Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: June 24, 2021

CASE NO(S).: PL210041

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

Applicant and Appellant: i2 Developments (Old Weston) Inc.

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

Existing Designation: Site and Area Specific Policy 441

Proposed Designated: Site and Area Specific Policy 441

Purpose: To permit the redevelopment of the property with a 29-storey mixed-use building consisting of residential units and commercial space

Property Address/Description: 290 Old Weston Road

Municipality: City of Toronto

Approval Authority File No.: 20 169194 STE 09 O

LPAT Case No.: PL210041

LPAT File No.: PL210041

LPAT Case Name: i2 Developments (Old Weston) Inc. v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: i2 Developments (Old Weston) Inc.

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. By-law 569-2013 - Neglect of the City of Toronto to make a decision

Existing Zoning: Employment (E)

Proposed Zoning: Commercial-Residential (CR) with site-specific height, massing, and parking provisions

Purpose: To permit the redevelopment of the property with a 29-storey mixed-use building consisting of residential units and commercial space

Property Address/Description: 290 Old Weston Road

Municipality: City of Toronto

Municipality File No.: 20 169194 STE 09 OZ

LPAT Case No.: PL210041

LPAT File No.: PL210043

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

Applicant and Appellant: i2 Developments (Old Weston) Inc.

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 438-86 - Neglect of the City of Toronto to make a decision

Existing Zoning: Employment (E)

Proposed Zoning: Commercial-Residential (CR) with site-specific height, massing, and parking provisions

Purpose: To permit the redevelopment of the property with a 29-storey mixed-use building consisting of residential units and commercial space

Property Address/Description: 290 Old Weston Road

Municipality: City of Toronto

Municipality File No.: 20 169194 STE 09 OZ

LPAT Case No.: PL210041

LPAT File No.: PL210042

Heard: June 16, 2021 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

i2 Developments (Old Weston) Inc.

Michael Foderick

(“Applicant”)

Fern Opatowski

City of Toronto (“City)

Gabe Szobel

Delta Property Holdings Inc. c/o

Adrian Frank

Sequoia Grove Homes Inc. (“Delta”)

Jason Park (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY DAVID L. LANTHIER ON JUNE 16, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1This is the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) conducted in these appeals.

2The Applicant made application to the City for two zoning by-law amendments and an official plan amendment to permit a 29-story residential and commercial mixed use development (“Development”) on the property located at 290 Old Weston Road (“Subject Property”). When the City did not make a decision within the statutory timeframe provided for in the Planning Act the Applicant filed these appeals.

3The Affidavit of Service sworn by Robert Jefferson on May 27, 2021 with respect to the service of the Notice of this CMC, is marked as Exhibit 1 to this CMC hearing.

REQUESTS FOR STATUS

4The Tribunal received one request for Participant status from Mr. Alexander Khan. Having reviewed his request and submission, and with no objections from counsel, and having reviewed the request, Mr. Khan is granted Participant status.

5The Tribunal also received a request for Party status from Delta, which owns the property immediately to the north of the Subject Property. Delta has indicated its obvious interest in these appeals as it also submits its own applications for the proposed development of its own property and wishes to ensure the orderly and appropriate of development of the Applicant's Development as it may relate to its abutting lands. Having reviewed the request, the Tribunal finds that Delta’s participation in the hearing of these appeals is reasonable and necessary to enable the Tribunal to adjudicate effectively and completely on the issues in the proceedings. There were no objections from the Applicant or the City. Delta is accordingly granted Party status in these appeals.

6There were no other requests for status.

MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT

7The Tribunal inquired as to the possibility of Tribunal-led mediation and has been advised that the Parties anticipate ongoing settlement discussions as the matter moves forward. The Applicant indicates that if one of the primary issues relating to the height of the proposed Development cannot be resolved between them, it is unlikely that mediation will be successful and that issue, and others, will require a hearing on the merits. The option remains open to the Parties at any time to make the written request for mediation should they reconsider.

MOTION FOR PROCEDURAL ORDER

8A Motion Record was filed by the Applicant returnable at the CMC and served upon both the City and Delta well in advance of this hearing event. Although no affidavit of service with respect to the motion was filed, both Delta and the City acknowledged receipt of the Motion Record that is before the Tribunal.

9The Motion brought by the Applicant (“Motion”) essentially asks for an order issuing a Procedural Order substantially in the form submitted with the Motion Record, as might be modified by the Tribunal and relatedly an order denying any party the opportunity to lead any evidence in the appeals if they have not identified its issues to be adjudicated, in form and substance acceptable to the Tribunal, prior to the completion of the hearing of the Motion.

10Section 15 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, and Rule 19 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) expressly provide that the Tribunal will, at a CMC, specifically consider, and where appropriate arrange for, the issuance of a Procedural Order to govern pre-hearing procedural matters prior to a hearing of an appeal on its merits, without the necessity of a motion. The reason for the Applicant’s Motion in this instance is explained as a means to avoid the often-occurring situation where a subsequent CMC, or multiple CMCs, must be scheduled with consequential delays in order to obtain the necessary Procedural Order and Issues List to govern the hearing. This, in turn, delays the scheduling of a hearing.

11Based on Rules 19.1 and 19.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules cited by the Applicant in its Motion Record, it submits that the Motion, served well in excess of the time required for motions, thus constitutes “…ample notice of the obligation of interested parties to identify their issues and hearing preferences no later than the Case Management Conference”. Counsel for the Applicant has referred to the Motion as a “friendly motion” intended only to expedite the settlement of the Procedural Order and Issues List, and the scheduling of the hearing dates.

12While the Tribunal certainly cannot disagree with the intent and purpose of such a “friendly motion”, it is relevant to note that Rule 19.2, as it has been cited by the Applicant, has now been amended by the Tribunal effective as of June 1, 2021. Rule 19.2 now highlights the important proviso to the Tribunal’s expectation that the parties attend to the CMC prepared and ready to present and discuss the draft Procedural Order. That proviso is: “Where the parties are known before the case management conference…”. Rule 19.1(a) stipulates, and the long-standing practice of the Tribunal has always been, that the first order of business at any CMC for a planning appeal is to consider requests for Party status under Rule 8. Until that occurs, the parties before the Tribunal, who have an interest in the Procedural Order and the Issues List, is not yet determinatively known. For this reason, although the expectation of the Tribunal is always that the parties not unduly delay in their preparedness to address the Procedural Order and Issues List, the point at which it can set the Procedural Order may be fact-specific to the Appeal(s) before the Tribunal.

13With only one party requesting and added as a Party, in this case, to the credit of counsel, they have attended to this CMC prepared and ready to present the draft Procedural Order and set a hearing date. Whether the Motion was ultimately instrumental in achieving this timely result or would have occurred with the cooperation of experienced counsel, is a moot point. It is the Tribunal’s view that the Motion should not have been necessary and the need for such a procedural step to secure the Procedural Order in a timely fashion is not to be considered as endorsed by the Tribunal. In situations such as this one, proactive steps by the Applicant to prepare a first draft of the Procedural Order and initiate the pre-CMC discussions regarding the form of the Issues List should be sufficient to ready the Parties and expedite the issuance of the Procedural Order. The Tribunal continues to hold firmly to the expectation that parties, both statutory and added, should be prepared to comply with Rule 19.2 and speak to the scheduling of the hearing as soon as they are in a position to do so, in furtherance of the Tribunal’s efficient case management processes. Whether this can be done at the first CMC will remain to determined based on the circumstances of each appeal that comes before the Tribunal.

14Upon inquiry by the Panel, in light of the efforts of counsel and the resultant agreed-upon form of the Procedural Order and Issues List to be provided to the Tribunal for review and approval, the Applicant confirmed that the Motion could be, and is, withdrawn.

PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST

15The agreed-upon draft of the Procedural Order and Issues List was completed just prior to the CMC but was not provided to the Panel in time for the hearing event. Based upon the discussions at the CMC, and with the benefit of the scheduled dates of the hearing and advance status hearing/CMC provided by the Tribunal immediately following the CMC, counsel for the Applicant subsequently submitted the final draft of the Procedural Order and Issues List to the Panel for final review.

16The fixed dates for the hearing on the merits are now provided in the Procedural Order appended to this Decision and the coordinates for the hearings are set out below in this Decision.

17Appended to this Decision as Attachment 1 is the Procedural Order, now approved by the Tribunal, which will govern all further pre-hearing procedural requirements and the hearing of the appeals.

PRE-HEARING STATUS HEARING

18For the purposes of the pre-hearing TTC Status Hearing on Friday, March 18, 2022, the Parties are to jointly provide a brief written status report to the Tribunal, on or before Monday, March 14, 2022, confirming the total number of days required for the hearing, supported by a preliminary outline of a workplan setting out the anticipated order and schedule of witnesses, the estimated time frames for the evidence-in-chief, cross and re-examination for all scheduled witnesses, as well as the time allotted for opening and closing submissions and any anticipated preliminary motions or matters. If a settlement is achieved, or if issues are resolved, such that the number of days allocated for the hearing can be reduced, the Parties will advise the Tribunal accordingly so that hearing dates may be released from the Tribunal’s calendar. The Parties will also advise then, or at any time in advance of that date, whether they wish to request that the scheduled hearing be converted to an in-person hearing, and provide any necessary information to consider such a request.

TELEPHONE HEARING AND VIDEO HEARING COORDINATES

TCC Status Hearing – March 18, 2022

19The TCC Status Hearing to review the draft hearing plan, will commence at 9 a.m. on Friday, March 18, 2022.

20Individual(s) are directed to call 416-212-8012 or Toll Free 1-866-633-0848. When prompted, enter the code 4779874# to be connected to the call. It is the responsibility of the person(s) participating in the call to ensure that they are properly connected to the call and at the correct time. Questions prior to the call may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

Hearing – May 30 to June 10, 2022

21For the 10-day video hearing, commencing at 10 a.m. on Monday, May 30, 2022, and continuing to Friday, June 10, 2022, the Parties 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/501678749

Access Code: 501-678-749

22For the video hearing, all Parties, witnesses or observers 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.

23Individuals are directed to connect to each of the events on the assigned dates at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the hearings 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.

24Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing either of the video hearing events using 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: Toll-Free 1-888-455-1389 or +1 (647) 497-9391. The access code is as indicated above.

25There will be no further notice with respect to each of the two hearing events, and the Panel Member is not seized on any of the hearings.

26The Tribunal so orders and provides these CMC directives for the purposes of the case management of these appeals.

“David L. Lanthier”

DAVID L. LANTHIER

VICE-CHAIR

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal.

PL210041 – Attachment 1

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

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

Applicant and Appellant: i2 Developments (Old Weston) Inc.

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

Existing Designation: Site and Area Specific Policy 441

Proposed Designated: Site and Area Specific Policy 441

Purpose: To permit the redevelopment of the property with a 29-storey mixed-use building consisting of residential units and commercial space

Property Address/Description: 290 Old Weston Road

Municipality: City of Toronto

Approval Authority File No.: 20 169194 STE 09 O

LPAT Case No.: PL210041

LPAT File No.: PL210041

LPAT Case Name: i2 Developments (Old Weston) Inc. v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: i2 Developments (Old Weston) Inc.

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. By-law 569-2013 - Neglect of the City of Toronto to make a decision

Existing Zoning: Employment (E)

Proposed Zoning: Commercial-Residential (CR) with site-specific height, massing, and parking provisions

Purpose: To permit the redevelopment of the property with a 29-storey mixed-use building consisting of residential units and commercial space

Property Address/Description: 290 Old Weston Road

Municipality: City of Toronto

Municipality File No.: 20 169194 STE 09 OZ

LPAT Case No.: PL210041

LPAT File No.: PL210043

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

Applicant and Appellant: i2 Developments (Old Weston) Inc.

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 438-86 - Neglect of the City of Toronto to make a decision

Existing Zoning: Employment (E)

Proposed Zoning: Commercial-Residential (CR) with site-specific height, massing, and parking provisions

Purpose: To permit the redevelopment of the property with a 29-storey mixed-use building consisting of residential units and commercial space

Property Address/Description: 290 Old Weston Road

Municipality: City of Toronto

Municipality File No.: 20 169194 STE 09 OZ

LPAT Case No.: PL210041

LPAT File No.: PL210042

1. The Tribunal may vary or add to these rules at any time, either on request or as it sees fit. It may alter this Order by an oral ruling, or by another written Order.

Organization of the Hearing

2. The hearing will begin at 10 a.m. on Monday, May 30, 2022, and will proceed as a virtual hearing, as follows:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/501678749

Audio-only telephone line: Toll-Free 1-888-455-1389 or +1 (647) 497-9391

Access Code: 501-678-749

3. The length of the hearing will be about 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. 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. 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 should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.

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 field shall have a meeting on or before March 1, 2022 [ninety (90) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing] to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. The experts must prepare a list of agreed facts and the remaining issues to be addressed at the hearing and provide this list to all of the parties and the municipal Clerk.

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 at least one hundred and nineteen (119) calendar days before the hearing (on or before January 31, 2022). For expert witnesses, a Party is to identify the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified.

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 (60) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before March 31, 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 (60) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before March 31, 2022), the parties shall provide copies of their witness statements and expert witness statements (full disclosure including reports) to the other parties and to the City Clerk.

15. At least thirty (31) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before April 29, 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.

16. On or before April 29, 2022, thirty (31) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing], Parties may provide to all other parties and file with the Clerk a written response to any written evidence.

17. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. Such a motion shall be in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rule 10, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties at least 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

18. A party who provides a witness’ written evidence to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

19. The parties shall prepare and file a hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before March 1, 2022, ninety (90) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing, with 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, prior to, or in the course of the hearing.

20. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness or as permitted by Section 21. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

21. 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 (December 16, 2021), (one hundred and five (105) 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.

22. 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 22 applies regardless if the hearing event is in-person or electronic.

23. 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.

24. 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.

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE

EVENT

January 31, 2022 (119 days prior to hearing)

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

February 21, 2022 (98 days prior to hearing)

Last date to challenge identification of expert witness

March 1, 2022 (90 days before Expert Witness Statements)

Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any)

March 1, 2022 (90 days prior to hearing)

Hearing Plan filed with the Tribunal

March 1, 2022 (90 days prior to hearing)

Experts meeting prior to this date

March 11, 2022 (80 days prior to hearing)

Agreed Statement of Facts

March 18, 2022 (73 days prior to hearing)

Telephone Pre-Conference

March 31, 2022 (60 days prior to hearing)

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

April 29, 2022 (31 days prior to hearing)

Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)

April 29, 2022 (31 days prior to hearing)

Exchange of visual evidence (if any)

May 2, 2022 (28 days prior to hearing)

Finalize Joint Document Book

May 30 – June 10, 2022

Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

Parties:

1. i2Developments (Old Weston) Inc. (“i2Developments”)

2. Sequoia Stockyards LP c/o Sequoia Grove Homes Inc. (“Sequoia”)

3. City of Toronto

Participants:

4. Alexander Khan

ATTACHMENT 3

LIST OF ISSUES

NOTE: The identification of an issue does not mean that all parties agree that such issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Board at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Board at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing.

Sequoia

Issue 1: Road network connectivity

Is the proposed road network consistent with the PPS, does it conform to the Growth Plan and the Official Plan, and does it represent good planning, particularly with respect to the following policies:

a) Provincial Policy Statement (2020) – Policies 1.5.1, 1.6.7.1 and 1.6.7.4

b) A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019, am. 2020) – Policy 2.2.4.8, 2.2.4.10 and 3.2.2.2.2a and b

c) Official Plan – Policies 2.2.3 h and 2.4.14

Issue 2: Parkland Dedication

Is the proposed Parkland Strategy consistent with the PPS, does it conform to the Growth Plan and the Official Plan, and does it represent good planning, particularly with respect to the following policies:

a) Provincial Policy Statement (2020) – Policy 1.5.1 b

b) A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019, am. 2020) – Policies 2.2.1.4 d)iii, 2.2.4.17 f and 4.2.5.1

c) Official Plan – Sections 3.2.3 and 3.3

Issue 3: Built Form and Densities.

Are the built form and density of the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy statement, do they conform to the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and do they represent good planning, particularly with respect to the following policies:

a) Provincial Policy Statement (2020) - 1.1.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.2.1, 1.2.4, 1.6.1, and 1.6.3

b) A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019, am. 2020) – Policies 1.2.1, 2.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 3.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.8, 5.2.3.2, and 5.2.5

c) Official Plan - Sections 3.1.2, 3.1.3

City of Toronto

Policy and By-law Documents

1

1.1 Does the proposed Official Plan amendment and/or rezoning have sufficient regard for the Provincial Interests identified under Section 2 of the Planning Act, including but not limited to Sections 2(f) 2(h), 2(j), and 2(r)(i)?

• 2(f) – adequacy of proposed transportation system.

• 2(h) –orderly development of safe and healthy communities" considering rail safety and pedestrian level wind condition issues.

• 2(i) – "adequate provision and distribution of…recreational facilities"

• 2(k) –"adequate provision of employment opportunities" considering the General Employment Area designation.

• 2r(i) – sufficient transition to the nearby houses along Old Weston Road.

1.2 Does the proposed Official Plan amendment and/or rezoning conform with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020), including but not limited to Policies 2.2.5(1)(a), 2.2.5(2), 2.2.5(7)(a) and (c), 2.2.5(9), and 2.2.2(3)(b)?

• Proposed amount of office space considering the General Employment Area designation and potential major transit station area.

• "sufficient transition of built form to adjacent areas"

1.3 Is the proposed Official Plan amendment and/or rezoning consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, including but not limited to Policies 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, 1.3.1(a), and 1.5.1(a)?

• 1.1.3.3 – “appropriate location” for proposed intensification

• 1.1.3.4 – Rail safety, wind condition and open space network issues unresolved Re: public health and safety

• 1.3.1(a) –appropriate mix of uses considering the Employment Area policies in the OP.

• 1.5.1(a) –parks and open spaces to facilitate active transportation and connectivity.

1.4 Does the proposed Official Plan amendment and/or rezoning conform to the in-effect City of Toronto Official Plan, specifically Sections 2.2.4, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.2.3 and 4.6?

• 2.2.4 – intent and purpose of Employment Areas

• 3.1.1 – public realm – connections and configuration of parkland, open spaces, driveways and walkways.

• 3.1.2 – built form – transition to existing context

• 3.1.3 – built form – transition and site layout for tall buildings

• 3.2.3 – parkland configuration

• 4.6 – intended uses; contribute to functional Employment Areas by providing a buffer and/or mitigating adverse effects to Neighbourhoods

1.5 Should the proposal require an Official Plan land use redesignation and employment land conversion to Mixed Use Area through the current Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Official Plan?

1.6 Should the proposed parkland be redesignated to Parks on Land Use Map 17 of the Official Plan and added to the City Parkland map?

1.7 Should the proposed parkland be rezoned to Open Space – Recreation (OR)?

Urban Design Guidelines

2 Does the proposal respond appropriately to and meet the intent of:

2.1 the Tall Building Design Guidelines with respect to Guidelines 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 2.4, 2.6, 2.7, 3.2.2, 4.1 and 4.3?

• 1.1 – context analysis with respect to future development potential of the adjacent property to the north.

• 1.3 – fit and transition in scale to lower-scale buildings

• 1.4 – sunlight and sky view impact on public realm

• 2.4 – network of public streets, parks and open space

• 2.6 – pedestrian and cycling connections

• 2.7 – public art

• 3.2.2 – tower placement

• 4.1 – streetscape and landscape design

• 4.3 – pedestrian level wind effects

2.2 Growing UP Urban Design Guidelines: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities?

Specified Planning Considerations

3 Does the proposal represent good and appropriate land use planning, having regard for:

3.1 appropriate tower height and tower setbacks with regard for the impact on existing residential properties in terms of scale, privacy, shadow and sky view;

3.2 appropriate tower height, floor plate and tower setbacks with regard to shadow and sky view impact on the public realm;

3.3 an appropriate design for new parks and open spaces that contributes to a pedestrian/cycle network;

3.4 the findings and recommendations that result from the Keele-St. Clair Local Area Study;

3.5 the Official Plan Municipal Comprehensive Review;

3.6 appropriate rail safety measures;

3.7 appropriate levels of comfort for pedestrian level wind conditions;

3.8 public art in accordance with the Percent for Public Art Program; and

3.9 a coordinated block plan and massing strategy for the lands bounded by St Clair Avenue West, Old Weston Road and the planned extension of Davenport Road?

Section 37 Considerations

4 Should the proposal be required to provide community benefits pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act and if so, what value and allocation of benefits should be provided in connection with the proposal?

Administrative Considerations

5 If the proposal is approved in whole or in part, should the Tribunal's Order be withheld, upon consensual terms agreed upon by the parties, until such time as:

5.1 a Section 37 Agreement has been executed by the City and appellant and registered on title to the subject lands;

5.2 the draft zoning by-laws have been reviewed and revised from a technical perspective until they have a form and content that is to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division, and the City Solicitor;

5.3 an updated rail safety study has been provided to address Community Planning comments and peer reviewed, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division;

5.4 an updated pedestrian level wind study has been provided to address Community Planning comments, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division; and

5.5 the appellant has provided the City with the total cost of the peer reviews?

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

IN CHIEF:

1. In Chief – i2Developments

Cross-Examination:

(a) Sequoia

(b) City of Toronto

Re-examination:

(c) I2Developments

2. In Chief – Sequoia

Cross-Examination:

(a) i2Developments

(b) City of Toronto

Re-examination:

(c) Sequoia

3. In Chief – City of Toronto

Cross-Examination:

(a) i2Developments

(b) Sequoia

Re-examination:

(c) City of Toronto

REPLY:

4. i2Developments

Cross-Examination:

(a) City of Toronto

(b) Sequoia

Re-examination:

(c) i2Developments

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.