Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
December 01, 2021
CASE NO(S).:
PL120217
PL171408
PL130063
PL171409
PL151086
PL171515
PL160076
PL180303
PL171407
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
Bromont Homes Inc.
Appellant:
Kerry L.W. Doughty
Appellant:
Ferma Aggregates Inc.
Appellant:
Jennifer Graham; and others
Subject:
Official Plan
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
OMB Case No.:
PL120217
OMB File No.:
PL120217
OMB Case Name:
Graham v. Ontario (Municipal Affairs and Housing)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
Catherine Gravely
Appellant:
J.Stollar Construction Limited
Appellant:
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Subject:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 15
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
OMB Case No.:
PL151086
OMB File No.:
PL151086
OMB Case Name:
Gravely v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
Catherine Gravely
Appellant:
J.Stollar Construction Limited
Subject:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 18
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
OMB Case No.:
PL151087
OMB File No.:
PL151087
OMB Case Name:
Gravely v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
Catherine Gravely
Appellant:
J. Stollar Construction Limited
Appellant:
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Subject:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 17
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
OMB Case No.:
PL160076
OMB File No.:
PL160076
OMB Case Name:
Gravely v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
2358493 Ontario Inc
Appellant:
BARMMAR Investments Ltd. & BMMB Investments Ltd.
Appellant:
Bromont Homes Inc.
Appellant:
Comhold Investments Ltd.; and others
Subject:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA 13
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
OMB Case No.:
PL171407
OMB File No.:
PL171407
OMB Case Name:
Gravely v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
Comhold Investments Ltd.
Appellant:
Catherine Gravely
Appellant:
J. Stollar Construction Limited
Appellant:
William Westcott
Subject:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA 14
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
OMB Case No.:
PL171408
OMB File No.:
PL171408
OMB Case Name:
Gravely v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
2358493 Ontario Inc
Appellant:
BARMMAR Investments Ltd. & BMMB Investments Ltd.
Appellant:
Bromont Homes Inc.
Appellant:
Catherine Gravely; and others
Subject:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 16
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
OMB Case No.:
PL171409
OMB File No.:
PL171409
OMB Case Name:
Gravely v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
Heard:
November 12, 2021 by video conference
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
City of Kawartha Lakes
Bromont Homes Inc.
Catherine Gravely
J. Stollar Construction Ltd.
William Westcott
Flato Lindsay Community Inc.
Comhold Investments Ltd.,
Medlaw Corporation and Mason
Burch (collectively Comhold)
Fenelon Trails Inc. and
2185373 Ontario Inc.
Black Bear Estate Inc.
BARMMAR Investments Ltd.
BMMB Investments Ltd.
Lindsay 2017 Developments Inc.
Denitza Koev (not in attendance)
Stephen D’Agostino
Ian Andres
Rob Howe
Marc Kemerer
Denise Baker (not in attendance)
Raj Kehar
Katarzyna Sliwa
Aaron Kurts (not in attendance)
Tom Halinski (co-counsel)
Tom Halinski
Richard Taylor
James Webster
Matthew Rutledge
Kristie Jennings
Paul DeMelo (not in attendance)
Tribute (Lindsay 1)
Tribute (Lindsay 2)
C. Barnett
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY TONY PREVEDEL AND STEVEN COOKE ON NOVEMBER 12, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
BACKGROUND
1The matter before the Ontario Land Tribunal is a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) regarding a number of appeals related to the adoption of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan (“CKLOP”) referred to as: Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) No. 13, OPA No. 14 , OPA No.15, OPA No.16 ,OPA No.17 and OPA No.18 .
2The purpose of this CMC was to review and refine a working draft of the Procedural Order and Issues List for the upcoming Phase 2 Hearing. This working draft was submitted to the Tribunal in advance of the CMC by Ms. Koev counsel for the City for discussion purposes.
COMHOLD’s MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
3The Tribunal was previously requested to provide direction on Comhold’s Motion for Disclosure relating to documents and information pertaining to servicing capacity in the City and, if required, leave to introduce that evidence at the hearing of the land-swap proposals now scheduled for 2022.
4Mr. Halinski confirmed that the requested information has been provided by the City, to the extent that it exists, and the only relief sought would be to introduce that evidence at the upcoming Hearing.
5Accordingly, the Tribunal gave direction granting leave that the requested information be entered into evidence, to be relied on by witnesses, at the Hearing of the merits.
PARTY STATUS
Housekeeping
6Mr. Barnett advised the Tribunal that he is representing the interests of Tribute (Lindsay 1) and Tribute (Lindsay 2) who have acquired the properties previously owned by Ibrans Developments Ltd. and The Orsi Land Group that had been Parties to these proceedings.
Potential Request for Party Status
7Correspondence was received by the Tribunal in advance of the CMC by Mr. Thomas Arnold, counsel representing Three Lakes Development Inc., who owns approximately 100 acres of land which have been removed from the Bobcaygeon Urban Settlement Boundary.
8In his correspondence, Mr. Arnold stated that his client had not received notice from the City and was considering bringing forward a motion to seek Party status in the upcoming proceedings.
9On behalf of the City, Mr. D’Agostino stated that, in speaking with Staff, a notice was sent out as per the Tribunal direction of January, 2021, to the mailing address associated with the two roll numbers of record for the lands owned by Three Lakes Development Inc.
10Mr. Arnold replied that Party status was not being requested at this time and that he would be meeting with Staff and counsel for Kawartha Lakes to determine next steps.
11Mr. Halinski provided the Tribunal with a chronological history of the lengthy, arduous, and thorough notice process regarding this matter and expressed his concern about holding the door open for further requests for Party status at this point in time.
DRAFT PROCEDURAL ORDER
Draft Procedural Order and Issues List
12Mr. D’Agostino reviewed the draft Procedural Order and Issues List with the Tribunal.
13In his preamble, Mr. D’Agostino noted that the City has filed a review request of the October 5, 2021 decision. Pending the outcome of that request, the City is prepared to proceed with a Procedural Order that includes residual CKLOP Lindsay boundary issues from the PL120217 proceeding. This is being done on the condition that the inclusion is without prejudice to the City’s and any other Party’s review request and/or any other rights of appeal or review that the City may have.
14Mr. D’Agostino further noted that counsel for the Parties had been working cooperatively and will attempt to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List within the next five days and submit this to the Tribunal.
Oral Submission from Stollar/Westcott
15Mr. Kehar, on behalf of his clients, requested the Tribunal to consider using the upcoming Hearing dates in February and March of 2022, eight (8) days and ten (10) days respectively, to deal with the issues related to Phase 2 and postpone dealing with the Lindsay urban boundary issue and land swap.
16Mr. Kehar explained his reason for this as his clients filed for a review of the October 5, 2021 Tribunal decision and the results of this are still pending.
17Mr. Kehar also advised the Tribunal that Bromont had submitted a request for a Minister’s Zoning Order (“MZO”) on the subject lands which would indicate an alternate path is being pursued. Mr. Kehar also advised the Tribunal that Flato had applied for an MZO for their lands.
18Mr. Kemerer, on behalf of his client, Catherine Gravely, offered his support for Mr. Kehar’s oral submission.
19The Tribunal heard from the remaining Parties that the request from Mr. Kehar would create a further delay in a Hearing that has already been long and convoluted.
20The Tribunal was advised that witness statements had already been submitted to deal with Phase 1 of the Hearing and that to change the order at this late stage would result in expenditures of additional resources and potentially create a delay in the Hearing process.
21After careful consideration of the oral submissions from all the Parties, the Tribunal denied the request from Mr. Kehar and stated that the Hearing would proceed as originally envisioned,
22Mr. Kehar, on behalf of his client, advised that they would not be consenting to the draft Procedural Order.
CKLOP MAPPING SCHEDULES
23As noted in the oral decision of September 9, 2021 and the written decision of October 5, 2021, the Tribunal has directed that the settlement boundary issue for Lindsay is still a live issue and that this issue is to be adjudicated at the upcoming Hearing of the merits.
24The City requested that the Tribunal issue an Order that finally approves and brings into effect the modified CKLOP Schedules A-2, A-4 and A-5 and to approve the modified CKLOP Schedule A-3 save and except for the urban settlement boundary for Lindsay.
25Mr. Barnett advised the Tribunal that, in discussion with the other Parties, there seemed to be no concern with the Tribute (Lindsay 1) and Tribute (Lindsay 2) lands being within the Lindsay urban settlement boundary.
26The other Parties were canvassed by the Tribunal and indicated that they had no formal direction by their respective clients. While no concerns had been perceived, the Parties requested time to seek direction.
27It was agreed that the matter of Schedule A-3 would be resolved at that time after all the Parties have received direction from their respective clients at the next CMC.
The Next Case Management Conference
28A CMC is scheduled to proceed by video hearing on Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 9 a.m. by video hearing.
29Parties 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/948677333
Access code: 948-677-333
30Parties 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
31Persons 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: (647) 497-9391 or Toll Free 1-888-455-1389. The access code is 948-677-333.
32Individuals 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.
Order
A Procedural Order was finalized and received by the Tribunal and is attached as Schedule 1. As such, it is in full force and effect.
33The Tribunal orders that the requested information by Comhold from the City may be entered into evidence and may be relied on by witnesses at the Hearing of the merits.
34The Tribunal orders that the modified CKLOP Schedules A-2, A-4 and A-5, which the City has modified in accordance with the Order and filed with the Tribunal on October 12, 2021, is approved.
35The panel is not seized and may assist with case management, schedules permitting.
36No further notice is required.
“T. Prevedel”
T PREVEDEL
MEMBER
“Steven Cooke”
STEVEN COOKE
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
Tribunal Case Nos. PL120217 and PL171407
Ontario Land Tribunal
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13,
as amended
Appellant:
Bromont Homes Inc.
Appellant:
Kerry L.W. Doughty
Appellant:
Ferma Aggregates Inc.
Appellant:
Jennifer Graham; and others
Subject:
Official Plan
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
OLT Case No.:
PL120217
OLT File No.:
PL120217
OLT Case Name:
Graham v. Ontario (Municipal Affairs and Housing)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13,
as amended
Appellant:
2358493 Ontario Inc.
Appellant:
BARMMAR Investments Ltd. & BMMB Investments Ltd.
Appellant:
Bromont Homes Inc.
Appellant:
Comhold Investments Ltd.; and others
Subject:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA 13
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
OLT Case No.:
PL171407
OLT File No.:
PL171407
OLT Case Name:
Gravely v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
PROCEDURAL ORDER
Phase 2
The Tribunal Orders that:
- 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.
A. Organization of the Hearing
The video hearing will begin on Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. at [insert link for video hearing]. The hearing will occur in two sessions. The first session will consist of eight (8) hearing days that are reserved for the purpose of dealing with the unresolved issue(s) from the Phase 1 Hearing, which were not dealt with during the January 2021 hearing. Specifically, the first session will address the residual Phase 1 Issue(s) identified on the Issues List attached hereto as Attachment 2. The second session will consist of ten (10) hearing days, commencing on Monday, March 21, 2022, that are reserved for the purpose of dealing with all other issues on the Issues List attached hereto as Attachment 2 (the “Phase 2 Issues”).
The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is eighteen (18) hearing 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 length of the hearing may be shortened as issues are resolved should settlement of some or all of the issues be achieved.
The parties to this proceeding are set out in Attachment 1. No participants have been identified for this hearing.
The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 2. 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. This Order is without prejudice to any statutory party’s right to challenge the validity of issues on the Issues List, by way of motion in advance of the exchange of witness statements including, but not limited to, the right to take the position that an issue or issues are not appropriate, are outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and/or have already been dealt with through a previous decision of the Tribunal.
The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 3 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.
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.
A. Requirements Before the Hearing
The Phase 1 Issues
The list of witnesses and evidence relating to the Phase 1 Issues has already been filed in accordance with the Procedural Order that was issued on October 1, 2020, and subsequently amended by the Tribunal Orders/Decisions issued on November 3, 2020 (the “Phase 1 Procedural Order”).
The deadlines and requirements that are set out in the Phase 1 Procedural Order continue to govern the hearing of the Phase 1 Issue(s), save and except that the parties are permitted to file supplemental material as follows:
a. A party may provide a supplemental expert witness statement addressing information that was not readily available to the parties on or before November 27, 2020 and/or evidence raised in the Phase 1 reply witness statements, limited to the matter of addressing any swap proposals made pursuant to Growth Plan Policy 2.2.8.4 in the proceedings under PL171407. Any such supplemental expert witness statement shall be provided to all of the other parties and the Tribunal case co-ordinator on or before Friday, November 12, 2021; b. Any supplemental reply evidence, limited only to responding to the supplemental expert witness statement referred to above, shall be provided to all of the other parties and the Tribunal case co-ordinator on or before Friday, December 3, 2021; c. Experts witnesses in the same field are required to meet, on or before Friday, December 10, 2021, and prepare a list of agreed facts, if any, as set out in paragraph 11 below. d. Copies of any supplemental visual evidence that a party may reply upon shall be filed together with the supplemental witness statement or supplemental reply witness statement as the case may be.
e. Any supplemental documents that the parties may rely upon will be filed together with the supplemental witness statement or supplemental reply witness statement as the case may be.
The Phase 2 Issues
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 Friday, November 19, 2021 and in accordance with paragraph 23 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified.
Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Friday, December 10, 2021 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. The experts must prepare a list of agreed facts, which must be provided to all of the parties and filed with the Tribunal case co-ordinator by Friday, December 17, 2021.
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. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 14 below. 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.
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 14 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 16 below.
On or before Friday, January 14, 2022, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the Tribunal case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.
On or before Friday, January 14, 2022, a participant (if any) shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties 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.
On or before Friday, March 11, 2022, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.
Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before Monday, January 31, 2022 in accordance with paragraph 23 below.
The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Friday, March 11, 2022. Inclusion of any documents contained within the joint document shall be without prejudice to any party’s right to take a position with respect to the relevance or admissibility of the document. Each party shall bear its own costs associated with assembling the joint document book and shall bear an equal share of the cost associated with the preparation and delivery of the Tribunal’s hard copy of the joint document book.
B. General Requirements
Any documents which may be used by a party in cross examination of an opposing party’s witness shall be password protected and only be accessible to the Tribunal and the other parties if it is introduced as evidence at the hearing pursuant to the directions provided by the Tribunal.
A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.
A party who provides written evidence of a witness 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.
The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Friday, January 28, 2022 (for the first session of the hearing, commencing on February 22, 2022), and on or before Friday, March 11, 2022 (for the second session of the hearing, commencing on March 21, 2022). Each hearing plan shall contain a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.
All filing shall be electronic and in hard copy, as soon after the electronic filing as possible. 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.
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.
This Member is [not] seized.
So orders the Tribunal.
BEFORE:
Name of Member:
Date:
TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR
Attachment to Sample Procedural Order
Meaning of terms used in the Procedural Order:
Party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. An unincorporated group cannot be a party and it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer, and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorisation from the party.
NOTE that a person who wishes to become a party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.
A participant is an individual, group or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.
A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.
Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.
Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing.
A witness statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which he or she will discuss and 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 his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’
opinions on those issues and the complete reasons for the opinions and (5) a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.
A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the participant’s position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submissions of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.
Additional Information
Summons: A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.
The order of examination of witnesses: is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:
direct examination by the party presenting the witness;
direct examination by any party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;
cross-examination by parties of opposite interest;
re-examination by the party presenting the witness; or
another order of examination mutually agreed among the parties or directed by the Tribunal.
Attachment 1 – Party List
Appeals Pertaining to Official Plan Amendment 13 (OPA 13)
Parties to OLT File PL171407
Appellant/Party
Name
Lawyer/Agent*
E-mail Address
Approval Authority
City of Kawartha Lakes
Stephen D’Agostino Denitza Koev
sdagostino@thomsonrogers.com dkoev@thomsonrogers.com
Appellant G
Bromont Homes Inc.
Ian Andres Robert Howe
iandres@goodmans.ca rhowe@goodmans.ca
Appellant I
Catherine Gravely
David White Marc Kemerer
david.white@devrylaw.ca marc.kemerere@devrylaw.ca
Appellant M
J. Stollar Construction Limited
Denise Baker Raj Kehar
dbaker@weirfoulds.com rkehar@weirfoulds.com
Appellant N
Flato Lindsay Community Inc.
Katarzyna Sliwa Tom Halinski Diana Betlej
kat.sliwa@dentons.com thalinski@airdberlis.com diana.betlej@dentons.com
Appellant O
Comhold Investments Ltd., Medlaw Corporation and Mason Burch (collectively Comhold)
Tom Halinski
Appellant P
BARMMAR Investments Limited BMMB Investments Limited
Joel Farber
Appellant H
Lindsay 2017 Developments Inc. (formerly Craft Corporation and Mason Homes Limited)
Paul DeMelo
Party
Fenelon Trails Inc. and 2185373 Ontario Inc.
Richard Taylor
Party
Lindsay Square Mall Inc.
Meaghan McDermid
Appeals Pertaining to the City of Kawartha Lakes Official Plan (OP 2012)
Parties to OLT File PL120217
Appellant/Party
Name
Lawyer/Agent*
E-mail Address
Municipal Authority
City of Kawartha Lakes
Stephen D’Agostino Denitza Koev
sdagostino@thomsonrogers.com dkoev@thomsonrogers.com
Approval Authority
Ministry of Municipal Affairs*
Anna-Lee Beamish
Appellant C
William A. Westcott
Denise Baker Raj Kehar
dbaker@weirfoulds.com rkehar@weirfoulds.com
Appellant D
Bob Spittel
Self-Represented
Appellant F
Tribute (Lindsay 2) Limited (formerly Ibrans Developments Ltd.) (Runnymede Jennings Creek Developments Limited)
Chris Barnett
Appellant I
Catherine Gravely
David White Marc Kemerer
david.white@devrylaw.ca marc.kemerer@devrylaw.ca
Party
BARMMAR Investments Limited BMMB Investments Limited
Joel Farber
Party
Craft Corporation and Mason Homes Limited
Paul DeMelo
Party
J. Stollar Construction Limited
Denise Baker Raj Kehar
dbaker@weirfoulds.com rkehar@weirfoulds.com
Party
Bromont Homes Inc.
Ian Andres Robert Howe
iandres@goodmans.ca rhowe@goodmans.ca
*See Ministry correspondence dated June 3, 2020.
Attachment 2 – Issues List
Parties with Issues pertaining to the appeals of OPA 13, under OLT File PL17407:
J. Stollar Construction Limited (Appellant M), Catherine Gravely (Appellant I), Comhold Investments Ltd. (Appellant O), Bromont Homes Inc. (Appellant G),
Flato Lindsay Community Inc. (Appellant N)
Parties with Issues pertaining to the appeal of the City of Kawartha Lakes Official Plan, under OLT File PL120217, subject to the outcome of the Joint Request for Review made
by the City, William Westcott, and J. Stollar Construction Limited relating to the Tribunal’s the decision and order that was issued by the Tribunal on October 5, 2021 (“Review Request”):
William Westcott (Appellant C)
Phase Issue No.
Issue No. Assigned by City
Issue
Official Plan Instrument Section/Policy Reference
Phase 1 Issue(s)* The issues identified herein are contingent on the outcome of the City’s and Stollar/Westcott's joint request for review of the Tribunal October 5, 2021 decision & order (the "Review Request"). Should the Chair accept, even in part, the relief requested in the Review Request, the Appellants raising these issues reserve the right to modify them.
1-C(a). 2-I
Do the proposed settlement area boundary expansions in the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan ("CKLOP") for Lindsay and in Official Plan Amendment 13 (“OPA 13”) for Lindsay, Fenlon Falls, Bobcaygeon, Omemee and Woodville:
a) conform to the policies of the 2006 Growth plans as applicable, including: policies 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.7, 2.2.8, 3.2.1, 3.2.5, 3.2.6, 5.4.4, and the relevant definitions and Schedules of the 2006 Growth Plan;
b) conform to the policies of the 2019 Growth Plan as applicable, including policies 2.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8, 3.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.6, 3.2.8, 5.2.4, 5.2.5 and the relevant definition and Schedule of the 2019 Growth Plan;
c) have regard to or conform to the provisions of the Planning Act, including sections 2,3,16(1);
d) create complete communities; and
e) represent good planning?
2006 Growth Plan 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.7, 2.2.8, 3.2.1, 3.2.5, 3.2.6, 5.4.4
2019 Growth Plan 2.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8, 3.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.6, 3.2.8, 5.2.4, 5.2.5
1-C9b)
Are the proposed settlement area boundary expansions in the CKLOP for Lindsay and in OPA 13 for Lindsay, Fenlon Falls, Bobcaygeon, Omemee and Woodville, consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”) including policies 1.1.1, 1.1.3 and 1.6.1-1.6.6 and including any relevant definitions contained therein?
PPS 2020 1.1.1, 1.1.3, and 1.6.1-1.6.6.
I, C, M
Should the boundary of the settlement area for Lindsay as shown on the Schedules to the CKLOP and OPA 13 be amended to return the boundary to the boundary of the settlement area as it existed prior to the adoption of the CKLOP?
Should the boundaries of the settlement area for each of Fenlon Falls, Bobcaygeon, Omemee and Woodville, as shown on the Schedule to OPA 13, be amended to conform to the CKLOP as approved by the OLT?
3-I 2-C
Does the 2010 (revised 2011) City of Kawartha Lakes Growth Management Strategy (“GMS”) represent a municipal comprehensive review for the purposes of the PPS and the 2006 and 2019 Growth Plan?
4-I, 3-C
In proposing to expand settlement areas through the CKLOP for Lindsay and through OPA 13 for Lindsay, Fenlon Falls, Bobcaygeon, Omemee and Woodville, did the City consider the land supply findings of the GMS that there is sufficient existing land supply to accommodate the forecast amount of growth?
Phase Issue No.
Issue No. Assigned by City
Issue
OPA 13 Section/Policy Reference
Phase 2 Issues
40-N
How was the “Prime Agricultural” designation assigned to the lands (when other lands bordering Lindsay received Rural designations) in the absence of a LEER study?
Schedule A-3-Site Specific Scoped to Lindsay North Area only, excludes Lindsay South area and Fenelon Falls
41-N
Is the “Prime Agricultural” designation of the lands appropriate for the use of the site over the 20- and 30-year planning horizon? Or is the Rural designation more appropriate given the location of the parcel, the surrounding uses/parcel fabric, and the composition of the soils (per the Agricultural Land Evaluation)?
Schedule A-3-Site Specific Scoped to Lindsay North Area only, excludes Lindsay South area and Fenelon Falls
135-O(d)(i)
Is the lack of vacant lands designated for “Institutional and Community Facilities” consistent with the policies of the PPS and the Growth Plan as well as the “central issues” identified in the preamble to OPA 13?
43-O(a)
Does the Rural Designation of the eastern potion of the Subject Site represent good planning and allow for the appropriate development of the Subject Site?
Schedule A-5- Site Specific
18-I
Does OPA 13 represent good planning?
11-I
Was proper notice and information provided to the public and City Council prior to the adoption of OPA 13?
(2)-I
Were Background Studies adequate and appropriate to inform the creation of OPA 13?
14-I
Are intensification areas and corridors and greenfield areas appropriately identified and mapped? If not, does this represent good planning?
16-I
Should the policies regarding Secondary Plans be moved to the Secondary Plans themselves?
M
Is it appropriate to adopt principles applicable to all of the urban areas (in section 18.6.12) under which availability and/or promotion of public transit is one of the intrinsic planning criteria?
18.6.12
80-M(a)
Do the resulting policies in OPA 13 have the intended effect of prioritizing intensification proposals in Lindsay over those in the other four urban areas? Does this represent good planning? Is it consistent with the PPS? Does it conform to the Growth Plan and the Goals and Objectives of the CKLOP?
15-I
Does OPA 13 accurately locate Bobcaygeon in section 2.2?
2.2
53-M(a)
Do some of these amendments either directly relate to or otherwise impact the policies, entitlements and restrictions applicable to areas of the City outside the four urban areas? If yes, then is the inclusion of such amendments in OPA 13 appropriate?
53-M(b)
Do some of these amendments either directly relate to or otherwise impact the policies, entitlements and restrictions applicable to areas of the City outside the four urban areas? If yes, then does their inclusion conform to the characterization of OPA 13’s Purpose and outcome as characterized in Section 1.2 of the Preamble to OPA 13?
53-M(c)
Do some of these amendments either directly relate to or otherwise impact the policies, entitlements and restrictions applicable to areas of the City outside the four urban areas? If yes, then does their inclusion comply with the requirements of the Planning Act in terms of notice provided with respect to amendments having been considered and made to the CKLOP other than ones that would directly affect the five urban areas alone?
80-M(c)
Do the resulting policies in OPA 13 conform to the Goals and Objectives of the CKLOP?
58-M(a)(b)(c)
Would it be more appropriate and more in compliance with the PPS, the Growth Plan and the CKLOP as well as being more properly consistent with the process that has been followed, to:
(i) remove from OPA 13 all of the proposed amendments that apply to or directly impact non-urban areas of the City; and
(ii) remove from OPA 13 the policies and provisions that are portrayed therein as generally applying to the four urban settlement areas and instead incorporate the specific policies and provisions that are directly applicable to a particular urban settlement area in its respective Secondary Plan while omitting the ones that are not properly applicable
57-M
If the policies and provisions in OPA 13 are incorporated into the CKLOP, does the resulting CKLOP, as modified, provide an appropriate policy-regime to guide growth and the future well-being of the City as a whole, as well as of the individual urban areas for which the new secondary plans are being proposed to be added?
52-M
Does OPA 13 conform with Section 3.2 of OPA 13 itself?
3.2
45-O
On what basis is development and site alteration associated with long term care homes and retirement homes being precluded in hazard lands, where it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Conservation Authority that such uses can be carried out within the floodplain?
3.12.4
47-O(b)
Do these policies conform to the Growth Plan?More specifically, should they make reference to providing adequate housing for older persons and individuals with special needs.
18.1.1 18.1.2
47-O(a)
Are these policies consistent with the PPS? More specifically, should they make reference to providing adequate housing for older persons and individuals with special needs
18.1.1 18.1.2
24-G
Does Policy 18.4.4 conform to the City of Kawartha Lakes Official Plan, including policies of Section 6.2?
18.4.4
25-G
Would the approval of Policy 18.4.4 prejudice the site-specific official plan amendments on the Bromont Lands?
18.4.4
22-G
Is Policy 18.4.4 consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, including policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.3.1 and 1.7.1?
18.4.4
23-G
Does Policy 18.4.4 conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, including 1.2.1 and 2.2.5(1)(d)?
18.4.4
71-M
Do the amendments that have been implemented through OPA 13 conform with the acknowledgements and policies set out in these two sections (New Sections 18.4.3 and 18.4.4), insofar as the referenced studies have not yet been undertaken and the other preconditions set out therein have not yet been met?
18.4.3 18.4.4
42-N
Inasmuch as this policy has the potential to stagnate commercial growth in the City by freezing current permissions without any qualification for when it would be appropriate for an amendment to occur, is this policy appropriate and does it represent good planning?
18.4.4
72-M
Is the projected mix of housing densities appropriate?
18.5.2
73-M
Are the policies in OPA 13, appropriate for achieving the indicated mix of low, medium and high density residential development?
18.5.2
95-M
Does the emphasis, in Sections 18.10.3 and 18.10.8, on promoting and prioritizing the attractiveness of Employment lands and Employment areas underlie the proposed adoption of these implementing policies? If so, is this appropriate and does it represent good planning?
18.10.3 18.10.8
91-M & 92-M
Do the detailed restrictions and stipulations identified as being applicable to the design and appearance of parking areas on Employment lands belong in an Official Plan? If so, are those restrictions and stipulations appropriate?
18.10.3 18.10.8 18.16.8 18.16.10 18.16.12
93-M
Are these restrictions and stipulations compatible with either the manner in which industrial uses function or with the planned function of parking areas serving industrial uses?
18.10.3 18.10.8 18.16.8 18.16.10 18.16.12
94-M
Are these restrictions and stipulations compatible with either the manner in which all categories of commercial uses function or with the planned function parking areas serving commercial uses?
18.10.3 18.10.8 18.16.8 18.16.10 18.16.12
89-M
Are the policies in Sections 18.16.8, 18.16.10 and 18.16.12 appropriate?
18.16.8 18.16.10 18.16.12
90-M(a)
Are Sections 18.16.8, 18.16.10 and 18.16.12 consistent with one another and do they conform to the Goals and Objectives of the CKLOP?
18.16.8 18.16.10 18.16.12
90-M(b)
Do Sections 18.16.8, 18.16.10 and 18.16.12 constitute good planning?
18.16.8 18.16.10 18.16.12
51-O
Respecting Section 18.13, Community Design- Are these policies appropriate for the development of the subject site and do they represent good planning?
18.13
87-M
Is it appropriate that the policies of 18.13.15 be equally applied to all mainstreets” in the City of Kawartha Lakes? Does doing so represent good planning?
Are these appropriate policies to be contained within an Official Plan?
Has it been considered how the policies in this Section (18.13.15), such as (d) and (e) would work together?
18.13.15
100-M
Is the requirement in Subsection 18.15.4(b) appropriate?
18.15.4(b)
101-M
How is one to interpret or understand the requirement imposed under Subsection 18.15.4(g)? Is such a requirement appropriate?
18.15.4(g)
102-M
Is it appropriate to set standards for the provision of park space that are based solely on the populations of the settlement areas themselves?
18.15.5
103-M
Is it not appropriate to plan for park space on a City-wide basis, taking account of the needs of the City’s entire population?
18.15.5
96-M(a)
Is Section 18.16.11 appropriate? Has the City provided a justification for the adoption of this sort of generic requirement throughout the City of Kawartha Lakes? Does it represent good planning?
18.16.11
97-M
Insofar as Street Townhouses are subject to site plan control, does this policy (Section 18.16.11) entail that the presumption would be that parking for such townhouses would have to be located at the rear of the building in all instances? If so, is this appropriate?
18.16.11
98-M(a)(i)
Does Section 18.16.11 undermine the City’s ability to achieve the amount of medium density housing projected in OPA 13? If so is the policy consistent with the PPS and does it conform to the Growth Plan?
18.16.11
98-M(b)
Does Section 18.16.11 undermine the City’s ability to achieve the amount of medium density housing projected in OPA 13? If so, does this policy conform to the Growth Plan?
18.16.11
99-M
Insofar as the details of site landscaping are subject to the City’s approval under site plan control, and insofar as an applicant is already required under Section 18.17.3 to submit a “plan showing the buildings, parking, access and landscaped area and surrounding land uses”, is this policy appropriate?
18.17.3
17-I
Does section 29.1.9 (interpretation) represent good planning or is it confusing and gives rise to different interpretations?
29.1.9
55-M
Is the interpretive criterion for resolving conflicts between policies in the parent CKLOP, and Secondary Plans as set out in Section 29.1.9 appropriate and does it represent good planning?
29.1.9
56-M(a), (b)
Is Section 29.1.9 consistent with the PPS and does it conform to the Growth Plan?
29.1.9
523-M
Does OPA 13’s adoption of Section 29.1.9 as the interpretive criterion for resolving conflicts between policies in the secondary plans and those in the parent CKLOP, comply with Section 31.1.1 of the CKLOP?
29.1.9
(6)-I
Is:
(a) The wording of a number of sections, including section 5.8, 18.3.2, 18.4.2, 18.5.5, 18.11, 2, 18.11.3, 18.13.10, 18.13.18, 18.6, 18.9.3, 29.1.9, and
(b) The lack of mapping on Schedules A-3, A-4 and A-5
Overly vague and does that wording give rise to different and inconsistent interpretations?
Does it provide an inappropriate scope of discretion to City staff/Council?
5.8, 18.3.2, 18.4.2, 18.5.5, 18.11, 2, 18.11.3, 18.13.10, 18.13.18, 18.6, 18.9.3, 29.1.9, Sections A-3, A-4, A-5
M
Is it appropriate to include Future Development Areas which contemplates development beyond the planning horizon of the Official Plan?
18.4.3 and 18.4.4
M
Does Council’s consideration and adoption of the amendments incorporated in OPA 13 comply with the requirement of Section 35.1 of the CKLOP?
Attachment 3 – Order of Evidence
The Order of Evidence with respect to the first session of the hearing, scheduled to commence on February 22, 2022, dealing with the Phase 1 Issues, is as follows:
The City of Kawartha Lakes to open with non-opinion, background evidence for the purposes of providing context
The parties supporting the CKLOP Lindsay Settlement Area boundary and/or seeking adjustments to the OPA 13 Settlement Area boundaries pursuant to 2019 Growth Plan Policy 2.2.8.4, as amended by Amendment 1 (the “Land Swap Proposals”):
o Bromont Homes Inc.
o Comhold Investments Ltd.
o Flato Lindsay Community Inc.
o Fenelon Trails Inc. and 2185373 Ontario Inc. (collectively referred to as the “Land Swap Parties”)
- The parties seeking to modify the CKLOP Lindsay Settlement Area boundary and/or responding to the Land Swap Proposals:
o Catherine Gravely
o J. Stollar Construction Limited
o The City of Kawartha Lakes
- The Land Swap Parties in Reply
The Order of Evidence with respect to the second session of the hearing, scheduled to commence on March 21, 2022, dealing with the Phase 2 Issues, is as follows:
The City of Kawartha Lakes, as the approval authority
The appellants:
o Bromont Homes Inc.
o Catherine Gravely
o J. Stollar Construction Limited
o Flato Lindsay Community Inc.
o Comhold Investments Ltd.
- Followed by the City of Kawartha Lakes in Reply
7209067