Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
November 25, 2022
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-22-002605
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant
Gagnon Walker Domes Ltd. – 190532 Ontario Inc. on behalf of Maninder Mand, Kulwinder Mand and Manmitpal Mand
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description:
To permit the development of two apartment buildings
Reference Number:
OZS-2020-0037
Property Address:
10785, 10799, 10807 and 10817 McLaughlin Road North
Municipality/UT:
Brampton/Peel
OLT Case No:
OLT-22-002605
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-22-002605
OLT Case Name:
190532 Ontario Inc. v. Brampton (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant
Gagnon Walker Domes Ltd. – 190532 Ontario Inc. on behalf of Maninder Mand, Kulwinder Mand and Manmitpal Mand
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description:
To permit the development of two apartment buildings
Reference Number:
OZS-2020-0037
Property Address:
10785, 10799, 10807 and 10817 McLaughlin Road North
Municipality/UT:
Brampton/Peel
OLT Case No:
OLT-22-002606
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-22-002605
Heard:
October 11, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel*/Representative
Gagnon Walker Domes Ltd./1905372 Ontario Inc. et al.
Scott Snider*, Anna Toumanians* (Co-Counsel)
Region of Peel
Arti Sanichara*
Roy Fernandes
Self-represented
Rajiv Warikoo
Self-represented
DECISION DELIVERED BY D. CHIPMAN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision arises from the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) for the appeals brought by Gagnon Walker Domes Ltd./1905372 Ontario Inc. et al. (“Applicant/Appellant”) regarding the failure of the City of Brampton (“City”) to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) to facilitate the development on the lands located at 10785, 10799, 10807, 10817 McLaughlin Road North, pursuant to s. 22(7) OPA and s. 34(11) ZBA of the Planning Act.
2The Applications seeks to permit the development of two apartment buildings, with a maximum height of seven (7) storeys, that will include a total of 150 units and 174 parking spaces. The consolidated properties each contain single detached residential dwellings and accessory structures that will be demolished.
3The Tribunal has received notification from Ms. Sanichara, Region of Peel through an email dated October 4, 2022, that issues of servicing and waste management have been resolved. She indicated that unless there were questions of the Region it would not need to participate further.
HEARING, ISSUES LIST AND PROCEDURAL ORDER
4The Tribunal canvassed the Parties as to the number and areas of expertise of their intended witnesses for the hearing. Counsel for each the Applicant and City indicated that they expect to call 5-6 witnesses. Those self-representing indicated they would call 5 lay persons to provide contextual evidence.
5On the request of counsel, the Tribunal looked to the time period between April and June 2023, as a possible timeframe for the hearing. Based on the draft Procedural Order (“PO”), the anticipated number of witnesses, and the video hearing format, the Tribunal determined that it would be reasonable to schedule the hearing for five (5) days.
6Mr. Warikoo informed the Tribunal that some of his concerns did not make it onto the Issues List. Mr. Snider stated they were out of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Issues relating to the affect of noise on the group home adjacent to the site and property values as a result of the proposed development were declined to be placed on the Issues List.
7Mr. Snider objected to the inclusion of these two items. Mr. Rea agreed with Mr. Snider stating that the City does not “people zone” and that the issues were more of a construction management/noise by-law issue to be worked on during the site plan stage. Mr. Fernandes stated there could be emotional issues due to noise on the residents of the group home which is currently located in a quiet neighbourhood.
8The Tribunal stated that construction management would be best discussed at the site plan stage once the hearing of the merits had concluded and the direction of the Tribunal is known.
9The Tribunal cautioned Mr. Snider that it is the Tribunal who approves the Issues List content and decides whether the listed issues fall under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
1The Tribunal having heard from the Applicant, on consent, prior to the issuance of this Decision that the date provided for the Hearing of Merits, is no longer feasible the Tribunal looked to the suggested start date of Monday, May 8, 2023.
2The Tribunal having the benefit of an updated revised draft PO, has reviewed the contents. This PO now applies to the hearing and provides direction on the organization of the hearing and requirements before the hearing.
3The Tribunal directs counsel to provide the Case Coordinator with any information that may reduce the time allotted for the Hearing of the Merits.
4The Tribunal also directs the counsel to ensure that a hearing plan is submitted at least ten days prior to the scheduled hearing.
ORDER
5The Tribunal Orders that the Procedural Order, attached hereto as Attachment 1 shall be in force and effect for the purpose of governing the required procedures leading up to and including the hearing.
6The Tribunal orders that a five day Hearing of the Merits is scheduled to commence on Monday, May 8, 2023, at 10 a.m. by video conference.
7Parties 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://meet.goto.com/348282861
Access code: 348-282-861
8Parties 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
9Persons 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: Toll-Free 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The access code is: 348-282-861.
10Individuals 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.
11This Member may be spoken to for the purposes of case management should any issues arise.
12The Member is not seized.
13No further notice of the hearing is required.
“D. Chipman”
D.CHIPMAN
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
ATTACHMENT 1
ONTARIO LAND TRIBUNAL
ISSUE DATE:
OLT LEAD CASE NO.: OLT-22-002605
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
Gagnon Walker Domes Ltd. – 1905372 Ontario Inc. on behalf of Maninder Mand, Kulwinder Mand and Manmitpal Mand
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description:
To permit the development of two apartment buildings
Reference Number:
OZS-2020-0037
Property Address:
10785, 10799, 10807, and 10817 McLaughlin Road North
Municipality/UT:
Brampton/Peel
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002605
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002605
OLT Case Name:
190532 Ontario Inc. v. Brampton (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
Gagnon Walker Domes Ltd. – 1905372 Ontario Inc. on behalf of Maninder Mand, Kulwinder Mand and Manmitpal Mand
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description:
To permit the development of two apartment buildings
Reference Number:
OZS-2020-0037
Property Address:
10785, 10799, 10807, and 10817 McLaughlin Road North
Municipality/UT:
Brampton/Peel
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002606
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002605
- 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
- The video hearing will begin on May 8, 2023, at 10:00 am at
https://meet.goto.com/348282861
Access Code: 348-282-861
The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 7 (seven) 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.
A summary of key dates is set out in Attachment 1
The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 2.
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.
The order of evidence shall be as 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 the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.
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.
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
A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before December 12, 2022 and in accordance with paragraph 23 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified.
Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before January 11, 2023 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before January 25, 2023.
An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 14 below. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.
Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence as in paragraph 14 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 14 below.
On or before February 22, 2023, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.
On or before February 22, 2023, 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.
On or before March 7, 2023 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.
On or before March 22, 2023, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.
Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before March 22, 2023 and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.
The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before March 31, 2023.
A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.
A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.
The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before March 31, 2023 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.
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 the Rule 7.
No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.
This Member is [not] seized.
So orders the Tribunal.
BEFORE:
Name of Member:
Date:
TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR
ATTACHMENT 1
SUMMARY OF KEY DATES
DATE
EVENT
December 12, 2022
Exchange and filing of witness lists (including names, disciplines, CVs and order to be called)
January 11, 2023
Experts meeting prior to this date
January 25, 2023
File Agreed Statement of Facts
February 22, 2023
Exchange and filing of Witness Statements, Expert Reports and Participant Statements.
March 7, 2023
Advise Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required
March 22, 2023
Exchange and filing of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
March 22, 2023
Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
March 31, 2023
File Joint Document Book and Preliminary Hearing Plan
April 4, 2023
Advise of witnesses not giving oral evidence
April 11-14, 17-19 2023
OLT Hearing
ATTACHMENT 2
LIST OF APPELLANTS, PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS
APPELLANT
1905372 Ontario Inc.
Turkstra Mazza Associates 15 Bold Street Hamilton, ON L8P 1T3 Scott Snider and Anna Toumanians Tel: (905) 529-3476 Email: ssnider@tmalaw.ca/ Email: atoumanians@tmalaw.ca
PARTIES
City of Brampton
City of Brampton 2 Wellington Street West West Tower 9th Floor Brampton, ON. L6Y 4R2 Matthew Rea Tel: 905-874-2626 Email: matthew.rea@brampton.ca
Rajiv Warikoo
280 Van Kirk Drive Brampton, ON. L7A 1M3 Tel: 416-561-4766 Email: rwarikoo@hotmail.com
Roy Fernandes
18 Big Sky Road Brampton, ON. L7A 3W4 Email: Roy.fernandes@peelpolice.ca
PARTICIPANTS
Claudette Bhagwansingh
Email: claudettebhagwansingh@hotmail.com
Francis Pinto
74 Mossgrove Crescent Brampton, ON. L7A3W4 Tel: 905-866-3764 Email: pintofmz@yahoo.com
Igor Kalinchev
31 Senwood Street Brampton, ON. L7A 3S6 Tel: 416-275-8667 Email: ikalintchev@gmail.com
Sunny Mehta-Harsimran
33 Mossgrove Crescent Brampton, ON. L7A 3E6 Tel: 647-234-6785 Email: mehta_sunny@hotmail.com
ATTACHMENT 3
ISSUES LIST
POLICY
Do the Proposed Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and the Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) have appropriate regard to matters of provincial interest as required by section 2 of the Planning Act including 2(f), 2(h), 2(j), 2(n), 2(p), 2(q) and 2(r)? (City)
Are the OPA and ZBA consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, including without limitation policies: 1.1.1; 1.1.3.1; 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3; 1.1.3.4 and 1.4.3? (City)
Do the OPA and ZBA conform to A Place to Grow Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2020, including without limitation sections: 1.2.1 and 2.2.2 (3))? (City)
Do the OPA and ZBA conform to the Region of Peel Official Plan (Office Consolidation December 2018), including without limitation policies: 5.3.1.4, 5.3.1.7, 5.3.2.2, 5.5.3.1.8, 5.5.3.2.3, 5.5.3.2.7, 5.5.3.2.9? (City)
Do the OPA and ZBA conform to, the City of Brampton Official Plan (Office Consolidation September 2020) including without limitation policies: 3.2.1.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.1.3, 3.2.8.3, 3.2.8.5, 4.2 (b), 4.11.3, 4.11.3.1, 4.11.3.1.1, 4.11.3.2, 4.11.3.2.3, 4.11.3.2.6, and 4.11.3.2.7? (City)
Do the OPA and ZBA conform to the policy direction in the Northwest Sandalwood Parkway Secondary Plan, including without limitation policies: 3.1.1, 3.1.6, 3.1.7 and 5.6? (City)
What weight, if any, should be given to draft new City of Brampton Official Plan? If weight is to be assigned, does the proposal take into account the draft new City of Brampton Official Plan? (City)
DENSITY, HEIGHT AND INTENSIFICATION
Is it appropriate to introduce a new high density residential designation in the existing Secondary Plan? (City)
Is it appropriate and desirable to replace the existing Secondary Plan Low/Medium Density Residential designation with a designation that reflects the proposed intensification given the planned uses in the surrounding area? (City)
Does the proposed development provide for an appropriate form of intensification, including height and density, for the subject lands? (Warikoo and Fernandes)
Does the proposal fall within the boundaries of the intensification area, as identified by the City of Brampton’s planning and development strategies? (Fernandes)
Does the proposal meet the minimum residential hectares required per unit? (Fernandes)
Does the proposal exceed the maximum permitted height of 4 storeys? (Fernandes)
PLANNING IMPACTS
Character and Compatibility
Is the proposal compatible with the surrounding area? (City)
Is the size and scale of the proposal sympathetic and sensitive with the character of the surrounding community? (Fernandes)
Does the proposal complement the existing development in the neighbourhood? (Fernandes)
Adverse Impacts
Does the proposal result in any unacceptable adverse impacts including with respect to privacy, overlook and sun/shadow? (City/Warikoo/Fernandes)
Will the proposal result in increased noise and light pollution for the neighbourhood? (Fernandes)
Transition
Does the proposal ensure an appropriate transition to the surrounding neighbourhood? (City)
Does the proposal meet the angular plane requirement? (Fernandes)
DESIGN
Does the proposal have appropriate regard for the City of Brampton Development Design Guidelines including without limitation Section 1.6 Multiple Unit Dwellings and Apartments? (City)
Does the proposal meet the minimum setback as required by the City of Brampton’s Mid-rise Development Design Guidelines? (Fernandes)
TECHNICAL
Engineering
Has the Functional Servicing Report appropriately addressed quantity, quality, erosion and water balance? (City)
Will there be adequate municipal services, in particular sanitary services, to accommodate the proposed development? (Warikoo)
Transportation
Will the proposed development cause unacceptable traffic conflicts and safety issues? (Warikoo)
Does the proposed development provide sufficient parking? (Warikoo)
Sun/Shadow Study
- Is the sun/shadow study analysis satisfactory? (City)
Community Services
Will there be adequate public services, particularly schools, to accommodate the proposed development? (Warikoo)
Does the proposal provide for any plans for supportive or additional resources for the new residents, such as schools, places of worship, health services, community centres, greenspaces etc.? (Fernandes)
Environment and Natural Heritage
Will the proposed development result in unacceptable adverse impacts as it relates to the City’s natural heritage system? (Warikoo)
Does the proposal protect the environment, particularly with respect to: (Fernandes)
a. existing vegetation;
b. wildlife;
c. garbage management;
d. water runoff / grading;
e. vehicle exhaust and carbon emissions?
GENERAL
Are the form and content of the proposed OPA and ZBA acceptable? (City)
Does the ZBA sufficiently regulate matters of built form including height, density, massing, scale, setbacks, stepbacks, lot coverage and landscaping having regard for the site, adjacent property and the character of the surrounding lands? (City)
Do the proposed OPA and ZBA constitute good land use planning and are they in the public interest? (City)
Is the proposal reasonable? (Fernandes)
What, if any, accommodation should be given to a group home (34 Big Sky Road) being located in close proximity to this development proposal? (Warikoo)
Note 1: Where an issue refers to a provision from the PPS or the Growth Plan, either of the Official Plans or any guidelines in addressing the issue, the planning document from which the provision is taken should be read in its entirety with all relevant provisions being considered. For greater certainty, the identification of a specific provision in an issue does not preclude the parties from referring to other provisions from the same planning document in addressing that issue.
Note 2: 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
1905372 Ontario Inc.
City of Brampton
Rajiv Warikoo
Roy Fernandes
1905372 Ontario Inc. in Reply
ATTACHMENT 5
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.