Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 21, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001751

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

Applicant and Appellant: 1150 Centre Street GP Inc.

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 1-88 - Refusal or neglect of the City of Vaughan to make a decision

Existing Zoning: C1 Restricted Commercial Zone

Proposed Zoning: RA3 Apartment Residential Zone

Purpose: To permit the development of a 12-storey mixed use building

Property Address/Description: 1150 Centre Street

Municipality: City of Vaughan

Municipality File No.: Z.21.028

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001751

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001751

OLT Case Name: 1150 Centre Street GP Inc. v. Vaughan (City)

Heard: December 5, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
1150 Centre Street GP Inc.	C. Tanzola
City of Vaughan	B. Engell, R. Kehar (in absentia)
Centre Street Properties Inc.	S. Lampert, M. Flowers (in absentia)
MCC Properties Corp.	C. Kapelos, A. Biggart (in absentia)
Brownridge Ratepayers Association	S. Yeung Racco*
Barry Crystal	Self-represented
Brian Leibtog	Self-represented
Yaroslav Zakrevsky	S. Yeung Racco*

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY D. ARNOLD ON DECEMBER 5, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This second Case Management Conference (the “CMC”) was held to prepare for a hearing on the merits of the Appellant’s appeal to the Tribunal of the failure of the City of Vaughan (the “City”) to make a decision within the prescribed statutory timeline with respect to an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment to the City’s Zoning By-law 1-88 (the “ZBA”) to permit the redevelopment of the lands municipally known as 1150 Centre Street in the City of Vaughan (the “Subject Property”) with a 12-storey mixed-residential/commercial use building and a 3-storey stacked back-to-back townhouse block (the “Application”).

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

2Sarah Gersh attended this CMC and it is confirmed that Participant Status was granted to Sarah Gersh at the first CMC for this matter held on June 10, 2022.

3It was noted that the ZBA pertains to the Appellant’s application to amend the City’s Zoning By-law 1-88. The Appellant has another appeal pertaining to the Subject Property filed with the Tribunal with respect to the City’s “new” Zoning By-law 001-2021 (the “New Zoning By-law”). Following submissions from the parties, it is confirmed that the Appellant does not, nor does any other party to these proceedings, seek consolidation or that these two appeals be heard together and, in this regard, the Appellant referred to the transition provisions of the New Zoning By-law as addressing its concern that the outcome of the Appeal be reflected in the outcome of the appeal of the New Zoning By-law. The Tribunal is satisfied, at this time, that these two appeals need not be consolidated nor heard together.

MEDIATION OR SETTLEMENT OPPORTUNITIES

4There was discussion regarding the utility of mediation to resolve or narrow the issues of the Appeal and the parties were directed to contact the case co-ordinator in the event that they wish to pursue a mediation assessment. The parties were encouraged to continue to share information in an effort to resolve or narrow the issues.

PROCEDURAL ORDER

5A draft Procedural Order including the draft Issues List was provided for consideration at this CMC. Given the number of parties and their respective perspectives, there appeared to be repetition in the draft Issues List although the “grouping” of issues under subject matter headings assists to clarify. The parties were directed to provide a revised draft Procedural Order to the Tribunal on or before Friday December 9, 2022.

6A draft Procedural Order was subsequently provided to the Tribunal as requested at the CMC and the finalized Procedural Order for this matter attached as Schedule “A” to this Order is approved.

HEARING DATES

7A ten-day Hearing by video commencing May 1, 2023 at 10 a.m. was scheduled at the first CMC, with details pertaining to this Hearing set out in the Order of D. Chipman dated June 21, 2022 (the “First CMC Order”).

8In accordance with Paragraph 17 of the First CMC Order, the parties were canvassed to determine the status of identification of expert witnesses by each of the parties and to assess whether the Hearing dates should remain on the Tribunal schedule. The Tribunal is satisfied that the parties have made adequate efforts to narrow the issues and, correspondingly, the number of expert witnesses that may be called to provide evidence at the Hearing, such that the Hearing dates should remain on the Tribunal calendar.

9It is noted, however, that the finalized Procedural Order attached as Schedule “A” to this Order provides for certain requirements that will enable a subsequent opportunity to assess the appropriateness of the Hearing dates and length. Specifically, a deadline date of February 6, 2023 has been provided for the exchange of witness lists. The parties are directed to inform the case co-ordinator forthwith after this deadline date if any party has not identified a witness(es) with sufficient technical expertise to address an issue or issues that has or have been included in the Issues List of the Procedural Order at the request of such party. In such circumstances the Tribunal may schedule a third CMC or Telephone Conference Call to address the deletion of issue(s) in respect of which a party has not so identified a witness(es) in accordance with Paragraph 5 of the finalized Procedural Order.

ORDER

10The Tribunal so orders and provides these CMC directives for the purposes of the case management of this appeal.

11The Panel Member is not seized in this matter but will remain available for continued case management to the extent that the Tribunal calendar permits.

“D. Arnold”

D. ARNOLD

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.

SCHEDULE “A”

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

Applicant and Appellant: 1150 Centre Street GP Inc.

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 1-88 - Refusal or neglect of the City of Vaughan to make a decision

Existing Zoning: C1 Restricted Commercial Zone

Proposed Zoning: RA3 Apartment Residential Zone

Purpose: To permit the development of a 12-storey mixed use building

Property Address/Description: 1150 Centre Street

Municipality: City of Vaughan

Municipality File No.: Z.21.028

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001751

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001751

OLT Case Name: 1150 Centre Street GP Inc. v. Vaughan (City)

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

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will begin on May 1, 2023 at 10 a.m. at https://meet.goto.com/687587165 .

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 10 days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1 (see the sample procedural order for the meaning of these terms).

5. 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. If a party fails to identity a witness in accordance with paragraph 9 below with sufficient technical expertise to address an issue(s) that the party has placed on the issues list, that party may have their issue(s) struck from the list by the Tribunal.

6. 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 the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

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

8. 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 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 February 6, 2023 and in accordance with paragraph 22 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.

10. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before March 3, 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 March 22, 2023.

11. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 13 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.

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 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 April 12, 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 22 below.

14. On or before April 12, 2023, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 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 March 22, 2023, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

16. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT Case Coordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before April 19, 2023.

17. On or before April 24, 2023, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

18. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before April 24, 2023.

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 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.

21. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before April 24, 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.

Attachment 1

Parties

City of Vaughan Raj Kehar / Effie Lidakis rkehar@weirfoulds.com / effie.lidakis@vaughan.ca

1150 Centre Street GP Inc. Christopher Tanzola / Natalie Ast ctanzola@overlandllp.ca / nast@overlandllp.ca

Centre Street Properties Inc. Mark Flowers markf@davieshowe.com

MCC Properties Corp. Christina Kapelos / Andrew Biggart tkapelos@richieketcheson.com / abiggart@richieketcheson.com

Brownridge Ratepayers Association Sandra Yeung Racco info@brownridgera.com / sandrayeungracco@outlook.com

Yaroslav Zakrevsky – yaroslav.zakrevsky@gmail.com

Barry Crystal – b-crystal@rogers.com

Brian Leibtog – bleibtog@gmail.com

Participant

Sarah Gersh sfudim@hotmail.com

Attachment 2

Consolidated Issues List

The identification of an issue on these Issues Lists 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 will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing.

1. Policy Issues

   1. Provincial Interest/Planning Act

      i. Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment have regard to matters of provincial interest set out in Section 2 h, j, n, o, p, q, r of the Planning Act? (Vaughan Issue #1)

      ii. Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment have regard to matters of Provincial interest as set out in section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections h, n, o, p, q and r? (MCC Properties Issue #1)

   2. Provincial Policy Statement

      i. Is the proposed Amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 including but not limited to policies 1.1, 1.1.3, 1.4, 1.6 and 4.6? (Vaughan Issue #2)

      ii. Is the proposed ZBA consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, including but not limited to Sections 1.1.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, 1.1.3.6, 1.4.3, 1.6.6.1, 1.6.6.7 and 4.6? (MCC Properties Issue #2)

   3. Growth Plan

      i. Does the proposed Amendment conform to A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 including but not limited to Sections 1.2.1, 2.2, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.6 and 5.2? (Vaughan Issue #3)

      ii. Does the proposed ZBA conform to A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019, as amended, including but not limited to Sections 1.2.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.4, 2.2.6, 3.2.6 and 3.2.7? (MCC Properties Issue #3)

   4. Regional Official Plan

      i. Does the proposed Amendment conform with the York Region Official Plan 2010, including but not limited to: Sections 1.2; 3.5; 5.1; 5.2.3; 5.2.4; 5.2.8 (a)-(g) inclusive; 5.2.10; 5.2.11; 5.2.21; 5.3.2; 5.3.3 (a), (b), (c); 5.3.4; 5.3.5; 5.3.6; 5.3.9; 5.4.1; 5.4.2; 5.4.3; 5.4.4; 5.4.9; 5.4.16; 5.4.20; 5.4.23; 5.4.28; 5.4.29; 5.4.30; 5.4.31; 5.5 ; 7.1; 7.3; Chapter 8: Implementation; Relevant Schedules? (Vaughan Issue #4A)

      ii. Does the proposed Amendment conform to the York Region Official Plan, 2022, including but not limited to sections 1.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 4.1, 4.4, 6.1, 6.3, 6.4 and 7.0 and applicable schedules and maps? (Vaughan Issue #4B)

      iii. Does the proposed ZBA conform to the York Region Official Plan, 2010, including but not limited to policies 1.2.1, 2.3.41, 2.3.4, 4.2.6, 4.4.4, 5.3.9, 5.4.8, 5.4.9, 5.4.16, and 5.4.18? (MCC Properties Issue #4)

   5. Vaughan Official Plan (Part I)

      i. Does the proposed Amendment conform to the City of Vaughan Official Plan, 2010, including but not limited to policies 1.5 – goal 8, 2.1.3, 2.2.5, 4.2.3, 4.3.2, 9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.2.1, 9.2.2, 9.2.3, 10.1.2.5-10.1.2.8, 10.1.2.20 – 10.1.2.27 and applicable schedules and maps? (Vaughan Issue #5)

      ii. Does the proposed ZBA conform to the City of Vaughan’s Official Plan, 2010, including but not limited to policies 1.5-Goal 8, 2.1.3.2, 2.1.3.2, 2.2.5, 2.2.5.13, 4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.3.3, 9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.2.1, 9.1.2.7, 9.2.2.3, 9.2.3.3, 9.2.3.5, and 10.1.20.20? (MCC Properties Issue #5)

   6. Vaughan Official Plan (Part II)

      i. Does the proposed Amendment conform to the City of Vaughan Official Plan Volume 2, Center Street Corridor Area Specific Policy 12.9 including but not limited to policies 12.9.1, 12.9.2, 12.9.3.4, 12.9.4, 12.9.5.9, 12.9.7 and applicable schedules and maps? (Vaughan Issue #6)

      ii. Does the proposed ZBA conform to the City of Vaughan’s Official Plan 2010, Volume 2, Centre Street Corridor Area Specific Policy 12.9 including but not limited to policies 12.9.2.1, 12.9.2.3, 12.9.3.4, 12.9.4.2, 12.9.4.3, 12.9.4.4, 12.9.5.9, 12.9.7.4 and 12.9.7.7? (MCC Properties Issue #6)

2. General Planning Issues

   1. Does the proposed development conform to the official plans for Vaughan and/or York Region for the following: f. Density for the entire development? (Crystal Issue)

   2. How far from the existing residents & commercial/retail users should the new development be located to minimize the negative effect that new developments normally have on the existing & future residents. (Brownridge Issue #4)

   3. How to harmonize this development with the future developments that are planned for a number of properties to the East & to the West of the applicant property (Brownridge Issue #5)

   4. Will the proposed development adversely affect and/or limit the redevelopment potential of the adjacent lands at 1136 Centre Street? If so, what revisions to the proposed development are necessary and/or appropriate? (Centre Street Properties Issue)

   5. Does the proposed development represent good planning and is it in the public interest to approve? (Vaughan Issue #12)

   6. If the Tribunal allows the appeal in whole or in part, should the Tribunal’s Order on the zoning by-law amendment be withheld until the zoning by-law amendment is in a form satisfactory to the City and the Tribunal? (Vaughan Issue #14)

3. Built Form/Urban Design

   1. Is the proposed built form, specifically the proposed stacked townhouses, appropriate with respect to their siting and public access? (Vaughan Issue #7)

   2. Does the proposed development appropriately address any applicable setback requirements? (Vaughan Issue #9)

   3. Does the proposed development conform to the official plans for Vaughan and/or York Region for the following: e. Setback requirements? (Crystal Issue)

   4. Is the proposed built form appropriate for the site and the surrounding area, especially when considering the issue of access to and from the site? (MCC Properties Issue #7)

   5. Does the proposed ZBA appropriately address the setback requirements on the existing and proposed roads? (MCC Properties Issue #9)

   6. Does the proposed development, in the “ultimate” condition, assume and/or rely upon a particular form of future redevelopment on the adjacent lands at 1136 Centre Street and, if so, is this appropriate? If it is not appropriate, what revisions to the proposed development are necessary and/or appropriate? (Centre Street Properties Issue)

   7. Does the proposed development negatively impact the existing residents in regards to shadows? (Crystal Issue)

   8. Do the proposed townhouses create issues with regards to sunlight, privacy, and overall enjoyment of neighbouring property? (Leibtog Issue)

   9. Does the proposed development have regard to the City-wide Urban Design Guidelines? (Vaughan Issue #8, MCC Properties Issue #8)

4. Transportation – Access & Traffic

   1. Is the proposed site access appropriate? Has the proposed Amendment considered all site constraints? (Vaughan Issue #10)

   2. Does the proposed development conform to the official plans for Vaughan and/or York Region for the following: c. Site access that is in good planning with the existing properties? (Crystal Issue)

   3. Where should the new residents & user of the commercial/retail space enter & exit the property (Vaughan Blvd; Centre St; the driveway to the East of the property; or any other location) (Brownridge Issue #1)

   4. Does the proposed ZBA appropriately address site constraints, including vehicular access constraints due to the bus rapid transitway along Centre Street? (MCC Properties Issue #10)

   5. Does the capacity analysis provided in the traffic study provide adequate details on the expected queues along Vaughan Boulevard to determine if the proposed site driveway can function without negative impacts to adjacent property owners and accesses? (MCC Properties Issue #15)

   6. Does the traffic study prepared for the ZBA utilize appropriate turning movement counts that are reflective of the base traffic conditions? (MCC Properties Issue #14)

   7. Is there available transportation capacity to support the development? (MCC Properties Issue #11)

   8. Do the background developments included in the traffic study capture the expected growth in development related traffic volumes and new road connections? (MCC Properties Issue #16)

   9. Will the developer(s) attempt to open up the cul-de-sac on MacArthur Drive to vehicle or foot traffic? (Leibtog Issue)

   10. Management of and increased traffic onto residential streets with no direct outlet to a main road. (Zakrevsky Issue #2)

   11. Demonstration of coordinated planning for car and pedestrian traffic with adjourning properties/plazas as well as upcoming properties in the immediate vicinity. (Zakrevsky Issue #6)

   12. Will the proposed development adversely affect the existing operations of the adjacent commercial property at 1136 Centre Street, including the access from Centre Street at the mutual property boundary? If so, what revisions to the proposed development are necessary and/or appropriate? (Centre Street Properties Issue)

   13. Is it appropriate to assume that future access to the proposed development from Centre Street will primarily be located on the adjacent lands at 1136 Centre Street, as shown on the “Ultimate Landscape Plan” prepared by Ferris + Associates Inc., dated October 28, 2022? If not, what revisions to the proposed development are necessary and/or appropriate? (Centre Street Properties Issue)

   14. Does the proposed ZBA appropriately address and account for traffic safety impacts, including the impact of traffic movements to and from 1200 Centre Street? (MCC Properties Issue #12)

   15. Safety. Proposed entrance/exit on to narrow residential streets that have no sidewalks where kids walk to school on the road. (Zakrevsky Issue #1)

   16. Does the proposed development impact safety along Centre Street, and residential roads in the area including residential roads that do not have sidewalks. (Crystal Issue)

5. Transportation – Parking

   1. Are the proposed parking rates appropriate for all components of the site and is the supporting parking study consistent with the City of Vaughan Parking Study Guidelines? (Vaughan Issue #11, Brownridge Issue, Crystal Issue)

   2. Parking. Sufficiency of on ground parking for commercial use on first floor as well as on-ground parking for visitors and below ground for residents. (Zakrevsky Issue)

   3. Are the proposed parking rates as set out in the ZBA appropriate for the site, especially in light of the proposed variety of uses proposed for the site? (MCC Properties Issue #13)

   4. Does the development as proposed lack adequate parking? (Leibtog Issue)

6. Servicing and Infrastructure

   1. Is there a stormwater study for the proposed development and will the proposed development negatively impact the existing infrastructure? (Crystal Issue)

   2. Are there neighbourhood infrastructure limitations to support the proposed development, including sewage capacity? (Zakrevsky Issue #5)

   3. Will the proposed development negatively impact the current water pressure for existing residents and businesses? (Crystal Issue)

   4. Is there sufficiency of water pressure? (Zakrevsky Issue #4)

   5. What amenities are needed and/or necessary for the future residents (Parkette; Park; Community Space; Bicycle Racks; etc.)? (Brownridge Issue #2, Crystal Issue)

7. Other Matters

   1. Is the proposed exhaust vent in proximity to the Leibtog property appropriate (risk to health and safety? Emissions? Noise?) (Leibtog Issues)

   2. How much noise is expected from the parking structure and related activities? (Leibtog Issue)

   3. Will there be noxious or harmful exhaust chemicals from the vehicular underground parking? Will there be moisture or mold issues (Leibtog Issues)

   4. Does the proposed development meet the Ontario Building Code for fire route design? (MCC Properties Issue #17)

8. Holding Provision

   1. If the Tribunal allows the appeal in whole or in part, should the zoning by-law amendment for the proposed development be subject to a Holding provision (“H”) and if so, should the following conditions (or any other “H” conditions) be included to be addressed to the satisfaction of the City:

      i. the sewage and water supply capacity be assigned, in accordance with the City’s approved Servicing Capacity Distribution Protocol, to the site, for the approved number of dwelling units, by resolution of City Council;

      ii. A site development application be approved by City Council for the portion of the site proposed for removal of the “H”;

      iii. the Owner has provided a 3-point NFPA 291 hydrant flow test to confirm adequate flow and pressure in the water supply system in support of the proposed development;

      iv. the Owner has submitted a Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment (“ESA”) to the City for review and approval to the satisfaction of the City’s Development Engineering Department, including any peer review if deemed necessary;

      v. the Owner shall provide, if required and as applicable, a Remedial Action Plan (“RAP”) and any updated ESA reports in accordance with Ontario Regulation O. Reg 153/04, as amended for the site, to the satisfaction of the City’s Development Engineering Department, including any peer review if deemed necessary;

      vi. the Owner shall provide a letter of reliance that permits the City to rely on the provided ESA reports; the letters shall conform to the City’s standards template and shall be signed by the environmental consultants undertaking the ESA reports;

      vii. the Owner shall provide confirmation to the City that a Record of Site Condition (“RSC”) for the site has been posted on the Environmental Site Registry of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP), including an acknowledgement letter issued by MECP, should a change to a more sensitive land use as defined under O. Reg 153/04, as amended or remediation of any portions of the site be required to meet the applicable Standards set out in the MOE document: Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, as amended;

      viii. the Owner shall undertake an Environmental Noise Assessment for the proposed development and provide a detailed noise report to the satisfaction of the City’s Development Engineering Department, that includes any recommended mitigation measures as required;

      ix. a resolution is passed by City Council classifying the subject site as a Class 4 area pursuant to Ministry of the Environment Guideline NPC 300.; and

      x. execution of a site plan agreement, or other such agreement, satisfactory to the City to be registered on title which obligates the Owner to provide notice to any subsequent owner, as well as any prospective purchasers or tenants that the dwellings are located in a Class 4 Area, and to agree to register this notice and any and all warning clauses on title, and include them in any purchase and sale agreement and in any lease or rental agreement, to the satisfaction of the City’s Planning Department. (Vaughan Issue #13)

Attachment 3

Order of Evidence

1. 1150 Centre Street GP Inc.
2. City of Vaughan
3. Other Parties (order to be determined at the outset of the Hearing)
4. 1150 Centre Street GP Inc., in reply

Attachment 4

Summary of Exchange Dates

Event	Date Due
List of Witnesses	February 6, 2023
Meeting of Experts	March 3, 2023
Confirmation of Number of Hearing Dates	March 22, 2023
Agreed Statement of Facts	March 22, 2023
Witness Statements	April 12, 2023
Participant Statements	April 12, 2023
Reply Witness Statements	April 19, 2023
Visual Evidence	April 24, 2023
Joint Document Book	April 24, 2023
Hearing Plan	April 24, 2023
Start of Hearing	May 1, 2023

Attachment to Sample Procedural Order

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.