Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

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.

ISSUE DATE: July 28, 2021

CASE NO(S).: PL200603

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

Applicant and Appellant: Ashley Heritage Joint Venture & 840966 Ontario Ltd

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 270-2004 - neglect of the City of Brampton to make a decision

Existing Zoning: Agricultural (A)

Proposed Zoning: Residential, Industrial and Open Space, with the exception of two “Future Development” blocks,

Purpose: To permit 232 single detached dwellings, a parkette, a school block, a stormwater management block, open space and environmental buffer blocks, future commercial blocks, and a future condominium block.

Property Address/Description: 8331 Heritage Road

Municipality: City of Brampton

Municipality File No.: C05W02.008

LPAT Case No.: PL200603

LPAT File No.: PL200603

LPAT Case Name: Ashley Heritage Joint Venture & 840966 Ontario Ltd v. Brampton (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Ashley Heritage Joint Venture & 840966 Ontario Ltd

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of City of Brampton to make a decision

Purpose: To permit residential and commercial development

Property Address/Description: 8331 Heritage Road

Municipality: City of Brampton

Municipality File No.: 21T-190115B

LPAT Case No.: PL200603

LPAT File No.: PL200604

Heard: July 20, 2021 by telephone conference call

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Ashley Heritage Joint Venture and 840966 Ontario Ltd.	Pittman Patterson and Lee English
City of Brampton	Matthew Rea
Maple Lodge Farms	Albert Engle

DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BRAUN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This Telephone Conference Call (“TCC”) was convened by the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”) for the purpose of obtaining a status update in the matter of appeals by Ashley Heritage Joint Venture and 840966 Ontario Ltd. (“Applicant/Appellant”) from the failure of Council of the City of Brampton to make a decision on an application to amend Zoning By-law No. 270-2004 (“ZBA”) and a proposed Plan of Subdivision for the property located at 8331 Heritage Road, Block 40-3, in the City of Brampton (“subject lands”). The purpose and effect of the proposed ZBA is to permit the development of 282 residential units on approximately 23 hectares (“ha”) of developable lands.

2At a previous TCC held on May 4, 2021, the parties expressed an interest in pursuing Tribunal-assisted mediation and there was optimism that the matters under appeal could be resolved through that process. Two further TCCs were scheduled at that time (July 20 and September 30, 2021).

3The purpose of today’s TCC was for the parties to provide the Tribunal a status update and, if necessary, to finalize a draft Procedural Order (“PO”). The September 30, 2021 hearing event was reserved in the event a settlement of the appeals could be reached.

PARTY/PARTICIPANT REQUESTS

4The Tribunal received no new requests for party or participant status.

UPDATE ON MEDIATION

5The Tribunal was advised that the parties have secured the following dates to participate in Tribunal-assisted mediation: Thursday, September 23 and Monday, September 27, 2021.

6The foregoing, in turn, impacts upon the ability of the parties to provide an update or present any settlement to the Tribunal at the currently scheduled TCC on Thursday, September 30, 2021. Consequently, the parties requested that the Tribunal release the Thursday, September 30, 2021 TCC date in the hearing calendar and schedule a further CMC date in November 2021.

7Although the parties are optimistic that the upcoming mediation will lead to a settlement of all issues, out of an abundance of caution, they also requested the Tribunal schedule a three-week hearing in 2022.

PROCEDURAL ORDER/ISSUES LIST

8The parties submitted a draft Procedural Order (“PO”), which was reviewed and revised by the Tribunal. The revision, discussed in more detail below, relates to a deadline to submit a written request for a hearing format conversion, as specified in paragraph 2.

9With the exception of a preliminary Issues List which, on the consent of the parties, shall remain open for changes, including the addition of new issues until a finalized Issues List is submitted on or before October 31, 2021, the Tribunal is satisfied with the revised PO (appended as Attachment 1), which shall govern these proceedings leading up to and including the scheduled hearing.

SUBSEQUENT HEARING EVENTS

10At the request of the parties, the Tribunal released the currently scheduled September 30, 2021 TCC from the hearing calendar and scheduled a one-day CMC to be held by videoconference on Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 10 a.m.

11The purpose of the CMC is for the Tribunal to receive an update following the parties’ participation in the mediation sessions scheduled for September 23 and 27, 2021 or, in the alternative, if advised that the parties have reached a settlement or partial settlement, the CMC may be converted to a settlement hearing.

12The Tribunal also scheduled a 14-day hearing to be held by videoconference, commencing at 10 a.m. on Monday, October 31, 2022. It should be noted that the Tribunal will not sit on Friday, November 11, 2022, in observance of Remembrance Day.

13Should a settlement be achieved or issues resolved/scoped such that the number of days allocated for the hearing can be reduced or eliminated altogether, the parties are directed to advise the Tribunal accordingly as soon as practicable, so the dates may be released from the hearing calendar.

14Although the hearing is scheduled to be held by videoconference, the parties indicated a preference for an in-person hearing should COVID-19 restrictions be lifted in the future. The parties were directed to submit a written request for the Tribunal’s consideration in this regard by a date to be specified in the draft PO. Paragraph 2 of the draft PO specified a deadline of Saturday, August 27, 2022, which the Tribunal revised to Friday, August 26, 2022.

15The hearings are scheduled to proceed by video as follows:

Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 10 a.m. https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/846730013 Access code: 846-730-013 Audio-only telephone line: (647) 497-9373 or Toll Free 1-888-299-1889 Audio-only access code: 846-730-013

Monday, October 31, 2022 at 10 a.m. GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/793741029 Access code: 793-741-029 Audio-only line: (647) 497-9373 or Toll Free 1-888-299-1889 Audio-only access code: 793-741-029

16Parties 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:

17Parties 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.

18Persons 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.

19Individuals 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 CMC 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.

OTHER MATTERS

20The Tribunal inquired as to whether there were any other matters to be addressed which might assist in the fair, just and expeditious resolution of this matter. The Parties indicated there were none.

ORDER

21The Tribunal orders the following:

a) a further CMC will be held by videoconference at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, November 10, 2021.

b) a 14-day hearing will be held by videoconference commencing at 10 a.m. on Monday, October 31, 2022.

c) No further notice will be given and this Member is not seized.

“S. Braun”

S. BRAUN 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

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 28, 2021 CASE NO(S).: PL200603 PL200604

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

Applicant and Appellant: Ashley Heritage Joint Venture & 840966 Ontario Ltd

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 270-2004 - neglect of the City of Brampton to make a decision

Existing Zoning: Agricultural (A)

Proposed Zoning: Residential, Industrial and Open Space, with the exception of two “Future Development” blocks,

Purpose: To permit 232 single detached dwellings, a parkette, a school block, a stormwater management block, open space and environmental buffer blocks, future commercial blocks, and a future condominium block.

Property Address/Description: 8331 Heritage Road

Municipality: City of Brampton

Municipality File No.: C05W02.008

OLT Case No.: PL200603

OLT File No.: PL200603

OLT Case Name: Ashley Heritage Joint Venture & 840966 Ontario Ltd v. Brampton (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Ashley Heritage Joint Venture & 840966 Ontario Ltd

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of City of Brampton to make a decision

Purpose: To permit residential and commercial development

Property Address/Description: 8331 Heritage Road

Municipality: City of Brampton

Municipality File No.: 21T-190115B

OLT Case No.: PL200603

OLT File No.: PL200604

The Tribunal orders that:

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

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will begin on October 31, 2022 at 10 a.m. The Tribunal may, on the request of the parties, which request must be submitted to the Tribunal no later than August 26, 2022, convert the video hearing to an in-person hearing to be held at a venue to be secured by the City of Brampton or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 14 days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlement on issues where possible.

4. The parties and participants (see Attachment 1 for the meaning of these terms) are listed in in Attachment 2 to this Order.

5. The Preliminary Issues are set out in the Preliminary Issues List attached as Attachment 3 to this Order. The parties will attempt to the resolve the appeals and associated issues through mediation and it is anticipated that issues may be added, revised or removed upon completion of the mediation process. The parties shall finalize the issues list following mediation and submit the final Issues List to the Tribunal no later than October 31, 2021.

6. The order of evidence shall be as listed 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 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 phone number as soon as possible.

8. 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.

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal, the other parties and to the City Clerk a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before August 8, 2022 and in accordance with paragraph 23 below. For expert witnesses, a party is to include a copy of the curriculum vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified. Any challenges to the qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence in the area of expertise proposed should be made by motion in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules and notice of such a motion must be served on the other Parties on or before August 17, 2022.

10. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before August 24, 2022 to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the parties shall prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before October 17, 2022.

11. An expert witness shall prepare an Expert Witness Statement that shall include: an acknowledgement of expert’s duty form, the area(s) of expertise, any reports prepared by the expert, and any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 13 below. Instead of an Expert Witness Statement, the expert may file their entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.

12. 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 and their area of expertise, as in paragraph 13 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 13 below.

13. On or before September 16, 2022, the parties shall provide copies of their Witness and/or Expert Witness Statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

14. On or before September 16, 2022, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

15. On or before October 7, 2022, the parties shall provide copies of Reply Witness Statements, if any, to the other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

16. On or before October 17, 2022, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator in accordance with paragraph 23 below. If a model is proposed to be used, the Tribunal must be notified before the hearing. All parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

17. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before October 21, 2022.

18. Any documents which may be used by a party in cross examination of an opposing party’s witness shall be password protected and only become accessible to the Tribunal and the other parties if it is introduced as evidence at the hearing. Any such document on which a cross-examining party intends to rely shall be provided to the Tribunal and all other parties, password protected, before 10:00 am on the day of that cross examination.

19. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

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

21. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before October 21, 2022 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 in the course of the hearing.

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 August 8, 2022. Any revisions to the proposal after that date, which revisions do not narrow or resolve issue(s) in the appeal, may be grounds for a request to adjourn the hearing.

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

24. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

25. A summary of the various filing dates is contained in Attachment 5.

This Member is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE: Name of Member: Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

ATTACHMENT 1

MEANING OF TERMS USED IN THE PROCEDURAL ORDER

A party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. An unincorporated group cannot be a party and it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorisation from the party.

NOTE that a person who wishes to become a party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

A participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.

A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.

Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

A witness statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which he or she will discuss ; and a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons supporting their opinions and conclusions and (5) a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the participant’s position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submissions of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports or materials, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.

Additional Information

A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.

The order of examination of witnesses is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:

• direct examination by the party presenting the witness;
• direct examination by any party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;
• cross-examination by parties of opposite interest;
• re-examination by the party presenting the witness; or
• another order of examination mutually agreed among the parties or directed by the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF APPELLANTS, PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

APPELLANTS

Ashley Heritage Joint Venture & 840966 Ontario Ltd. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Bay Adelaide Centre, East Tower 22 Adelaide Street West, Suite 3400 Toronto, ON, Canada M5H 4E3

Pitman Patterson Tel: (416) 367-6109 Email: ppatterson@blg.com

Lee English Tel: (416) 367-6169 Email: lenglish@blg.com

PARTIES

City of Brampton City of Brampton Legislative Services Department Legal Services 2 Wellington Street West Brampton, ON L6Y 4R2

Matthew Rea Tel: (905) 874-2626 Email: matthew.rea@brampton.ca

Maple Lodge Farms Fogler, Rubinoff LLP 77 King Street West Suite 3000, P.O. Box 95 TD Centre North Tower Toronto, ON M5K 1G8

Albert Engel Tel: (416) 864-7602 Email: aengel@foglers.com

Joel Farber Tel: (416) 365-3707 Email: jfarber@foglers.com

PARTICIPANTS

Ghulam Farooq Tareen 88 Little Britain Crescent Brampton, ON L6Y 6A8 Tel: 905-670-7471 Email: tareenfarooq@hotmail.com

ATTACHMENT 3

PRELIMINARY ISSUES LIST

Ashley Heritage and City of Brampton Issues

Planning Act

1. Do the applications to amend Zoning By-law No. 270-2004 and for a proposed Plan of Subdivision for the property located at 8331 Heritage Road, Block 40-3, in the City of Brampton (“Applications”) have regard for matters of provincial interest set out in section 2 of the Planning Act, including s. 2(a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (o), (p), (q) and (r)?

Provincial Policy Statement, 2020

2. Are the Applications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, including policies 1.1.1(a), (b), (c), (e), (g), (h) and (i); 1.1.3.1; 1.1.3.2(a), (b), (c), (d), (e); 1.1.3.3; 1.1.3.4; 1.1.3.6; 1.1.3.7; 1.2.1(a), (c), (d), and (h); 1.2.6.1; 1.2.6.2; 1.4.3; 1.5.1; 1.6.1; 1.6.6.1; 1.6.6.7; 1.6.7.4; 1.7.1(b), (c), (e), and (k); 1.8.1; 2.1.1; and 2.1.2?

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

3. Do the Applications conform with the Growth Plan, including policies 2.2.1.2; 2.2.1.4; 2.2.5.8; 2.2.6.1; 2.2.6.2; 2.2.7; 3.2.1.1; 3.2.1.1; 3.2.7.2; 3.2.8.1; and 4.2.2.6?

Region of Peel Official Plan

4. Do the Applications conform with the Region of Peel Official Plan, including policies 2.2.3.2.2; 2.2.3.3.7; 2.2.5.1.1; 3.4.2.1; 5.3.1.3; 5.3.1.4; 5.3.1.5; 5.3.2.2; 5.5.2.2; 5.5.2.3; 5.5.3.2.2; 5.5.3.2.3; 5.5.4.1; 5.5.4.1.2; 5.5.4.1.3; 5.5.4.13; 5.5.4.2.2; 5.5.2.4; 5.5.4.2.6; 5.8.2.6; 5.9.2.5; 5.9.2.8; 6.4.2.1; 6.4.2.2; 6.4.2.7; 6.5.2.5; and 7.9.2.1?

City of Brampton Official Plan

5. Do the Applications conform with the City of Brampton Official Plan, including policies 3.2.2.2; 3.2.16; and 4.2.A; 4.7.B; 4.5.4; 4.5.6?

Bram West Secondary Plan Chapter 40(d)

6. Do the Applications conform with the Bram West Secondary Plan Chapter 40(d) and in particular policy 3.8.6 (Special Policy Area 16)?

Land Use Compatibility

7. What is the appropriate Non-Agricultural Spreading Materials (“NASM”) setback from the Maple Lodge Farms operation?

8. What are the appropriate implementation mechanisms/agreements/policies/ zoning provisions that should be imposed, if any, to address odour emissions from the Maple Leaf Lodge operations, and to provide notice on title of Maple Leaf Lodge facility operations?

General

9. Do the Applications represent good planning?

10. Is the functional servicing report satisfactory?

11. Is the noise report satisfactory?

12. Is the urban design brief satisfactory?

13. Is it appropriate to grant draft plan of subdivision approval for the subject lands without the following heritage aspects having been completed: a. Designation of the McClure Farm property pursuant to section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act; b. The execution and registration of a heritage easement agreement pursuant to section 37 of the Ontario Heritage Act?

14. Is the form of zoning by-law amendment appropriate?

15. Does the draft plan of subdivision have regard for the criteria in section 51(24) of the Planning Act?

16. Are the form of draft plan of subdivision and proposed conditions of approval appropriate?

Maple Lodge Farm Issues

Planning Act, June 2021 Consolidation

17. Does the proposal have regard for matters of provincial interest set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including, but not limited to s. (h), (l), (n), (o), and (p).

18. Does the proposal have regard for matters set out in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act, including but not limited to s. (a), (b), (c), (d), and (g).

Provincial Policy Statement, May 2020

19. Is the Proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, including, but not limited to the following policies: a. Policy 1.1.1 c): Does the Proposal avoid development and land use patterns which may cause environmental or public health and safety concerns? b. Policy 1.1.3.4: Is the Ashley subdivision planned in a manner that will avoid or mitigate risks to public health and safety. c. Policy 1.2.6.1: Is the Ashley subdivision planned in a manner that will minimize and mitigate any potential adverse effects from the Maple Lodge major facility? d. Policy 1.2.6.2: Has Ashley demonstrated, in accordance with provincial guidelines, standards and procedures, including the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines, that adverse effects to the proposed sensitive land use are minimized and mitigated and potential impacts to industrial, manufacturing or other uses are minimized and mitigated? e. Policy 1.3.1 c): Will the Ashley subdivision harm the suitability of the Maple Lodge major facility including future investment and expansion opportunities?

Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2019, August 2020 Consolidation

20. Does the Proposal conform to the Growth Plan for the Great Golden Horseshoe including, but not limited to the following: a. 2.2.5.7c): Does the Proposal provide an appropriate interface between employment areas and adjacent non-employment areas to maintain land use compatibility? b. 2.2.5.8: Is the Proposal in accordance with provincial guidelines to avoid, minimize and mitigate adverse impacts on the Processing Facility that is particularly vulnerable to encroachment?

Region of Peel Official Plan, December 2018 Consolidation

21. Does the Proposal conform to the Region of Peel Official Plan including, but not limited to the following: a. 5.1.3.1: In planning for major facilities (i.e. industrial activities) and sensitive land uses, is the Ashley subdivision appropriately design, buffered and/or separated from each other to present adverse effects from odour, noise, and other contaminants? b. 5.6.1.6: Does the Proposal properly plan for the protection and preservation of employment areas for employment uses? c. 5.6.2.6: Does the Proposal protect employment areas (i.e. industrial lands) for employment uses, as defined and designated in the Brampton Official Plan?

City of Brampton Official Plan, September 2020 Consolidation

22. Does the Proposal conform to the City of Brampton Official Plan, including, but not limited to the following: a. 4.4 i): Does the Proposal provide for a land use pattern to ensure that industries and sensitive land uses are appropriately designed, buffered and/or separated from each other? b. 4.4.2.21: Does the Proposal avoid the introduction of additional uses which are incompatible with heavy industrial activities such as those occurring at the Processing Facility? c. 4.4.2.23: Does the Proposal give due regard to the minimization of impacts in accordance with the Urban Design and Natural Heritage and Environmental Management sections of the Plan? d. 5.32.3: Has Ashley submitted all of the information and material required to be submitted as part of its applications for zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision to assess land use compatibility with the Processing Facility and other activities carried on within the Maple Lodge Lands, and is such information and material supportable and sufficient to support the Proposal? e. 5.33.2: Has Ashley submitted all of the information and material in support of its applications for zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision to assess impacts associated with the Processing Facility and other activities carried on within the Maple Lodge Lands, and is such information and material supportable and sufficient to support the Proposal?

Bram West Secondary Plan Chapter 40(d), January 2019 Consolidation

23. Does the Proposal conform with the Bram West Secondary Plan, including, but not limited to the following? a. 3.8.6: i. Have appropriate site specific separation distances between the Subject Lands and the Maple Lodge Lands been established? ii. Have all appropriate technical studies and peer reviews been completed to support a separation distance between the fields and residential areas within Special Policy Area 16? iii. Is approval of the Proposal premature until a proper assessment of the existing and future expansion potential of the Processing Facility and other opportunities for the Maple Lodge Lands been appropriately addressed and considered? b. Has there been compliance with the obligations set out in Special Policy Area 16 regarding the need for the City of Brampton to actively work with and seek the cooperation to the satisfaction of all interested stakeholders, including the Province, Maple Lodge Farms and the proponents of development within Special Policy Area 16 as it relates to the reconsideration of the separation distance between the Maple Lodge Farms fields and residential uses? c. Should the current separation standards under the Nutrient Management Act and its regulations be the only consideration when evaluating the requirements of Special Policy Area 16 or is it appropriate to consider other Provincial, Regional and local Municipal regulations, standards, and policies when evaluating the appropriateness of reducing the current minimum separation distance?

General

24. Do the Draft Plan of Subdivision and associated Zoning By-Law Amendment, as proposed, represent good planning?

25. What are the appropriate Draft Plan of Subdivision conditions of approval?

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 Tribunal at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing.

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Ashley Heritage Joint Venture & 840966 Ontario Ltd.
2. Maple Lodge Farms
3. City of Brampton
4. Ashley Heritage Joint Venture & 840966 Ontario Ltd., in reply

ATTACHMENT 5

SUMMARY OF KEY DATES

DATE	EVENT
August 8, 2022 (84 days prior to hearing)	Applicant to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any)
August 26, 2022	Deadline for parties to request Tribunal convert video hearing to in-person hearing.
August 17, 2022 (75 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
August 24, 2022 (68 days prior to hearing)	Experts meeting prior to this date
September 16, 2022 (45 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
October 7, 2022 (24 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
October 17, 2022 (14 days prior to hearing)	Agreed Statement of Facts
October 17, 2022 (14 days prior to hearing)	Parties to advise Tribunal is any hearing dates can be released
October 17, 2022 (14 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
October 21, 2022 (10 days prior to hearing)	Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal
October 21, 2022 (10 days prior to hearing)	Finalize Joint Document Book
October 24, 2022 (7 days prior to hearing)	Notice witness will not give oral evidence
October 31, 2022	Hearing commences