Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
January 12, 2022
CASE NO(S).:
PL161294
PL180546
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Rykur Holdings Inc.
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan - Refusal of request by City of Guelph
Existing Designation:
Mixed Use D2 Land Use in the Downtown Secondary Plan
Proposed Designation:
Mixed Use D2 Land Use in the Downtown Secondary Plan
Purpose:
To permit a building height of 5 storeys whereas 4 storeys are permitted
Property Address/Description:
75 Dublin Street North
Municipality:
City of Guelph
Approval Authority No.:
OP 1603
OMB Case No.:
PL161294
OMB File No.:
PL161294
OMB Case Name:
Rykur Holdings Inc. v. Guelph (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
Guelph Old City Residents Association Inc.
Appellant:
Rykur Holdings Inc.
Appellant:
Upper Grand District School Board
Subject:
By-law No# (2016)-20113
Municipality:
City of Guelph
OMB Case No.:
PL161294
OMB File No.:
PL161295
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Rykur Holdings Inc.
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan - Refusal of request by the City of Guelph
Existing Designation:
Mixed Use 2
Proposed Designated:
Site Specific
Purpose:
To permit a maximum building height of five storeys
Property Address/Description:
75 Dublin Street North
Municipality:
City of Guelph
Approval Authority No.:
OP 1706
OMB Case No.:
PL180546
OMB File No.:
PL180546
OMB Case Name:
Rykur Holdings Inc. v. Guelph (City)
Heard:
November 2 and December 10, 2021 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Rykur Holdings Inc.
S. Snider (on November 2, 2021 only)
City of Guelph
A. Thornton (on December 10, 2021 only) and
P. Pickfield
Upper Grand District School Board
A.M. Heisey
Guelph Old City Residents Association
I. Flett
Inc.
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY HUGH S. WILKINS ON NOVEMBER 2 AND DECEMBER 10, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This Decision arises from Case Management Conferences (“CMC”) regarding appeals brought by Rykur Holdings Inc. (“Rykur”), the Upper Grand District School Board (“School Board”), and the Guelph Old City Residents Association Inc. (“Residents Association”) regarding the passage by the City of Guelph (“City”) of a Zoning By-law Amendment relating to the property located at 75 Dublin Street North.
2At a CMC held on July 21, 2021, the Tribunal was informed by Rykur that it had reached a proposed settlement with the City regarding its appeal. The Parties requested, and the Tribunal directed, that a further CMC be scheduled in order to give the School Board and Residents Association time to review the proposed settlement and consider their positions. Rykur said it had also settled an associated official plan amendment appeal relating to the subject property (OLT Case No. PL180546) and that appeal had been withdrawn. The City and Rykur were the only Parties in that proceeding.
3At a further CMC held on November 2, 2021, the Parties informed the Tribunal that the Residents Association and School Board had not agreed to settle. The Tribunal was also informed that Rykur would from that point on be self-represented and would no longer be calling witnesses at the hearing. With this change in circumstances, the City stated that it needed instructions from City Council on how to proceed. The Parties, on consent, requested the scheduling of a further CMC, which the Tribunal agreed to and scheduled for December 2021.
4The Tribunal held the further CMC on December 10, 2021. All of the Parties attended, except Rykur. At the CMC, the Parties in attendance identified the types and number of witnesses that they each plan to call at the hearing. The Parties stated that notwithstanding its status as a party, Rykur had agreed that its role would be limited to argument and it would not be calling evidence at the hearing. The Parties at the CMC presented a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, which, after some discussions relating to the filing of witness statements and Rykur’s role at the hearing, was agreed to subject to some further minor revisions being made. Subsequent to the CMC, the Tribunal received a finalized draft Procedural Order and Issues List on January 11, 2022, which the Tribunal has now reviewed, revised and approves.
5The Tribunal set hearing dates for April 2023.
ORDER
6The Tribunal approves the Procedural Order and Issues List attached as Attachment 1 to this Order and Decision.
7The Tribunal orders that the hearing in this matter will be held by video hearing on Monday, April 3, 2023 commencing at 10 a.m. Ten days have been set aside.
8Parties and Participants are asked to log into the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/538813309
Access Code: 538-813-309
9Parties and Participants are asked to set up the video hearing 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.
10Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling: +1 (647) 497-9391 or (Toll Free) 1-888-455-1389. The Access Code is indicated as above.
11Individuals 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.
12There will be no further notice.
13This Member is not seized.
“Hugh S. Wilkins”
HUGH S. WILKINS
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.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.
PL161294/PL180546 – Attachment 1
Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Rykur Holdings Inc.
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan - Refusal of request by City of Guelph
Existing Designation:
Mixed Use D2 Land Use in the Downtown Secondary Plan
Proposed Designation:
Mixed Use D2 Land Use in the Downtown Secondary Plan
Purpose:
To permit a building height of 5 storeys whereas 4 storeys are permitted
Property Address/Description:
75 Dublin Street North
Municipality:
City of Guelph
Approval Authority No.:
OP 1603
OMB Case No.:
PL161294
OMB File No.:
PL161294
OMB Case Name:
Rykur Holdings Inc. v. Guelph (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
Guelph Old City Residents Association Inc.
Appellant:
Rykur Holdings Inc.
Appellant:
Upper Grand District School Board
Subject:
By-law No# (2016)-20113
Municipality:
City of Guelph
OMB Case No.:
PL161294
OMB File No.:
PL161295
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Rykur Holdings Inc.
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan - Refusal of request by the City of Guelph
Existing Designation:
Mixed Use 2
Proposed Designated:
Site Specific
Purpose:
To permit a maximum building height of five storeys
Property Address/Description:
75 Dublin Street North
Municipality:
City of Guelph
Approval Authority No.:
OP 1706
OMB Case No.:
PL180546
OMB File No.:
PL180546
OMB Case Name:
Rykur Holdings Inc. v. Guelph (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
- The hearing will begin on April 3, 2023 at 10 a.m. as follows:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/538813309
Audio-only telephone line: Toll-Free 1-888-455-1389 or ++1 (647) 497-9391
Access Code: 538-813-309
The Parties may request the Tribunal hold an in-person hearing subject to the Tribunal’s practices at the time of the hearing and the availability of a location for the hearing.
The length of the hearing will be about ten days. The length of the hearing may be shortened as issues are reordered or where settlement is achieved.
The parties and participants identified at the case management conference held on July 21st, 2021 (Decision Issued on August 3, 2021) are set out in Attachment 1.
The Issues are set out in the Issues Lists 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.
Requirements Before the Hearing
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 provide their list of witnesses to all of the parties and the case coordinator on or before November 4, 2022.
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. 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 12. 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 12.
On or before December 12, 2022, the Appellants shall provide copies of their expert witness statements to all other parties and the Case Coordinator.
On or before January 16, 2023, the City shall provide copies of its expert witness statements, including statements responding to matters raised by the Appellants’ experts, to all other parties, participants and the Case Coordinator.
On or before February 13, 2023, the Appellants shall provide copies of their expert reply statements to all other parties, participants and the Case Coordinator.
Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before March 3, 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 the parties, participants and the Case Coordinator on or before March 8, 2023.
On or before March 17, 2023 a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to all of the parties in accordance with paragraph 20 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 24, 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.
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 before March 20, 2023 that the written evidence is not part of their record.
The parties shall prepare and file a detailed hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before March 20, 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, including the exchange of documents between parties and participants, shall 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 by email shall be governed by the Rule 7.
Any documents which may be used by a party in cross examination of an opposing party’s witness shall be password protected and only be accessible to the Tribunal and the other parties if it is introduced as evidence at the hearing, pursuant to the directions provided by the OLT Case Coordinator, prior to the commencement of the hearing day on which the document is to be used.
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.
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.
The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT Case Coordinator on or before March 31, 2023 prior to the hearing.
This Member is not seized.
So orders the Tribunal.
SUMMARY OF KEY DATES
Date
Hearing Event
November 4, 2022
Deadline to exchange expert witness lists
December 12, 2022
Deadline for Appellants to serve and file witness statements
January 16, 2023
Deadline for City to serve and file witness statements, including statements in response to Appellants’ statements
February 13, 2023
Deadline for Appellants to serve and file reply statements
March 3, 2023
Meeting of Like Experts to have been conducted no later than
March 8, 2023
Parties must file Agreed Statement of Fact(s) as determined by experts
March 17, 2023
Exchange of Participant Statements
March 20, 2023
Hearing Plan
March 20, 2023
Exchange of Visual Evidence
March 20, 2023
Notification to Tribunal and Parties if witness not to provide oral evidence
March 31, 2023
Joint Document Book filed with Tribunal
April 3, 2023
Hearing start date
ATTACHMENT 1
LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANT
PARTIES
COUNSEL/REPRESENTATIVE
City of Guelph
Legal Services Branch City Hall 1 Carden Street Guelph, ON N1H 3A1 Allison Thornton Email: allison.thornton@guelph.ca Tel: (519) 822-1260 Garrod Pickfield LLP 9 Norich Street West Guelph, ON N1H 2G8 Peter Pickfield Email: pickfield@garrodpickfield.ca Tel: (519) 837-0500
Upper Grand River District School Board
Papazian Heisey Myers, Barristers & Solicitors Standard Life Centre Suite 510, 121 King Street West P.O. Box 105 Toronto, ON M5H 3T9 Alan Heisey Email: heisey@phmlaw.com Tel: (416) 601-2702
Guelph Old City Residents Association
Eric K. Gillespie Professional Corporation 600-10 King Street East Toronto, ON M5C 1C3 Ian Flett Email: iflett@gillespielaw.ca Tel: (416) 939-6396
Rykur Holdings Inc.
Tom Lammer 24 Crestwood Place Guelph, N1E 4M3 Email: tom@lammergroup.com Tel: (519) 221-6359
PARTICIPANTS
Sandy Clipsham Email: sandyclipsham@yahoo.ca
Karen Hunter Email: karenhunter@thoughtware.ca
Catherine Killen Email: ckillen1@gmail.com
Lillian and Peter Links Email: lillianlinks@gmail.com
Sandra Parmegiani Email: sparmegi@uoguelph.ca
Christine Peters Email: main.optometry@gmail.com
Mary Peirson Email: mcp@sentex.net
Susan Watson Email: susanejwatson@gmail.com
Roger Johnson Email: rpj880@yahoo.com
ATTACHMENT 2
ISSUE LIST
NOTE: The identification of an issue on this list does not mean that all Parties agree that the issue, or the manner in which it is expressed, is appropriate for or relevant to the proper determination of the appeals. The extent of the appropriateness and/or relevance of the issue may be a matter of evidence and/or argument at the Hearing.
Any Party may call or not call evidence on any issue; however, a Party is obligated to call evidence on any issue raised by that Party.
City of Guelph
- Should the modified Zoning By-law Amendment as agreed upon between the City and Rykur in the July 20, 2021 Minutes of Settlement be approved on the basis that it:
(i) is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and in particular sections 1.1 a), b), c), d), e), and g); 1.1.2; 1.1.3.1; 1.1.3.2; 1.1.33;1.1.3.4;1.1.3.5; 1.4.1; 1.4.3; and 1.7
(ii) conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and in particular sections 2.2.2. 2.2.2, 2.2.3, and 2.2.6
(iii) conforms to the City of Guelph Official Plan including policies 2.1, 2.2, 3, 3.1, 3.3, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.18, 3.20, 3.21, 9.3, 9.3.1, 11.1.2.1, 11.1.2.2, 11.1.7.1, 11.1.7.2, 11.1.7.4; 11.1.8.1, and Schedules C and D
(iv) has regard for matters of Provincial interest under s. 2 of the Planning Act including sub-sections (h), (j), (p), (q), and (r); and
(v) represents good planning?
Upper Grand River District School Board
- Does Zoning Bylaw 2016-20113 conform with the City of Guelph Official Plan, specifically:
(a) Policy 2.1 c
(b) Policy 2.2.2 c
(c) Policy 3 k
(d) Policy 3.8.4 iv
(e) Policy 3.18 – Energy sustainability
(f) Policy 4.7.2
(g) Policy 4.8 and 4.8.4
(h) Policy 4.8.5.8
(i) Policy 10.18
(j) Policy 11.1.6
(k) Policy 11.1.7.3. – Mixed Use 1 Areas
(l) Policy 11.1.7.4. – Mixed Use 2 Areas
(m) Policy 11.1.8.1.4
(n) Policy 11.1.8.4
(o) Policy 11.1.8.5.2
(p) Policy 11.2.2.2
(q) Policy 11.2.7.4
Does the proposed built form permitted by the City Zoning Bylaw provide an appropriate transition from the immediately adjacent property to the east designated Mixed Use Area 2, the Mixed Use Area 1 further to the east and the low rise residential community to the west?
Is the built form proposed for the subject site in the City Zoning Bylaw appropriate to, or does it conform to the policies in, the MU2 Area designation of the Downtown Secondary Plan or does it better fit or conform to the MU1 Area designation in the Official Plan?
Is Zoning Bylaw 2016-20113 consistent with the PPS, and specifically section 1.6.5, 1.6.11.2, 1.7.1(I), 1.8.1(f) and 2.6.3?
Is the Central Public School a public service facility and/or community hub as defined in the Growth Plan? If the answer is yes does the City Zoning Bylaw conform with policies 1.2, 1.2.1, 2.1, 2.2.1.4 (d) of the Growth Plan, 2019 requirements to support or enhance the function of public service facilities and community hubs?
Does Zoning Bylaw 2016-20113 with the proposed setbacks and step backs to permit a 4-storey building result in unacceptable planning impacts including:
(a) Inappropriate overlook, privacy concerns for the adjacent Central Public School and associated outdoor learning and play areas from windows and balconies in the proposed 4 storey residential apartment building?
(b) Loss of direct sunlight and indirect light and additional shadow on the school property, outdoor class room learning, playground, tot lot, Peace Garden and the rooftop photovoltaic cells and corresponding impacts?
(c) A risk of serious conflicts on Dublin Street North between parental pick up and drop off of students and residents of the proposed building with ensuing safety concerns?
(d) The impact of on-street loading and unloading of the building on the area and school due to the failure to provide an on-site loading facility.
(e) built form that does not provide an appropriate relationship to the Central Public School that is incompatible with the existing and planned built form in the surrounding area or give sufficient regard to the surrounding heritage context
Did the City of Guelph in approving Zoning Bylaw 2016 -20113 fail to properly apply the Official Plan by not considering the full range of heights permitted in the Mixed Use Area 2 designation being 2-4 stories?
What criteria would/should be applied in implementing zoning for a property using the lower range of heights in the Official Plan?
Did the City of Guelph incorrectly place reliance on the existing non-conforming Institutional zoning of the subject site in assessing appropriate built form and height for the subject site?
Should the Zoning bylaw proposed be amended to require one off-street loading space (3.6 metres wide by 9.0 metres long, with a vertical clearance of 4.2 metres) to prevent conflicts with the Central Public School parent pick up and drop off on Dublin Street North located within the public road allowance and parking on Cork Street?
Should Zoning Bylaw (2016)-20113 proposed be amended to prohibit any pedestrian entrance on a building on the site from Dublin Street North and require that it be located on Cork Street or directly at the southwest corner of Dublin and Cork to prevent or reduce potential conflicts with the Central Public School parent pick up and drop off on Dublin Street and improve safety for children?
Should Zoning Bylaw (2016)-20113 provide a maximum floor space index incorporated into the bylaw as a performance standard to control massing given the sensitivity of the subject property due to inter alia, its elevation and location between Central Public School and the Basilica of Our Lady Immaculate, a National Historic Site and proximity to the low rise residential area to the west?
Should Zoning Bylaw (2016)-20113 provide a lower maximum absolute height limit including mechanical penthouse, and greater minimum front yard, side yard, rear yard setbacks, and building step backs?
Should Zoning Bylaw (2016)-20113 control the location, dimensions and height of the mechanical penthouse and HVAC.
From an urban design standpoint, does the proposed 4 storey development as permitted by Zoning Bylaw 2016-20113 represent good architectural and urban design practice particularly as it references some older forms of materiality but in no way references the existing modernist school building immediately to the north?
Do the changes to Zoning Bylaw (2016)-20113 authorised by the Minutes of Settlement between the City of Guelph and Rykur made July 20, 2021, reduce, or exacerbate the impacts of the proposed development on the Central Public School?
Should the Tribunal amend Zoning Bylaw (2016)-20113 as per the Minutes of Settlement between the City of Guelph and Rykur made July 20, 2021 and do the changes proposed to be made address issues 1-16 above?
Is the approval of the zoning bylaw as amended by the Settlement premature and contrary to the Official Plan in the absence of a detailed site plan, building envelopes and important urban design details such as balcony and window locations, cornice heights, step backs, mechanical penthouse, location etc given the location of the property, the use of the Central Public School , the heritage and urban design context and topography.
What modifications should be made to the site specific zoning bylaw for the property if the Tribunal is prepared to approve a 4 storey building on the property.
Guelph Old City Residents Association Inc.
Will the proposed development at the subject site have a negative impact on adjacent property with cultural heritage attributes, namely “Catholic Hill”?
Will the proposed development at the subject site undermine the future protection of Catholic Hill as a cultural heritage landscape?
ATTACHMENT 3
ORDER OF EVIDENCE
City of Guelph (Factual/background Information only)
Upper Grand River District School Board
Guelph Old City Residents Association Inc.
City of Guelph
Reply
a. Upper Grand River District School Board
b. Guelph Old City Residents Association Inc
Purpose of the Procedural Order and Meaning of terms
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.