Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 20, 2021 CASE NO(S).: PL200545

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

Applicant and Appellant: Cosmetica Investments Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of City of Toronto to adopt the requested amendment Existing Designation: Mixed Use Areas Proposed Designated: Mixed Use Areas Purpose: To permit modernization of existing industrial operation and add residential and retail uses Property Address/Description: 1960 Eglinton Avenue East Municipality: City of Toronto Approval Authority File No.: 20 112107 ESC 21 OZ OLT Case No.: PL200545 OLT File No.: PL200545 OLT Case Name: Cosmetica Investments Inc. v. Toronto (City) Case Name: Cosmetica Investments Inc. v. Toronto (City)

BEFORE: M. A. SILLS VICE-CHAIR Monday, the 20th day of December, 2021

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Procedural Order, attached hereto as Appendix “1” is hereby amended and shall be in force and effect for the purpose of governing the required procedures leading up to and including the hearing scheduled to commence on Monday, December 5, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. by Videoconference at https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/723521277. The length of the hearing will be 15 days.

“Euken Lui” EUKEN LUI ACTING REGISTRAR 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.

APPENDIX 1

Ontario Land Tribunal 655 Bay Street, Suite 1500 Toronto ON M5G 1E5 Telephone: (416) 212-6349 Toll free: 1-866-448-2248 Website: olt.gov.on.ca

Tribunaux de l’aménagement du territoire Ontario 655 rue Bay, bureau 1500 Toronto ON M5G 1E5 Téléphone: (416) 212-6349 Sans Frais: 1-866-448-2248 Site Web : olt.gov.on.ca

ISSUE DATE: [date] CASE NO.: PL200545

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

Applicant and Appellant: Cosmetica Investments Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan- Failure of the City of Toronto to adopt the requested amendment Property Address: 1960 Eglinton Avenue East Municipality: City of Toronto Municipal File No.: 20 112107 ESC 21 OZ OLT Case No.: PL200545 OLT File No.: PL200545 OLT Case Name: Cosmetica Investments 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 December 5, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. at the Tribunal’s Offices, 655 Bay Street, 16th Floor, in the City of Toronto.

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

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

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

6. The order of evidence is set out in Attachment 4 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on 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 at least fifteen days (15) days prior to date for Expert Witness Statements as stated in Section 14 (on or before September 15, 2022), if this meeting takes place and if agreement is reached.

10. A Party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other Parties a list of the witnesses, a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered at least one hundred and nineteen (119) calendar days before the hearing (on or before August 8, 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 (on or before August 26, 2022) (101 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence).

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

12. A witness or participant must provide to the Tribunal and the Parties a witness statement or participant statement, respectively, at least sixty-six (66) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before September 30, 2022), or the witness or participant may not give oral evidence at the hearing. Participants are only permitted to provide written evidence to the Tribunal, unless otherwise permitted by the Tribunal.

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

14. At least sixty-six (66) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before September 30, 2022), the Parties shall provide copies of their witness statements and expert witness statements (full disclosure including reports) to the other Parties.

15. At least forty-five (45) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before October 21, 2022), the Parties may provide to all other Parties a written response to any written evidence.

16. At least forty (40) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before October 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. At least thirty-one (31) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before November 4, 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 (on or before November 4, 2022), (thirty-one (31) days before the commencement of the hearing), the Parties shall prepare and file a detailed Work Plan that identifies the following, at a minimum: the identified Parties participating in the Hearing Event, preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the date a witness is intended to attend the Tribunal, the identified witness name/expertise, and the approximate time allotted for Examination in Chief, Cross Examination and any re-examination (if any) (the “Work Plan”). The Work Plan should be adhered to guide the Hearing Event to the best ability of all the Parties, and any and all witnesses shall be available on the identified date(s), unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the Work Plan throughout the Hearing Event.

21. The Parties shall prepare a Joint Document Book on or before (on or before November 15, 2022), (20 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), 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 (on or before June 30, 2022), (ninety-two (92) days before Expert Witness Statements as stated in Section 14). 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 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
June 30, 2022 (92 days before Witness Statement Date)	Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any)
August 8, 2022 (119 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
August 26, 2022 (101 days prior to hearing)	Last date to challenge identification of expert witness
September 15, 2022	Experts meeting prior to this date
September 15, 2022	Agreed Statement of Facts
September 30, 2022 (66 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
October 21, 2022 (45 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
October 26, 2022 (40 days prior to hearing)	Parties to Advise Tribunal if any hearing dates are to be released from the hearing calendar (if any)
November 4, 2022 (31 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
November 4, 2022 (31 days prior to hearing)	Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal
November 15, 2022 (20 days prior to hearing)	Finalize Joint Document Book
December 5, 2022	Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

A. PARTIES

1. City of Toronto Counsel: Amanda S. Hill Daniel Elmadany City of Toronto, Legal Services Metro Hall, 26th Floor 55 John Street Toronto ON M5V 3C6 E-mail: Amanda.Hill@toronto.ca Tel: 416-338-5790 Fax: 416-397-5624 E-mail: Daniel.Elmadany@toronto.ca Tel: 416-397-5709 Fax: 416-397-5624

2. Appellant: Cosmetica Investment Inc Counsel: Andrew Jeanrie Bennett Jones LLP 3400 One First Canadian Place PO Box 130 Toronto ON M5X 1A4 E-mail: jeanriea@bennettjones.com Tel.: 416-777-4814

3. Party: Toronto District School Board Counsel: Julie Lesage Pitman Patterson Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Bay Adelaide Centre, East Tower 22 Adelaide St. W, Toronto ON M5H 4E3 E-mail: jlesage@blg.com Tel: 416-367-6276 E-mail: ppatterson@blg.com Tel: 416-367-6109

4. Party: 1920 Eglinton Avenue East Holdings Limited, Eglinton Warden Developments Limited and 20 Ashtonbee Holdings Limited ("Madison") Counsel: David Bronskill Goodmans LLP Bay Adelaide Centre - West Tower 333 Bay Street, Suite 3400 Toronto ON M5H 2S7 E-mail: dbronskill@goodmans.ca Tel: 416-597-4299

5. Party: RioCan Holdings Inc., 2075963 Ontario Ltd. and 2076031 Ontario Ltd. ("RioCan") Counsel: Calvin Lantz Stikeman Elliott 5300 Commerce Court West 199 Bay Street Toronto ON M5L 1B9 E-mail: clantz@stikeman.com Tel: 416-869-5669

B. PARTICIPANTS

N/A

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, appropriate, or that a given issue correctly states the applicable law or test to be applied to the matter before the Tribunal. 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 have jurisdiction over such matters in each circumstance or that any Party has retained all of its right to make arguments or bring evidence as to whether an issue itself is appropriate, represents the applicable law or the test to be applied, and/or is good planning. Accordingly, no Party shall advance an issue not identified on the Issues List without leave of the Tribunal.

A. Cosmetica

1. What is the appropriate test to be applied to an Official Plan Amendment with respect to the existing, in force, Official Plan?
2. Is the proposed Official Plan Amendment good planning and in the public interest?

B. City of Toronto

1. Is the hearing premature in the absence of the applicant revising the proposed development and Official Plan Amendment to show the 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)?
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?
3. Has the infrastructure required to support the anticipated growth in the overall context of the Golden Mile Secondary Plan ("GMSP") area, including streets, density, servicing, parks, and community service facilities been addressed comprehensively and in coordination with other GMSP landowners?
4. If the answer to Issue #3 is no, is the approval of the proposed Official Plan Amendment premature?

Planning Act

5. Would approval of the proposed development by the Tribunal have regard for the purposes of the Planning Act in Section 1.1(c), (e) and (f)?
6. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections 2(f),(h),(i),(j),(k),(n), (o),(p), (q), and (r)?
7. Would approval of the proposed Official Plan Amendment by the Tribunal have regard to the decision of City Council and the information and material that City Council considered in making its decision as required by Section 2.1 of the Planning Act?

Provincial Policy Statement, 2020

8. Is the proposed Official Plan Amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement including policies 1.1.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.6, 1.1.3.7, 1.2.1, 1.2.6, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.4.3, 1.5, 1.6.1, 1.6.5, 1.6.6, 1.6.7, 1.6.8, 1.7, 1.8, 2.2, and 4.6?

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

9. Is the proposed scale of development and transition of built form to adjacent areas appropriate and is the proposed intensification appropriate in light of other objectives of A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020)?
10. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment conform to and not conflict with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020), including policies 1.2.1, 2.2.1.4, 2.2.2.3, 2.2.5.8, 2.2.6, 3.2.1.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.5, 3.2.6, 3.2.7, 3.2.8, 4.2.5, 5.2.4, and 5.2.5?

Official Plan

11. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment conform with the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, including the policies related to: a. Structuring Growth in the City (Section 2.2); b. Avenues (Section 2.2.3); c. Employment Areas (Section 2.2.4); d. Bringing the City Together, Transportation (Section 2.4); e. Public Realm (Section 3.1.1); f. Built Form (Section 3.1.2, Section 3.1.3); g. Public Art (Section 3.1.4); h. Housing (Section 3.2.1); i. Community Services and Facilities (Section 3.2.2); j. Parks and Open Spaces (Section 3.2.3); k. Building New Neighbourhoods (Section 3.3); l. Natural Environment (Section 3.4); m. Mixed Use Areas (Section 4.5); and n. Implementation (Section 5).

12. Has the Official Plan Policy in Section 2.2.3, including policies 2.2.3.2, 2.2.3.4 and 2.2.3.6 of the Official Plan been satisfied?

13. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment maintain the intent and purpose of the policies of the Official Plan Amendment 499, Golden Mile Secondary Plan?

Land Use Planning and Urban Design

14. Does the proposal represent a scale of development and density that is appropriate for the surrounding area and does it provide an appropriate transition in scale and massing, within the Mixed Use Transit Nodes and Ashtonbee Transition Area, and to adjacent areas?
15. Does the proposal contemplate adequate size of lands for public park purposes?
16. Should the residential portion of the proposed development be revised to include policies that direct that affordable housing be provided to support the City's and Growth Plan housing policy objectives to provide for a full range of housing (tenure and affordability) within new development?
17. Should the proposal be revised to ensure that the site, overall and over each phase of residential development, will achieve a balanced mix of unit types, and to support the creation of housing suitable for families, development or redevelopment containing more than 80 new residential units will include larger units, including policy direction for: (i) A minimum of 10 per cent of the total number of units will be 3-bedroom units; and (ii) An additional minimum of 25 per cent of the total number of units will be 2-bedroom units?
18. Does the proposal provide for a built form that is appropriate urban design, including appropriate building types, stepbacks and setbacks, base building heights, mid-rise heights and massing, separation distances between tall building towers, tower floor plate size, tall building heights and shadow impacts consistent with applicable policies and relevant guidelines?
19. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment provide for appropriate publicly accessible open space?

Transportation

20. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment coordinate the provision of the north-south public street on this site with the lands to the east municipally known as 1966-2050 Eglinton Avenue East given a portion of the new north-south public street is identified on lands outside of the site or should the proposed location of the street be otherwise revised to ensure the entirety of the north-south public is within the site?
21. Should the proposed Official Plan Amendment be revised to demonstrate the proposed pedestrian network and cycling network and connects to the broader transportation system?
22. Does the proposal consider the required network improvements for all modes, to support the proposed development and density increase, including: (i) Off-site improvements; and/or (ii) Financial contributions towards the costs associated with future land acquisition and construction of the required transportation improvements in the event that the off-site improvements cannot be achieved?
23. Does the proposal’s Transportation Study appropriately and comprehensively review the constraints identified in the Transportation Master Plan for the Golden Mile, to ensure there are adequate network improvements and mitigating measures for all modes?
24. Does the Official Plan Amendment consider the adequacy and sufficiency of hard infrastructure investments and financial contributions to the Transportation Demand Management ("TDM") Plan?

Phasing of Development

25. Should the Official Plan Amendment be revised to include policies related to phasing of development addressing matters, including affordable housing, community service facilities, municipal infrastructure, public streets, public parkland and other such matters required to support the development of the site?

Compatibility/Mitigation

26. Do the proposed Official Plan policies appropriately implement the polices of the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan related to employment areas, and specifically those policies that require the protection and preservation of employment areas for current and future uses?
27. Do the proposed Official Plan policies appropriately mitigate against the potential adverse effects arising from the introduction of sensitive land uses on the Employment Areas and major facilities within the vicinity of the subject lands and the industrial use proposed in the Mixed Use Areas to the sensitive land uses within the site and on adjacent lands?
28. Does the Official Plan Amendment conform to policy 2.2.4 and 3.4.21 of the Official Plan, including the requirement for Compatibility and Mitigation Studies, Noise, Odour, Vibration and Air Quality Studies to be submitted for a Zoning By-law Amendment application and peer reviewed at the applicant's expense?

Public Interest and Good Planning

29. Is the proposed Official Plan Amendment good planning and in the public interest?

Implementation

29. If the requested Official Plan Amendment is approved by the Tribunal, in whole or in part, should the Tribunal's final order be withheld until it has been advised by the City Solicitor that the final form of the Official Plan Amendment is in a manner satisfactory to the Chief Planner and the City Solicitor?

B. Toronto District School Board

1. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment have regard to Section 2 (h), (i) (m) and (n) of the Planning Act?
2. Is the proposed Official Plan Amendment consistent with sections 1.1.1(b) and (g), 1.1.3.2(b), 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.7(b), 1.2.1(d), 1.4.3(c) and (d), 1.6.1, and 1.7.1(c) of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020?
3. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment conform to sections 1.2.1, 2.1, 2.2.1.2(a) and (c), 2.2.1.3(b), 2.2.1.4(a) and (d), 3.1, 3.2.1.5 and 3.2.8 of A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (the “Growth Plan”), and does the proposed development contribute to the achievement of a complete community, as described under the Growth Plan?
4. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment conform to sections 2.4.14(a), 3.1.1.18, 3.2.2, 4.5.2(g), and 5.1.2 of the City’s Official Plan?
5. Will an approval of the proposed development inhibit the development of a new TDSB elementary school serving the Golden Mile Area?
6. Is the approval of the proposed Official Plan Amendment premature in the context of availability of school space and accommodation (community/public service facilities)?
7. Is it good planning to approve the Official Plan Amendment without considering the cumulative impact of the development permitted by the proposed Official Plan Amendment together with the other outstanding and approved planning applications for redevelopment in the Golden Mile Secondary Plan area on the ability of school facilities to accommodate such growth in the area?
8. Should the proposed Official Plan Amendment include a policy providing that development on the Applicant’s site may be subject to the use of a Holding Symbol (“H”) in the implementing zoning by law, which will ensure the development proceeds in an orderly fashion with the availability of community services and facilities, and in particular sufficient school capacity to accommodate the proposed development

C. Madison

1. Does the proposed OPA have appropriate regard to the matters of provincial interest identified in sections 2(f), (h), (n) and (r) of the Planning Act?
2. Is the proposed OPA consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, particularly sections 1.1.1(a), (e) and (g), 1.2.1, 1.6.6, 1.6.7 and 1.6.8?
3. Does the proposed OPA conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, particularly section 1.2, 1.2.1, 2.1, 3.2.1 and 5.2.3?
4. Does the proposed OPA appropriately implement City of Toronto Official Plan policies relating to Mixed Use Areas (section 4.5), Avenues (section 2.2.3) and Built Form (sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3)?
5. Does the proposed OPA provide for an appropriate location and alignment of the proposed new east-west public street?
6. Has the applicant demonstrated that the development proposed through the Application would not adversely affect the ability to appropriately service other lands in the vicinity, particularly the lands located between Warden Avenue and Hakimi Avenue?
7. Has the applicant demonstrated that the development proposed through the Application would not have adverse transportation impacts on other lands in the vicinity, particularly the lands located between Warden Avenue and Hakimi Avenue?
8. Does the proposed OPA represent good planning and is it in the public interest?

D. RIOCAN

1. Does the proposed OPA have appropriate regard to the matters of provincial interest identified in section 2 of the Planning Act, particularly subsections (f), (h), (n) and (o)?
2. Is the proposed OPA consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, particularly sections 1.1.1(a), (c) and (g), 1.2.1, 1.2.6, 1.6.6 and 1.6.7?
3. Does the proposed OPA conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, particularly sections 2.2.5, 3.2.1 and 3.2.2?
4. Does the proposed OPA appropriately implement and achieve the intent of the general objectives and policies of the Toronto Official Plan, particularly section 2.2, 2.2.4 (5) to (10) and 3.1.1?
5. Does the proposed OPA (a) provide for an appropriate location and alignment of the proposed new east-west public (collector) street and new north-south public (local) street, and (b) have these streets been appropriately coordinated with other lands in the vicinity including the adjacent RioCan lands municipally known as 1966-2050 Eglinton Avenue East and 50 Thermos Road, Toronto?
6. Does the proposed OPA demonstrate (a) adequate and efficient use of existing and planned municipal infrastructure (water, sanitary and stormwater) and (b) that provision of such required municipal infrastructure to accommodate the site’s development through the OPA does not adversely affect the appropriate planning and orderly implementation of required municipal infrastructure on other lands in the vicinity including the adjacent lands municipally known as 1966-2050 Eglinton Avenue East and 50 Thermos Road, Toronto?
7. Does the proposed OPA demonstrate that (a) the existing and planned transportation network has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development and (b) it would not have adverse transportation impacts on other lands in the vicinity including the adjacent lands municipally known as 1966-2050 Eglinton Avenue East and 50 Thermos Road, Toronto?
8. Does the proposed OPA provide for an adequate contribution of public parkland, land use and development interface in relation to the proposed community park serving the broader Golden Mile area proposed on adjacent lands municipally known as 1966-2050 Eglinton Avenue East and 50 Thermos Road, Toronto?
9. Does the proposed OPA represent good planning and is it in the public interest?

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.

1. Cosmetica Investments Inc.
2. Toronto District School Board
3. 1920 Eglinton Avenue East Holdings Limited, et. al.
4. RioCan Holdings Inc., et. al.
5. City of Toronto
6. (Reply if any) Cosmetica Investments Inc.

ATTACHMENT 5

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. 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.