Toronto 1875 Steeles Avenue West | 129.65m | 39s | Tenblock | BDP Quadrangle

Well this is some craaaaazy BS: https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/025-1108

Screenshot 2025-10-15 at 4.30.49 PM.png

At risk of dramatizing, I'm not sure I can recall a more extensively actioned NIMBY effort on the part of a level of government for the benefit of a private corporation which, given the level of government involved, sure starts to stink given their plethora of other inappropriately cozy relationships.
 
ADRM said:
Well this is some craaaaazy BS: https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/025-1108

View attachment 688610

At risk of dramatizing, I'm not sure I can recall a more extensively actioned NIMBY effort on the part of a level of government for the benefit of a private corporation which, given the level of government involved, sure starts to stink given their plethora of other inappropriately cozy relationships.
Click to expand...

A very aggressive way of preventing Sanofi from needing a taller smoke stack on their incinerator.
 
If you think this is nonsense (as I do), you can submit a comment on the ERO portal (as I will) that an MZO is inappropriate and that government should not be in the business of stumping for unjustified corporate NIMBYism, especially in opposition to 1,000 new homes including affordable housing, that has gone through an appropriate review process

Submit a comment without registering: https://ero.ontario.ca/comment/reply/node/14815/comment
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Well - from the Globe:

www.theglobeandmail.com

Ontario moves to block plans for Toronto apartment complex near Sanofi pharma plant

Province’s housing ministry uses a rarely deployed power on behalf of French pharmaceutical giant
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com

AoD
Click to expand...

For clarity, no MZO has yet been granted; but.....the applicant for the MZO is not actually Sanofi, though it is very clearly being considered at their behest........

The applicant is Ontario’s Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade.

I would be inclined to read into that the outcome may be foreseeable.

The last day for public comment on the request is Thursday. Once comments close, the Minister can render a decision at any time.

****

The primary ask in the MZO request is for a height limit of 10s/33m; that would not be a total block to intensification but would completely squash the current proposal, and likely defer any such revised plan by several years.

But there is a secondary ask as well...........which might just spike the thing entirely: (From the Globe article)

1762802379110.png


While the request is specific to Tenblock's parcel, its very clear that if this goes ahead, it will impede or quash First Capital's plans next door.
 
Last edited:
Saw these graphics floating around on Twitter/X/whatever it's called - how is this an issue? Sanofi's headquarters is literally beside a high rise in Boston.

Insane that a foreign, publicly traded corporate entity gets to dictate whether or not Torontonians get 1000 homes during a housing crisis.
Screenshot 2025-11-10 162124.png
asdfasdfasdf.png
test3.png
 

Tenblock, along with its hired security expert, argues the security concerns aren’t valid. The developer also says an MZO would set a bad precedent.

An MZO "is a bit of a sledgehammer. It's the bluntest tool that the province has for dealing with planning matters,” Job said.

“We're asking the province: Bring the parties together, help convene a conversation.”

Sanofi declined CBC News’s request for an interview, but said in an emailed statement it appreciates the province's “commitments to the life sciences sector.”

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the office of Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Rob Flack did not respond to multiple emails sent over several days last week.
Click to expand...

The company hired an expert to evaluate the purported security concerns, and that expert, Andrew Chester, argues the proposed highrises would not heighten security risks.

Chester previously worked for two decades as a naval intelligence officer. He’s now president and CEO of Juno Risk Solutions, based in Ottawa.

He says potential spying is a real threat for governments and organizations, such as those conducting sensitive research, but that there are already many ways to view the Sanofi property, including from the roof of the existing apartment building. He says additional storeys would not offer better observation points.

While “there may be a sweet spot to look into a building,” it likely falls within the province’s proposed 33-metre height limit, he said.

“Once you get above 10 storeys, given the proximity, the angle is so oblique that you can't really see into a building."

He notes there are also ways to mitigate risks, such as holding highly sensitive meetings in interior rooms and using blinds to cover the windows (something he says Sanofi already appears to be doing).

Chester points to several locations in Ottawa — including the Canadian Armed Forces and Public Safety Canada headquarters — which are each surrounded by tall buildings. There’s also a highrise under development neighbouring sensitive locations including the National Research Council Canada facilities and CSIS headquarters.
Click to expand...

1762872038763.png
 
Could there ever be a scenario where a developer gains permission to build at their original proposed height, but as part of their condo agreement, residents must sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement where they can't disclose the activities of the facility, including using video and photography? Is there any precedent for this?
 
christiesplits said:
Could there ever be a scenario where a developer gains permission to build at their original proposed height, but as part of their condo agreement, residents must sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement where they can't disclose the activities of the facility, including using video and photography? Is there any precedent for this?
Click to expand...

I'm unaware of such a precedent, but the archival knowledge of @ProjectEnd is greater than mine in such things........
 
christiesplits said:
Could there ever be a scenario where a developer gains permission to build at their original proposed height, but as part of their condo agreement, residents must sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement where they can't disclose the activities of the facility, including using video and photography? Is there any precedent for this?
Click to expand...

I have heard the residents at Pier 27 cannot legally complain about noise, etc. from Redpath Sugar:

www.thestar.com

Sugar plant worries ships will wake condo owners

As the city’s plans to redevelop Toronto’s waterfront move forward, old elements like the Redpath plant are being incorporated.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com
 
Sanofi's fear here is that under the Planning Act, the more sensitive use always dominates. So it wouldn't matter that they've been here for 100 years and Tenblock were to build tomorrow, if a challenge to Sanofi's operations with respect to noise or smell were raised, the letter of the law - regardless of what the developer said they were going to make their tenants / purchasers sign - states that the residential project would likely win.
 
This whole thing is rich, coming from the same crook provincial government which had no concerns over propping up another developer in Mississauga through use of an MZO without any regard for Toronto Pearson, until the GTAA explicitly had to tell the government that it interfered with flight paths. Prior to that, they didnt consult the City of Mississauga, nor the GTAA.

globalnews.ca

Ford government forced to fix rushed zoning order that put tower on flight path - Toronto | Globalnews.ca

After a rushed process led by Ford government officials, Toronto Pearson International Airport was forced to tell the province it had greenlit a 50-storey tower on a flight path.
globalnews.ca globalnews.ca

There's definitely more to this Sanofi story, and it certainly has to do with $$$$.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top