Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 21, 2021

CASE NO(S).: PL200396

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

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

Applicant and Appellant: 1322104 Ontario Inc.

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 and Etobicoke Zoning Code - Refusal or neglect of City of Toronto to make a decision

Existing Zoning: Zoning By-law: 569-2013 - RM(u4)(x2) Etobicoke Zoning Code – RM-1

Proposed Zoning: Zoning By-law: 569-2013 - RM(u4)(x2) Site Specific Etobicoke Zoning Code – RM-1 Site Specific

Purpose: To permit the redevelopment of the Site into 14, back-to-back, 3-bedroom townhouse units

Property Address/Description: 80 Thirtieth Street

Municipality: City of Toronto

Municipality File No.: 19 262483 WET 03 OZ

LPAT Case No.: PL200396

LPAT File No.: PL200396

LPAT Case Name: 1322104 Ontario Inc. v. Toronto (City)

Heard: June 10, 2021 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

1322104 Ontario Inc. (“Applicant”)

Luke Johnston Michael Nemanic

City of Toronto (“City”)

Lauren Pinder

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY T. PREVEDEL ON JUNE 10, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1This is the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) dealing with Appeals from 1322104 Ontario Inc (“the Applicant”) pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) against the City’s failure to make a decision on the applications within the prescribed timeframes of the Act.

2The Applicant filed an application with the City to amend the Zoning By-law to permit the redevelopment of the lands at 80 Thirtieth Street with a 14-unit townhouse development.

3At the previous CMC held on March 3, 2021, the Tribunal granted Participant status to FCA Canada, represented by Katie Butler, on consent of the Parties.

PARTY AND PARTICIPANT STATUS

4Four residents in attendance at the last CMC also requested Participant status in the proceedings, and they were advised to prepare and file a Participant Status Request Form with the Tribunal to confirm their interest and to outline the nature of their concerns with the proposal. To date, the Tribunal has received three Participant statements, one each from Lee-Anne Seale, Cameron Fawcett and Patricia Jackson.

5Based on a review of the concerns raised by the above individuals, the Tribunal adds Lee-Anne Seale, Cameron Fawcett and Patricia Jackson as participants to the proceedings.

6Mr. Serafini confirmed to the Tribunal that he is representing, as a friend, the four families living at 69, 71, 73 and 75 Thirty Second Street. He confirmed he would not be providing witness statements or testimony in his field of expertise, which is architecture. He requested Party status for;

• Kalden Ngodup and Karma Yangchen, 69 Thirty Second Street
• Alfred and Paula Engelhardt, 71 Thirty Second Street
• Tenzin Yangka and Dawa Dbondup, 73 Thirty Second Street, and
• Kathleen Ivey and William Sneddon, 75 Thirty Second Street

7On consent of the Parties, Party status was granted to the above individuals. Mr. Serafini will act as their representative, but it was agreed that should it be necessary for him to provide evidence to the Tribunal, the residents would retain legal counsel and he would step down as a representative.

PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST

8A draft Procedural Order and Issues List was submitted to the Tribunal in advance of the CMC. The Parties are in general agreement with the document, except for paragraph 21, which specifies a deadline for submission of any proposed revisions to the application. Counsel for the Applicant and the City provided their views to the Tribunal on how much time should be allowed. The City had suggested 30 days would be sufficient whereas Mr. Johnston made submissions to the Tribunal that a 90-day deadline would better facilitate a settlement of this matter

9In consideration that this is a modest development and that settlement discussions are ongoing, the Tribunal ruled that a deadline of 90 days would be sufficient and in-line with precedent.

10With respect to the Issues List, the Parties were asked to finalize the list at the same time as the PO is finalized, and to consult jointly with Mr. Serafini.

11There was a concern raised by Mr. Johnston regarding Item 4 of Mr. Serafini’s Issues, which read as follows:

“In the event the proposed development is approved in whole or in part, what conditions would be appropriate, and should the Tribunal Order be withheld until the City Solicitor has indicated that the following conditions have been satisfied:

• The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is in a final form satisfactory to the residents of Thirty Second Street Parties,
• The owner is to provide a revised hydrological study addressing possible adverse effects of restrictions to ground water movement on adjacent properties to the west, and
• The owner has submitted a revised Landscape Plan, detailing all screening and privacy structures accommodating concerns for adjacent properties at 69, 71, 73 and 75 Thirty Second Street.

12Mr. Serafini told the Tribunal that, should the Appellant and the City reach a settlement, he wished to ensure that the properties he was representing had some assurance that their concerns would be dealt with appropriately.

13Mr. Johnston told the Tribunal that these conditions would be prejudicial to his client as it would put undue control to a third party which could be difficult to resolve.

14The Tribunal agreed with Mr. Johnston that the imposition of such a condition does not represent good planning as it renders the process arbitrary and empowers private landowners inappropriately as they could effectively prevent the development simply by refusing to accept the final form of the ZBA. The Tribunal also indicated to Mr. Serafini that the City has experience in these matters and would ensure that appropriate standards are met.

15For the record, Mr. Serafini voiced his objection to striking Item 4 from the draft Issues List.

OPPORTUNITY FOR MEDIATION

16The Parties were asked if they still wished to pursue mediation in advance of the Hearing. All Parties advised they were still willing to consider this and will contact the Case Coordinator at Ontario Land Tribunals if they wish to apply for Tribunal assisted mediation.

17Ms. Butler, representing FCA Canada, also stated they are still pursuing mediation and are hoping to resolve issues amicably.

ORGANIZATION OF THE HEARING

18The Appellant has suggested he would be calling two to three witnesses. The City also will be calling up to three witnesses. Mr. Serafini stated he may be calling a planner/architect or legal counsel if required.

19On consent of the Parties, it was agreed that eight days would be required for the Hearing.

20Parties 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/481779309

Access code: 481-779-309

21Parties 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 a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

22Persons 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: Canada (Toll Free): 1 (888) 455-1389 and Canada: +1 (647) 497-9391. The access code is 481-779-309 .

23Individuals 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

24The proceedings shall be governed by Schedule 1 hereto.

25An eight-day Hearing is scheduled to proceed by video conference starting on Monday, March 28, 2022.

26The Parties are to inform the Case Coordinator should there be any changes as a result of discussions regarding a potential settlement.

27This Member is not seized, but may assist with case management, schedule permitting.

28No further notice will be given.

“Tony Prevedel”

TONY PREVEDEL

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.

Ontario Land Tribunal

Procedural Order

ISSUE DATE: CASE NO.: PL200396

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

Applicant and Appellant: 1322104 Ontario Inc.

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 and Etobicoke Zoning Code – Refusal or neglect of City of Toronto to make a decision

Proposed Zoning: Zoning By-law: 569-2013 – RM(u4)(x2) Site Specific Etobicoke Zoning Code – RM-1 Site Specific

Purpose: To permit the redevelopment of the Site into 14, back-to-back, 3-bedroom townhouse units

Property Address/Description: 80 Thirtieth St

Municipality: City of Toronto

Municipal File No.: 19 262483 WET 03 OZ

OLT Case No.: PL200369

OLT File No.: PL200369

OLT Case Name: 1322104 Ontario Inc. v. Toronto (City)

1. The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the Parties’ request or its own motion.

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will begin on March 28, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.

3. The length of the hearing will be about 8 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) may have at least one meeting before the hearing to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. If experts witnesses engage in a meeting, they may 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 seventy five (75) days before the hearing is scheduled to commence (on or before December 14, 2021), 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 the party intends to call. This list must be delivered at least one hundred and twenty (120) calendar days before the hearing (on or before November 15, 2021). For expert witnesses, a Party is to identify the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified and provide their curriculum vitae. Any challenges to the witness, including qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence in the area of expertise proposed, shall be made by motion in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules and notice of same must be served on the other Parties on or before (on or before December 6, 2021) (100 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 (60) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (January 21, 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 (January 21, 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 sixty (60) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (January 21, 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. At least forty-five (45) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (February 10, 2022), the parties may provide to all other parties and file with the City 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. On or before thirty (30) days before the commencement of the hearing (February 25, 2022), the Parties shall prepare and file a detailed Work Plan that identifies the following, at a minimum: the identified parties participating in the Hearing Event, preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the date a witness is intended to attend the Tribunal, the identified witness name/expertise, and the approximate time allotted for Examination in Chief, Cross Examination and any re-examination (if any) (the “Work Plan”). The Work Plan should be adhered to guide the Hearing Event to the best ability of all the Parties, and any and all witnesses shall be available on the identified date(s), unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the Work Plan throughout the Hearing Event.

20. The Parties shall prepare a Joint Document Book on or before March 8, 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 22.

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 (on or before December 15, 2021), 90 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. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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 Tony Prevedel Date: July 7, 2021

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
November 15, 2021 (120 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
December 6, 2021 (100 days prior to hearing)	Last date to challenge identification of expert witness
December 15, 2021 (30 days before Witness Statement Date)	Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any)
January 13, 2021 (75 days prior to hearing)	Experts meeting prior to this date
January 13, 2022 (75 days prior to hearing)	Agreed Statement of Facts
January 28, 2022 (60 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
January 28, 2022 (60 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
February 10, 2022 (45 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
February 25, 2022 (30 days prior to hearing)	Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal
March 8, 2022 (20 days prior to hearing)	Finalize Joint Document Book
March 28, 2022	Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

A. PARTIES

*Counsel/Agent

1. 1322104 Ontario Inc. (Appellant/Applicant)

Luke Johnston / Michael Nemanic Dunpar Homes 105 Six Point Road, Toronto, ON M8Z 2X3 E-mail: l.johnston@dunpar.ca / m.nemanic@dunpar.ca Tel.: 416-236-9800 x256 Fax: 416-236-9080 x232

2. City of Toronto

Lauren Pinder / Joanna Wice City of Toronto, Legal Services Metro Hall, 26th Floor 55 John Street Toronto, Ontario M5V 3C6 E-mail: lauren.pinder@toronto.ca / joanna.wice@toronto.ca Tel: 416-392-0797 / 416-397-5737 Fax: 416-397-5624

3. Kalden Ngodup & Karma Yangchen 69 Thirty Second Street Alfred & Paula Engelhardt 71 Thirty Second Street Tenzin Yangka & Dawa Dhondup 73 Thirty Second Street Kathleen Ivey & William Sneddon 75 Thirty Second Street

Frank Serafini *Agent Francesco Serafini Architect Inc. 222 Islington Avenue, Suite 260 Toronto, ON M8V 3W7 E-mail: frank@fsarchitect.ca Tel.: 416 236-7503 #101 Fax: N/A

B. PARTICIPANTS

1. FCA Canada Inc. Katie Butler Borden Ladner Gervais LLP 22 Adelaide St. W Toronto, ON M5H 4E3 Email: kbutler@blg.com Tel.: 416-367-6353 Fax.: 416-367-6749

2. Cameron Fawcett 416-898-6450 Cameron.a.fawcett@gmail.com

3. Lee-Anne Seale 647-281-5503 leeannegalloway@mac.com

4. Patricia Jackson 416-805-4857 Pfj_5532@rogers.com

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUES LIST

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

A. City of Toronto

Issue 1. Do the proposed townhouse development's proposed setbacks, height and transition as contained in the proposed zoning by-law amendment represent good planning? In particular:

(a) Does it have appropriate regard for Toronto Townhouse and Low-Rise Apartment Guidelines and the Long Branch Neighbourhood Character Guidelines?

(b) Does it conform with policies 3.1.2.1, 3.1.2.2, 3.1.2.3, 4.1.5, and 4.1.9 of the City of Toronto Official Plan?

(c) Does it conform with policy 2.2.1 of A Place to Grow: the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020)?

(d) Is it consistent with policy 1.1.3.4 of the Provincial Policy Statement?

(e) Does it have regard for the matter of provincial interest set out at subsection 2(h), 2(p) and 2(r) of the Planning Act?

Issue 2. Would the approval of the proposed development represent good planning with particular regard to the shadow, overlook, and privacy impacts of the proposed development on the adjacent low-rise Neighbourhood? In particular:

(a) Does it have appropriate regard for Toronto Townhouse and Low-Rise Apartment Guidelines and the Long Branch Neighbourhood Character Guidelines guideline?

(b) Does it conform with policies 3.1.2.1, 3.1.2.2, 3.1.2.3 and 4.1.9 of the City of Toronto Official Plan?

(c) Does it conform with policy 2.2.1 of A Place to Grow: the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020)?

(d) Does it have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out at subsection 2(h) and 2(r) of the Planning Act?

Issue 3. Does the proposed site organization, layout, building siting and orientation of the buildings represent good planning? In particular:

(a) Does it have appropriate regard for Toronto Townhouse and Low-Rise Apartment Guidelines and the Long Branch Neighbourhood Character Guidelines guideline?

(b) Does it conform with policies 3.1.1, 3.1.2.1, 3.1.2.2, 3.1.2.3, 4.1.5, 4.1.9, and 4.1.10 of the City of Toronto Official Plan?

(c) Does it conform with policies 1.2.1, 2.2.1, 5.2.5.6, and 6.3.2 of A Place to Grow: the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020)?

(d) Does it have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out at subsection 2(h) and 2(r) of the Planning Act?

Issue 4. Does the proposed development's relationship with the public realm, streetscape and streetscape improvements represent good planning? In particular:

(a) Does it have appropriate regard for Toronto Townhouse and Low-Rise Apartment Guidelines and the Long Branch Neighbourhood Character Guidelines guideline?

(b) Does it conform with policies 3.1.1, 3.1.2.1, 3.1.2.3 and 4.1.9 of the City of Toronto Official Plan?

(c) Does it conform with policies 1.2.1, 2.2.1, 5.2.5.6 and 6.3.2 of A Place to Grow: the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020)?

(d) Does it have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out at subsection 2(h), 2(h.1), 2(o) and 2(r) of the Planning Act?

(e) Does it have appropriate regard for meet the requirements of the Toronto Green Standard?

(f) Does it meet the requirements of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act?

Issue 5. Does the proposed development appropriately and sensitively response to the existing and planned neighbourhood context in which it is proposed including the existing physical character, such that it represents good planning? In particular:

(a) Does it have appropriate regard for Toronto Townhouse and Low-Rise Apartment Guidelines and the Long Branch Neighbourhood Character Guidelines?

(b) Does it conform with policies 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 4.1.5, and 4.1.9 of the Toronto OP?

Issue 6. Is the proposed townhouse development's provision of amenity space as contained in the proposed zoning by-law amendment good planning? In particular:

(a) Does it have appropriate regard for Toronto Townhouse and Low-Rise Apartment Guidelines?

Issue 7. Is the proposed zoning by-law amendment premature until such time that the relationship between the proposed townhouse and adjacent rail corridor has been determined to be good planning? In particular:

(a) Does it have appropriate regard for the Guidelines for New Development in Proximity to Railway Operations and the report Land Use Study: Development in Proximity to Railway Operations, including securing a peer review of any associated reports in relation to the proposal?

(b) Does it conform with policies 2.2.4.5 and 3.4.21 of the City of Toronto Official Plan?

(c) Is it consistent with policies 1.1.1, 1.1.3.4, and 1.2.6 of the Provincial Policy Statement?

(d) Does it have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out at subsection 2(h) and 2(r) of the Planning Act?

Issue 9. In the event the proposed development is approved in whole or in part, what conditions would be appropriate and should the Tribunal Order be withheld until the City Solicitor has indicated that the following conditions have been satisfied:

(a) The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is in a final form satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor;

(b) The owner has agreed to the peer review of the Derailment Protection Report by the City's Peer Reviewer, at the owner's expense, to determine the appropriate building setback from the rail corridor and mitigation measures to the satisfaction of Metrolinx, the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor;

(c) The owner has submitted a revised Environmental Noise and Vibration Assessment to be further peer reviewed at the owner's expense and resolved to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor;

(d) The owner has submitted a revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report to determine the stormwater runoff, sanitary flow and water supply demand resulting from this development and whether there is adequate capacity in the existing municipal infrastructure to accommodate the proposed development to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;

(e) The owner has entered into the appropriate agreement with the City for the design, construction and provision of financial securities for any improvements to the municipal infrastructure to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, should it be determined that improvements or upgrades are required to the infrastructure to accommodate this development;

(f) The owner has provided space within the development for the installation of maintenance access holes and sampling ports on the private side, as close to the property line as possible, for both the storm and sanitary service connections, in accordance with the Sewers By-law Chapter 681;

(g) The owner has submitted a revised Transportation Operations Review to the satisfaction to the General Manager, Transportation Services; and

(h) The owner has submitted a revised Landscape Plan, all requirements and related approval processes of the City’s Tree By-laws have been completed and all Tree Preservation matters are resolved to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation.

B. Kalden Ngodup & Karma Yangchen, 69 Thirty Second Street

Alfred & Paula Engelhardt, 71 Thirty Second Street Tenzin Yangka & Dawa Dhondup, 73 Thirty Second Street Kathleen Ivey & William Sneddon, 75 Thirty Second Street

Residents of the properties on Thirty Second Street, which abut the western edge of the subject property, support the issues identified by the City of Toronto as particularly applicable to the residents, more particularly identified in Attachment 2, List of Parties and Participants, Row 3. However, the following issues are emphasized as particularly pertinent to the Thirty Second Street residents, identified in Attachment 2, List of Parties.

The identification of shared issues 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 Tribunal at the hearing. The Thirty Second Street residents identified, reserve the right to address issues to the Tribunal directly should other parties arrive at an agreement that is not satisfactory.

Issue 1

Do the proposed townhouse development's including proposed setbacks, height and transition as contained in the proposed zoning by-law amendment represent good planning? More specifically;

a) Does it have appropriate regard for Toronto Townhouse and Low-Rise Apartment Guidelines and the Long Branch Neighbourhood Character Guidelines? Particularly with regard to site context, site organization and building design?

b) Does it conform with City of Toronto Official Plan policies 3.1.2.1 dealing with fit within existing neighbourhood context, 3.1.2.2 dealing with vehicle parking, 3.1.2.3 dealing with massing, scale, context, 4.1.5 reinforcing existing physical character of geographical neighbourhood, and 4.1.9 dealing with infill development within existing neighbourhoods?

c) Does it conform with policy 2.2.1 (Managing Growth) of A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020)?

Issue 2

Would the approval of the proposed development represent good planning with particular regard to the shadow, overlook, and privacy impacts of the proposed development on the adjacent low-rise Neighbourhood?

a) Does it have appropriate regard for Toronto Townhouse and Low-Rise Apartment Guidelines and the Long Branch Neighbourhood Character Guidelines guideline? Particularly as it pertains to the noted issues.

b) Does it conform with policies 3.1.2.1, 3.1.2.2, 3.1.2.3 and 4.1.9 of the City of Toronto Official Plan?

Issue 3

Does the proposed development appropriately and sensitively response to the existing neighbourhood context in which it is proposed including the existing physical character? In particular:

(a) Does it have appropriate regard for Toronto Townhouse and Low-Rise Apartment Guidelines and the Long Branch Neighbourhood Character Guidelines?

(b) Does it conform with policies 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 4.1.5, and 4.1.9 of the Toronto Official Plan?

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.

A. Evidence-in-Chief

1. 1322104 Ontario Inc. (Applicant/Appellant)
2. City of Toronto
3. Thirty Second Street Residents (if required)
4. 1322104 Ontario Inc. (Applicant/Appellant) in reply.

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.