with them," Lee said. "They're not going to just sort of fly in blind and hope for the best." The second aspect for the court to mull is whether the proposed new tenant is suitable. Lee said that's determined by looking at whether they can perform the duties of the tenant and pay rent. Liu, who made her money in Chinese real estate, appears to have deep pockets but her experience comes from being a landlord rather than a tenant. The final aspect the court will consider is whether a transfer of a lease to Liu is "appropriate." Lee said people should think of it as asking this question: "Is what's proposed for this post-assignment lease relationship what people signed up for, or are they seeking to rewrite the lease or change the playing field so radically that it's not appropriate?" WATCH | What went wrong for Hudson's Bay: What went wrong with Hudson's Bay? 3 months ago Duration 5:49 That's where much of the tension could lie in the Bay case. "You can't go into CCAA as a tenant and then force your landlords to renegotiate their leases as a result," said Peter Tolensky, a Vancouver-based partner at Lawson Lundell LLP. The Canadian Press obtained a document last week that Liu's lawyer sent landlords outlining her plans. It says she will take on the leases on an "as is, where is" basis but doesn't mention the dining, entertainment, children's and fitness experiences she's told media she'd like to include in her department stores. It's unclear whether the leases allow for uses other than a Bay-like department store. Some lenders owed more than $100M A court faced with a request to reassign leases will weigh this context and think about whether "the landlord's world is being turned upside down by having this new tenant," said Geoffrey Dabbs, a B.C.-based founding partner at Gehlen Dabbs Cash. "The more it's a minor inconvenience for the landlord, the more likely the judge will order it," he said. While the Bay hasn't said whether it will seek an assignment, it's likely because any company in creditor protection has a duty to show the court it's doing its best to pay back companies and people it owes money to, Dabbs said. The Bay has a 26-page list of creditors, with some lenders owed more than $100 million each. Liquidation sales and a deal to sell the Bay trademarks to Canadian Tire for $30 million have put a dent in what's owed but selling leases to Liu would also help. Anyone who made an offer for leases had to make a deposit of 10 per cent of their estimated purchase price. Court documents show Liu made a deposit of $9.4 million, in addition to $6 million for the three approved leases, which would equate to a purchase price of $100 million for 28 leases. When a deal like this is reached, Dabbs said a company typically seeks landlord consent because commercial leases tend to have provisions stopping anyone from transferring a lease without a property owner agreeing. It's not uncommon for landlords to object because any leases that can't be sold and aren't assigned get turned back over to property owners who can choose how to fill them and under what terms. These are anchor leases, Tolensky noted. "So they're probably very favourable to the Bay or to the tenant in a lot of respects," Tolensky said, alluding to the fact that anchor tenants are often given attractive rents or terms. Thus, it's more advantageous for landlords to get their properties back, said Monica Beffa, founder of an Oakville, Ont., law firm. If they do, they can then charge higher rents, develop them for entirely new uses such as residential units or break them up into smaller parcels that can be rented by a wide array of tenants. If they don't and a court assigns the leases to Liu, landlords will likely be watching her closely to ensure she doesn't violate any terms of the agreement. Dabbs said: "The landlord may be cranky, if the tenant breaches, but put it this way, they don't want to rely on that.
