The rezoning by-law was enacted on 19 May 2026. The earlier approval in principle and the later enactment are separate, documented steps.
Could the update move beyond approval in principle?
Suppose an adviser is updating a client who knows the proposal passed a public hearing. The next question is whether a later record establishes enactment, rather than merely repeating the earlier approval.
The check requires the same address, the same proposal and the adopted instrument. A search result containing the address is a lead, not the conclusion.
Follow the decision into the later record.
| Record | Finding | What it settles |
|---|---|---|
| 11 March 2025 hearing minutes, pp. 8-9 | Approval in principle of the institutional proposal, with conditions. | The hearing decision. Later by-law steps remain separate. |
| 19 May 2026 Council minutes, pp. 23-24 | Enactment of By-law 14691. | The later Council action. |
| Published By-law 14691, pp. 1-3 | CD-1 (926), with a filled enactment date of 19 May 2026. | The identity and recorded date of the adopted instrument. |
Match the proposal as well as the address.
The hearing minutes describe institutional temporary accommodation for medical care, floor space ratio 3.78 and maximum height 55.8 metres. Those particulars also appear in the published instrument. They help distinguish this decision from another application or an earlier version.
The application page is useful for orientation. A brief about the adopted permission should use the decision and instrument for the operative description, rather than relying on preliminary application statistics.
The later minutes and the dated instrument agree. Here, the enactment check can be recorded as completed.
The wording can now change.
Council approved the proposal in principle at the March 2025 hearing.
Council enacted the rezoning by-law for 4910-4950 Willow Street on 19 May 2026. The earlier approval in principle has a separate, confirmed enactment record.
The adviser no longer needs to describe enactment as an open question in this historical sequence. Any question about development permits, construction or occupancy needs its own records.
Completed action: match the hearing decision to the subsequent enactment motion and published instrument. Recorded outcome: enactment confirmed for the stated date; later project stages remain outside the finding.
One completed check, with a clear boundary.
Relevant passages in the linked official records were checked on 12 October 2026. This brief establishes the historical enactment step. It does not determine the latest consolidated zoning status, permit issuance, construction, occupancy or completion of every project condition.
The finding rests on the three principal official records in the source register: the hearing minutes, the later Council minutes and the enacted instrument. That fits the published one-matter limit of three agreed official source pages. The application page is orientation only and is not relied on for the finding.
The City’s electronic by-laws are informational reproductions. This page links the instrument and offers an original reading; it does not supply a certified legal copy.
The adviser question is illustrative. No applicant, adviser or client commissioned or endorsed this work.