3C Lakeshore Inc. v. Toronto (City), 2021 CanLII 109355

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

October 26, 2021

CASE NO(S).:

PL030514

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. P. 13, as amended

Appellant:

See Schedule “1”

Subject:

New Official Plan for the City of Toronto, as adopted by By-law No. 1082-2002

Municipality:

City of Toronto

OLT Case No.:

PL030412

OLT File No.:

PL030412 (various files see Schedule “1”)

OLT Case Name:

3C Lakeshore Inc. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. P. 13, as amended

Appellant:

See Schedule “2”

Subject:

Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 257

Municipality:

City of Toronto

OLT Case No.:

PL030514

OLT File No.:

O030096

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Appellant:

See Schedule “3”

Subject:

By-law No. 1049-2006

Municipality:

City of Toronto

OLT Case No.:

PL030514

OLT File No.:

R060297

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant:

3C Lakeshore Inc. (formerly Home Depot)

Subject:

Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of City of Toronto to adopt the requested amendment

Existing Designation:

Central and East Bayfront

Proposed Designation:

Site Specific (To be determined)

Purpose:

To permit Commercial and Residential uses

Property Address/Description:

429 Lakeshore Boulevard and 324 Cherry Street

Municipality:

City of Toronto

Approval Authority File No.:

05 171818 STE 28 OZ

OLT Case No.:

PL060106

OLT File No.:

O060034

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

Applicant and Appellant:

3C Lakeshore Inc. (formerly Home Depot)

Subject:

Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 438-86 – Neglect of application by City of Toronto

Existing Zoning:

Mixed Industrial-commercial category

Proposed Zoning:

Site Specific (To be determined)

Purpose:

To permit Commercial and Residential uses

Property Address/Description:

429 Lakeshore Boulevard and 324 Cherry Street

Municipality:

City of Toronto

Municipal File No.:

05 171818 STE 28 OZ

OLT Case No.:

PL060106

OLT File No.:

Z060015

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. P. 13, as amended

Appellant:

See Schedule “4”

Subject:

Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 388

Municipality:

City of Toronto

Municipal File No.

10 117319 SPS 00 OZ

OLT Case No.:

PL101091

OLT File No.:

PL101091

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. P. 13, as amended

Appellant:

See Schedule “5”

Subject:

Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 389

Municipality:

City of Toronto

Municipal File No.

10 117319 SPS 00 OZ

OLT Case No.:

PL101091

OLT File No.:

PL101092

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Appellant:

See Schedule “6”

Subject:

By-law No. 1174-2010

Municipality:

City of Toronto

OLT Case No.:

PL101091

OLT File No.:

PL101093

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

Applicant and Appellant:

CASTAN Waterfront Development Inc., 1147390 Ontario Limited, 161774 Ontario Limited, 2017919 Ontario Limited and Marland III Corporation (“Castan”)

Subject:

Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 438-86 – Neglect of application by City of Toronto

Existing Zoning:

Industrial IC

Proposed Zoning:

Site Specific (To be determined)

Purpose:

To permit Commercial and Residential uses

Property Address/Description:

351 & 369 Lake Shore Boulevard East (Victory Soya Silo Site)

Municipality:

City of Toronto

Municipal File No.:

07 143093 STE 28 OZ

OLT Case No.:

PL101091

OLT File No.:

PL101094

Schedule “1”

Appellants to the City of Toronto New Official Plan (PL030412):

LPAT FILE No.

APPELLANT NAME

Appeal No.

Schedule

O030146

Pier 27 Toronto Inc. (formerly Avro Quay Limited)

27

B

O030219

Castan Waterfront Development Inc.

42

B

O030138

Harbour Remediation and Transfer Inc.

66

E

O030275

3C Lakeshore Inc. (formerly Home Depot)

68

B

O030167

Lafarge Canada Inc.

77

E

O030121

Ontario Power Generation

99

D

Schedule “2”

Appellants to the Official Plan Amendment No. 257 of the City of Toronto

(PL030514 – O030096):

File No.

APPELLANT NAME

Site

O030219

1147390 Ontario Limited and Queen’s Quay Avante Limited

Greenland Lakeside Development Company

215 Lake Shore Blvd. E. and 178 & 180 Queens Quay East (“Fedex South Site”)

(“Fedex North Site”)

2017919 Ontario Limited and Marland III Corporation

351 & 369 Lake Shore Blvd. E.

(“Victory Soya Silo Site”)

Marland I Corporation and Marland II Corporation

20 Polson St. and 176 Cherry St.

(“Polson Quay”)

O030275

3C Lakeshore Inc. (formerly Home Depot)

429 Lake Shore Blvd. and 324 Cherry St.

O030146

Pier 27 Toronto Inc. (formerly Avro Quay Limited)

25 Queens Quay East

Canadian Pacific Express & Transport Ltd.

150 Commissioners St. & 155 Villers St.

Concord Adex Development Corp

Railway Land Central & West

Korex Don Valley ULC

21 Don Valley Parkway

O030167

Lafarge Canada Inc.

54 Polson St and 535 Commissioners St

Ontario Film and Television Studio Owners Association

Central Waterfront Secondary plan area

O030121

Ontario Power Generation

440 Unwin Avenue

Michael Shapcott (Toronto Disaster Relief Committee)

General appeal – Housing Policy

Schedule “3”

Appellants to the Zoning By-law 1049-2006 of the City of Toronto

(PL030514 – R060297):

APPELLANT NAME

Site

Redpath Sugar Ltd. (formerly Tate & Lyle)

95 Queens Quay East

QQE 162 Inc. (formerly Gemess Investments Ltd.)

162 Queens Quay East

Kintork (Ontario) Limited and Nuko Investments Limited

143-177 Lake Shore Blvd E & 130 Queens Quay E.

1147390 Ontario Limited

Queen’s Quay Avante Limited

Greenland Lakeside Development Company

215 Lake Shore Blvd. E. and 178 & 180 Queens Quay East (“Fedex South Site”)

(“Fedex North Site”)

Schedule “4”

Appellants to the Official Plan Amendment No. 388 of the City of Toronto (PL101091):

APPELLANT NAME

Site

3C Lakeshore Inc. (formerly Home Depot)

429 Lakeshore Blvd. & 324 Cherry St.

1307547 Ontario Limited, 1341665 Ontario Limited, & 1536165 Ontario Limited

15-55 Polson St. & 222-238 Cherry St.

Royal Canadian Yacht Club

11 Parliament St.; 130 & 150 Cherry St.

Lafarge Canada Inc.

54 Polson St.

Toronto Waterfront Studios Inc.

225 Commissioners St.

2017919 Ontario Limited and Marland III Corporation

351 & 369 Lake Shore Blvd. E.

(“Victory Soya Silo Site”)

Marland I Corporation and Marland II Corporation

20 Polson Street and 176 Cherry Street

(“Polson Quay”)

1337194 Ontario Inc. & 2034055 Ontario Limited

309 Cherry Street

Schedule “5”

Appellants to the Official Plan Amendment No. 389 of the City of Toronto (PL101092):

APPELLANT NAME

Site

3C Lakeshore Inc. (formerly Home Depot)

429 Lakeshore Blvd. & 324 Cherry St.

Royal Canadian Yacht Club

11 Parliament St.; 130 & 150 Cherry St.

Toronto Port Authority

30 Bay St. & 60 Harbour St.

Schedule “6”

Appellants to the Zoning By-law 1174-2010 of the City of Toronto (PL101093):

APPELLANT NAME

Site

3C Lakeshore Inc. (formerly Home Depot)

429 Lakeshore Blvd. & 324 Cherry St.

Royal Canadian Yacht Club

11 Parliament St.; 130 & 150 Cherry St.

Lafarge Canada Inc.

54 Polson St.

Joseph Haupert

307 Lakeshore Blvd. E.

2017919 Ontario Limited and Marland III Corporation

351 & 369 Lake Shore Blvd. E.

(“Victory Soya Silo Site”)

Marland I Corporation and Marland II Corporation

20 Polson St. and 176 Cherry St.

(“Polson Quay”)

1337194 Ontario Inc. & 2034055 Ontario Limited

309 Cherry St.

Heard:

October 13, 2021 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

City of Toronto

R. A. Robinson

S. O’Conner

Toronto Waterfront Revitalization

Corporation

C. Kapelos

Toronto District School Board

P. Patterson

Ontario Power Generation Inc.

M. Cicchino

Manufacturers Life Insurance Company

C. Williams

J. Chung

Sprackman Estates – 1307547 Ontario Ltd. et al.

N. Macos

2034055 Ontario Ltd. and 1337194 Ontario Inc.

(309 Cherry St.)

P. Harrington

S. Tomasella

Hydro One Networks Inc.

R. Dhillon

Pinewood Toronto Studios

Toronto Waterfront Studios

L. English

Toronto Hydro-Electric System Ltd.

J. Debono/A. Kurts

Watching Briefs

Lafarge Canada Inc.

K. Mullin

Toronto Port Authority

(Ports Toronto)

A. Jeanrie

CRH Canada Group Inc.

J. Kahn

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY T.F. NG AND BRYAN W. TUCKEY ON OCTOBER 13, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1This matter pertains to the City of Toronto’s (“City”) approval of the proposed amendments to the City’s Toronto Official Plan being the Central Waterfront Secondary Plan (“CWSP”) and the Port Lands Official Plan Modification that modified the CWSP as it applies to the Port Lands. The CWSP was approved by the City Council on April 24, 2003. The Appeals are pursuant to s.17(24) of the Planning Act.

2At the previous settlement hearing on April 26, 2021 for the thematic Phase 1 issue (Land Use, Transportation and Street Networks), Mr. Robinson, counsel for the City suggested a way forward with respect to the remaining three Phases (Phase 2 - 4) for the hearing.

3Phase 2 (Urban Design and Heritage); Phase 3 (Affordable Housing, Parks, Community Infrastructure and Servicing) and Phase 4 (Sustainability and Biodiversity) deal with three districts i.e. Villiers Island, Polson Quay and Media City. Mr. Robinson was then prepared to lead discussions to collapse these phases and aim for a streamlined hearing.

4As it turned out, the parties were able to consolidate the issues and continue the thematic categorisation of outstanding issues in a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) and obtained this Case Management Conference (“CMC”).

DRAFT ISSUES LIST AND DRAFT PROCEDURAL ORDER

5City counsel, Mr. Robinson provided a brief overview of the progress that led to the draft PO and the thematic Issues List. Nevertheless, one particular issue A-19 which related to the question of potential built form policies for Polson Quay to address the future relocation of the Cement Terminal garnered contrary views from respective counsels. The result of the spirited discussions was that, the affected parties will separately take up a focused approach on this issue and report to the Tribunal as appropriately directed.

6Mr. Robinson was also of the view that the City is responding to the number of legislative changes to the Planning Act, in particular the provision of community infrastructure, affordable housing and s. 37. With a community benefits charge by-law being enacted, the issues in the Issues List category C-Infrastructure (Community and Hard Servicing) and Implementation may be rendered redundant. The parties may well be able to scope or reduce those issues. Similarly, the Toronto District School Board and Hydro-specific issues are being discussed in earnest, he stated.

7The draft PO will be finalized with the party (City) amendment, and the essential timelines filled in. The parties jointly requested a five-week hearing. Parties expect to be able to further scope the issues and prepare the PO within one week of this CMC. A further CMC was requested to enable reporting on the status of the matter before the scheduled hearing. All parties consented to Mr. Robinson’s suggested go forward strategy as described to the Tribunal.

8The Tribunal directs that the PO and the Issues List be exchanged and forwarded to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator on or before Wednesday October 20, 2021. Further, a witness list, listing the number of expert witnesses and the specializations, that each party is calling, shall be collated by the parties and furnished to the Case Coordinator on or before Friday, November 12, 2021.

9Mr. Robinson, Ms. Mullins, Mr. Williams and Mr. Debono have submitted on the appropriateness of Issue A-19 which contemplates built form policies for Polson Quay to address the future relocation of the cement terminal. As the relevant parties, being the City, the Sprackman Estates, Lafarge, Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation and ManuLife have shown a willingness to resolve this impasse (but not through mediation), the Tribunal will direct these parties to attempt a resolution and provide a status report of Issue A-19 to the case coordinator, no later than Monday, December 6, 2021. Representatives for 309 Cherry Street will also be part of this discussion to ensure there is no impact on the development application that is presently before the City.

10This matter will be scheduled for a five-week hearing commencing on Tuesday, May 17 to Friday May 20, 2022 and continuing on Monday, June 20 to Friday, July 15, 2022.

11A CMC for the parties to update the Tribunal on the status of this matter will be fixed on Friday, February 25, 2022. The parties will further scope the issues described as C.- Infrastructure (Community and Hard Servicing) and Implementation (including School Related Issues (TDSB Specific) C-10 and C-11; H.- Hydro-specific issues; endeavour to reduce the number of witnesses and the number of days from the scheduled dates requested.

HEARING TECHNICAL DETAILS

12This matter will be fixed for a Case Management Conference on Friday, February 25, 2022 by video hearing at 10 a.m.

13The hearing is scheduled for five weeks commencing on Tuesday, May 17, 2022 by video hearing at 10.a.m.

14The hearings are scheduled to proceed by video as follows:

Friday, February 25, 2022 at 10 a.m. (one day) GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/927969685 Access code: 927-969-685 Audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9391 or (Toll-Free) 1(888) 455-1389 Audio-only access code: 927-969-685 Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 10 a.m. (four days) GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/629745109

Access code: 629-745-109 Audio-only line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (Toll-Free) 1(888) 299-1889 Audio-only access code: 629-745-109

Monday, June 20, 2022 at 10 a.m. (four weeks) GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/566017213 Access code: 566-017-213 Audio-only line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (Toll-Free) 1(888) 299-1889 Audio-only access code: 566-017-213

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

16Parties 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

17Persons 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.

18Individuals 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 hearing by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing events may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

ORDER

19The Tribunal orders as follows:

1. The Procedural Order and the Issues List shall be delivered to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator on or before Wednesday, October 20, 2021.

2. The Procedural Order found in Attachment 1 with the attached Issues List will additionally govern the proceedings and comes into full force and effect.

3. The Witness List shall be delivered to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator on or before Friday, November 12, 2021.

4. The A-19 Issue Status Report shall be delivered to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator on or before Monday, December 6, 2021.

5. A Case Management Conference is fixed on Friday, February 25, 2022 for the parties to update the Tribunal on the status of the appeal; the scoping and reduction of the issues and the reduction of the number of days scheduled.

6. The hearing is fixed for five weeks commencing on Tuesday, May 17 to Friday May 20, 2022 and continuing on Monday, June 20 to Friday, July 15, 2022.

20There will be no further notice.

21In the event of any issues arising from the CMC , the Panel Members may be spoken to.

“T.F. Ng”

T.F. NG

MEMBER

“Bryan W. Tuckey”

Bryan W. Tuckey

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: 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.

PROCEEDING COMMENDED UNDER 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellants:

See Schedule

Subject:

Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 257

Municipality:

City of Toronto

OLT Case No.:

PL030514

OLT File No.:

PL030514

OLT Case Name:

Port Lands (Central Waterfront Secondary Plan)

ATTACHMENT 1

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 Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 10:00 a.m., for 4 days. It will then break and reconvene on Monday, June 20, 2022 at 10:00 a.m., for 4 weeks. The Parties will work together when preparing the hearing Work Plan to accommodate any identified scheduling constraints.

3. The length of the hearing will be about 5 weeks (24 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 (see Attachment 2 for the meaning of these terms) identified at the Case Management Conference are listed in Attachment 3 to this Order.

5. The Issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 4 to this Order. The City will work with the outstanding appellants to review and further narrow the Issues List in advance of the hearing. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits it. A party who seeks changes to this list may have costs awarded against it. An issue can be removed from the Issues List without a formal order of the Tribunal with the consent of all Parties.

6. The order of evidence is tentatively set out in Attachment 5 to this Order and shall be confirmed between the Parties and reflected in the hearing Work Plan. 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 should 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 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/tribunals/lpat/).

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. 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 at least (120) calendar days before the hearing (on or before January 17, 2022). For expert witnesses, a party is to identify the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified and a copy of their curriculum vitae.

10. 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 at least (39) days before the hearing (on or before April 8, 2022), if agreement is reached.

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 time 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, at least 56 calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before March 22, 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. At least (56) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before March 22, 2022), the Parties shall provide copies of their witness statements and expert witness statements (in accordance with section 11 herein) to the other Parties and to the Tribunal.

15. At least (27) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before April 20, 2022), the Parties may provide to all other Parties a written response to any written evidence.

16. At least (14) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before May 3, 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. On or before (on or before May 10, 2022), (7 days before the commencement of the hearing), 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.

20. The Parties undertake to make best their efforts to avoid duplicative evidence to the extent possible.

21. The Parties shall prepare a Joint Document Book (on or before May 10, 2022), (7 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), and two (2) hard copies 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 an accessible electronic format in accordance with Section 23.

22. If a Party intends to seek approval of revised official plan policies at the hearing, the Party shall provide copies of the revised policy language to the other Parties with their witness statements as exchanged in accordance with Section 14 (on or before March 22, 2022).

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. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

25. The Tribunal may conduct mediation on consent of all Parties, or 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 2.

This Member is [not] seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE

EVENT

Friday, November 12, 2021

Parties to file preliminary witness lists (disciplines and total number of witnesses to be called)

Monday, December 6, 2021

Parties with an interest in Issue A-19 to report on status of discussions

Monday, January 17, 2022

(120 days prior to hearing)

Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)

Tuesday March 22, 2022

(56 days prior to hearing)

Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements

Friday, April 8, 2022

(39 days prior to hearing)

Expert Meetings prior to this date

Wednesday, April 13, 2022

(34 days prior to hearing)

Agreed Statement of Facts filed with the Tribunal

Wednesday, April 20, 2022

(27 days prior to hearing)

Exchange of Reply Statements (if any)

Wednesday, May 3, 2022

(14 days prior to hearing)

Exchange of visual evidence (if any)

Tuesday, May 10, 2022

(7 days prior to hearing)

Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal

Tuesday, May 10, 2022 (7 days prior to hearing)

Finalize and circulate Joint Document Book (with 2 hard copies to Tribunal)

Tuesday, May 10, 2021

(7 days prior to hearing)

Final date to advise whether calling witness who filed a WS

Tuesday, May 17, 2022

Hearing commences for 4 days

Monday, June 20, 2022

Hearing resumes for 4 weeks

ATTACHMENT 2

Purpose of the Procedural Order and Meaning of Terms

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. If an unincorporated group wishes to become a Party, 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 authorization 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, must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

Participant is an individual, group or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may attend only part of the proceeding but who makes a written statement to the Tribunal on all or some of the issues in the hearing in accordance with Rule 7.7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

NOTE that such persons will likely not receive notice of a mediation or conference calls on procedural issues. They also cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision as Parties can.

Written and Visual Evidence:

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a Party 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 intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

Witness Statements:

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 the witness will discuss and the witness’ opinions on those issues; and a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include the expert’s (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 for the opinions and (5) a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which the participant will address and a short outline of the evidence on those issues; and a list of reports, relied upon, if any, which the participant will provide to the Tribunal for consideration of the written statement at

the hearing.

Additional Information:

Summons: A Party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons. This request must be made before the time that the list of witnesses is provided to the Tribunal and the Parties (see Rule 13 on the summons procedure). If the Tribunal requests it, an affidavit must be provided indicating how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the affidavit, it will require that a motion be heard to decide whether the witness should be summoned.

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.

ATTACHMENT 3

LIST OF PARTIES/PARTICIPANTS

Parties

Counsel/Representative

Participation in Hearing

City of Toronto

Robert Robinson/Sarah O'Connor

City of Toronto

Metro Hall, 26th Floor Stn. 1260

55 John Street

Toronto, ON M5V 3C6

Will participate in hearing

Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corp.

Andrew Biggart/Tina Kapelos

Ritchie Ketcheson Hart & Biggart LLP

1 Eva Road

Etobicoke, ON M9C 4Z5

Catherine Murray

20 Bay Street

Toronto, ON M5J 2N8

Will participate in hearing

Toronto District School Board

Pitman Patterson/ Julie Lesage

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

Bay Adelaide Centre, East Tower 22 Adelaide Street West

Suite 3400 Toronto, ON M5H 4E3

Will participate in hearing

Lafarge Canada Inc.

54 Polson Street and 535 Commissioners Street

Kim Mullin

Wood Bull LLP

65 Queen Street West, Suite 1400 Toronto, ON M5H 2M5

Watching brief for built form issues

Ontario Power Generation Inc. ("OPG")

440 Unwin Avenue and 470 Unwin Avenue

Portlands Energy Centre

470 Unwin Avenue

Michael Polowin/Michelle Cicchino

Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP

160 Elgin Street, Suite 2600

Ottawa, ON K1P 1C3

Will participate in hearing

(Manufacturers Life Insurance Company) 2017919 Ontario Limited

20 Polson Street and 176 Cherry Street

Christopher Williams/Jasmine Chung

Aird & Berlis LLP

Brookfield Place 181 Bay Street, Suite 1800 Toronto, ON M5J 2T9

Will participate in hearing

1307547 Ontario Limited (11 Polson Street); 1341665 Ontario Ltd. (15-55 Polson Street); 1536165 Ontario Limited (190 Cherry Street and 222-238 Cherry Street)

Nicholas T. Macos

Black, Sutherland LLP

130 Adelaide Street W, Suite 3425

P.O. Box 34

Toronto, ON M5H 3P5

Will participate in hearing

Toronto Port Authority (PortsToronto)

8 Unwin Avenue

Toronto, ON M5A 1A1

Andrew Jeanrie

Bennett Jones LLP

1 First Canadian Place, Suite 3400

PO Box 130

Toronto, ON M5X 1A4

Watching brief

2034055 Ontario Ltd. and 1337194 Ontario Inc.

309 Cherry Street

Sidonia Tomasella/Patrick Harrington

Aird Berlis LLP

Brookfield Place 181 Bay Street, Suite 1800 Toronto, ON M5J 2T9

Will participate in hearing

Hydro One Networks Inc.

444 Unwin Avenue

Michael Engelberg/ Raman Dhillon

Hydro One Networks Inc. 483 Bay Street, North Tower 12th Floor Toronto, ON M5G 2P5

Will participate in hearing

Toronto Waterfront Studios Development Inc.;

Pinewood Toronto Studios

101 and 225 Commissioners Street and 1-17 Basin Street

Isaac Tang/Lee English

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

Bay Adelaide Centre, East Tower 22 Adelaide Street West, Suite 3400 Toronto, ON M5H 4E3

Will participate in hearing

CRH Canada Group Inc.

650 Commissioners Street and 8 Unwin Avenue

Jonathan Kahn

Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

199 Bay Street, Suite 4000

Commerce Court West

Toronto ON M5L 1A9

Watching brief

Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited

Joseph Debono/Aaron Kurts

Dentons Canada LLP

77 King Street West, Suite 400

TD Centre

Toronto, ON M5K 0A1

Will participate in hearing

Participants:

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

Steven Heuchert

101 Exchange Avenue

Vaughan, ON L4K 5R6

West Don Lands Committee

John Wilson johnwilson338@gmail.com

Cynthia Wilkey wilkeycj@gmail.com

ATTACHMENT 4

ISSUES LIST

Note: The identification of an issue on this Issues List is intended to provide notice to all parties that a party will lead evidence and/or argument on the matter. This identification does not serve as an acknowledgement of relevancy to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing.

A. Urban Design Standards & Heritage

Building Heights & Resulting Density

A-1 Are the height requirements in the OPM, including height requirements for base buildings, tall buildings and ground floor heights, appropriate?

A-2 Should the height requirements for ground floor heights in Policy 10.5 c) only apply to new buildings?

A-3 Should the OPM directly reference the Toronto Airport Zoning Regulations SOR/85-515 and the associated mapping and should this be the sole means of regulating building height in the Port Lands?

A-4 Does the OPM unnecessarily limit the height and density which would allow for the appropriate development of the Port Lands?

Other Urban Design & Built Form Standards

A-5 Are the OPM policies with respect to sun on public streets, parks and open space appropriate?

A-6 Is the direction in Policy 10.7.6 regarding the location, orientation and massing of tall buildings appropriate?

A-7 Are the required separation distances, setbacks and stepbacks in the OPM appropriate including:

a) tower separation;

b) setbacks from Old Cherry Street and East-West Street in Villiers Island;

c) stepbacks for tall buildings above the base building frontage in Policy 10.7.5?

A-8 Are the requirements in the OPM for residential tall building floorplates appropriate?

A-9 Is Objective 3.1 (beautifully designed buildings and, where appropriate, capable of adaptive reuse) appropriate?

A-10 Are Policies 10.4 (adaptive reuse) and 10.5 (activity at grade) appropriate as they apply to PIC Core uses?

A-11 Is the OPM's requirement for transparent facades in Policy 10.5 b) appropriate in its application to existing and new buildings?

A-12 Is the OPM's 1:1 building face to building face requirement in Policy 10.8.4 appropriate?

A-13 Is the OPM's direction on standards for high quality living environments for residential units appropriate, including unit sizes and window requirements?

Heritage

A-14 Is the OPM's approach to conserving heritage resources, particularly with respect to Policies 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.5 appropriate?

A-15 Will the inclusion of specific buildings, built form policies and view planes under heritage protection policies deter the appropriate development and land uses for these lands?

A-16 Are the height limits proposed for the Cherry Street Cultural Corridor an appropriate means of protecting a heritage resource, and are they in keeping with the provincial direction to optimize land?

A-17 Are the required separations between buildings and heritage structures in the OPM appropriate?

A-18 Are the requirements for an Heritage Evaluation Reports clear in the OPM and how does this requirement relate to the Heritage Impact Assessment defined by the Official Plan?

Polson Quay Built Form & Cement Terminal Relocation

A-19 Should the Built form policies for Polson Quay address the future relocation of the Cement Terminal and address interim and ultimate built form vision? [Note: This issue has been included at the request of Manulife but is disputed by some Parties. The 6 Parties with an interest in this issue will report back to the Tribunal by Monday, December 6, 2021 on the status of discussions.]

B. Sustainability and Biodiversity

B-1 Are the innovation and sustainability policies contained in Section 12 sufficiently clear and appropriate? Does the OPM have regard for Section 2 e) of the Planning Act?

B-2 Is Policy 14.6.3, which states "provide proper fit outs, including necessary above and below-grade infrastructure informed by the City’s Thermal Network-ready Design Guideline, to ensure connection to future low-carbon thermal energy network, such as deep lake water cooling, geoexchange systems, sewer heat recovery and/or combined heat/power plants" appropriate?

B-3 Is the objective in Policy 3.9 appropriate and sufficiently clear?

B-4 Is Policy 7.2.6 appropriate and sufficiently clear? Does it inappropriately promote land uses with substantial vehicle parking?

B-5 Are the biodiversity requirements in policies 13.1 and 13.3 appropriate, particularly with respect to facilities engaged in PIC Core uses?

B-6 Are the OPM's complete application requirements appropriate, specifically referring to Sustainability Strategy and Naturalization Plan?

B-7 Are policies 4.2.7, 4.3.5 and 12.4.4 appropriate in so far as they fail to protect existing business by limiting PECs ability to add additional capacity or refurbish the generating station, limiting future generating opportunities?

C. Infrastructure (Community and Hard Servicing) & Implementation

Provision of Infrastructure - General & Implementation

C-1 Does the OPM appropriately address the phasing, timing, and/or funding of necessary infrastructure, including community infrastructure and hard infrastructure, in connection with development? Are policies 14.6 and 15.7 appropriate?

C-2 Is it premature to prescribe necessary community infrastructure needs? Should the community infrastructure priorities only be required after need is established?

C-3 Should the OPM provide more direction regarding:

a) where community services are anticipated to be located on Villiers Island; and

b) how the proposed community infrastructure will be factored into the Section 37 contribution for specific sites?

C-4 Are the OPM's complete application requirements appropriate, specifically referring to Fiscal Impact Analysis and/or Phasing Plans?

C-5 Are the CWSP and OPM policies pertaining to the use of Section 37 Agreements appropriate in light of legislative changes?

Affordable Housing

C-6 Should consideration of the following Policies in the CWSP P(27), P(38), P(39) and the affordable housing policies in the OMP be deferred?

C-7 Are the affordable housing requirements, being either 5% conveyed to the City, 10% for 25 years, or 20% dedicated to the City, and/or cash in lieu, appropriate with consideration of the Planning Act, the Provincial Policy Statement or in light of the settlements in other areas of the Central Waterfront (Keating Channel West Precinct Plan)?

Parkland

C-8 Are the parkland dedication rates in the OPM appropriate, including specifically as it relates to:

a) the allocation of cash-in-lieu;

b) municipally owned lands;

c) privately owned lands;

d) long-term leases;

e) the City-wide parkland dedication rates; and

f) the scale of local parks and overall provision of parkland in the Port Lands?

Public Art

C-9 Should the public art policies contained in Policy 11 be amended to:

a) require all public art funding to be allocated to projects within the district or within the development site from which funds are being collected;

b) require funds be directed exclusively to the capital costs of any installation; and/or

c) clarify the application of Policy 11.2 to land subject to long term leases?

School-Related Issues (TDSB specific)

C-10 Should the OPM include:

a) an objective emphasizing the importance of providing schools commensurate with timing and phasing of growth;

b) further guidance on whether development should contribute to new, expanded or retrofitted school space within the Port Lands or vicinity; and

c) additional guidance on the provision of, confirmation of, and/or phasing/timing of community infrastructure with development, including in the list of conditions that may be included within a Development Permit By-law.

C-11 Should the OPM:

a) only require community infrastructure to have a compact urban form "where appropriate"; and

b) only encourage, as opposed to require, community infrastructure to have high-quality design?

C-12 Should Policy 7.4 be revised to reflect that schools and the City may cooperate to share recreational and open space amenities?

C-13 Are the OPM's complete application requirements appropriate, specifically referring to the absence of a requirement for a community services and facilities strategy?

H. Hydro-specific Issues

H-1 Should section 10.4 apply to any development or construction undertaken by Toronto Hydro and/or Hydro One, including any replacement for the Basin Transformer Station, if it is ultimately relocated?

H-2 Is the 9 metre setback from Unwin Avenue in policy 10.1 c) appropriate considering the dimensions of large electrical equipment and infrastructure or other improvements within the districts mentioned?

H-3 Is the identification of existing hydro towers on Commissioners Street as a "cultural heritage landscape" appropriate?

H-4 Should the following lands be exempt from the designation under the Ontario Heritage Act and from the requirements under sections 6, and 9.1.10 of the Policy:

a) Lands owned, leased or otherwise occupied by Hydro One and/or Toronto Hydro; and

b) The lands in the north part of the former Hearn site?

H-5 Should Toronto Hydro and/or Hydro One be exempt from the requirements of section 12.4.4 in relation to any development, installations or other improvements undertaken by Hydro One or Toronto Hydro including, without limitation, any existing and future transmission facilities, together with any existing or future distribution facilities?

ATTACHMENT 5

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

DRAFT to be confirmed through discussion and Work Plan

1. City of Toronto

2. Waterfront Toronto

3. TDSB

4. 309 Cherry

5. TWSDI/Pinewood

6. Manulife

7. Sprackman

8. HydroOne

9. Toronto Hydro

10. OPG/PEC