Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: November 15, 2021 CASE NO(S).: PL210195

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

Applicant and Appellant: 6 Dawes Danforth Inc. Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 438-86 - Refusal or neglect of City of Toronto to make a decision Existing Zoning: I1 D2 (Industrial) Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined) Purpose: To permit two mixed-use buildings with four towers of 44, 46, 37 and 19 storeys in height Property Address/Description: 6 Dawes Road Municipality: City of Toronto Municipal File No.: 19 253476 STE 19 OLT Case No.: PL210195 OLT File No.: PL210195 OLT Case Name: 6 Dawes Danforth Inc. v. Toronto (City)

Heard: October 5, 2021 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
6 Dawes Danforth Inc. (“Applicant”)	Michael Cara, Daniel Artenosi
City of Toronto (“City”)	Laura Bisset, Michael Mahoney (in absentia)
Minto (Dawes) GP Inc.	Brendan Smith, John Dawson (in absentia)
Metrolinx	Andrew Baker
Dandaw Developments Limited	Fern Opatowski, Michael Foderick
Tri-Metro Investments Inc.	Zachary Fleischer, Michael Melling (in absentia)
Victoria Wood (Main Square) Inc.	David Neligan
Canadian Tire Corporation Limited	Jennifer Evola, Signe Leisk (in absentia)
John Hartley	Self-represented*

DECISION DELIVERED BY WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1The Applicant, owner of 6 Dawes Road (“Subject Lands”) in the City, is proposing to build two mixed use buildings with four towers of 44, 46, 37 and 19 storeys in height which include 5,537 square metres (“sq m”) of non-residential Gross Floor Area and 91,928 sq m of residential GFA with a total of 1,467 dwellings (“Proposal”). The Subject Lands are currently occupied by a self-storage facility with 14 single storey buildings and one ancillary office.

2The Applicant had submitted an application to the City to amend Zoning By-law No. 438-86, as amended, and No. 569-2013, as amended to permit the uses and development standards contemplated by the Proposal.

3Council for the City failed to make a decision on the Proposal within the 90-day statutory timeline. The Applicant chose to exercise their statutory right to appeal to the Tribunal, pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13.

4This second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was held by Video Hearing (“VH”) on October 5, 2021. The first CMC in this proceeding took place on May 14, 2021.

5The sole matters to be dealt with at this VH were the draft Procedural Order (“PO”), which in turn relates to the hearing date for this proceeding and a third CMC requested by the Parties’ counsel. It is the Tribunal’s understanding that the third CMC may be requested by one or more Parties, on proper prior notice, to be converted to a partial settlement hearing upon the filing of the required materials, or, perhaps, for the hearing of a motion to be brought in accordance with the requirements of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

6At the request of the Parties’ counsel, a hearing date was obtained from the Tribunal for a period of ten (10) days commencing Monday, June 20, 2022. The third CMC will be held on Tuesday, November 23, 2021.

7There was discussion by all Parties and their counsel concerning the finalization of the PO. Subsequent to the VH, an agreed PO was submitted to the Tribunal.

ORDERS

[8] The hearings are scheduled to proceed by video as follows: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 10 a.m. GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/875509437 Access code: 875-509-437 Audio-only telephone line: (647) 497-9373 or Toll Free 1-888-299-1889 Audio-only access code: 875-509-437

Monday, June 20, 2022 at 10 a.m. GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/799337813 Access code: 799-337-813 Audio-only line: (647) 497-9373 or Toll Free 1-888-299-1889 Audio-only access code: 799-337-813

9Parties 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.

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.

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 hearing 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.

13The Procedural Order governing this proceeding is as set out in Attachment 1 to this Decision.

“William R. Middleton”

WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON 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.

Ontario Land Tribunal

Procedural Order

ATTACHMENT 1

ISSUE DATE: November 15, 2021 CASE NO.: PL210195

The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the “LPAT”) is continued under the name Ontario Land Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), and any reference to the LPAT in any publication is deemed to be a reference to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

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

Applicant and Appellant: 6 Dawes Danforth Inc. Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 438-86 - Refusal or neglect of City of Toronto to make a decision Existing Zoning: I1 D2 (Industrial) Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined) Purpose: To permit two mixed-use buildings with four towers of 44, 46, 37 and 19 storeys in height Property Address/Description: 6 Dawes Road Municipality: City of Toronto Municipal File No.: 19 253476 STE 19 OLT Case No.: PL210195 OLT File No.: PL210195 OLT Case Name: 6 Dawes Danforth 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 hearing will begin on Monday June 20, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. by video conference.

3. The length of the hearing will be 10 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. A further case management conference shall take place by video conference on Tuesday November 23, 2022 at 10:00 a.m..

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

6. 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.

7. 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 consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

8. 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.

9. 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

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 Monday February 21, 2022. For expert witnesses, a Party is to identify the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified and is to provide a copy of their curriculum vitae. 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 Monday March 7, 2022.

11. If the applicant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing, the applicant shall provide copies of the revised proposal to the other Parties, which for the purposes of this paragraph shall consist of revised architectural plans and drawings and proposed instruments, on or before Tuesday March 22, 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.

12. Expert witnesses in the same discipline(s) shall have at least one meeting on or before Tuesday March 22, 2022. to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting(s) 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 the Parties and the Tribunal on or before Wednesday April 6, 2022.

13. 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 paragraph 16 of this Procedural Order. 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 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 paragraph 16 of this Procedural Order.

14. 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 paragraph 16 of this Procedural Order.

15. On or before Thursday April 21, 2022, a Participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other Parties and to the Tribunal in accordance with paragraph 23 below. A Participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

16. On or before Thursday April 21, 2022, the Parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other Parties and to the Tribunal case coordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

17. On or before Monday May 23, 2022, the Parties shall provide copies of their written response(s) to any written evidence to the other Parties and to the Tribunal in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

18. On or before Tuesday May 31, 2022, the Parties shall file with the Tribunal a detailed Work Plan that identifies the following, at a minimum: the Parties participating in the hearing, preliminary matters to be addressed (if any), 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 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. In the event of a disagreement between the Parties about the Work Plan, the Tribunal may be spoken to.

19. The Parties shall prepare a Joint Document Book on or before Tuesday May 31, 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 paragraph 23 of this Procedural Order.

20. On or before Monday June 6, 2022, the Parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to the other Parties and the Tribunal in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

21. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal in accordance with Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules.

22. 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.

23. All filing shall be electronic and in hard copy. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by Rule 7 of the Tribunal’s Rules.

24. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. Rule 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules shall apply 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
Monday February 21, 2022	Exchange of Witness Lists
Monday March 7, 2022	Deadline to Challenge Witnesses or Qualifications
Tuesday March 22, 2022	Experts meeting(s) prior to this date
Tuesday March 22, 2022	Deadline for Revisions to Proposed Development
Wednesday April 6, 2022	Filing of Agreed Statement of Facts
Thursday April 21, 2022	Exchange of Witness Statements and Experts Reports, Participant Statements (if any), and summoned witness outlines (if any)
Monday May 23, 2022	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
Tuesday May 31, 2022	Filing of Work Plan and Joint Document Book
Monday June 6, 2022	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
Monday June 22, 2022 – Friday July 1, 2022	OLT Hearing (10 days)

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

A. PARTIES

1. 6 Dawes Danforth Inc. (Applicant/Appellant) Counsel/*Agent: Daniel Artenosi / Michael Cara Overland LLP Yonge Norton Centre 5255 Yonge Street, Suite 1101 Toronto, ON M2N 6P4 Email: dartenosi@overlandllp.ca / mcara@overlandllp.ca Tel: 416.730.0320 / 416.730.8844

2. City of Toronto Counsel/*Agent: Laura Bisset / Michael Mahoney The City of Toronto, Legal Services Metro Hall, 55 John Street 26th Floor Toronto, ON M5V 3C6 Email: laura.bisset@toronto.ca / michael.mahoney@toronto.ca Tel: 416.392.8782 / 416.392.4846

3. Victoria Woods (Main Square Inc.) / (“Talisker”) Counsel/*Agent: David Neligan Aird & Berlis LLP Brookfield Place 181 Bay Street, Suite 1800 Toronto, ON M5J 2T9 Email: dneligan@airdberlis.com Tel: 416.865.7751

4. Canadian Tire Corporation Limited Counsel/*Agent: Signe Leisk / Jennifer Evola Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP Suite 2100, Scotia Plaza 40 King Street West Toronto, ON M5H 3C2 Email: sleisk@cassels.com / jevola@cassels.com Tel: 416.869.5411 / 416.860.6753

5. Minto (Dawes) GP Inc. Counsel/*Agent: John Dawson / Brendan Smith McCarthy Tétrault LLP Toronto-Dominion Bank Tower, Suite 5300 Toronto, ON M5K 1E6 Email: jdawson@mccarthy.ca / brsmith@mccarthy.ca Tel 416.601.8300 / 416.601.8356

6. Dandaw Developments Limited Counsel/*Agent: Michael Foderick / Fern Opatowski McCarthy Tétrault LLP PO Box 48, Suite 5300 Toronto-Dominion Bank Tower Toronto, ON M5K 1E6 Email: mfoderick@mccarthy.ca / fopatowski@mccarthy.ca Tel: 416.362.1812 / 416.601.7986

7. Tri-Metro Investments Inc. Counsel/*Agent: Michael Melling / Andy Margaritis Davies Howe LLP 425 Adelaide Street West, 10th Floor Toronto, ON M5V 3C1 Email: michaelm@davieshowe.com / amargaritis@davieshowe.com Tel: 416.263.4515 / 416.263.4520

8. Metrolinx Counsel/*Agent: Isaac Tang / Andrew Baker Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Bay Adelaide Centre, East Tower, 22 Adelaide St. W, Toronto, ON M5H 4E3 Email: itang@blg.com / abaker@blg.com Tel: 416.367.6143 / 416.367.6250

9. John Hartley (self-represented) 115 Lakeside Avenue Toronto, ON M1N 3C3 Email: john1hartley@gmail.com Tel: 416.694.7828

B. PARTICIPANT

1. Lisa Dymond (self-represented) 51 Whistle Post Street Toronto, ON M4E 3W7 Email: lisadymond@gmail.com Tel: 416.558.4495

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUES LIST

NOTE: The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the Tribunal or any Party that the issue is either relevant or appropriate. The identification of an issue on this list by a Party indicates that Party’s intent to lead evidence or argue that the issue is relevant to the proceeding, for the purpose of fairly identifying to the other Parties the case they need to meet and shall not be construed as the Tribunal having jurisdiction over such matters in each circumstance. Accordingly, no Party shall advance an issue not identified on the Issues List without leave of the Tribunal.

A) City of Toronto

Planning Act

1. Does the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest as set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including (f), (q) and (r)?

2. Would the approval of the proposed development and the Zoning By-law Amendment have regard for any information and material received by City Council, as required by Section 2.1 of the Planning Act?

Provincial Policy Statement

3. Are the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), as required by Section 3(5)(a) of the Planning Act, including Sections 1.1.1, 1.1.3.3, 1.5.1, and 1.6.1, reading the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) in its entirety and applying the relevant policies to this situation?

Growth Plan

4. Do the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment conform with and not conflict with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019), as required by Section 3(5)(b) of the Planning Act, including Sections 2.2.1.4, 2.2.4, 2.2.6.3, and 5.2.5.6, reading the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019) in its entirety and applying the relevant policies to this situation?

City Of Toronto Official Plan

5. Are the proposed development and the Zoning By-law Amendment appropriate and does the proposed development conform with the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan with respect to Sections 2.3.1 (Healthy Neighbourhoods), 3.1.1 (The Public Realm), 3.1.2 (Built Form), 3.1.3 (Built Form – Tall Buildings), 4.5 (Mixed Use Areas), and 5.1.1 (Height and/or Density Incentives)?

6. Does the proposed development conform to the recently Ministerial-approved Official Plan Amendment 479 and 480 with regard to providing appropriate public realm and built form for the subject site?

7. Does the proposed development conform with Official Plan Amendment 478?

Land Use

8. Is the land use mix appropriate for the area, and what should those land uses be that are appropriate for the site’s location?

9. Does the proposed self storage space provide an appropriate non-residential use that generates employment, increasing jobs per hectare within proximity to transit?

Urban Design Guidelines

10. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for and maintain the intent and purpose of the Tall Building Design Guidelines (2013)?

11. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for and meet the intent and purpose of the Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities Urban Design Guidelines (2020)?

Built Form

12. Are building height, base building height, tower stepbacks, tower setbacks, tower separation, and density appropriate?

13. Does the proposed development provide sufficient space for adequate landscaping and open space on the site?

14. Is the proposed development compatible with its physical context? Does the proposed development fit appropriately within the existing and planned context and area character?

15. Does the proposed tower provide adequate transition in scale to lower-scaled buildings, parks and open space, and to properties designated Neighbourhoods?

16. Have the shadow impacts of the proposed building been adequately minimized and limited individually, in consideration of the cumulative net new shadow impacts on existing and proposed parks, as well as in relation to approved and under construction development in the vicinity of the site?

17. Has it been demonstrated that the placement, height and character of the base building as proposed, and the location, shape, general height of the tower as proposed, are compatible with the surrounding area context, which features existing buildings at much lower heights than what is being proposed? Is the tower placement and massing of the towers above the podium appropriate, fitting within the existing and planned context of the area?

18. Does the proposed development establish appropriate relationships at grade, including provision of an appropriate pedestrian realm, streetscaping, sufficient soil volume/depth to support large canopy trees, and contributions to public space?

19. Does the proposal appropriately limit and mitigate undesirable wind conditions, particularly on spaces where people are expected to congregate and sit, such as the open space and the outdoor amenity spaces?

20. Is the proposed privately owned, publicly-accessible open space designed to be safe, attractive, interesting and comfortable, providing adequate space for landscaping, green infrastructure and patios and street furniture?

21. Does the proposed development represent good land use planning and good urban design, having regard to the building and podium heights, massing, tower setbacks and stepbacks, tower separation distance, scale and density of the proposed development, including impact on the following matters, without limiting the generality of the foregoing: i. fit with the existing and planned built form context; ii. the relationship to the public realm; iii. appropriate base building height; iv. gradual transition in relation to the scale and character of the surrounding areas; v. negative shadow impacts; vi. loss of sky view and sunlight; and vii. privacy and overlook.

Housing

22. Should the proposal provide for larger 2- and 3-bedroom units, in order to meet the unit size objectives of the Growing Up Guidelines?

23. Does the proposal provide an appropriate unit mix that meets the City's objectives as set out in the Growing Up Guidelines?

Parkland and Tree Regulation

24. Is the parkland dedication proposed for this site appropriate?

25. Does the proposed development comply with the City of Toronto's Private Tree By-law and City Street Tree By-law?

Transportation and Parking

26. Is the proposed sidewalk designed to provide safe, attractive, interesting and comfortable spaces for pedestrians, providing adequate space for landscaping, green infrastructure and street furniture?

27. Is the proposed vehicular access appropriately located and consolidated?

28. Does the proposal provide an appropriate parking rate?

29. Does the proposal provide adequate accessible parking?

30. Does and should the proposal include transportation demand management strategies, i.e. car-share spaces, bike-share stations, etc., to support active transportation for the subject site and area?

Servicing

31. Is there sufficient municipal infrastructure capacity to service the proposed development with water, sewer and stormwater management facilities? If not, should a Holding (H) symbol pursuant to Section 36 of the Planning Act be included in the amending by-law until such time as the proposed development can be serviced?

Transit Integration and Rail Safety

32. Does the proposal provide an opportunity for a connection to public transit at the Danforth Go?

33. Does the proposed development incorporate rail safety, meeting the standards within the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Railway Association of Canada's proximity guidelines or providing an alternative solution that meets or exceeds the safety standards required under those proximity guidelines?

34. Does the proposed development provide appropriate mitigation from noise and vibration?

Public Interest and Good Planning

35. Are the form and content of the draft Zoning By-law Amendments to By-laws 438-86 and 569-2013 appropriate?

36. Is the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment good planning and in the public interest?

37. Is the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment good urban design and in the public interest?

38. In the event that the proposed development is approved by the Tribunal, in whole or in part, should the Applicant and the City have 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?

Conditions

39. If the proposed development is approved in whole or in part, should the Tribunal Order be withheld until the following conditions are satisfied and the Tribunal has received confirmation from the City Solicitor that: a. the form and content of the Zoning By-law Amendment has been finalized to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor; b. the owner has submitted required reports and secured necessary conditions to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, General Manager, Solid Waste Services and General Manager, Transportation Services; c. the owner has submitted a revised Functional Servicing Report (including confirmation of water flow, sanitary and storm water capacity), Storm Water Management Report and Hydro-geological Report (the “Engineering Reports”) to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, in consultation with the General Manager, Toronto Water; d. the implementation of the Engineering Reports that are accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services either does not require changes to the proposed amending By-law, or any such required changes have been made to the proposed amending By-law to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, the City Solicitor and the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services; e. the design and the provision of financial securities is secured for any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure and/or new municipal infrastructure identified in the accepted Engineering Reports to support the development, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, should it be determined that improvements or upgrades and/or new infrastructure are required to support the development; f. the owner has submitted a revised Transportation Impact Study acceptable to, and to the satisfaction of, the General Manager, Transportation Services; g. the owner has secured parkland dedication to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation; h. the owner has submitted a revised noise and vibration report and rail safety report acceptable to, and to the satisfaction of, the City's peer reviewer; and i. community benefits and other matters in support of the development are secured in a Section 37 Agreement executed by the owner and registered on title to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor in consultation with the Ward Councillor.

B) Victoria Woods (Main Square Inc.) (“Talisker”)

OPA 478

1. Does the application, or any proposed modifications to the application, predetermine the resolution of any of the policies of OPA 478 (the Main Street Study) currently under appeal to LPAT, including the Public Realm policies under section 2.1 (Streets and Block Network), 2.2 (Sidewalks and mid-block connections), 2.3 (Parks and Open Space), and 2.4 (Privately-Owned Publicly-Accessible Spaces)?”

Adjacent Lands

2. Does the application, or any proposed modifications to the application, negatively impact the approved but yet to be constructed development identified in site-specific By-law 161-2006on the adjacent Talisker lands?

3. Does the application, or any proposed modifications to the application unduly restrict the future development potential of the Talisker lands?

Consistency with the PPS 2020

4. Is the application consistent with the following provisions of the PPS: a. 1.1.1 (a), (e), and (g) (sustaining healthy, liveable and safe communities); b. 1.1.3.2 (a), (e), (f) (efficient use of land); c. 1.1.3.3-1.1.3.6 (intensification and redevelopment); d. 1.4.1 (range and mix of housing options and densities); e. 1.5.1 (a) and (b) (public spaces and parks); and f. 1.7.1 (long term economic prosperity)?

Conformity with the Growth Plan 2019

5. Does the application conform to the following provisions of the Growth Plan: g. 1.2.1 (guiding principles); h. 2.2.1.4 (achievement of complete communities); i. 2.2.2.3 (achievement of intensification targets); j. 2.2.4.5, 2.2.4.8, 2.2.4.9, 2.2.4.10 (transit corridors and station areas); and k. 2.2.6.2 (housing)?

C) Canadian Tire Corporation Limited

1. Should the proposed development be approved prior to the location of, and policies for the provision of, public realm infrastructure for the area having been finalized with particular regard for the location and policies respecting:

   1. the extension of Dawes Road,
   2. the local of new public parks and open spaces, and
   3. community services and facilities.

2. Should the proposed development be approved prior to the location of, and policies for, the provision of servicing, including water sewer and stormwater infrastructure, having been finalized and approved for the area?

3. Have appropriate contributions to public realm infrastructure been secured for the proposed development?

4. Does the proposed development address servicing issues appropriately?

5. Does the proposed development address transportation issues related to the extension of Dawes Road appropriately?

6. Does the proposed development adequately limit any resulting shadowing of and uncomfortable wind conditions on neighbouring streets and properties?

7. Does the proposed development and proposed Zoning By-law amendments represent good planning?

D) Minto (Dawes) GP Inc.

1. Could any aspect of the servicing of the proposed development, or the framework put in place to provide for the servicing of the proposed development, negatively affect the timely servicing of Minto’s proposed development at 9-25 Dawes Road and if so what changes would be appropriate to remedy that situation?

E) Dandaw Developments Limited

1. Is there adequate water, storm, sewer, hydro, gas and road capacity to service the proposed development having regard to the planned function of the subject lands and surrounding lands? If not, what upgrades are required to such services?

2. If upgrades are required, how should such upgrades be secured through the approvals for the proposed development of the subject lands?

3. Could any aspect of the servicing of the proposed development, or the framework put in place to provide for the servicing of the proposed development, negatively affect the timely servicing of Dandaw Developments Limited’s proposed development at 10-30 Dawes Road and if so what changes would be appropriate to remedy that situation?

4. Does the road network required for the proposed development result in adverse impacts to access or traffic for 10-30 Dawes Road?

5. Does the proposed development provide appropriate setbacks and tower separation to neighbouring properties, including meeting the general intent of City’s Tall Building Design Guidelines?

6. Have appropriate contributions to public realm infrastructure been secured for the proposed development?

F) Tri-Metro Investments Inc.

1. Will the proposed development appropriately provide for or contribute to public parkland and publicly-accessible open space?

2. Will the proposed development appropriately provide for or contribute to community facilities and community uses?

3. Is there adequate transportation infrastructure for the proposed development, specifically in relation to roads servicing the proposed development?

4. Does the proposed development represent good planning in the public interest?

G) Metrolinx

Land Use Planning

1. Is the proposed development consistent with the PPS, including policies 1.2.1(d), 1.2.6.1, and 1.6.8.3?

2. Does the proposed development conform with the Growth Plan, including policies 2.2.4.11, 3.2.1.5, and 3.2.5.1(b)?

3. Does the proposed development conform with the City of Toronto Official Plan, including policies 2.1(1)(e), 2.2(4), and 2.4(14)(a)?

4. Does the proposed development provide appropriate setbacks and tower separation to neighbouring properties, including meeting the general intent of the City’s Tall Building Design Guidelines?

5. Does the proposed development negatively impact the intensification potential of the Metrolinx lands located at 213 Main Street and 8 Dawes Road to support a high-density, mixed use and transit-oriented development?

Road and Pedestrian Network

6. Does the road network required for the proposed development result in adverse impacts to access or traffic circulation to the rail corridor, 213 Main Street, and 8 Dawes Road?

7. Does the proposed development and road network result in adverse impacts and/or result in safety issues respecting access, traffic, and pedestrian circulation?

Compatibility with Rail Corridor and Operations

8. Does the proposed development provide for appropriate access to the Danforth GO Station and is the proposed height, density, and built form of the proposed development appropriate given proximity the Danforth GO Station and the Metrolinx-operated rail corridor?

9. Does the proposed development employ adequate setbacks and is the proposed development otherwise compatible with the adjacent uses, namely, the Danforth GO station and Metrolinx-operated rail corridor?

10. Is the proposed development appropriate given its proximity to the rail corridor as demonstrated through a Rail Safety and Risk Mitigation study?

OPA 478

11. Is the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment premature given the ongoing proceedings under PL200569 respecting City of Toronto Official Plan Amendment 478?

H) John Hartley

1. Is the proposed development and the proposed amendments to the Zoning Bylaw consistent with the Official Plan and Zoning bylaws intent and purposes of the City of Toronto?

2. Is the existing infrastructure sufficient to support the proposed development? Most specifically the school capacity, the storm and sewage water management infrastructure, and transportation capacity.

3. Is the planned parking sufficient for this development?

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

NOTE: Where Parties of like interest have issues in common, they shall make reasonable efforts to coordinate their examinations-in-chief and cross-examinations so as to minimize any duplication or overlap of evidence. The Order of Evidence will be described in greater detail in the Work Plan that is filed with the Tribunal.

1. 6 Dawes Danforth Inc. (Applicant/Appellant)
2. Parties in Support of 6 Dawes Danforth Inc.
3. Parties in Opposition of 6 Dawes Danforth Inc.
4. Reply by 6 Dawes Danforth Inc. (if necessary)

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.