Ontario Land Tribunal Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 18, 2022 CASE NO(S).: PL171210

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

Applicant and Appellant: Claremont Development Corporation Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 3037 - Refusal or neglect of the City of Pickering to make a decision Existing Zoning: Oak Ridges Moraine Rural Agricultural (ORM-A); Oak Ridges Moraine Village Residential (ORM-R5); and Oak Ridges Moraine Environmental Protection (ORM-EP) Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined) Purpose: To permit a 27 lot residential subdivision Property Address/Description: 5113 Old Brock Road Municipality: City of Pickering Municipal File No.: A9/90 OLT Case No.: PL171210 OLT File No.: PL171210 OLT Case Name: Claremont Development Corporation v. Pickering (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Claremont Development Corporation Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 3037 - Refusal or neglect of the City of Pickering to make a decision Existing Zoning: Oak Ridges Moraine Rural Agricultural (ORM-A); Oak Ridges Moraine Village Residential (ORM-R5); and Oak Ridges Moraine Environmental Protection (ORM-EP) Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined) Purpose: To permit a 27 lot residential subdivision Property Address/Description: 5113 Old Brock Road Municipality: City of Pickering Municipal File No.: A17/90 OLT Case No.: PL171210 OLT File Nos.: PL171211

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection (51)34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Claremont Development Corporation Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of the City of Pickering to make a decision Purpose: To permit a 27 lot residential subdivision Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined) Purpose: To permit a 27 lot residential subdivision Property Address/Description: 5113 Old Brock Road Municipality: City of Pickering Municipal File No.: 18T90016 OLT Case No.: PL171210 OLT File Nos.: PL171212

Heard: March 4, 2022 by teleconference

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
Claremont Development Corporation	M. Flowers A. Lusty
City of Pickering	M. Joblin
Regional Municipality of Durham	R. Woon
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority	S. Heuchert*
David Masters	I. Flett
Andre Kern	Self-represented*

DECISION DELIVERED BY S. TOUSAW AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was convened to hear a Motion of Claremont Development Corporation (“Applicant/Appellant”) seeking an Order to: disallow certain proposed issues of David Masters (“Masters”); direct that Masters not raise such issues at the hearing on the merits through evidence, cross-examination or submissions; and approve the resulting Procedural Order (“PO”).

2This case arises from the Applicant’s appeals to the absence of decisions by the City of Pickering (“City”) on applications for Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment affecting 5113 Old Brock Road, in the community of Claremont.

3Since the last CMC, the Tribunal now confirms, with consent of the Parties, that Andre Kern is a Party, having replaced the withdrawn Party of Claremont Conservation Group whom he previously represented. Also, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has withdrawn its Party status by written correspondence to the Tribunal.

MOTION

4The City advised that it supports the Applicant’s Motion but would not be participating.

5The Parties’ absence of agreement on the Issues List resulted in their inability to file a final PO per the Tribunal’s direction at the last CMC. The Parties request a Decision on the Motion that will enable the Tribunal’s approval of the resulting PO.

6The submissions with attached documentation were marked as Exhibits, being: 1. the Applicant’s Motion; 2. the Masters’ Response; and 3. the Applicant’s Reply.

7The Applicant requests that nine issues, including sub-issues, of Masters be excluded from the PO because they raise matters already addressed by the Tribunal’s Decision, as upheld by subsequent Court Decisions, applying the Clergy principle (“Clergy”) to this case. In its Response, Masters agrees with the removal of all but three of the contested issues, and suggests revised wording for one of those, with the consent of the Applicant in Reply. As a result, a Decision is necessary on: the two disputed issues, referred to in the Applicant’s submissions as Issues 7 and 8; the requested Order preventing reference at the eventual merits hearing to the issues listed in the Motion; all leading to an approved PO.

8At issue is the application of the Clergy principle in this case. In simple terms, Clergy is an accepted practice, not a law, that enables the determination of applicable documents, back to the date the original planning applications were filed, for assessing the suitability of a proposal. It applies to local planning documents, such as official plans, such that when Clergy is applied, current policies are not determinative of the outcome. The principle does not prevent reference or submissions on current local policy, but does prevent such documents from becoming the standards to meet. In other words, Clergy means that the local planning documents in force at the time of application are the measure for assessing the suitability of a proposal. More recent or current local planning documents may be insightful or interesting in the context of a case, but are not the test to meet.

9In this case, the Tribunal previously determined, and the Courts upheld on appeal, that Clergy is appropriate. These applications date back to 1990 and the applicable local planning documents were determined to be the 1991 Region of Durham Official Plan, and originally the 1991, now known as the 1993 Claremont Development Plan. Provincial policies apply according to their respective transition provisions.

10In draft issue 7, Masters requests that the applications be evaluated for conformity against several policies in the current City Official Plan (“OP”), with the caveat that such OP is not determinative but that conformity questions are admissible and relevant. The Applicant argues that questions of conformity with non-applicable documents do not constitute an “issue” for determination of the Tribunal.

11The Tribunal finds that draft issue 7 will not be included in the PO. Given the Clergy principle applied here, conformity of these applications with the current OP is not a matter for adjudication and thus, does not warrant standing on the Issues List. The Parties acknowledge, and the Tribunal agrees, that they may wish to reference, in the eventual hearing, a particular current policy for contextual purposes tangential to this case. The Applicant acknowledged that the Joint Document Book for the hearing could contain the current OP if needed for reference or completeness. The approved PO will focus the hearing on determinative matters, and should potential undue digression proceed, the presiding Member may rule.

12In draft issue 8, Masters questions what weight should be given to the Claremont Development Plan (“CDP”) given that it is not a statutory document. The Applicant is unaware of evidence that challenges the CDP’s status and relies on the Tribunal’s Decision applying the Clergy principle including the CDP.

13The Tribunal received no evidence from Masters that the CDP is not a statutory document. The evidence apparent to the Tribunal in Exhibit 1 is: p. 216 of the Applicant’s professional planners notes “The Claremont Development Plan, 1991, Edition 3” as one of the “policy documents” which the Tribunal should apply to a decision; and Attachment P to the planners’ affidavit, being the entire CDP, including a title page on p. 304 entitled (in capital letters) “Hamlet of Claremont Development Plan” and stating (again in capital letters) “As adopted by the Council of the Town of Pickering on February 15th, 1988 and amended by Amendments No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6.”

14The Tribunal concludes from the above references and from the Applicant’s submissions, that the Applicant intends to adduce evidence at the hearing on the applications’ conformity with the CDP. While the CDP is a relevant document arising from the Tribunal’s Clergy Decision, and the evidence available today suggests it to be a local official plan, the Tribunal will accept this question as one that is anticipated to be readily addressed at the hearing, if not agreed to in advance by the Parties. The issue will be rephrased as follows: Is the Claremont Development Plan a statutory document, and if not, what weight should it be accorded? The Tribunal finds that this question does not offend the principle of issue estoppel, as argued by the Applicant, because the validity of the CDP has been asserted and accepted in evidence, but not necessarily challenged and proven as yet.

15The Motion seeks an Order to prevent Masters from raising, at the merits hearing, any of the issues challenged today that are disallowed on the Issues List. While the Tribunal agrees that the issues disallowed on consent or through this Decision are not triable issues within the relevant planning framework, in pursuit of a fair process and the exercise of discretion by the Member assigned to the merits hearing, the Tribunal will soften the requested Order. A thorough Issues List has already been assembled by the Parties and the need to raise these tangential issues is expected to be low. Nevertheless, the Tribunal will enable such raisings only at the discretion of the presiding Member.

ORDER

16The Tribunal Orders as follows.

17The Applicant’s Motion is allowed in part, and Masters’ draft issues identified as items 1.1 through 1.9 of the Motion Record shall not be included on the Issues List in the Procedural Order, except items 1.8 and 1.9 are reworded as now included as Issues 5 and 6 on the Issues List of David Masters in the Procedural Order contained in Attachment 1.

18David Masters is directed to not raise at the hearing on the merits, the matters contained in the draft issues that were disallowed on the Issues List by this Decision, except by express permission of the presiding Member at the merits hearing.

19The Procedural Order is approved as contained in Attachment 1.

20This Member is not seized but will remain available for case management purposes subject to the Tribunal’s calendar.

“S. Tousaw”

S. Tousaw 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

CASE NO(S).: PL171210

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

Applicant and Appellant: Claremont Development Corporation Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 3037 – Refusal or Neglect of the City of Pickering to make a decision Existing Zoning: Oak Ridges Moraine Rural Agricultural (ORM-A); Oak Ridges Moraine Village Residential (ORM-R5); and Oak Ridges Moraine Environmental Protection (ORM-EP) Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined) Purpose: To permit a 27-lot residential subdivision Property Address/Description: 5113 Old Brock Road Municipality: City of Pickering Municipality File No.: A9/90 OLT Case No.: PL171210 OLT File No.: PL171210 OLT Case Name: Claremont Development Corporation v. Pickering (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Claremont Development Corporation Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 3037 – Refusal or Neglect of the City of Pickering to make a decision Existing Zoning: Oak Ridges Moraine Rural Agricultural (ORM-A); Oak Ridges Moraine Village Residential (ORM-R5); and Oak Ridges Moraine Environmental Protection (ORM-EP) Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined) Property Address/Description: 5113 Old Brock Road Municipality: City of Pickering Municipality File No.: A17/90 OLT Case No.: PL171210 OLT File No.: PL171211

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Claremont Development Corporation Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of the City of Pickering to make a decision Purpose: To permit a 27-lot residential subdivision Property Address/Description: 5113 Old Brock Road Municipality: City of Pickering Municipality File No.: 18T-90016 OLT Case No.: PL171210 OLT File No.: PL171212

Procedural Order

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 Monday, August 22, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. at https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/820237461 or by phone by dialing 1-888-455-1389 and entering access code 820-237-461. No further notice shall be required. There will be no sitting on Labour Day, September 5, 2022.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 14 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 identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1.

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.

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 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

8. 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 are intended to be called. This list must be delivered on or before Friday, May 20, 2022 and in accordance with paragraph 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 proposed to be qualified.

9. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, that shall include: an Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty form, a list of 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 11 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.

10. 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 11 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 11 below.

11. On or before Thursday, June 23, 2022, the parties shall provide copies of their expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 21 below.

12. On Thursday, June 23, 2022, a participant (see Attachment 4 for the meaning of the term “participant”) shall provide their written participant statement to the parties and the OLT case co-ordinator in accordance with paragraph 21 below. If a participant has filed their written participant statement before June 23, 2022, they shall refile it on June 23, 2022. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

13. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before June 30, 2022 and try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting, if there is agreement, the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before July 7, 2022.

14. On or before Friday, July 22, 2022, the parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence received and in accordance with paragraph 21 below.

15. The parties shall prepare and file a hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Tuesday, August 2, 2022 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.

16. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Friday, August 12, 2022.

17. On or before Friday, August 12, 2022, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 21 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. All filings with the Tribunal shall be submitted electronically and in hard copy, unless otherwise directed. 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.

22. 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.

23. A summary of the various procedural dates is contained in Attachment 5.

This Member is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

LIST OF PARTIES

LOOPSTRA NIXON LLP Woodbine Place 135 Queens Plate Drive, Toronto, Ontario M9W 6V7

Quinto Annibale qannibale@loonix.com

Mark Joblin mjoblin@loonix.com

Tel: (416) 746-4710 Fax: (416) 746-8319 Lawyers for the City of Pickering

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM 605 Rossland Road East Whitby, Ontario L1N 6A3

Robert Woon Robert.Woon@durham.ca

Kevin Ryan kevin.ryan@durham.ca

Tel: (905) 668-7711 Fax: (905) 688-4752 Lawyers for the Regional Municipality of Durham

DAVIES HOWE LLP The Tenth Floor 425 Adelaide Street West Toronto, Ontario M5V 3C1

Mark R. Flowers markf@davieshowe.com

Alex Lusty alexl@davieshowe.com

Tel: (416) 977-7088 Fax: (416) 977-8931 Lawyers for Claremont Development Corporation

TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 101 Exchange Avenue Vaughan, Ontario L4K 5R6

Steven Heuchert sheuchert@trca.on.ca

Tel: (416) 661-6600 Fax: (416) 661-6898 Representative of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

ERIC K. GILLESPIE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Barristers and Solicitors 160 John Street, Suite 300 Toronto, Ontario M5R 2J1

Eric K. Gillespie egillespie@gillespielaw.ca

Ian Flett iflett@gillespielaw.ca Tel: (416) 703-6362 Fax: (416) 907-9147 Lawyers for David Masters

ANDRE KERN 5192 Old Brock Road Claremont, Ontario L1Y 1B7

akern45@gmail.com

ATTACHMENT 2

ISSUES LIST

NOTE: The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the Tribunal or any party that the issue is either relevant or appropriate. The identification of an issue on this list indicates a party’s intent to lead evidence or argue that the issue is relevant to the proceeding, for the purpose of fairly identifying to the other parties the case they need to meet. Accordingly, no party shall advance an issue not identified on the Issues List without leave of the Tribunal.

Issues List of the City of Pickering

Provincial Policy

1. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for matters of Provincial Interest as set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including but not limited to subsections 2(a), (d), (h), (o), (p) and (r)?

2. Is the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, including but not limited to Sections 1.1.1(c), 1.1.1(e), 1.1.1(g), 1.1.1(h), 1.1.3.2, 1.1.4.1, 1.1.4.3, 1.2.6.2, 1.6.6.1(b), 1.6.6.1(e), 1.6.6.3, 1.6.6.7, 1.6.9.2, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.8, 2.2.1(i), and 2.6.1?

3. Does the proposed development conform to Sections 20, 22, 23 and 26; Clause 43(1)(b); Subsections 45(7) and 45(8); and Section 47 of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, 2017?

Region of Durham and City of Pickering Policy

4. Is a Settlement Capacity Study required to delineate the Hamlet Boundary in accordance with Policy 13.3.5 of the 1991 Regional Official Plan?

5. Does the proposed development conform to the Development Plan – Hamlet of Claremont, Edition 4, including but not limited to, Sections 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 4.1 to 4.4 (inclusive), 4.7, 4.9, 8, and 9?

Parkland Dedication

6. Does Park Block 72 meet the minimum parkland dedication requirement of 5 percent of the land proposed for such development under City of Pickering By-law 7341/14?

7. Does the size, configuration and grading of Park Block 72 meet the City’s requirements to enable future facilities and amenities are provided to service future residents?

Engineering Standards

8. Have the proposed public streets been designed in accordance with City of Pickering Engineering Standards?

Emergency Services

9. Does the proposed development provide the required secondary emergency vehicle access to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief?

10. Has the secondary emergency vehicle access been designed with respect to width, turn radius, and surface treatment sufficient to accommodate a fire vehicle in accordance with the City’s engineering standard and to the satisfaction of the City Chief?

11. Can a secondary emergency access road having a minimum width of 6.0 metres be provided within Block 76 while maintaining the existing trees along the southerly extent of that Block?

12. Will the individual private wells have a sufficient water supply to support the proposed fire suppression systems?

Stormwater Management

13. Is the proposed location of the Stormwater Management Block 73 and associated maintenance access road adjacent to Old Brock Road appropriate?

14. Has the functional servicing and stormwater management design been prepared in accordance with the City of Pickering Stormwater Management Design Guidelines, dated July 2019?

15. Does the proposed development provide stormwater management facilities that are sized to provide quality, erosion and quantity controls?

16. Are the proposed stormwater management measures capable of accommodating the stormwater generated from the proposed development and the increase in impervious surfaces proposed through the applications?

17. Will the proposed stormwater management ponds improve existing stormwater management issues experienced within the Hamlet?

Natural Heritage and Open Space

18. Has Open Space Block 76 been determined to be a part of the Natural Heritage System or contain natural features required to be preserved?

19. What is the appropriate ownership for Open Space Block 76?

20. Has a Tree Preservation Plan been prepared indicating the trees proposed to be removed and retained?

21. What is the appropriate ownership of Open Space and Open Space Buffer Blocks 75 & 79 and Blocks 77 & 78?

Draft Zoning By-law Amendment

22. Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment provide appropriate zoning provisions to implement the proposed draft plan subdivision with respect to lot sizes, lot areas, building setbacks, building height and lot coverage?

23. Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment provide appropriate zones to protect the Open Space and Open Space Buffer Blocks?

24. Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment provide for an appropriate zone to permit the stormwater management ponds?

Cultural Heritage

25. Does the existing dwelling to be retained on Lot 71 have any heritage attributes or value to be listed on the City Municipal heritage Register and/or designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act?

26. What cultural heritage mitigation or preservation measures, if any, would be appropriate or required given the potential heritage attributes of the existing farmhouse, related accessory structures and associated landscape?

Transportation

27. What road improvements, if any, would be appropriate or required in respect of traffic conditions or future traffic conditions?

28. What conditions, if any, would be appropriate or required in respect of Traffic Demand Management measures?

29. What conditions, if any, would be appropriate or required in respect of Traffic Sensitivity Analysis?

Noise Attenuation

30. Does the proposed berm within Block 80 provide for appropriate noise attenuation from Brock Road?

31. What is the appropriate ownership for Block 80?

Neighbourhood Compatibility and Lotting Pattern

32. Does the proposed development achieve compatibility with the surrounding neighbourhood with respect to building height, massing, yard setbacks, siting, landscaping, tree protection, and privacy?

33. Does the proposed development provide for an efficient and appropriate lotting pattern?

Airport Zoning Regulations

34. Does the proposed development comply with the Pickering Airport Site Zoning Regulations (PAZR) with respect to height, radio interference and wildlife hazards?

Draft Plan Conditions

35. What are the appropriate draft plan conditions?

Issues List of the Region of Durham

The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13

1. Does the application have regard for matters of provincial interest identified in the Planning Act, including sections 2(a), (e), (f), (h), (o), and (r)?

Provincial Policy Statement (May 1, 2020)

2. Is the application consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, including policies 1.1.1(c) and 1.6.6.1?

Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (2017)

3. Does the application conform with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, including section 43(1)(b)?

Durham Regional Official Plan (1991)

4. Does the proposal conform with the Durham Regional Official Plan, including policies 1.1.1(a), 1.1.1(b), 1.2.1(b), 1.2.1(c), 1.2.1(d), 2.1.2, 2.2.5, 2.2.7, 2.3.2(f), 2.3.3., 13.3.4, 13.3.5, 13.3.8, 13.3.9, and 16.3.14?

General

5. Is draft approval of the plan of subdivision application premature given the additional information requested by the Region of Durham relating to water and sewage servicing, and reverse lot frontage design?

6. In the event that the Tribunal approves the proposed draft plan of subdivision, what are the appropriate conditions of approval?

7. Does the application have appropriate consideration for the Region of Durham Drilled Wells and Lot Sizing Policy as Applied to Consents (Severances) and Draft Plans of Subdivisions?

Issues List of Mr. Kern

1. Will stormwater flows from the proposed development negatively impact Mitchell Creek?

2. Will the proposed development have an adverse impact on the well water supply for existing residences surrounding the subject lands?

3. Will the proposed development be adequately serviced by private septic systems?

4. Will the proposed development have adverse traffic impacts on the roads surrounding the subject lands?

5. Are the locations of the proposed street intersections with Old Brock Road appropriate?

Issues List of David Masters

1. Do the proposed zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision have regard to the provincial interests indicated at section 2 of the Planning Act, and more particularly to subsections 2(a)(b)(e)(f)(g)(h)(h.1)(i)(j)(q)(s)?

2. Does the proposed draft plan of subdivision have regard to the criteria at subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act and subsections (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j)(k) and (l).

3. Conformity with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan

a. Do the proposed zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision conform with Section 48?

4. Consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020

a. Are the proposed zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision consistent with the section 1.1 Managing and Directing Land use to Achieve Efficient Development and Land Use Patterns and particularly 1.1.1a and e) and 1.1.3.2?

b. Are the proposed zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision consistent with section 1.1.4 Rural Areas and particularly 1.1.4.1a and c), and 1.1.4.3?

c. Are the proposed zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision consistent with section 1.2 Coordination?

d. Are the proposed zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision consistent with section 1.6.6 Sewage, Water and Stormwater and particularly 1.6.6.1e, 1.6.6.4 and 1.6.6.6?

e. Are the proposed zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision consistent with section 1.8 Energy Conservation, Air Quality and Climate Change?

f. Are the proposed zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision consistent with section 2.2 Water and particularly 2.2.1 d) and e)?

5. Is the Claremont Development Plan a statutory document, and if not, what weight should it be accorded?

6. Do the proposed zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision represent good planning solely within the context of issues contained within this issues list?

ATTACHMENT 3

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Claremont Development Corporation
2. City of Pickering
3. Region of Durham
4. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
5. David Masters
6. Mr. Andre Kern
7. Reply by Claremont Development Corporation

ATTACHMENT 4

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.

ATTACHMENT 5

SUMMARY OF PROCEDURAL DATES

Date	Hearing Event
Friday, May 20, 2022	Exchange of list of witnesses and the order in which they will be called
Thursday, June 23, 2022	Exchange of expert reports/expert witness statements/written evidence, evidence outlines for witnesses under summons
June 30, 2022	Meeting of expert witnesses in the same field
July 7, 2022	Filing of agreed statement of facts
Friday, July 22, 2022	Exchange of response evidence/statements (if any)
Tuesday, August 2, 2022	Parties to prepare and file hearing plan
Friday, August 12, 2022	Completion of joint document book
Friday, August 12, 2022	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
At least 7 days prior to the hearing date	Notification to Tribunal and parties if witness not providing oral evidence
Monday, August 22, 2022	Hearing begins