The Erin Mills Town Centre towers — now at the tribunal

confirmed ward-9

The tension: A nine-tower proposal whose official plan and rezoning applications council no longer decides — they were appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal for non-decision, so the file left the City before council had decided it.

A proposal for nine towers of 20 to 44 storeys at Erin Mills Town Centre is no longer Council's to decide. It was appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal in November 2025, and not because Council said no.

Council had not decided the application within the period the Planning Act sets, and that opened the way to an appeal for non-decision. Now an appointed provincial body can approve, refuse or modify the proposal, and the City takes part as one party rather than as the decision-maker.

Council then directed its lawyers to oppose the proposal at the tribunal, and on June 24, 2026 accepted a settlement. Its terms are in an appendix that was not published with that meeting's minutes as of October 13, 2026. The questions below ask what residents should be told when a file leaves the City undecided, and who should decide files like this at all.

Resolution Options

Ways this tension could be resolved. Each question below tests one of them.

Explain in public when a file leaves undecided. When a planning file of this size leaves the City without a Council decision, the City explains in public why. When an appeal like this one is settled, the terms of the settlement are made public once it is reached. Asked in q1.
Take a position on the tribunal's power. Once an application is appealed, an appointed provincial tribunal can approve, refuse or modify it, whether the appeal follows a council decision or Council did not decide in time. A candidate can defend that arrangement or say what they would do about it. The Streetsville towers file in Ward 11 is at the tribunal too. Asked in q2.

Questions you can ask

To: ward-9This application left the City for the Ontario Land Tribunal on an appeal for non-decision — it was appealed to the tribunal on November 13, 2025 because council had not decided, not because council said no. Council directed its lawyers to oppose it there on February 11, 2026, then on June 24, 2026 accepted a proposed settlement whose terms are in an appendix to a report considered in closed session. Will you commit to the terms of a planning settlement like this one being made public once it is reached, and to a public explanation whenever a file of this size leaves the City undecided?
Tests: Explain in public when a file leaves undecided
Heard an answer to this?

To: allThis proposal and the Streetsville towers in Ward 11 have both been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal. What is your position on an appointed provincial tribunal deciding a municipality's planning applications — whether on appeal from a council decision or because council did not decide in time — and what would you do about it?
Tests: Take a position on the tribunal's power
Heard an answer to this?

These are questions, not a scorecard. We put them here so a resident or a reporter can ask them. We do not send them to candidates and we do not chase replies.

If a candidate answers publicly, whether we catch it depends on where. An answer in a news article, on a campaign website, or in the council record we will almost certainly find, date and quote. An answer posted on Facebook or Instagram we will almost certainly miss — those platforms answer us with a login wall or an empty shell rather than the post itself, and49% of our candidate links (90 of 184) point at them.

That is not neutral, and we would rather name it than let it look like silence: a candidate who gets written about becomes visible here, while one who answers thoughtfully on social media may not.

You can read what we can't. If you see an answer we have missed, the Heard an answer to this? link under any question above opens an email that already says which question it is — paste the address where you saw it, even if it is somewhere we cannot reach. It tells us where to look and what date to look for, which is usually enough to find it properly. That is the fastest way this gets less unfair.

More about how that works →

Candidates on record

2 candidates are on record on this issue. Every candidate in this race is searched the same way. Only candidates who have said something in public on this issue are named here, with a link to the source; the others are counted by race below. The full record for every candidate is on Candidates.

Ward 9

Anwar Knight (campaign site) · Facebook · X · Instagram
- reported on record: In his August 17, 2026 submission to the Ontario government's Data Centre Playbook consultation (ERO 026-0853), Knight wrote that Ontario Land Tribunal outcomes "have historically favoured developers in the large majority of cases", that the risk of an appeal should not be a reason to lower assessment standards, and that the province should help municipalities "build the evidentiary record needed to defend rigorous decisions at appeal". A position that municipal decisions should be defended at the tribunal, with provincial resources. It was written about data centres rather than the Erin Mills application, and it does not say what he would do from a council seat. [source]
Martin Reid (campaign site) · Facebook · Instagram · X
- confirmed on record: Reid has taken two dated positions on the Erin Mills Town Centre appeal, both in the council record. At Planning and Development Committee on January 26, 2026 the minutes record that he "stated that significant gaps remain and that the proposal, as presented, is not suitable for the area", and he moved the recommendation (PDC-0003-2026) directing Legal Services to oppose the applications before the Ontario Land Tribunal, with a report back to Council if a settlement became possible; Council adopted it on February 11, 2026. On June 24, 2026 he moved the resolution (0149-2026, carried 10 to 0) by which Council accepted a proposed settlement of the appeal, on terms set out in an appendix to a report considered in closed session. Speaking in a live social media meeting reported by INsauga on September 30, 2026, he explained the settlement: "The city is subject to the province and their building more homes mandate", and legal advice was to accept fewer floors at the same density rather than spend millions at the tribunal and lose. None of these says whether the terms of a settlement should be made public, which is what this issue asks. [source][source][source][source]

2 other candidates searched 2026-10-09: no public position found yet. Every candidate in this race →

The full story

The record behind the questions, with a source at each claim.

A proposal at 5100 Erin Mills Parkway would transform Erin Mills Town Centre with nine buildings of 20 to 44 storeys, reported at roughly 3,162 units, organised around a public park and plaza and planned as a phased development. The applicant’s planning report, as reported by INsauga, says the development is designed to complement the mall, which will remain; INsauga itself reported that the buildings on the development block, home to stores including a HomeSense, a Dollarama and a pharmacy as well as a medical and dental office, would be demolished if the plans moved ahead. INsauga reported on January 10, 2025 that the City’s “Reimagining the Mall” project was looking into the long-term evolution of six mall areas, Erin Mills Town Centre among them. The applicant of record is EMTC Holdings Inc. (City file OZ/OPA 24-15 W9).

The decisive fact is procedural, not architectural — and it is sharper than an override. The application was appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal on November 13, 2025, and the City staff presentation of its recommendation report to Planning and Development Committee on January 26, 2026 is headed “OLT Appeal for Non-Decision”. Council was not overruled. Council had not decided the application when it was appealed. Under the Planning Act the applicant may appeal to the tribunal once a municipality has not made a decision within the statutory period, and the City’s timeline lists no decision before the appeal: applications complete January 2025, comments February, a community meeting in March, an information report in April, then the appeal in November 2025. The report sought the Committee’s direction on the appeal, and a case management conference was scheduled for February 18, 2026. On February 11, 2026 Council directed Legal Services to oppose the applications before the tribunal. On June 24, 2026 Council voted 10 to 0 to accept a proposed settlement of the appeal, “generally consistent with the terms outlined in Appendix 1” to a report from the City Solicitor that was considered in closed session, and authorised the City Solicitor to appear before the tribunal in support of it.

So an appointed provincial body can now approve, refuse or modify the proposal, and the City arrives as one party rather than as the decision-maker. A separate application for the same lands, a draft plan of subdivision (City file 21T-M 26-3 W9) with blocks for a future public street, a public park and a mixed-use development, was submitted in August 2026 and is listed by the City as under review.

That changes what is worth asking. A commitment to consult residents more thoroughly is worth much less when the venue has moved somewhere residents cannot easily reach and where the City is one party among others. The question was whether the City would spend the money to defend its position at the tribunal or settle, and Council has answered it: it first directed its lawyers to oppose the applications, then on June 24, 2026 accepted a settlement. The terms are in an appendix to the City Solicitor’s report, which is not among the documents published with that meeting’s minutes (checked 2026-10-13). What remains open is whether residents get to see what was traded away.

This is the second Mississauga application in this set to end up at the tribunal; the Streetsville towers file in Ward 11 is marked Appealed on the City’s page too. Whether that is a pattern worth its own Core Issue is an open question for us.

Correction, 2026-07-30. This entry was previously scoped to Ward 8 and titled “The Central Erin Mills high-rise node”. The City’s file for 5100 Erin Mills Parkway is OZ/OPA 24-15 W9 — Ward 9 — and the City names the Ward 9 councillor as the area representative. The City lists Ward 8 as serving “Erin Mills, Western Business Park and part of Central Erin Mills, Churchill Meadows and Sheridan” and Ward 9 as serving “Meadowvale and part of Central Erin Mills and Meadowvale Business Park”. The place name crosses the boundary; the file number does not. See corrections.

Fact-check

confirmed This entry in the ledger →

A development application at 5100 Erin Mills Parkway (City file OZ/OPA 24-15 W9, WARD 9) proposes nine buildings of 20 to 44 storeys — reported at roughly 3,162 residential units — with a public park and plaza, as a phased development that the applicant's planning report says is designed to complement the mall, which will remain; INsauga itself reported that the buildings on the development block would be demolished if the plans move ahead. The applicant of record is EMTC Holdings Inc. As INsauga reported on 2025-01-10, Erin Mills Town Centre was one of six mall areas the City's 'Reimagining the Mall' project was looking into. THE APPLICATION IS AT THE ONTARIO LAND TRIBUNAL ON AN APPEAL FOR NON-DECISION, AND THAT DISTINCTION IS THE POINT. The City staff presentation of its Recommendation Report to Planning and Development Committee of January 26 2026 (agenda item 6.1) is headed 'OLT Appeal for Non-Decision' and records: applications deemed complete January 7 2025, comments released February 28 2025, community consultation meeting March 18 2025, information report April 28 2025, APPEALED TO OLT NOVEMBER 13 2025, recommendation report January 26 2026, case management conference scheduled for February 18 2026. Council then directed Legal Services on February 11 2026 to oppose the applications before the Ontario Land Tribunal (Resolution 0027-2026, adopting PDC-0003-2026), and on June 24 2026 accepted a proposed settlement of 'the appeals to the Ontario Land Tribunal by EMTC Holdings Inc.' (Resolution 0149-2026, carried 10 to 0), 'generally consistent with the terms outlined in Appendix 1' to a City Solicitor's report considered in closed session; that appendix is not among the documents published with the minutes (checked 2026-10-02 and again 2026-10-13: item 22.2 and Resolution 0149-2026 carry no attachment), and whether the tribunal has approved the settlement is not established. Council had not decided this application when it was appealed and was not overridden: under the Planning Act the applicant may appeal to the tribunal when a municipality has not decided within the statutory period, and the report records an appeal for non-decision without naming the appellant. The City's own application page lists the status as 'Appealed' — posted September 15 2025, updated September 4 2026, and as read 2026-10-02 also listing a draft plan of subdivision for the same lands (21T-M 26-3 W9) as under review — but names no tribunal anywhere on it, so the identity of the tribunal rests on the Recommendation Report and not on that page. CORRECTED 2026-08-12 by spot-check: this entry previously said the status page meant 'council's decision is not the final one', which describes an override that did not happen, and attributed the tribunal to a source that does not name it.