Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 18, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002218 (Formerly, PL200381)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: OnePiece Ideal (MS) Developments Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Refusal of request by the City of Markham Existing Designation: “Community Amenity Area – Major Urban Place”, “Open Space” and “Open Space – Environmentally Significant”, in accordance with Official Plan Amendment No. 21 (OPA 21, the Markham Centre Secondary Plan) Proposed Designated: An Official Plan Amendment to allow for an increase in the maximum permitted building height from 33-storeys to 47-storeys and to delete the permissions for below grade parking beneath a portion of the Phase 1 lands designated “Open Space” Purpose: To permit the development of a 47-storey mixed-use residential building with ground floor retail containing 362 residential uses, including 9-storeys of above grade parking, on the Phase 1 lands (the western parcel) Property Address/Description: 28 Main Street, Unionville Municipality: City of Markham Approval Authority File No.: 19-142690 OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002218 Legacy Case No.: PL200381 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002218 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL200381 OLT Case Name: OnePiece Ideal (MS) Developments Inc. v. Markham (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: OnePiece Ideal (MS) Developments Inc. Subject: Application to amend Site-Specific Zoning By-law No. 2018-134 – Refusal of Application by the City of Markham Existing Zoning: “Markham Centre Downtown Two 28 (Hold) (MC-D228[H])”, “Markham Centre Public Space 29 (MC-PS129)”, “Markham Centre Public Space one (MC-PS1)” and “Markham Centre Public Space Two (MC-PS2)” Proposed Zoning: To amend a portion of the subject site from “Markham Centre Public Space One *29 (MC-PS1 *29)” to “Markham Centre Public Space One (MC-PS1)”, as well as to amend certain site-specific development standards, including the maximum building height and setbacks, deleting subsection 6.29 (*29) which allowed for parking beneath the west park block and amending the definition of “storey” for the purposes of applying building standard Purpose: To permit the development of a 47-storey mixed-use residential building with ground floor retail containing 362 residential uses, including 9-storeys of above grade parking, on the Phase 1 lands (the western parcel) Property Address/Description: 28 Main Street, Unionville Municipality: City of Markham Municipality File No.: 19-142690 OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002224 Legacy Case No.: PL200382 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002218 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL200381

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Referred by: OnePiece Ideal (MS) Developments Inc. Subject: Site Plan Property Address/Description: 28 Main Street, Unionville Municipality: City of Markham OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002226 Legacy Case No.: PL200383 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002218 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL200381

Heard: February 24, 2022 by Video Hearing (“VH”)

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
OnePiece Ideal (MS) Development Inc. (“Applicant/Appellant”)	J. Park, A. Frank
City of Markham (“City”)	P. Patterson
Amica (Unionville) Inc. (“Amica”) and Rockport Unionville Inc. (“Rockport”)	D. Bronskill
York Region District School Board	B. Sully
Unionville Residents Association (“Association”)	P. Miasek*

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON ON FEBRUARY 24, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1This matter involves Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan applications filed by the Applicant/Appellant to permit the development of a mixed-use residential development to be located at 28 Main Street in the City.

2The Tribunal last held a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) on November 23 and 24, 2021 in this matter. A further CMC was held by VH on February 24, 2022, largely for the purpose of finalizing the governing procedural order (“PO”) for the hearing of this appeal, which has already been scheduled by the Tribunal for the period of Monday, December 5 to Thursday, December 15, 2022.

3At the VH, counsel for the Parties noted some content in the draft PO that needed revision. Furthermore, the Association represented by Mr. Miasek had some discussion at the VH with counsel for the Applicant and for the City, and made submissions to the Tribunal concerning the framing of certain issues raised by the Association in the draft PO submitted to the Tribunal. Essentially, Mr. Miasek sought to have a reference in the PO to issues relating to a potential amendment to the City’s in-force Secondary Plan and an underlying new draft concept plan. However, counsel for both the Applicant and the City pointed out that neither the amendment to the Secondary Plan nor the new concept plan have yet been adopted and will also not have been finalized by the time of the hearing of this case. In any event, certainly neither was in force at the time of the applications or the initiation of the appeal relating to this matter.

4The Tribunal concurred with counsel for the Applicant and the City that the PO must not reflect any issues or evidence related to planning instruments, and any underlying related documents, that are not, and may not ever be, in force. The Tribunal, therefore, directed the Parties to work with Mr. Miasek to finalize the form of the PO accordingly. Mr. Miasek understood and agreed with this.

5Subsequent to the VH, counsel for the Parties submitted a final PO in form and content agreed to by Mr. Miasek for the Association, now appended to this Decision as Attachment 1.

ORDER

6The appeal now scheduled to be held before the Tribunal during the period of December 5 to December 15, 2022, shall be governed by the Procedural Order appended as Attachment 1 hereto.

“William R. Middleton”

WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON 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.

ATTACHMENT 1

Ontario Land Tribunal 655 Bay Street, Suite 1500 Toronto ON M5G 1E5 Telephone: (416) 212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248 Website: olt.gov.on.ca

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire 655 rue Bay, suite 1500 Toronto ON M5G 1E5 Téléphone: (416) 212-6349 Sans Frais: 1-866-448-2248 Site Web: olt.gov.on.ca

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002218 (Formerly, PL200381)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

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

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

PROCEDURAL ORDER

The Tribunal orders that:

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

Organization of the Hearing

The hearing is scheduled to proceed by video as follows:

Monday, December 5 to Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 10 a.m.

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/656004293

Access code: 656-004-293

Audio-only telephone line: (Toll Free) 1 (888) 299-1889, +1 (647) 497-9373

Audio-only access code: same as indicated above.

The parties’ estimation for the length of the hearing is 9 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. The procedural order deadlines are generally found in Attachment 1 to this Order.
The parties and participants identified at the prehearing conference are listed in Attachment 2 to this Order.
The Issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3 to this Order. 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 at the hearing shall be as set out in Attachment 4 hereto. 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, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.
Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the first 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.
If the hearing is to proceed electronically, 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 (https://olt.gov.on.ca/tribunals/lpat/).

Requirements Before the Hearing

On or before August 1, 2022, 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 in accordance with Section 21 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.
On or before August 26, 2022, expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts' meeting, on or before September 21, 2022, the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the LPAT case coordinator.
The parties shall prepare and file a hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before November 29, 2022,with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, at 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, prior to, or in the course of the hearing.
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 Section 15 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. For greater certainty, each expert witness statement must comply with the minimum content requirements specified in Rule 7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. If the expert witness has prepared any report(s) that he/she intends to rely on at the hearing, and which did not form part of the submissions made to the City, such report(s) shall be provided to the other parties at the same as the delivery of expert witness statements, as in Section 15 below.
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 Section 15 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 Section 14 below.
On or before October 7, 2022, the parties shall provide copies of their witness statements and expert witness statements (full disclosure including reports) to the other parties and to the OLT case coordinator, in accordance with Section 21 below.
On or before November 4, 2022, parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case coordinator a written reply/response to any written evidence, to be filed in accordance with Section 22 below.
The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case coordinator on or before November 21, 2022, to be filed in both electronic and hardcopy format in accordance with Section 22 below.
On or before November 25, 2022, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties. The Tribunal and all parties shall be notified if a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the scheduled commencement of the hearing.
A party who provides a witness’ written evidence 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.
A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. Such a motion shall be in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rule 10, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties at least 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.
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 or as directed by the Tribunal.
All filings shall be submitted electronically and in hard copy, to the Tribunal and the Parties. 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. All documents to be filed with the Tribunal shall be organized, tabbed and digitally searchable and such materials will be filed in accordance with directions contained in the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, dated June 29, 2021, or as may be amended. This Section 21 applies regardless of whether the hearing event is in-person or electronic
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.
The Tribunal may conduct mediation on consent of all Parties, on consent of those Parties who wish to participate in mediation, or if the Tribunal sees fit.
The purpose of this Procedural Order and the meaning of the terms used in this Procedural Order are set out in Attachment 5.

This Member is [not] seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

Summary of Key Dates

Date	Hearing Event
August 1, 2022	Exchange of List of Witnesses and the order in which they will be called – para. 10
August 26, 2022	Expert Witness Meeting – para. 11
September 21, 2022	Filing of Statement(s) of Agreed Facts and Issues – para. 11
October 7, 2022	Exchange of Witness Statements – paras. 13-15
November 4, 2022	Exchange of Reply Evidence/Statements – para. 16
November 21, 2022	Filing of Joint Document Book – para. 17
November 25, 2022	Exchange of Visual Evidence – para. 18
November 28, 2022	Notification to Tribunal and Parties if witness not to provide oral evidence – para. 19
November 29, 2022	Filing of Hearing Plan – para. 12
December 5, 2022	Contested Hearing (if required) – para. 2

ATTACHMENT 2

Parties and Participants

Parties

ONEPIECE IDEAL (MS) DEVELOPMENTS INC.

Jason Park / Adrian Frank Devine Park LLP 2302 - 250 Yonge Street Toronto, ON M5B 2L7 T: 416.645.4572 / 416.645.4582 E: jason.park@devinepark.com / adrian.frank@devinepark.com

CITY OF MARKHAM

Pitman Patterson / Andrew Baker Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Bay Adelaide Centre, East Tower 22 Adelaide St W Suite 3400 Toronto, ON M5H 4E3 T: 416.367.6109 / 416.367.6250 E: PPatterson@blg.com / ABaker@blg.com

Francesco Santaguida / Victoria Chai City of Markham 101 Town Centre Boulevard Markham, Ontario L3R 9W3 T: 905.477.7000 Ext. 3583 / 905.479.7781 E: FSantaguida@markham.ca / VChai@markham.ca

AMICA (UNIONVILLE) INC. AND ROCKPORT UNIONVILLE INC.

David Bronskill Bay Adelaide Centre - West Tower 333 Bay Street, Suite 3400 Toronto, ON M5H 2S7 T: 416.597.4299 E: dbronskill@goodmans.ca

YORK REGION DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD

Buck Sully Keel Cottrelle LLP 36 Toronto Street, Suite 920 Toronto, ON M5C 2C5 T: 416.367.7680 E: bsully@keelcottrelle.ca

UNIONVILLE RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

Richard Tranquada / Peter Miasek [TBC] T: [TBC] E: richard.tranquada@sympatico.ca / peter.miasek@rogers.com

Participants (if any)

ATTACHMENT 3

Issues Lists

The identification of an issue does not mean that all Parties agree that such issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing.

Issues of CITY OF MARKHAM

Should there be a “H” holding symbol provision for the Zoning By-law Amendment in respect of water supply, to be removed when the following conditions have been met, to the satisfaction of the City:
1. The Owner shall prepare and submit a Water Supply Analysis in consideration of the conclusions and suggestions identified in the Water Systems Analysis, prepared by FP&P and HydraTek & Associates dated May 27, 2020, to determine what is required to provide water services for the development of the lands without causing adverse impacts in the water supply system;
2. The Owner shall identify the recommendations and the necessary works to mitigate any impacts identified in the Water Supply Analysis and the deficiencies identified in Water Supply Analysis, prepared by FP&P and HydraTek & Associates, dated May 27, 2020; and
3. The Owner shall execute an agreement with the City securing the provision of water service infrastructure improvements identified by the above-noted Water Demand Analysis related to the development of the lands.
Should there be a “H” holding symbol provision for the Zoning By-law Amendment in respect of sanitary capacity, to be removed when the following conditions have been met, to the satisfaction of the City:
1. The Owner shall prepare and submit a Sanitary Capacity Analysis to determine what is required to provide sanitary services for the development of the lands without causing adverse impacts in the sanitary sewer system;
2. The Owner shall identify the recommendations and the necessary works to mitigate any impacts identified in the Sanitary Capacity Analysis; and
3. The Owner shall execute an agreement with the City securing the provision of sanitary service infrastructure improvements identified by the above-noted Sanitary Capacity Analysis related to the development of the lands.
Are the Functional Servicing & Stormwater Management Report and addenda satisfactory in respect of water and sanitary supply analysis?

Traffic / Transportation

Is the Transportation Impact Study including Transportation Demand Management Plan submitted by the applicant in December 2021 satisfactory?
Is the Parking Justification Study submitted by the applicant in December 2021 satisfactory?
What are the appropriate intersection improvements, access restrictions, and corresponding designs appropriate to accommodate the proposed development?

Planning Instruments

What is the appropriate form and content of the Zoning By-law Amendment, having regard to matters of urban design and community benefits?
Should the site plan drawings be approved by the Tribunal having regard to matters of urban design, traffic and active transportation and other planning considerations?
If the site plan drawings to be approved by the Tribunal, what conditions of site plan approval should be imposed?

Issues of AMICA (UNIONVILLE) INC. AND ROCKPORT UNIONVILLE INC.

Both East and West Parcels

Transportation

Does the proposal represent an overdevelopment of the sites based on considerations related to traffic generation, the surrounding road network and urban design?

Given that the proposed access is shown as shared with the neighbouring property to the north, are the driveway designs appropriate with respect to pick-up/drop, access, circulation and pedestrian safety/connectivity?

Does the proposal result in undue impacts on the Bill Crothers Drive/Enterprise Boulevard intersection? Has an updated functional design for the intersection been prepared to demonstrate that projected queue lengths can be accommodated in the available storage lengths?

Does the revised development concept include the driveway restrictions and pavement markings contemplated as part of the previous development plans?

How would the buildings function in the event that the proposed access cannot be shared with the neighbouring property as shown?

Planning/Urban Design

Does the proposal conform with the City of Markham Official Plan?

Does the proposal represent an overdevelopment of the sites based on urban design considerations?

Is the podium length appropriate to create porosity and connectivity within this context?

Are the facades of the parking garages appropriately articulated and has sufficient attention been paid to the materials to be employed so as to be suitable is a residential context?

Does the separation of buildings allow for appropriate wind conditions throughout the year?

Does the development create a pedestrian oriented street frontage and public realm defined by active uses and front doors/entrances?

East Parcel

Transportation

Is the proposed development of the East Parcel premature given that it is based on a shared driveway with no agreement and/or easements to secure the use of any such shared driveway?

Are the side-by-side ramps, parking and loading proposed on the east parcel appropriate having regard to matters of visibility, safety and pedestrian connectivity and the proximity to the existing development at 34 Main Street and the front entrance and drop-off areas?

Does the revised development concept result in undue vehicular impact on the existing development at 34 Main Street?

Planning/Urban Design

Does the design of the northern façade, massing and built form of the podium and tower provide an appropriate relationship to the existing development at 34 Main Street?

West Parcel

Transportation

Does the proposal provide for appropriate vehicular access to the west parcel?

Has the previously agreed to easement been accommodated in this plan to facilitate the vehicular access to the property to the north?

Planning/Urban Design

Is the length of the proposed podium appropriate from a public realm perspective?

Does the proposal appropriately promote and enhance the public realm along Enterprise Boulevard having regard to the reduced public park area on the west block?

Is the proposed park in the appropriate location having regard to the proximity of the York University Markham Centre Campus park?

Are the towers appropriately located on the west parcel? Should the two towers be shifted to the west having regard to the approved and planned built form context?

Implementation

What are appropriate pre-conditions to issuance of a final order by the Ontario Land Tribunal?

Issues of YORK REGION DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD

Traffic/Parking

Is the proposed parking unit count appropriate?

What measures will be undertaken to ensure that residents and visitors of the proposal do not park in neighbouring properties’ parking lots?

Planning

Is the reduction of visibility of Bill Crothers Secondary School from Enterprise Boulevard by the West Podium/Towers appropriate?

Is the location of the parkland on the West parcel appropriate given the foreseeability of students attempting to use it to access Bill Crothers Secondary School from Enterprise Boulevard?

Is the height and location of the West Podium/Towers appropriate given the proximity to Bill Crothers Secondary School?

Access

Does the development provide appropriate vehicular and pedestrian access for students to Bill Crothers Secondary School from both Bill Crothers Drive and Enterprise Boulevard?

The YRDSB reserves the right to raise and speak to the other issues raised by the parties, but will not repeat them here.

Issues of UNIONVILLE RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

Planning

Given the close proximity of low-rise residential housing, and the nearby Unionville Heritage area, are the proposed building heights (3 towers, up to 39 storeys) appropriate?

Is the proposal consistent with the principles of the in-force Markham Centre Secondary Plan?

Is the residential unit count (approximately 940) appropriate?

Is the proposed amount of affordable housing appropriate?

Is the amount of proposed ground floor retail (3,288 sq m) appropriate?

Is the proposed parkland conveyance ( 0.437 ha, east side, 0.116 ha west side) appropriate?

Podia design

Are the proposed parking podia (5 storey podia totaling 946 spaces) appropriate and are the facades of the parking garages appropriately articulated and has sufficient attention been paid to the materials to be employed so as to be suitable in a residential context?

Are the podia lengths appropriate to create porosity and connectivity?

Does the development create a pedestrian-oriented street frontage and public realm?

ATTACHMENT 4

Order of Evidence

OnePiece Ideal (MS) Developments Inc.
Any party(ies) in support of OnePiece Ideal (MS) Developments Inc.
Any party(ies) in opposition to OnePiece Ideal (MS) Developments Inc.
Reply by OnePiece Ideal (MS) Developments Inc. (if any)

ATTACHMENT 5

Purpose of the Procedural Order and Meaning of Terms

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. If an unincorporated group wishes to become a party, 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 authorization 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, must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

Participant is an individual, group or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may attend only part of the proceeding but who makes a written statement to the Tribunal on all or some of the issues in the hearing in accordance with Rule 7.7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. NOTE that such persons will likely not receive notice of a mediation or conference calls on procedural issues. They also cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision as parties can.

Written and Visual Evidence:

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party 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 intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

Witness Statements:

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 the witness will discuss and the witness’ opinions on those issues; and a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include the expert’s (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 for the opinions and (5) a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which the participant will address and a short outline of the evidence on those issues; and a list of reports, relied upon, if any, which the participant will provide to the Tribunal for consideration of the written statement at the hearing.

Additional Information:

Summons: A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons. This request must be made before the time that the list of witnesses is provided to the Tribunal and the parties (see Rule 13 on the summons procedure). If the Tribunal requests it, an affidavit must be provided indicating how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the affidavit, it will require that a motion be heard to decide whether the witness should be summoned.

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.

OnePiece Ideal (MS) Developments Inc. v. Markham (City), 2022 CanLII 21229

Case Summary

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON ON FEBRUARY 24, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

ORDER

ATTACHMENT 1

PROCEDURAL ORDER

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 3

ATTACHMENT 4

ATTACHMENT 5