CORRECTION NOTICE
OLT CASE NO.: OLT-22-002285
DECISION ISSUED DATE: December 15, 2022
CORRECTION NOTICE ISSUED DATE: December 28, 2022
RE: Calloway REIT (Mississauga) Inc. v. Mississauga (City)
Correction: paragraph 5b) hearing information has been amended to correct the commencement date of the Phase 1 hearing.
Originally:
5At the November 4, 2022 CMC the following was established on request and consent of the parties and the Tribunal Ordered as follows:
b. Phase 1 hearing is scheduled for a duration of eight (8) days commencing at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, February 8, 2023;
Corrected to:
5At the November 4, 2022 CMC the following was established on request and consent of the parties and the Tribunal Ordered as follows:
b. Phase 1 hearing is scheduled for a duration of eight (8) days commencing at 10 a.m. on Monday, February 13, 2023;
"Euken Lui"
EUKEN LUI REGISTRAR
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: December 15, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002285 (Formerly PL210032)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, C.P.13, as amended
Appellant: 4005 Hickory Drive Ltd. Appellant: Calloway REIT (Mississauga) Inc. Appellant: Choice Properties REIT Appellant: First Capital (Meadowvale) Corporation; and others Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. CD.03REI - OPA 115 Municipality: City of Mississauga OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002285 Legacy Case No.: PL210032 OLT File No.: OLT-22-002285 Legacy File No.: PL210032 OLT Case Name: Calloway REIT (Mississauga) Inc. v. Mississauga (City)
Heard: October 19 and November 4, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Sheridan Retail Inc. | Luke Johnston |
| Calloway REIT (Mississauga) Inc. | David Bronskill |
| First Capital (Meadowvale) Corporation | David Bronskill |
| 4005 Hickory Drive Ltd. | Max Laskin |
| Prime Real Estate Group Inc. | Daniel Artenosi |
| Choice Properties REIT | Katarzyna Sliwa |
| The Children’s Centre South Common Court Inc. | Paul Bottos |
| City of Mississauga | Lia Magi |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JATINDER BHULLAR ON NOVEMBER 4, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This was the second continuing Case Management Conference (“CMC”) in this matter held on October 19, 2022 and continued on November 4, 2022. It was set-up as result of the parties’ raising multiple motions close to the start of a previously scheduled Phase 1 hearing which made the conduct of such a hearing impossible. The parties raised some fundamental issues in the motions which needed to be decided prior to a possible Phase 1 hearing.
2The parties in this matter have appealed the enactment of Official Plan Amendment No. 115 (“OPA 115”) by the City of Mississauga (the “City”) under s. 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the “Act”). The purpose and effect of OPA 115 is to revise policies pertaining to the Central Erin Mills Node and the Community Nodes that are mall-based and to add definitions for 'podium' and 'tactical urbanism'. The lands affected by this Amendment are located city-wide (for general policy changes regarding definitions); the Central Erin Mills Major Node Character Area; and the Malton, Meadowvale, Rathwood-Applewood, Sheridan and South Common Community Node Character Areas, as identified in the City Official Plan.
UPDATES
3Based on the extent of the matters raised in the motions and the totality of upwards of four motions proposed to be heard, a CMC was held during which the Tribunal reviewed and discussed with the parties their reasons and basis for such motions. This CMC was continued to November 3rd and 4th, 2022 for the purposes of hearing the motions in place of the previously scheduled Phase 1 hearing.
4Prior to the dates set for hearing the motions, the Tribunal was informed on consent that the City has withdrawn its motion and the Appellants likewise withdrew their motions concurrently. The parties additionally requested that one of the days set for hearing the motions be converted to a CMC for finalizing next steps and establishing timelines for hearings in 2023. The Tribunal allowed the request and a CMC was conducted on November 4, 2022.
5At the November 4, 2022 CMC the following was established on request and consent of the parties and the Tribunal Ordered as follows:
a. Parties shall provide a revised draft Procedural Order (“PO”) to the Tribunal within thirty days of this CMC;
i. In order to ensure that Phase 1 hearing proceeds per established timelines and tight schedules, the parties agreed to adhere to the timelines in the draft irrespective of the issue date of the CMC decision.
b. Phase 1 hearing is scheduled for a duration of eight (8) days commencing at 10 a.m. on Monday, February 13, 2023;
i. For Phase 1 hearing this Member is seized, and there will be no further notice.
c. Phase 2 hearing with a duration of 25 days is set to commence at 10 a.m. on Monday, November 6, 2023 and ending on Wednesday, December 13, 2023; and
i. For Phase 2 hearing, this Member is not seized, there will be no further notice.
d. The Tribunal received the revised draft of the PO on November 29th, 2022. The Tribunal Orders that the Phase 1 and Phase 2 hearings shall be governed by the PO issued as Attachment 1 with this decision.
6This Member may be approached for any case management purposes.
"Jatinder Bhullar"
JATINDER BHULLAR 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
CASE NO: OLT-22-002285
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. c. P.13, as amended:
Appellant(s): Choice Properties REIT, 4005 Hickory Drive Ltd., Calloway REIT Mississauga Inc., First Capital Meadowvale Corporation, Prime Real Estate Group, Sheridan Retail Inc. (Dunpar Developments) Subject: Official Plan Amendment 115 (“OPA 115”) Municipality: City of Mississauga OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002285 OLT Legacy File No.: PL210032 OLT Case Name: Choice Properties REIT et al. v. Mississauga (City)
PROCEDURAL ORDER
- The Tribunal may vary or add to these rules at any time, either on request or as it sees fit. It may alter this Order by an oral ruling, or by another written Order.
Organization of the Hearing
- (a) Phase 1 of the hearing will begin on Monday, February 13, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. by video conference with the following link:
GoTo Meeting: https://meet.goto.com/909787981
Audio-only telephone line: Toll Free 1-888-455-1389 or +1 (647) 497-9391 Access Code: 909-787-981
(b) Phase 2 of the hearing will begin on Monday, November 6, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. by video conference for which details will be provided later:
- (a) The length of the Phase 1 hearing will be 8 days. The Tribunal will not sit Monday February 20, 2023.
(b) The length of the Phase 2 hearing will be 25 days.
The length of the hearing may be shortened as issues are reordered as settlement is achieved.
The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1.
The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 2. 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 3 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.
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
Phase 1
The parties will file with the Tribunal an Agreed Statement of Facts, together with any supporting documentation by Friday June 3, 2022, provided that the parties are able to agree upon and finalize the Agreed Statement of Facts.
A party who intends to call witnesses 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 Thursday June 30, 2022. 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. The parties shall cooperate to streamline presentation and avoid duplication of evidence to the greatest extent feasible.
On or before Wednesday August 17, 2022, the parties shall provide copies of their [witness and] expert witness statements to the other parties and to OLT case co-ordinator.
Any party who intends to challenge the relevance of any of the evidence filed by any other party shall, within 14 days of the witness statements being filed in accordance with paragraph 11, notify the other parties and request a motion date from the OLT case-coordinator.
On or before November 1, 2022, the appellants shall provide copies of their revised [witness and] expert witness statements to the other parties and to OLT case co-ordinator.
Parties may provide to all other parties and file with the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence no later than December 2, 2022.
On or before January 14, 2023, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties.
Notwithstanding the filing deadlines in paragraphs 11-14, a party may lead oral fact and opinion evidence at the Phase 1 hearing which its witness(es) did not include in their respective witness and/or expert witness statement(s); provided, however, (i) the evidence is material, relevant, and could not have been discovered before December 13, 2022 and included in that party’s witness and/or expert witness statement(s), through the exercise of appropriate due diligence, and (ii) notice of the intention to lead such evidence (and an outline of same) is provided to the other parties as soon as reasonably possible but no later than Monday January 30, 2023.
In addition to the foregoing, paragraphs 20, 21 and 26-29 apply to the Phase 1 hearing.
Phase 2
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 July 28, 2023. 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 August 23, 2023, to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. The experts must prepare a list of agreed facts and the remaining issues to be addressed at the hearing and provide this list to all of the parties and the OLT case co-ordinator.
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. 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 anticipated evidence. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence.
On or before September 7, 2023, the parties shall provide copies of their [witness and] expert witness statements to the other parties and to OLT case co-ordinator.
Any party who intends to challenge the relevance of any of the evidence filed by any other party shall, within 14 days of the witness statements being filed in accordance with paragraph 20, notify the other parties and request a motion date from the OLT case-coordinator.
Parties may provide to all other parties and file with the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence no later than October 6, 2023.
On or before October 23, 2023, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.
The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before February 3, 2023, for the Phase 1 hearing and on or before October 27, 2023, for the Phase 2 hearing.
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 hearing plan with the Tribunal on Monday January 30, 2023 for the Phase 1 hearing and on October 23, 2023 for the Phase 2 hearing with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.
Service of all materials will be done electronically. 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.
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 seized only for Phase 1 hearing. So orders the Tribunal.
Attachment 1
List of Parties & Participants
Choice Properties REIT c/o Katarzyna Sliwa & Max Reedijk Dentons Canada LLP 416.863.4628 kat.sliwa@dentons.com max.reedijk@dentons.com
4005 Hickory Drive Ltd. c/o Max Laskin Goodmans LLP 416.849.6938 mlaskin@goodmans.ca
First Capital Meadowvale Corporation c/o David Bronskill Goodmans LLP 416.597.4299 dbronskill@goodmans.ca
Calloway REIT Mississauga Inc. c/o Andrew Biggart Ritchie Ketcheson Hart & Biggart 416.622.6601 x.1003 abiggart@ritchieketcheson.com c/o David Bronskill Goodmans LLP 416.597.4299 dbronskill@goodmans.ca
Prime Real Estate Group Inc. c/o Luke Johnston & Michael Nemanic Dunpar Homes 416.236.9800 l.johnston@dunpar.ca m.nemanic@dunpar.ca
Sheridan Retail Inc. c/o Luke Johnston & Michael Nemanic Dunpar Homes 416.236.9800 l.johnston@dunpar.ca m.nemanic@dunpar.ca
The Children’s Centre South Common Court Inc. c/o Paul Bottos Piccin, Bottos Barristers and Solicitors 905.850.0155 ext. 252 pbottos@piccinbottos.com
The Corporation of the City of Mississauga c/o Lia Magi 289.971.0682 lia.magi@mississauga.ca
ATTACHMENT 2
PHASE 1
| Category | Issues | Appellant | Scope |
|---|---|---|---|
| Affordable Housing (Jurisdiction/Legal) | 6. Do the Affordable Housing policies, including policies 13.2.5.1 to 13.2.5.6, inclusive, constitute Inclusionary Zoning? 7. Did the City carry out the requirements of subsections 16(4) to 16(13), inclusive, of the Planning Act, regarding the Affordable Housing policies? |
Choice REIT | OPA 115-wide |
| 18. Are these policies in OPA 115 ultra vires the Planning Act? 19. If these policies are not ultra vires the Planning Act, should any requirement for affordable housing only be secured as a community benefit in accordance with applicable provisions of the Planning Act? |
First Capital Calloway REIT |
||
| 14. As it relates to Policies 13.2.5.1 to 13.2.5.6 and 14.1.7.4.1 to 14.1.7.4.6 a. Are these policies tantamount to an inclusionary zoning framework? b. Do the policies comply with the legislative requirements set out in Section 16 of the Planning Act and O.Reg. 232.18? c. Are these policies ultra vires the authority conferred to the City of Mississauga under the Planning Act? f. Should policies requiring or encouraging the provision of below-market or affordable housing expressly provide that such matters, where provided, are to be secured as community benefits in accordance with the City’s legislative authority under the Planning Act? |
Prime RE Group | ||
| 7. With respect to policies 14.1.7.4.1, 14.1.7.4.4, and 14.1.7.4.5: do these policies exceed the authority of the City under the Planning Act and O. Reg. 232/18? Should any provision of below-market housing units or conveyance to a non-profit housing provider only be secured as a community benefit in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Planning Act? | Sheridan |
PHASE 2
| Category | Issues | Appellant | Scope |
|---|---|---|---|
| MAJOR NODE | |||
| Mixed Use Designation - planning - land economist |
1. Do policies 13.2.6.4 and 13.2.6.5 recognize and respond to the evolving nature of the retail and commercial market and needs? 2. Do policies 13.2.3.1, 13.2.6.4 and 13.2.6.5 allow the appropriate flexibility to respond to retail and commercial needs? 3. What is the appropriate height for a stand alone commercial building? 5. Are policies 13.2.6.4, 13.2.6.5 and 13.2.10.3 overly prescriptive with respect to the retail/commercial floor space requirements? |
Choice REIT | Erin Mills Major Node |
| Density - planning |
10. Do policies 13.2.3.2 to 13.2.3.4 and 13.2.10.7 adequately and fairly apply density requirements on a site by site basis? | ||
| Height, Urban Design & Transportation - planning - UD |
4. Are policies 13.2.3.1, 13.2.4.4.b, and 13.2.9.1 to 13.2.9.3, such as those dealing with maximum block sizes and/or minimum building heights, overly-prescriptive, and more appropriately dealt with through the zoning, draft plan and/or site plan approval stages? | ||
| Planning Policy - planning |
11. Do the policies in OPA 115 have regard for matters under Section 2 of the Planning Act, including (h), (j), (p) and (r)? 12. Are the policies of OPA 115 consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, including policies 1.1.1(a), (b) and (e), 1.5.1(a), and 1.7.1? 13. Do the policies of OPA 115 conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, including policies 2.2.1.4 and 2.2.5.15? 14. Do the policies of OPA 115 conform with the Peel Region Official Plan, including policies 5.5.1.6 and 5.8.1.1? 15. Do the policies of OPA 115 conform with the City of Mississauga Official Plan, including policies 7.1.1 and 9.2.1.4? |
||
| COMMUNITY NODES | 3. Does OPA 115 encourage an appropriate level of intensification for the Meadowvale / South Common Node? 4. Do the proposed height limits represent good planning? Should additional height be permitted within the Meadowvale / South Common Node? 5. Does the proposed maximum floor space index represent good planning? Should additional density be permitted within the Meadowvale / South Common Node? Is it appropriate and good planning to limit floor space index on a Node-wide basis? What is the appropriate method for calculating floor space index (net versus gross)? 7. Is the minimum building height of 2 storeys for non-residential uses appropriate? Does such a requirement recognize the existing retail uses within the Meadowvale Node/ South Common Node and allow expansions? |
First Capital Calloway REIT * The Children’s Centre South Common Court Inc. |
Meadowvale Community Node South Common Community Node |
| Height & Density - planning |
4. As it relates to the policies pertaining to building height, floor space index and density in Section 14.1.7.2, and proposed Implementation Polices in Section 14.1.7.9: a. Are these policies unduly restrictive? b. Are these policies appropriate having regard to individual site and area characteristics within the Sheridan Community Node, including the property at 2155 Leanne Boulevard? c. Will these policies support the optimization of land use and infrastructure? d. Will the policies optimally support the revitalization of lands within the Sheridan Community Node? e. Do the policies inappropriately limit opportunities to achieve mid- and high-rise development? f. Should additional height and/or density be permitted within the Sheridan Community Node, including on the property at 2155 Leanne Boulevard? g. Is it appropriate to exclude lands dedicated and/or used for public or private infrastructure from the calculation of floor space index? |
Prime RE Group | Sheridan Community Node |
| 5. Are the policies respecting height and density, including without limitation, policies 14.1.7.2.1, 14.1.7.2.2, 14.1.7.2.3, and 14.1.7.2.4, appropriate and in good planning? In particular: A. Do policies 14.1.7.2.1, 14.1.7.2.2, 14.1.7.2.3, and 14.1.7.2.4 appropriately acknowledge or consider existing approvals which predate OPA 115? B. Is it appropriate for policy 14.1.7.2.1 to specify a maximum height of 15-storeys, and does this policy provide sufficient flexibility in height, to account for the Sheridan Community Node’s existing context, or where it can be demonstrated that the overall urban structure can be achieved without adverse impacts related to that built form? C. Are policies 14.1.7.2.2 and 14.1.7.2.4 appropriate and in good planning? In particular: I. Is it appropriate, reasonable, fair, necessary, and equitable for policy 14.1.7.2.2 to specify a maximum FSI of 2.25 to be calculated across the entire area of the Sheridan Community Node, despite the different existing and planned contexts therein, and where it can be demonstrated that the overall urban structure can be achieved without adverse impacts related to that built form? II. Is it appropriate, reasonable, fair, necessary, and equitable for the policy 14.1.7.2.4 to specify a gross density of between 150 and 250 residents and jobs combined per hectare across the entire Sheridan Community Node, where it can be demonstrated that the overall urban structure can be achieved without adverse impacts related to that built form? D. Is policy 14.1.7.2.3 appropriate and in good planning? In particular: I. Is it appropriate for the policy to specify a maximum FSI of 2.25 for individual properties, where it can be demonstrated that the overall urban structure can be achieved without adverse impacts related to that built form? II. Is it appropriate for the policy to determine the maximum FSI of individual properties based on the satisfaction of the City? E. Should the development potential of individual sites with varying lot fabrics depend on the private interests of other landowners and do policies 14.1.7.2.2, 14.1.7.2.3, and 14.1.7.2.4 exceed the authority of the City under the Planning Act? |
Sheridan | ||
| Urban Design - UD - Planning |
6. Does OPA 115 inappropriately limit locations for mid-rise buildings and tall buildings? Should additional flexibility be included in OPA 115 to enable consideration of additional mid-rise buildings and/or tall buildings and in other locations? 8. Does the policy that seeks to “maximize” natural light, sky views and privacy represent good planning and urban design? 10. Are the policies related to parkland/playground location overly restrictive and good planning in requiring any parkland to be in a central location, with particular regard to the size and location of nearby parks? |
First Capital Calloway REIT * The Children’s Centre South Common Court Inc. 4005 Hickory Drive (#8 only) |
Meadowvale Community Node South Common Community Node Site Specific (Rathwood Applewood Community Node) |
| 9. Does the policy that seeks 40 metres between any buildings taller than 6 storeys represent good planning and urban design? | First Capital | Meadowvale Community Node | |
| 9. Does the policy that seeks “generous separation distances between tall buildings” (Policy 14.1.7.3.4(c)) represent good planning and urban design? | Calloway REIT * The Children’s Centre South Common Court Inc. |
South Common Community Node | |
| 5. As it relates to the proposed urban design policies in Section 14.1.7.3: a. Do these policies inappropriately limit the achievable built-form of new development without regard to site and/or area specific characteristics? b. Do these policies represent good planning and urban design? |
Prime Real Estate Group | Sheridan Community Node | |
| 6. Are the policies respecting urban design, including without limitation, policies 14.1.7.3.1, 14.1.7.3.2, 14.1.7.3.3, 14.1.7.3.4, and the definitions of “mid-rise buildings”, “tall buildings”, and “podiums”, appropriate? In particular: A. Are the development standards set out in section 14.1.7.3 appropriate and reasonable, and do they provide sufficient flexibility to develop a range of building types in forms with varying heights, densities, massing, transitions, and setbacks, while having regard for the character of the Sheridan Community Node? B. Do the development standards set out in section 14.1.7.3 conflict with the general intent and purpose of the applicable Council-approved design guidelines? |
Sheridan | ||
| Mixed Use Designation - land economy - planning |
11. Is it appropriate and good planning to require retail and service commercial uses on the ground floor of all buildings on lands designated as Mixed Use? 15. Is it appropriate and good planning to include a policy limiting the loss of retail and service commercial space? In particular, is it appropriate and good planning to require that a grocery store use be provided within the Meadowvale Node/ South Common Node? |
First Capital Calloway REIT * The Children’s Centre South Common Court Inc. |
Meadowvale Community Node South Common Community Node |
| 8. Do Policies 14.1.7.5.5, 14.1.7.5.6, 14.1.7.6.1, 14.1.7.9.3 and 14.1.7.9.4 provide sufficient flexibility for new development to respond to changing market conditions and to optimally support the revitalization of the Sheridan Community Node? Do these policies represent good planning? | Prime RE Group | Sheridan Community Node | |
| 8. Are the policies respecting Mixed Use Designation, including without limitation, policies 14.1.7.5.3, 14.1.7.5.5, and 14.1.7.5.6 appropriate and in good planning? In particular, is the requirement in policy 14.1.7.5.3 to include retail and service commercial uses in all buildings on lands designated Mixed Use appropriate and reasonable, and does it provide sufficient flexibility to develop a range of building types? Alternatively, should the policy be revised to allow for the transfer of retail and service gross floor area to other buildings? | Sheridan | ||
| Environment - planning |
12. Are the proposed policies regarding sustainability overly restrictive? Do they represent good planning? | First Capital Calloway REIT * The Children’s Centre South Common Court Inc. 4005 Hickory Drive |
Meadowvale Community Node South Common Community Node Site Specific (Rathwood Applewood Community Node) |
| 10. Is Section 14.1.7.7 and policy 14.1.7.7.1 therein, appropriate and in good planning? In particular: A. Is policy 14.1.7.7.1 overly prescriptive, onerous, and/or exceed the authority of the City under the Planning Act? B. Are the sustainable measures set out in the policy appropriate and reasonable, and do they provide sufficient flexibility? C. Do the sustainable measures set out in the policy conflict with the general intent and purpose of the applicable Council-approved design guidelines? |
Sheridan | Sheridan Community Node | |
| Office - planning |
5. Is it appropriate and good planning to discourage redevelopment that results in the loss of office space in all developments across the Rathwood-Applewood Node, in light of the existing and planned land use pattern and physical characteristics of the Node? | 4005 Hickory Drive Ltd. | Site Specific (Rathwood Applewood Community Node) |
| 9. Are the policies respecting Office Uses, including without limitation, policy 14.1.7.6.2, appropriate and in good planning? Should policy 14.1.7.6.2 be amended to provide that office development will be excluded from the calculation of maximum FSI requirements without an amendment to the City’s Official Plan? | Sheridan | Sheridan Community Node | |
| Transportation & Community Infrastructure - Transportation Planner |
13. Does the limitation on surface parking represent good planning having regard for existing and potential retail uses within the Meadowvale Node/South Common Node? 14. Are the proposed requirements for block sizes appropriate and good planning? Are the proposed limitations on private roads appropriate and good planning? Is it appropriate and good planning to require that blocks be framed by public roads in accordance with City right-of-way standards? 16. Is it appropriate and good planning to include a policy requiring maintenance of community facilities and gathering space without reference to such facilities and spaces representing a community benefit to be provided in accordance with applicable provisions of the Planning Act? |
First Capital Calloway REIT * The Children’s Centre South Common Court Inc. |
Meadowvale Community Node South Common Community Node |
| 9. Should OPA 115 expressly recognize the opportunity for new development to provide parking below-grade lands to be dedicated to the City through the redevelopment process for new community infrastructure, including parkland? 10. Is Policy 14.1.7.8.2 unduly restrictive? Does this Policy constitute good urban design and good planning? 11. Does OPA 115 conform with the policy direction set out in the Region of Peel Official Plan and the City of Mississauga Official Plan for lands located along a Corridor within the Sheridan Community Node? |
Prime RE Group | Sheridan Community Node | |
| 4. Are the policies respecting community infrastructure, including without limitation, policies 14.1.7.1, 14.1.7.1.2, 14.1.7.1.3, 14.1.7.1.4, 14.1.7.1.5, 14.1.7.1.6, 14.1.7.1.7 and the definition of “Tactical Urbanism”, as well as the policies respecting Transportation, including without limitation, policies 14.1.7.8.1, 14.1.7.8.2, 14.1.7.8.3, 14.1.7.8.4, 14.1.7.8.5, 14.1.7.8.8, 14.1.7.8.9, 14.1.7.8.10, 14.1.7.8.12, 14.1.7.8.13, 14.1.7.8.14 appropriate and in good planning? In particular: A. Should Sections 14.1.7.1. and 14.1.7.8 be amended to remove or revise all policies which enable land, financial, or in-kind contributions towards community infrastructure and transportation infrastructure and services, which exceed the City’s authority unless section 37 of the Planning Act is invoked, and will these takings be consistent with the forthcoming community benefits charge provisions under the Planning Act? Alternatively, individually and collectively, are such takings in respect of land or the provision of financial or in kind contributions contrary to the principles of good planning? B. With respect to policies 14.1.7.1.1, 14.1.7.8.3, 14.1.7.8.5 and 14.1.7.8.9: I. Is appropriate, reasonable, and fair for the policy 14.1.7.1.1 to require the retention and enhancement of community infrastructure to meet the needs of existing and planned residential populations of the Sheridan Community Node and surrounding neighborhoods? If so, should the policy contain a “cap” to establish the maximum extent to which community infrastructure must be retained or enhanced? II. Is appropriate, reasonable, and fair for policy 14.1.7.8.3 to require the retention and enhancement of transportation infrastructure and service to meet the needs of ridership demand of the Sheridan Community Node? If so, should the policy contain a “cap” to establish the maximum extent to which transit infrastructure and service must be retained or enhanced? III. Is appropriate, reasonable, and fair for the policies 14.1.7.8.5 and 14.1.7.8.9 to require the redesign of existing arterial and collector roads and the enhancement of transit services, including the incorporation of transit stations and facilities? If so, should the policies contain a “cap” to establish the maximum extent to which roads and transit services and infrastructure must be redesigned, enhanced, and/or incorporated, as the case may be? IV. Should the policies 14.1.7.1.1, 14.1.7.8.3, 14.1.7.8.5, and 14.1.7.8.9 be revised to clarify that credits, payments for services or works, and/or refunds will be provided for community infrastructure improvements? C. Should policy 14.1.7.1.2 clarify which public and private elements should be unified, create a sense of place, and contribute to the unique identity of the Sheridan Community Node? D. Is policy 14.1.7.1.5 appropriate and in good planning? In particular: I. Should policy 14.1.7.1.5 clarify what classifications of privately owned publicly accessible space are encouraged to enhance and connect the public open space system? II. Should the provision of privately owned publicly accessible space contribute towards parkland dedication requirements under the Planning Act? III. Should policy 14.1.7.1.5 be revised to clarify that credits, payments for services or works, and/or refunds will be provided for parkland improvements? E. Is policy 14.1.7.1.6 and the definition of “Tactical Urbanism” appropriate and in good planning? In particular: I. Should policy 14.1.7.1.6 clarify the types of changes to the built environment which satisfy the definition of “Tactical Urbanism”? II. Does the policy exceed the City’s authority to regulate the use of land in accordance with the Planning Act? F. Are policies 14.1.7.8.1, 14.1.7.8.2, 14.1.7.8.10, 14.1.8.12, 14.1.8.13, and 14.1.7.8.14 appropriate and in good planning? In particular: I. Are policies 14.1.7.8.1, 14.1.7.8.2, 14.1.7.8.10, 14.1.8.12, 14.1.8.13, and 14.1.7.8.14 overly prescriptive, onerous, and/or exceed the authority of the City under the Planning Act? II. Are the requirements of 14.1.7.8.1, 14.1.7.8.2, 14.1.7.8.10, 14.1.8.12,14.1.8.13, and 14.1.7.8.14 appropriate and reasonable? Do the requirements in these policies, especially those limitations regarding limitations on surface parking, block sizes, and private roads interfere with the planned function and economic feasibility of non-residential uses within the Sheridan Community Node? |
Sheridan | ||
| Implementation | 11. Are the policies respecting Implementation, including without limitation, policies 14.1.7.9.5 and 14.1.7.9.7 appropriate and in good planning? In particular: A. Is the condition in policy 14.1.7.9.5 that the location and size of development blocks and the alignment of roads will be secured by way of a plan of subdivision reasonable, necessary, fair, and equitable? B. With respect to policy 14.1.7.9.7, and in particular: I. Does the policy appropriately acknowledge or consider existing approvals which predate OPA 115? II. Does the City have the authority under the Planning Act to require applicants to enter into development agreements and include additional lands within their proposals? If so, is it appropriate to require applicants proposing densities above an FSI of 2.25 to demonstrate how the maximum density will not be exceeded across the Sheridan Community Node? III. Should the development potential of individual sites with varying lot fabrics depend on the private interests of other landowners and does this policy exceed the authority of the City under the Planning Act? |
Sheridan | Sheridan Community Node |
| Statutory Tests | 1. Does OPA 115 conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe? 2. Is OPA 115 consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement? 17. Does OPA 115 represent good planning and is it in the public interest? |
First Capital Calloway REIT * The Children’s Centre South Common Court Inc. |
Meadowvale Community Node South Common Community Node |
| 1. Would the approval of the Official Plan Amendment (“OPA 115”) conform to the policies of the Growth Plan, including without limitation: A. Section 1.2.1 (Guiding Principles); B. Section 2.1 (Where and How to Grow); C. Sections 2.2.1.1, 2.2.1.2, 2.2.1.4 (Managing Growth); D. Section 2.2.2.3 (Delineated Built-up Areas); E. Sections 2.2.3.1, 2.2.3.2 (Urban Growth Centres); F. Section 2.2.4.10 (Transit Corridors and Station Areas); G. Sections 2.2.5.1, 2.2.5.3, 2.2.5.4, 2.2.5.15 (Employment); H. Sections 2.2.6.1, 2.2.6.2, 2.2.6.3 (Housing); I. Section 3.1 (Infrastructure to Support Growth); J. Sections 3.2.1.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.1.3 (Integrated Planning); K. Sections 3.2.2.1, 3.2.2.2, 3.2.2.3, 3.2.2.4 (Transportation – General); L. Sections 3.2.3.1, 3.2.3.2, 3.2.3.4 (Moving People); M. Sections 3.2.8.1, 3.2.8.5 (Public Service Facilities); N. Sections 4.2.5.1 (Public Open Space); O. Sections 4.2.10.1, 4.2.10.2 (Climate Change); P. Section 5.1 (Implementation and Interpretation); Q. Section 5.2.3.1 (Co-ordination); and, R. Sections 5.2.5.1, 5.2.5.5, 5.2.5.6 (Targets). 2. Would the approval of OPA 115 be consistent with the policies of the PPS 2020, including without limitation: A. Sections 1.1.1, 1.1.2 (Managing and Directing Land Use to Achieve Efficient and Resilient Development and Land Use Patterns); B. Sections 1.1.3.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, 1.1.3.5, 1.1.3.6, 1.1.3.7 (Settlement Areas); C. Sections 1.2.1, 1.2.4 (Coordination); D. Section 1.3.1 (Employment); E. Sections 1.4.1, 1.4.3 (Housing); F. Section 1.5.1 (Public Spaces, Recreation, Parks, Trails and Open Space); G. Sections 1.6.1, 1.6.3, 1.6.4 (Infrastructure and Public Service Facilities); H. Sections 1.6.7.1, 1.6.7.2, 1.6.7.3, 1.6.7.4 (Transportation Systems); I. Section 1.7.1 (Long-Term Economic Prosperity); J. Section 1.8.1 (Energy Conservation, Air Quality, and Climate Change); and, K. Section 4.6 (Implementation and Interpretation). 3. Would the approval of OPA 115 conform to the policies of the ROP, including without limitation: A. Section 1.3.5 (Themes of the Plan); B. Sections 1.3.6.1, 1.3.6.3, 1.3.6.4 (General Goals of the Plan); C. Sections 3.7.1.1, 3.7.2.1, 3.7.2.3 (Energy Conservation); D. Sections 4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.2, 4.2.1.3, 4.2.1.4, 4.2.1.6, 4.2.2.1, 4.2.2.2, 4.2.2.3, 4.2.2.4, 4.2.2.5 (Population and Employment Forecasts); E. Section 5.1.2 (Regional Structure); F. Sections 5.2.1.1, 5.2.2.1 (The 2031 Regional Urban Boundary); G. Sections 5.3.1.2, 5.3.1.3, 5.3.1.4, 5.3.1.5, 5.3.1.6, 5.3.1.7, 5.3.1.8, 5.3.2.2, 5.3.2.2, 5.3.2.3, 5.3.2.4, 5.3.2.6 (The Urban System); |
Sheridan | Sheridan Community Node | |
| 1. Does OPA 115 conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2020? 2. Is OPA 115 consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020? 3. Does OPA 115 have appropriate regard to matters of provincial interest, including the provincial interests set out in Sections 2 of the Planning Act? 11. Does OPA 115 conform with the policy direction set out in the Region of Peel Official Plan and the City of Mississauga Official Plan for lands located along a Corridor within the Sheridan Community Node? 12. Do the policies in OPA 115 as they apply to the Sheridan Community Node constitute good planning? If not, what modifications should be made? 13. Should OPA 115 be revised to expressly permit and facilitate the mixed-use redevelopment of the property at 2155 Leanne Boulevard at a scale and with land uses, including residential uses, that will support the optimization of land use and infrastructure and promote the revitalization of the Sheridan Community Node? |
Prime RE Group | ||
| 1. Is OPA 115 consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement? 2. Does OPA 115 conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe? 7. Should OPA 115 include transition policies exempting developments that are approved in principle but do not yet have site-specific by-laws in force and/or site plan approval from the policies in section 14.1.7? |
4005 Hickory Drive Ltd. | Site Specific (Rathwood Applewood Community Node) |
Attachment 3 Order of Evidence
Phase 1
- City of Mississauga
- First Capital Meadowvale
- Calloway REIT Mississauga
- Prime Real Estate Group Inc.
- Sheridan Retail Inc.
- Choice Properties REIT
- City of Mississauga (Reply)
** Subject to change, on consent of the Appellants, pending the outcome of mediation
Phase 2
- City of Mississauga
- Choice Properties REIT
- Prime Retail Group
- Sheridan Retail Inc.
- First Capital Meadowvale
- Calloway REIT Mississauga
- The Children’s Centre South Common Court
- 4005 Hickory Drive Ltd.
- City of Mississauga (Reply)
** Subject to change, on consent of the Appellants, pending the outcome of mediation
Phase 3 – to be determined following OLT decision in Phase 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.