Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 19, 2021 CASE NO(S).: PL210192

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: 36 Eglinton Duplex Inc. Subject: Application to amend Site-Specific Zoning By-law No. 1117-2013 - Refusal of Application by the City of Toronto Existing Zoning: CR T5.0 C4.0 R3.0, subject to Site-Specific By-law 1107-2013 Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (to be determined) Purpose: To permit the redevelopment of the subject property to consist of a 65-storey (220 metre) mixed-use building, comprised of a 5-storey base building and a 60-storey tower above, to contain a total of 663 dwelling units and 550 square metres of retail and office space Property Address/Description: 36-44 Eglinton Avenue West Municipality: City of Toronto Municipality File No.: 21 101581 NNY 08 OZ OLT Case No.: PL210192 OLT File No.: PL210192 OLT Case Name: 36 Eglinton Duplex Inc. v. Toronto (City)

Heard: September 2, 2021 by video hearing (“VH”)

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
36 Eglinton Duplex Inc.	Joe Hoffman, David Bronskill (in absentia)
City of Toronto	Sarah O’Connor and Daniel Elmadany
RioCan YEC Holdings Inc.	Tara Piurko
Toronto District School Board (“TDSB”) and Toronto Lands Corporation (as fully owned subsidiary of the TDSB)	Piper Morley and Pitman Patterson
Eglinton Park Residents’ Association	Thomas Cohen*

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY R.G.M. MAKUCH AND K.R. ANDREWS ON SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This is the first Case Management Conference (“CMC“) respecting appeals by 36 Eglinton Duplex Inc. (the “Applicant/Appellant”) pursuant to s. 34 (11) of the Planning Act against the refusal by City Council to approve its application for a zoning by-law amendment, which would permit the development of a 60-storey tower having 663 residential units on a five-storey mixed-use podium building having 550 square metres (“m²”) of retail and office space.

2The property is located on the southeast corner of Eglinton Avenue West and Duplex Avenue just west of Yonge Street and is within a two-minute walk from the Yonge Street and Eglinton Avenue intersection. The property currently has a seven-storey office building with ground floor retail.

Service of Notice of CMC

3There was no issue with service of the Notice of this CMC, and so no further notice is required. The Tribunal was in receipt of the Affidavit of Service, which was marked as Exhibit 1.

Requests for Status

[4] The following were granted Party status on consent:

• RioCan YEC Holdings Inc.;
• TDSB and Toronto Lands Corporation; and
• Eglinton Park Residents’ Association.

[5] The following were granted Participant status on consent:

• Stanley Knowles Housing Cooperative, spoken to by Susana Savaria; and
• Oriole Park Association, spoken to by Richard MacFarlane.

MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT

6The Tribunal explored the possibility of mediation and settlement with the Parties. The Parties indicated that they may be interested in Tribunal assisted mediation, and so the Tribunal directed them to contact the OLT Strategic Resolutions Advisor.

PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST

7The Tribunal received and reviewed a draft Procedural Order from the Parties. The Tribunal finds it acceptable and the proceedings shall be governed by it (see Attachment 1).

HEARING

8Upon request of the parties, the Tribunal set a 15-day hearing commencing on Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10 a.m. by VH. No further notice is required for the hearing.

9Parties and participants are asked to log into the VH at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/760992813

Access Code: 760-992-813

10Parties and participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html.

11Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: Toll-Free 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The Access Code is as indicated above.

12Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the VH to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

ORDER

13The Tribunal Orders that:

1. The date and particulars of the hearing are set out above;
2. The Procedural Order appended as Attachment 1 shall govern the proceedings;
3. RioCan YEC Holdings Inc., the Toronto District School Board and Toronto Lands Corporation (as a fully owned subsidiary of the TDSB), and the Eglinton Park Residents’ Association is granted Party status;
4. Stanley Knowles Housing Cooperative and Oriole Park Association are granted Participant status; and
5. The Members are not seized but may be spoken to through the Case Coordinator if any issues arise.

“R.G.M. Makuch” R.G.M. MAKUCH VICE-CHAIR

“K.R. Andrews” K.R. ANDREWS MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

PL210192 – Attachment 1

Ontario Land Tribunal Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: 36 Eglinton Duplex Inc. Subject: Application to amend Site-Specific Zoning By-law No. 1117-2013 - Refusal of Application by the City of Toronto Existing Zoning: CR T5.0 C4.0 R3.0, subject to Site-Specific By-law 1107-2013 Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (to be determined) Purpose: To permit the redevelopment of the subject property to consist of a 65-storey (220 metre) mixed-use building, comprised of a 5-storey base building and a 60-storey tower above, to contain a total of 663 dwelling units and 550 square metres of retail and office space Property Address/Description: 36-44 Eglinton Avenue West Municipality: City of Toronto Municipality File No.: 21 101581 NNY 08 OZ OLT Case No.: PL210192 OLT File No.: PL210192 OLT Case Name: 36 Eglinton Duplex Inc. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEDURAL ORDER

1. The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the Parties’ request or its own motion.

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will begin on September 13, 2022 at 10 a.m., as follows:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/760992813 Audio-only telephone line: Toll-Free 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373 Access Code: 760-992-813

3. The length of the hearing will be about fifteen (15) days. The Parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues, where possible. The procedural order deadlines are generally found in Attachment 1.

4. The Parties and Participants identified at the Case Management Conference are listed in Attachment 2 to this Order.

5. The Issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3 to this Order. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a Party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6. The order of evidence is set out in Attachment 4 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the Parties' consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

7. Any person intending to participate in the hearing shall provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal. Any such person who retains a representative must advise the other Parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number.

8. If the hearing is to proceed electronically, any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including Parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website (https://olt.gov.on.ca/appeals-process/video-hearing/).

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. Expert witnesses in the same discipline(s) shall have at least one meeting before the hearing to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. The experts shall prepare a list of any agreed facts and the remaining issues to be addressed at the hearing, and provide this list to all of the Parties and the Tribunal on or before June 24, 2022, if this meeting takes place and if agreement is reached.

10. A Party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other Parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before May 16, 2022. For expert witnesses, a Party is to identify the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified. Any challenges to the witness, including qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence in the area of expertise proposed shall be made by motion in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules and notice of same must be served on the other Parties on or before June 3, 2022.

11. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing, the acknowledgement of expert's duty and curriculum vitae. Copies of this must be provided as in Section 14. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony. For greater certainty, each expert witness statement must comply with the minimum content requirements specified in Rule 7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. If the expert witness has prepared any report(s) that he/she intends to rely on at the hearing, and which did not form part of the submissions made to the City, such report(s) shall be provided to the other Parties at the same as the delivery of expert witness statements, as in Section 14.

12. A witness or participant must provide to the Tribunal and the Parties a witness statement or participant statement, respectively, on or before July 11, 2022, or the witness or participant may not give oral evidence at the hearing. Participants are only permitted to provide written evidence to the Tribunal, unless otherwise permitted by the Tribunal.

13. Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the Party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence, as in Section 14.

14. On or before July 11, 2022, the Parties shall provide copies of their witness statements and expert witness statements (full disclosure including reports) to the other Parties.

15. On or before July 29, 2022, the Parties may provide to all other Parties a written response to any written evidence.

16. On or before August 4, 2022, the Parties shall advise the Tribunal of whether any hearings dates scheduled for this matter may be released from the Tribunal's calendar. This request may only be made on consent of all of the Parties. If no hearing dates are intended to be released from the Tribunal's calendar, no Party is required to advise the Tribunal anything further in that regard.

17. On or before August 15, 2022, the Parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other Parties. The Tribunal and all Parties shall be notified if a model will be used, all Parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the scheduled commencement of the hearing.

18. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. Such a motion shall be in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rule 10, which requires that the moving Party provide copies of the motion to all other Parties at least 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

19. A Party who provides a witness’ written evidence to the other Parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the Party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

20. On or before August 15, 2022, the Parties shall prepare and file a detailed Work Plan that identifies the following, at a minimum: the identified Parties participating in the Hearing Event, preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the date a witness is intended to attend the Tribunal, the identified witness name/expertise, and the approximate time allotted for Examination in Chief, Cross Examination and any re-examination (if any) (the “Work Plan”). The Work Plan should be adhered to guide the Hearing Event to the best ability of all the Parties, and any and all witnesses shall be available on the identified date(s), unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the Work Plan throughout the Hearing Event.

21. The Parties shall prepare a Joint Document Book on or before August 24, 2022, and which one (1) hard copy will be filed with the Tribunal as soon as practicable in advance of the Hearing. All Parties must be served with the Joint Document Book in paper or an accessible electronic format in accordance with Section 23.

22. If the Applicant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing, the Applicant shall provide copies of the revised proposal, including all revised plans, drawings, proposed instruments, updated supporting documents and reports, to the other Parties on or before April 12, 2022. The Applicant acknowledges that any revisions to the proposal after that date without the consent of the Parties may be grounds for a request to adjourn the hearing.

23. All filing of documents and materials shall be electronic to the Tribunal, the Parties and Participants (if any). The Tribunal will be provided a hard copy of documents and materials in advance of the hearing event as soon as practicable. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Rule 7. All documents to be filed with the Tribunal shall be organized, tabbed and digitally searchable and such materials will be filed in accordance with directions contained in the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, dated July 2, 2020, or as may be amended. Section 23 applies regardless if the hearing event is in-person or electronic.

24. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness or as permitted by Section 22. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

25. The Tribunal may conduct mediation on consent of all Parties, on consent of those Parties who wish to participate in mediation, or if the Tribunal sees fit.

26. The purpose of this Procedural Order and the meaning of the terms used in this Procedural Order are set out in Attachment 5.

This Member(s) is/are not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
April 12, 2022	Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any)
May 16, 2022	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
June 3, 2022	Last date to challenge identification of expert witness
June 24, 2022	Experts meeting prior to this date
June 24, 2022	Agreed Statement of Facts
July 11, 2022	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
July 29, 2022	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
August 4, 2022	Parties to Advise Tribunal if any hearing dates are to be released from the hearing calendar (if any)
August 15, 2022	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
August 15, 2022	Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal
August 24, 2022	Finalize Joint Document Book
September 13, 2022	Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANT

PARTIES	COUNSEL/REPRESENTATIVE

1. 36 Eglinton Duplex Inc. | Goodmans LLP
   Bay Adelaide Centre
   333 Bay Street, Suite 3400
   Toronto, ON M5H 2S7
   David Bronskill
   Email: dbronskill@goodmans.ca
   Tel: (416) 597-4299
2. City of Toronto | Legal Services Branch
   Metro Hall
   55 John Street, Station 1260, 26th Floor Toronto, ON M5V 3C6
   Sarah O’Connor
   Email: sarah.oconnor@toronto.ca
   Tel: (416) 397-5378
   Daniel Elmadany
   Email: daniel.elmadany@toronto.ca
   Tel: (416) 392-5709
3. RioCan YEC Holdings Inc. | Miller Thomson LLP
   Scotia Plaza
   40 King Street West, Suite 5800
   Toronto, ON M5H 3S1
   Tara Piurko
   Email: tpiurko@millerthomson.com
   Tel: (416) 595-2647
4. Toronto District School Board Toronto Lands Corporation | Borden Ladner Gervais
   Bay Adelaide Centre, East Tower
   22 Adelaide Street West
   Toronto, ON M5H 4E3
   Pitman Patterson
   Email: ppatterson@blg.com
   Tel: (416) 367-6109
   Julie Lesage
   Email: jlesage@blg.com
   Tel: (416) 367-6276
5. Eglinton Park Residents’ Association | Thomas Cohen
   Email: tcohen@yorku.ca
   Tel: (416) 932-8566

PARTICIPANTS	REPRESENTATIVE

1. Oriole Park Association | Richard MacFarlane
   Email: rnmacfarlane@gmail.com
   Tel: (416) 484-4560
2. Stanley Knowles Housing Co-op | Susana Saravia
   Email: susar2021@gmail.com
   Tel: (647) 407-3072

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUE LIST

City of Toronto

Planning Act

1. Does the proposed development have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections 2 (f), (h), (p), and (r)?
2. Would approval of the proposed development by the Tribunal have regard to the decision of City Council and the information and material that City Council considered in making its decision as required by Section 2.1 of the Planning Act?

Provincial Policy Statement 2020

3. Is the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement as required by Section 3(5) of the Planning Act, including policies 1.1.1, 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, 1.2.1, 1.4.3, 1.5.1, 1.6, 1.6.7, 1.7.1, 1.8.1, and 4.6?

A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020

4. Does the proposed development conform to and not conflict with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe as required by Section 3(5) of the Planning Act, including Sections 1.2.1, 2.2.1.4, 2.2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5.3, 2.2.6, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.7 and 5.2?

City of Toronto Official Plan

5. Does the proposed development conform with the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, including the policies related to: a. Section 2.2.2 (Centres); b. Section 2.2.4 (Transit Corridors and Station Areas) c. Section 2.3.1 (Healthy Neighbourhoods); d. Section 2.4 (Transportation); e. Section 3.1.1 (Public Realm); f. Section 3.1.2 (Built Form); g. Section 3.1.3 (Built Form - Building Types); h. Section 3.2.3 (Parks and Open Spaces); i. Section 3.5.1 (Creating a Strong and Diverse Civic Economy) j. Section 4.5 (Mixed Use Areas); k. Section 5.1.1 (Height and/or Density Incentives); l. Section 5.3.2 (Implementation Plans and Strategies); m. Section 5.6 (Interpretation).

6. Does the proposed development conform with Chapter 6, Section 21 (Yonge Eglinton Secondary Plan) of the Official Plan, including the policies and maps related to: Section 1 (Vision); Section 2.1 (Area Structure, General); Section 2.3 (Urban Growth Centre); Section 2.5 (Land Use); Section 2.6 (Retail Streets); Section 3.1 (Area Wide Public Realm Policies); Section 3.2.2 (The Eglinton Green Line); Section 4 (Mobility): Section 5 (Built Form); Section 7 (Housing)?

7. Does the proposed development conform with Official Plan Amendment No. 231 amendments to Section 3.5.1 of the Official Plan?

Guidelines

8. Does the proposed development meet the intent and purpose of the relevant guidelines, including: a. Tall Building Design Guidelines (2013); b. Retail Design Manual (2020); c. Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities, Urban Design Guidelines (2020); d. Complete Streets Guidelines (2017); and e. Pet-friendly Design Guidelines (2019)?

Built Form

9. Does the proposed development represent over-development of the site?

10. Are the height, density, placement and scale of the proposed development appropriate, including considerations for: the location, massing and height of the tower and podium, tower separation distances, floorplate size, setbacks, and stepbacks?

11. Does the proposed development fit appropriately within the existing and planned context?

12. Does the proposed development provide for an appropriate and gradual transition in relation to the scale and character of the surrounding areas, including transition of tower height and scale within the Yonge-Eglinton Crossroads, and particularly towards the Character Areas west of the site and the Neighbourhoods north of the site?

13. Does the proposed development ensure adequate access to or, as the case may be, limit and minimize the impact on, considerations such as overlook and privacy, wind effects, loss of sky view and sunlight penetration and shadow on the public realm, including the streetscape, the Neighbourhoods to the north, and on Eglinton Park?

Streetscape & Public Realm at Grade

14. Does the proposed development establish an appropriate pedestrian realm and relationships at grade, including: a. appropriate at grade setbacks and sidewalk widths, particularly at building entrances; b. appropriate streetscaping, including sufficient soil volume and depth to support large shade canopy trees along the streetscape; and, c. appropriate contributions to public space, including the site's frontage along the Eglinton Green Line?

Office Replacement

15. Is the proposed land use mix, in particular the amount of office space proposed appropriate?

Unit Size & Amenity Space

16. Does the proposed development provide for an appropriate size of units on the lands relative to the bedroom types proposed?

17. Is the amount of outdoor amenity space appropriate given the scale and size of the proposed development?

18. Does the design of indoor and outdoor amenity spaces achieve the intent of the Growing Up Guidelines and the Pet-friendly Design Guidelines?

Transportation, Site Circulation, Parking and Loading

19. Are the proposed vehicular accesses identified on the site appropriate given the existing and planned context?

20. Is the proposed site driveway width and site driveway configuration appropriate?

21. Is the proposed loading space location on the site appropriate and safe?

22. Is the proposed parking for the site appropriate, including the provision of accessible, visitor and non-residential use parking spaces?

23. Does the proposed development provide for and secure sufficient and appropriate transportation demand management (TDM) measures?

Servicing

24. Has the applicant demonstrated that adequate municipal services are in place to support the development, including but not limited to the availability of adequate sanitary sewage capacity and the implementation of appropriate stormwater management measures and groundwater management measures?

Public Interest and Good Planning

25. Is the proposed zoning by-law amendment good planning and in the public interest?

Implementation

26. In the event the proposed development is approved by the Tribunal, in whole or in part, the Applicant and the City have agreed that they should be given the opportunity to reach agreement on the provision of appropriate community benefits pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act. In the event agreement is not reached, may the Tribunal be spoken to as to what are appropriate community benefits to be secured pursuant to Section 37?

27. If the requested Zoning By-law Amendments are approved by the Tribunal, in whole or in part, should the Tribunal's final order should be withheld until it has been advised by the City Solicitor that: a. the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendments are in a form and content acceptable and acceptable to the City Solicitor and Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning; b. the owner has entered into a Section 37 Agreement to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and such agreement is registered on title to the site in manner satisfactory to the City Solicitor, or made other satisfactory arrangements for the provision of community benefits; and c. the owner has addressed outstanding issues in relation to site servicing and has submitted a revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report and a detailed Hydrogeological to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and entered into and registered a financially secured agreement satisfactory to the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services to construct, provide, make operational, and warrant any upgrades to existing services and facilities or new services and facilities?

RioCan YEC Holdings Inc.

1. Does the proposed development provide adequate and appropriate separation and setbacks from 20 Eglinton Avenue West (“20 Eglinton”) and the Yonge Eglinton Centre as a whole?
2. Does the proposed development conform to the built form policies of the City’s Official Plan, including policies intended to ensure that new developments limit adverse impacts on neighbouring properties?
3. Is the height, scale, setbacks and massing of the proposed podium and tower element of the proposed development appropriate in relation to the Yonge Eglinton Centre?
4. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard to the comprehensive block/context plan policies of the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan?
5. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard to the applicable City urban design and built form Guidelines, including the Tall Building Design Guidelines? Specifically: a. Does the proposed development appropriately fit within and properly respond to the existing and planned context of the development block, as well as adjacent blocks? b. Does the proposed development respect the Guidelines with regard to tower placement? c. Does the proposed development respect the Guidelines with regard to tower separation distances? d. Does the proposed development respect the Guidelines with regard to the tower separation objectives of sky-view retention, privacy and daylighting access?
6. Does the proposed development include a podium height and façade design/treatment that is appropriate in relation to its proximity to the Yonge Eglinton Centre?
7. Is the proposed loading space appropriate for the development of the lands in relation to the Yonge Eglinton Centre?

Toronto District School Board and Toronto Lands Corporation

1. Does the proposed development have regard to Section 2 (h), (i) (m) and (n) of the Planning Act?
2. Is the proposed development consistent with sections 1.1.1(b) and (g), 1.1.3.2(b), 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.7(b), 1.2.1(d), 1.4.3(c) and (d), 1.6.1, and 1.7.1(c) of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020?
3. Does the proposed development conform to sections 1.2.1, 2.1, 2.2.1.2(a) and (c), 2.2.1.3(b), 2.2.1.4(a) and (d)(ii), 3.1, 3.2.1.5 and 3.2.8 of A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (the “Growth Plan”)? (a) Does the proposed development contribute to the achievement of a complete community, as described under the Growth Plan?
4. Does the proposed development conform to sections 3.2.2, 4.5.2(g), and 5.1.2 of the City’s Official Plan?
5. Does the proposed development conform to sections 1.1.1 and 2.4.1.2(b) of the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan?
6. Does the proposed development appropriately consider the Midtown Community Services and Facilities Strategy in respect of: a) the deficit of school space to accommodate current and projected student needs; b) the physical constraints of existing TDSB sites?
7. Is the approval of the proposed development premature in the context of availability of school space and accommodation?
8. Is it appropriate and good planning to use a holding symbol on the zoning to phase development and ensure that educational facilities are developed and provided in tandem with the pace of growth?
9. Should an “H” holding symbol be imposed on the ZBA until: (a) the Toronto District School Board has completed a program area review of the Midtown Area, addressing the adequacy of planned public school capacity to accommodate students generated from this development; (b) sufficient measures recommended in the program area review have been identified and/or implemented pursuant to the timeframe set out therein; (c) a site plan agreement has been registered on title, which includes as a condition of approval, that the owner shall maintain signage on the site and include warning clauses in all offers of purchase and sale to advise that, despite best efforts, sufficient school accommodation may not be locally available for building occupants and that students may have to be accommodated in schools outside the area until space within the area becomes available.
10. Is it good planning to approve the application without considering the cumulative impact of the other outstanding planning applications in the Midtown area on the ability of school facilities to accommodate growth including the subject development?

Eglinton Park Residents’ Association Issues

1. Is additional height beyond that previously approved by the Ontario Municipal Board as it then was) appropriate and justified?
2. Is the height of the proposed towers appropriate, taking into consideration shadow impacts on Eglinton Park and potential shadow impacts to the west and north resulting from the tower separation proposed to the RioCan tower to the east?
3. How, given that the 39-storey limit set by the court sought to protect Eglinton Park from shadow, would a taller building not cast a shadow there?
4. Should the proposed development include more outdoor public space?
5. Would approval of the proposed development result in appropriate wind conditions along the streetscape having regarding to the existing conditions along Duplex Avenue?
6. Is the gross floor area proposed for office uses sufficient? Does the proposal include appropriate office space within the new development?

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

[Note: final order to be reviewed in conjunction with hearing Work Plan]

1. 36 Eglinton Duplex Inc. (Appellant)
2. RioCan YEC Holdings Inc.
3. Toronto Lands Corporation
4. Eglinton Park Residents’ Association
5. City of Toronto
6. The Appellant (Reply)

ATTACHMENT 5

Purpose of the Procedural Order and Meaning of terms

A party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. An unincorporated group cannot be a party and it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorisation from the party.

NOTE that a person who wishes to become a party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

A participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.

A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.

Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

A witness statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which he or she will discuss ; and a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons supporting their opinions and conclusions and (5) a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the participant’s position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submissions of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports or materials, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.

Additional Information

A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.

The order of examination of witnesses is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:

• direct examination by the party presenting the witness;
• direct examination by any party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;
• cross-examination by parties of opposite interest;
• re-examination by the party presenting the witness; or
• another order of examination mutually agreed among the parties or directed by the Tribunal.