Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: November 05, 2021 CASE NO(S).: PL210266

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

Applicant and Appellant: Lifetime Jackes Inc. Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law Nos. 438-86 and 569-2013 - Refusal or neglect of City of Toronto to make a decision Existing Zoning: Residential (R2 Z1.0) Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined) Purpose: To permit a 29-storey residential building Property Address/Description: 49 Jackes Avenue Municipality: City of Toronto Municipality File No.: 20 226916 STE 11 OZ LPAT Case No.: PL210266 LPAT File No.: PL210266 LPAT Case Name: Lifetime Jackes Inc. v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Lifetime Jackes Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of City of Toronto to adopt the requested amendment Existing Designation: Apartment Neighbourhoods Proposed Designated: Site Specific (To be determined) Purpose: To permit a 29-storey residential building Property Address/Description: 49 Jackes Avenue Municipality: City of Toronto Approval Authority File No.: 20 226916 STE 11 OZ OLT Case No.: To be determined OLT File No.: To be determined

Heard: September 22, 2021 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/ Representative*
Lifetime Jackes Inc.	D. Bronskill*
City of Toronto	S. O’Connor* and C. Dougherty*
Deer Park Residents Group Inc.	M. Vaughan
Friends of David Balfour Park	J. Bossons
MTCC No. 802	A. Biggart*
Summerhill Residents Association	M. Schlaepfer
TSCC No. 1546, Linda Campbell and Elizabeth Hallerman	A. Stewart*

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY HUGH S. WILKINS ON SEPTEMBER 22, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1This Decision arises from a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) regarding appeals brought by Lifetime Jackes Inc. (“Appellant”) of the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to pass official plan and zoning by-law amendments to facilitate the development of a 29-storey residential building at 49 Jackes Avenue.

2At the CMC, the Tribunal addressed requests for Party and for Participant status, the identification of issues to be addressed at the hearing, the preparation of a draft Procedural Order, the identification of opportunities for settlement discussions, and the setting of hearing dates.

Requests for Party Status

3The Tribunal received requests for Party status from (1) Deer Park Residents Group Inc., (2) Friends of David Balfour Park, (3) MTCC No. 802, (4) Summerhill Residents Association, and (5) TSCC No. 1546, Linda Campbell and Elizabeth Hallerman. Each of these requests is addressed below.

4The Deer Park Residents Group Inc. stated that it represents residents in the area that includes the subject property. It stated that the proposed development would have substantial impacts on its members, including shadow impacts on the adjacent David Balfour Park and heritage impacts. Neither the Appellant nor the City objected to the Group’s request for status. The Tribunal found that the Deer Park Residents Group Inc. has a genuine and direct interest in the proceeding, its members will be impacted by the Tribunal’s decision, and it will assist the Tribunal in making its decision. The Tribunal found that there are reasonable grounds to add the Deer Park Residents Group Inc. as a Party and it granted the Group that status, as requested.

5The Friends of David Balfour Park stated that it is an incorporated body that aims to protect David Balfour Park, which lies adjacent to the subject property. It raised concerns regarding wind, shadow, and visual impacts of the proposed development on the park. None of the Parties objected to this request for status. The Tribunal found that the Friends of David Balfour Park has a genuine and direct interest in the proceeding, it will be impacted by the Tribunal’s decision, and Friends of David Balfour Park will assist the Tribunal in making its decision. The Tribunal found that there are reasonable grounds to add the Friends of David Balfour Park as a Party and granted it Party status, as requested.

6MTCC No. 802 is a condominium corporation, which owns the residential building located adjacent to the subject property at 33 Jackes Avenue. It raised height, massing, and overlook concerns as well as concerns related to impacts on David Balfour Park. None of the Parties objected to its request for Party status. The Tribunal found that MTCC No. 802 has a genuine and direct interest in the proceeding, it will be impacted by the Tribunal’s decision, and it will assist the Tribunal in making its decision. The Tribunal found that there are reasonable grounds to add the MTCC No. 802 as a Party and granted it Party status, as requested.

7The Summerhill Residents Association stated that it is an incorporated body representing residents in the area to the south of the subject property. It raised concerns regarding the proposed transition from high density residential uses on the subject property to lower density uses to the south. None of the Parties objected to its request. The Tribunal found that the Summerhill Residents Association has a genuine and direct interest in the proceeding, its members will be impacted by the Tribunal’s decision, and Summerhill Residents Association will assist the Tribunal in making its decision. The Tribunal found that there are reasonable grounds to add the Summerhill Residents Association as a Party and granted it Party status, as requested.

8TSCC No. 1546 is a condominium corporation for residents living in the residential building at 9 Jackes Avenue. Linda Campbell and Elizabeth Hallerman are residents who live in that building. They raised concerns regarding height, massing, density, built form, impacts on the park, transition from high to low density, and transportation impacts of the proposed development. None of the Parties objected to their requests for status. The Tribunal found that they have a genuine and direct interest in the proceeding, they will be impacted by the Tribunal’s decision, and they will assist the Tribunal in making its decision. The Tribunal found that there are reasonable grounds to add TSCC No. 1546, Linda Campbell and Elizabeth Hallerman as Parties and granted them each Party status, as requested.

Requests for Participant Status

9The Tribunal received 30 requests for Participant status. The requests were made by:

• David Agro
• Anne Boubion
• Sharon Bray
• Bretton Place Tenants Association
• Jeanie Davis
• Jack Diamond
• Connie Dingle
• Frontier College
• Phillip Gold
• Mark Golding
• John Greenberg
• John Hallerman
• Jennifer Harris
• Joan Hickey
• Andrew Hurlbut
• Richard Innes
• Timothy Jude
• Susan Macauley
• Bob McCabe
• MTCC No. 773
• Don Pratt
• Susan Raphael
• Mary Renaud
• David Rich
• Elizabeth Stackhouse
• Susan Stock
• Diana Tremain
• John van Nostrand
• Rick Waugh
• Elizabeth Wolfe

The requesters raise height, massing, density, built form, transition, parkland, heritage, and transportation concerns. None of the Parties objected to these requests for Participant status and the Tribunal granted them.

Identification of Issues and draft Procedural Order

10The Appellant stated that each of the Parties had prepared a draft issues list and that the Appellant would consolidate them and promptly file a finalized Issues List and draft Procedural Order with the Tribunal.

11On October 27, 2021, the Parties filed a consolidated Issues List and draft Procedural Order, which the Tribunal has now reviewed, revised, and approves. It is attached to this Order and Decision as Attachment 1.

Identification of Opportunities for Settlement Discussions

12The Parties expressed an interest in engaging in settlement discussions and possibly mediation. The Tribunal encouraged the Parties to engage in such discussions and to request Tribunal-assisted mediation, if needed.

Scheduling of Hearing Dates

13The Parties requested that the Tribunal schedule a 17-day hearing for the appeal. They identified witnesses that they propose to call and the time that they estimate that each would need. The Tribunal scheduled a 17-day hearing for October 2022.

ORDER

14The Tribunal orders that Deer Park Residents Group Inc., Friends of David Balfour Park, MTCC No. 802, Summerhill Residents Association, TSCC No. 1546, Linda Campbell, and Elizabeth Hallerman are Parties in these proceedings.

15The Tribunal orders that the persons listed in paragraph [9] of this Order and Decision are Participants in these proceedings.

16The Tribunal approves the Procedural Order and Issues List attached as Attachment 1 to this Order and Decision.

17The Tribunal orders that the hearing in this matter will be held by video hearing on Monday, October 3, 2022 commencing at 10 a.m. Seventeen days have been set aside.

18Parties 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:

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219198509

Access Code: 219-198-509

19Parties and Participants are asked to set up the video hearing 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.

20Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling: +1 (647) 497-9391 or (Toll Free) 1 888 455 1389. The Access Code is indicated as above.

21Individuals 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 CMC by video 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.

22There will be no further notice.

23This Member is not seized.

“Hugh S. Wilkins”

HUGH S. WILKINS 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.

SCHEDULE 1

ISSUE DATE: CASE NO(S).: PL210266

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

Applicant(s)/Appellant(s): Lifetime Jackes Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure of City of Toronto to adopt the requested amendment Existing Designation: Apartment Neighbourhoods Proposed Designation: Site Specific (To be determined) Purpose: To permit a 29-storey residential building Property Address/Description: 49 Jackes Avenue Municipality: City of Toronto Municipal File No. 20 226916 11 OZ OLT Case No.: PL210266 OLT File No.: To be determined

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

Applicant(s)/Appellant(s): Lifetime Jackes Inc. Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law Nos. 438-86 and 569-2013 – Refusal or neglect of City of Toronto to make a decision Existing Zoning: Residential (R2 Z1.0) Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined) Purpose: To permit a 29-storey residential building Property Address/Description: 49 Jackes Avenue Municipality: City of Toronto Municipal File No. 20 226916 11 OZ OLT Case No.: PL210266 OLT File No.: PL210266 OLT Case Name: Lifetime Jackes Inc. v. Toronto (City)

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 October 3, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.

3. The length of the hearing will be seventeen (17) 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/tribunals/lpat/).

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 July 8, 2022.

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 June 3, 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 24, 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. Parties and participants must provide to the Tribunal and the other Parties their witness statements or participant statements, respectively, on or before July 29, 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 29, 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 August 19, 2022, the Parties may provide to all other Parties a written response to any written evidence.

16. On or before August 26, 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 September 2, 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 September 16, 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 on or before September 16, 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 May 6, 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 is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE:

Name of Member:

Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
May 6, 2022	Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any)
June 3, 2022	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
June 24, 2022	Last date to challenge identification of expert witness
July 8, 2022	Experts meeting prior to this date
July 8, 2022	Agreed Statement of Facts
July 29, 2022	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
August 19, 2022	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
August 26, 2022	Parties to Advise Tribunal if any hearing dates are to be released from the hearing calendar (if any)
September 2, 2022	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
September 16, 2022	Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal
September 16, 2022	Finalize Joint Document Book
October 3, 2022	Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES/PARTICIPANTS

PARTIES

1. Lifetime Jackes Inc. David Bronskill, Goodmans LLP dbronskill@goodmans.ca 416.597.4299
2. City of Toronto Sarah O’Connor/Colin Dougherty sarah.oconnor@toronto.ca/colin.dougherty@toronto.ca 416.397.5378/416.392.3116
3. Summerhill Residents Association Matthias Schlaepfer matthiasschlaepfer@outlook.com 416.617.7247
4. MTCC 802 Andrew Biggart abiggart@ritchieketcheson.com 416.622.6601
5. Deer Park Residents Group Michael Vaughan michael@mbvaughan.com 416.420.0982
6. Linda Campbell/Elizabeth Hallerman/TSCC 1546 Amber Stewart amber@amberstewartlaw.com 416.436.8355
7. Friends of David Balfour Park John Bossons jbossons@gmail.com 416.450.3584

PARTICIPANTS

1. Agro, David (david@idworkshop.ca)
2. Boubion, Anne (apboubion@icloud.com)
3. Britton Place Tenants’ Association (Francis Freund) (idecor8@rogers.com)
4. Bray, Sharon (sharon@sharonbay.ca)
5. Davis, Jeanie (jeanied@sympatico.ca)
6. Diamond, Jack (ajd@dsai.ca)
7. Dingle, Connie (conniedingle@gmail.com)
8. Frontier College (Sandi Kiverago) (skiverago@frontiercollege.ca)
9. Gold, Philip (effi@rogers.com)
10. Golding, Mark (mafgolding@rogers.com)
11. Greenberg, John (grnbrg@polwares.com)
12. Hallerman, John (hallermanjohn@gmail.com)
13. Harris, Jennifer (j.harris@jenniferharrisdesign.com)
14. Hickey, Joan (joanrhickey@gmail.com)
15. Hurlburt, Andrew (andrew@hurly.ca)
16. Innes, Richard (rinnes7040@gmail.com)
17. Jude, Timothy (tim.jude@yahoo.com)
18. Macaulay, Susan (smacaulay6@icloud.com)
19. McCabe, Bob (bobmccabe9@gmail.com)
20. MTCC No. 773 (Connie Roveto) (roveto@rogers.com)
21. Pratt, Don (pratt9188@rogers.com)
22. Raphael, Susan (susan@susanraphael.ca)
23. Renaud, Mary (mrenaudny@gmail.com)
24. Rich, David (davidcrich@rogers.com)
25. Stackhouse, Elizabeth (elizstackhouse88@gmail.com)
26. Stock, Susan (susan.stock@me.com)
27. Tremain, Diana (dianatremain44@gmail.com)
28. van Nostrand, John (jvannostrand@svn-ap.com)
29. Waugh, Richard (rick@rewaugh.com)
30. Wolfe, Elizabeth (elizabethwolfe898@gmail.com)

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUES LIST

49 Jackes – Consolidated Issues Chart

Issue	Party
Parkland (Threshold)

1. Is the hearing premature in the absence of the applicant revising the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment to show a parkland conveyance in the size, location and configuration that is satisfactory to the City, pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act, and the City’s Parkland Dedication By-law (Chapter 415, Article III of the Municipal Code)? | City of Toronto
2. Where the City has determined that on-site parkland will be required pursuant to section 42(1) of the Planning Act and the City’s Parkland Dedication By-law Chapter 415, Article III of the Municipal Code (the “Section 42 Parkland”), does the Ontario Land Tribunal have the jurisdiction to determine the size, location and configuration of the Section 42 Parkland for a site? | City of Toronto Prematurity |
3. Is the proposed development premature with regard to the City not having completed its Municipal Comprehensive Review with respect to conformity with the Growth Plan or the delineation of Major Transit Station Areas outside the Downtown? | MTCC 802
4. Is the proposal premature given the City’s ongoing study of a Major Transit Station Area for the Yonge-St. Clair intersection? | TSCC 1546 Legislative and Policy Tests |
5. Does the proposed have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act? (a), (d), (f), (h), (j), (m), (n), (o), (p), (q), (r), (s) | City of Toronto SRA MTCC 802 TSCC 1546
6. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for the decision of City Council as required by Section 2.1 of the Planning Act? | City of Toronto
7. Would a decision to refuse the proposed development be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement as required by Subsection 3(5) of the Planning Act? Is the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement? 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.4.3, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7.1, 2.6, 4.5, 4.6 | City of Toronto SRA MTCC 802 TSCC 1546 FDBP
8. Would a decision to refuse the proposed development conform to and not conflict with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe as required by Subsection 3(5) of the Planning Act? Does the proposed development conform with the Growth Plan? 1.2.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.6, 4.2.5, 4.2.7, 5.2.5.6, 5.2.5.8 | City of Toronto SRA MTCC 802 TSCC 1546 FDBP
9. Does the proposed development conform with the applicable policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan? 2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.4, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.5, 3.2.3, 3.4.1, 4.2, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6 | City of Toronto SRA MTCC 802 DPRG TSCC 1546 FDBP
10. Does the proposed development conform with the applicable policies of the Yonge-St. Clair Secondary Plan? 2.1, 2.2, 3.2, 4.2 SASP 8.4, SASP 8.7 | City of Toronto SRA MTCC 802 DPRG TSCC 1546 FDBP
11. Does the proposal have adequate regard for the City’s Yonge-St. Clair Planning Framework and the ongoing Yonge-St. Clair Apartment Neighbourhoods Study? Is the proposed height and massing responsive to the Yonge-St. Clair Planning Framework and the ongoing Yonge-St. Clair Apartment Neighbourhoods Study? | City of Toronto TSCC 1546 SRA DPRG General |
12. Would approval of the proposed development and Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments represent good planning and good urban design? Would it be in the public interest? | City of Toronto DPRG SRA FDBP
13. Are the proposed height, massing, setbacks, stepbacks, and site organization of the proposed development appropriate given principles of good planning and urban design? | City MTCC 802 SRA DPRG
14. Does the proposed development represent an overdevelopment of the site, with particular regard to the existing and planned context? | DPRG MTCC 802
15. Does the proposal meet high urban design standards that contribute to achieving public areas that are attractive, inviting, comfortable and safe? | City TSCC 1546 SRA DPRG
16. Does the proposed development represent responsible growth that appropriately balances and reconciles the diversity of policies affecting land use planning in Toronto to achieve a good fit with the existing and planned context? | MTCC 802 SRA DPRG
17. Is an increase in height and density beyond the development standards specified in the Site and Area Specific Policy 8.4 of the Yonge-St. Clair Secondary Plan necessary for the City of Toronto to achieve its Growth Plan targets or to be consistent with the PPS? | SRA DPRG FDBP Guidelines |
18. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for the City’s Tall Building Guidelines? | City of Toronto MTCC 802 SRA DPRG TSCC 1546 FDBP
19. Does the development have appropriate regard to the Pet Friendly Design Guidelines for High Density Communities? | City of Toronto Height/Massing/Scale |
20. Is the proposed building height of 29 storeys or 99 metres including the mechanical penthouse appropriate and does it represent good planning? | City of Toronto MTCC 802 FDBP DPRG
21. Is the development's proposed massing, including setbacks, stepbacks, scale, separation distances, streetwall height, density, and design appropriate, and does it represent good planning? | City of Toronto SRA FDBP DPRG
22. Is the proposal a medium density and scale, consistent with the urban structure elements envisioned by the Secondary Plan? | TSCC 1546 SRA DPRG Wind |
23. Does the proposed development's wind impacts on the public realm, adjacent properties, David A. Balfour Park, and on the proposed outdoor amenity space represent good planning? | City of Toronto SRA FDBP DPRG
24. Does the proposed height and setbacks have unacceptable wind impacts (including wind velocity and/or wind gusts) on pedestrians along Jackes Avenue and in the pedestrian route between the reservoir and the proposal? | FDBP DPRG Shadows/Sky View |
25. Does the proposed development's shadow impact on David A. Balfour Park represent good planning? | City of Toronto SRA FDBP DPRG
26. Does the proposed development adequately address shadows on the adjacent lower scale Neighbourhood to the south, David A. Balfour Park and the public realm? | DPRG MTCC 802 SRA
27. Does the height and location of the proposed 29-storey building result in unacceptable impacts on sunlight and sky views in the park? Would there be unacceptable impacts on trees, vegetation and users of the park? | FDBP TSCC 1546 DPRG
28. Would the proposal result in unacceptable impacts on the park immediately north of the site (lands to be deeded to the City in accordance with the settlement agreement for the third tower of Bretton Place)? | FDBP DPRG Transition |
29. Does the proposal provide for appropriate sky views for and separation from 33 Jackes Avenue? | MTCC 802 TSCC 1546
30. Does the proposed development provide a proper transition to the adjacent lower scale Neighbourhood properties to the south, David A. Balfour Park and the public realm? | City of Toronto DPRG MTCC 802 SRA TSCC 1546
31. Does the proposal provide for a harmonious relation to its built form context, including its height, massing, setbacks, stepbacks? | TSCC 1546 SRA DPRG
32. Is the elimination of the transition policies of stepping down to the lowscale residential buildings that front onto Woodlawn Avenue specified in the Site and Area Specific Policy 8.7 of the Yonge-St. Clair Secondary Plan necessary for the City of Toronto to achieve its Growth Plan targets or to be consistent with the PPS? | SRA DPRG Privacy/Overlook |
33. Would the proposal result in unacceptable impacts on privacy within the pedestrian route in David Balfour Park? | DPRG FDBP
34. Would the location of the proposed townhouses and the proposed balconies adjacent to the park walkway result in unacceptable overlook impacts that would reduce the public amenity of the park? | DPRG
35. Would approval of the proposed development represent good planning with regard to the overlook and privacy impacts on adjacent buildings and the adjacent lower scale Neighbourhood to the south? | SRA MTCC 802 Transportation |
36. Does the proposal adequately address vehicular access, site circulation, the control and management of pedestrian and traffic flows? | SRA TSCC 1546
37. Has the applicant demonstrated that adequate vehicle parking and loading are in place to support the development? | City of Toronto Servicing |
38. 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? | City of Toronto Cultural Heritage |
39. Does the proposal have undue negative impacts on the adjacent heritage property? | SRA TSCC 1546 Streetscape/Public Realm/Landscaping |
40. Is the proposed development's relationship with the public realm and resulting streetscape, including the setback from Jackes Avenue and the proposed lay-by, appropriate, and does it represent good planning? | City of Toronto SRA DPRG
41. Does the proposal provide high quality landscaped spaces? | TSCC 1546
42. Does the proposal facilitate the planting of large shade trees in its setback areas? | TSCC 1546 FDBP Amenity Space |
43. Is the proposed development's provision of indoor and outdoor amenity space as contained in the proposed zoning by-law amendment good planning? | City of Toronto Community Benefits |
44. In the event the proposed development is approved by the Tribunal, in whole or in part, the owner 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? | City of Toronto Implementation |
45. In the event the proposed development is approved in whole or in part, should the Tribunal Order be withheld until the City Solicitor has indicated that certain conditions have been satisfied? | City of Toronto Other |
46. Are the physical and policy constraints for the proposed development comparable to those of other existing towers in the immediate area at 7 Jackes Avenue, 44 Jackes Avenue and 33 Rosehill Avenue? | MTCC 802 SRA DPRG FDBP
47. Is the planning context for the Proposed Development in terms of physical and policy constraints and opportunities comparable to that of 9 Jackes and 33 Jackes in the same block? Is the planning context for the Proposed Development in terms of physical and policy constraints and opportunities comparable to that of the existing or planned towers in Mixed-Use Areas A & B of the Yonge-St.Clair Secondary Plan? | SRA DPRG

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Lifetime Jackes Inc.
2. City of Toronto
3. MTCC 802
4. Linda Campbell/Elizabeth Hallerman/TSCC 1546
5. Deer Park Residents Group
6. Summerhill Residents Association
7. Friends of David Balfour Park
8. Lifetime Jackes Inc., Reply (if any)

ATTACHMENT 5

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.

7197460