Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 04, 2022 CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002453 (Formerly PL200186)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment Description: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 486 King Spadina Secondary Plan Reference Number: OPA 486 Property Address: 485-489 Wellington Street W (OPA 486, King-Spadina Secondary Plan) Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-22-002453 Legacy Case No: PL200186 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002453 OLT Case Name: Adelaide Nelson Residences LP v. Toronto (City)

Heard: February 14, 2022 via video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel*/Representative
Appeal 33, 45, 46	A. Margaritis* appeared for M. Melling M. Barrett* appeared for Eileen Costello
Appeal 37	P. Morley* appeared for J. Pitman-Patterson
Appeal 30, 31	Adrian Frank* appeared for Jason Park Steven Henderson appeared for Signe Leask Kailey Sutton* appeared for M. Flynn-Guglietti
Appeals 21, 24, 25, 26, 40	H. Mohammadhosse*
Appeal 5	Andrew Jeanrie*
Appeal 19, 38, 43	Michael Cara*
Appeal 42	S. Henderson

DECISION DELIVERED BY D.S. COLBOURNE AND G. BURTON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1The Tribunal conducted a CMC on February 14, 2022.

2The purposes were to confirm the Hearing date, advance completion of the Procedural Order, the Issues list, and the order of evidence. The City is to provide the Tribunal with the Procedural Order, Issues List, and Order of evidence, all within two weeks of the date of this Hearing.

3Since the last CMC there has been mediation, and a revised Secondary Plan prepared.

4The commencement of the Hearing had been established for July 11, 2022, but the Parties are releasing the first week. It will commence on Monday, July 18 2022, for the remaining allotted time of 26 days in total, with 4 days a week.

5Parties 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/360092573

Access code: 360-092-573

6Parties and participants are asked to access and set up the 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

7Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9391. The access code is 360-092-573.

8Individuals 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.

9A list will also be prepared indicating certain site-specific Appeals to be adjourned sine die. There will be a “without prejudice” clause for any decisions by the Tribunal on the hearing of those Appeals.

10Attachment 1 to this Decision and Order is the Procedural Order which has governed, and will govern, the procedures, organization and hearing of these Appeals.

11The seven (7) Schedules to the Procedural Order are as follows:

Schedule 1 summarizes the deadlines and timelines for pre-hearing procedural requirements;

Schedule 2 contains the current list of Parties and Counsel;

Schedule 2a is a List of Appellants with numerically assigned Appeal Numbers;

Schedule 3 is the Combined Issues List;

Schedule 3a is a chart which further identifies, by Appellant Number, the issue-associated policies under Appeal as first identified by each Appellant;

Schedule 4 is the Order of the presentation of the evidence in the hearing; and

Schedule 5 is the list of site and policy specific appeals to be adjourned sine die.

12The Tribunal directs that those site and policy specific appeals set out in Schedule 5 to the Procedural Order are to be adjourned sine die and further directives and procedural orders shall be provided by the Tribunal with respect to the organization and hearing of those adjourned Appeals.

“G. Burton”

G. BURTON MEMBER

“D.S. Colbourne”

D.S. COLBOURNE MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

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

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

ISSUE DATE: CASE NO. OLT-22-002453 (formerly PL200186)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Multiple Appellants Subject: King-Spadina Secondary Plan, Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 486 Municipality: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: PL200186 OLT File No.: PL200186 OLT Case Name: Adelaide Nelson Residences LP v. Toronto (City)

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 hearing will begin on July 18, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. at the Tribunal’s Offices, 655 Bay Street, 16th Floor, in the City of Toronto, unless directed to proceed electronically. For the duration of the hearing, no hearing day will be held on Friday unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal. No hearing is scheduled on August 1, 2022.

3. The length of the hearing will be about twenty-six (26) days for the general issues identified in Schedule 3. 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 Schedule 1.

4. The Parties and Participants identified at the Case Management Conference are listed in Schedule 2 to this Order.

5. The Preliminary Issues are set out in the Combined Issues List attached as Schedule 3 to this Order. The City and Appellants will attempt to the resolve the appeals and associated issues through mediation and it is anticipated that issues may be revised or removed upon completion of the mediation process. The finalization of the issues list shall be provided for as required by Section 23 of this Order. The preliminary policies and maps under appeal for each Appellant are attached as Schedule 3A to this Order.

6. The order of evidence is set out in Schedule 4 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, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

7. Any person intending to participate in the hearing shall provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal. Any such person who retains a representative must advise the other Parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number.

8. 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/appeals-process/video-hearing/).

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal, and the other Parties a list of the witnesses, curriculum vitae, and the order in which they will likely be called. This list must be delivered on or before (on or before March 30, 2022), [119 days before first day of the hearing]. For expert witnesses, a party is to include the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified. Any challenges to the qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence in the area of expertise proposed shall be made by motion in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules and notice of same must be served on the other Parties on or before (on or before April 19, 2022), [101 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence].

10. Expert witnesses in the same discipline(s) should have at least one meeting before the hearing to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. The experts should prepare a list of any agreed facts and the remaining issues to be addressed at the hearing, and provide this list to all of the Parties and the Tribunal in accordance with the dates in Schedule 1, if this meeting takes place and if agreement is reached.

11. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in Section 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. 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 time as the delivery of expert witness statements, as in Section 14. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.

12. Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence as in Section 14. 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 13 below.

13. A witness or participant must provide to the Tribunal and the Parties a witness statement or participant statement, respectively, on or before May 13, 2022, (66 calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing) or the witness may not give oral evidence at the hearing. Participants are only permitted to provide written evidence to the Tribunal, unless otherwise permitted by the Tribunal.

14. At least 66 calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before May 13, 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 Tribunal, including an executed Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty.

15. At least forty (40) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before June 8, 2022), the Parties shall advise the Tribunal of whether any hearings dates scheduled for this matter may be released from the Tribunal's calendar. This request may only be made on consent of all of the Parties. If no hearing dates are intended to be released from the Tribunal's calendar, no Party is required to advise the Tribunal anything further in that regard.

16. At least 31 calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before June 17, 2022), the Parties may provide to all other Parties and file with the Tribunal a written response to any written evidence.

17. At least 31 calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before June 17, 2022), the Parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other Parties and the Tribunal. The Tribunal and all Parties shall be notified if a model will be used, in which case all Parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the scheduled commencement of the hearing.

18. The Parties shall prepare a Joint Document Book on or before (on or before June 28, 2022), (20 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), and which one (1) hard copy will be filed with the Tribunal as soon as practicable in advance of the Hearing. All Parties must be served with the Joint Document Book an accessible electronic format in accordance with Section 22.

19. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal (see Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules, 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).

20. A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other Parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

21. On or before (on or before June 28, 2022), (20 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), the Parties shall prepare and file a detailed Work Plan that identifies the following, at a minimum: the identified Parties participating in the Hearing Event, preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the date a witness is intended to attend the Tribunal, the identified witness name/expertise, and the approximate time allotted for Examination in Chief, Cross Examination and any re-examination (if any) (the “Work Plan”). The Work Plan will be adhered to guide the Hearing Event to the best ability of all the Parties, and any and all witnesses shall be available on the identified date(s), unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the Work Plan throughout the Hearing Event.

22. All filing of documents and materials shall be electronic to the Tribunal, the Parties and Participants (if any). The Tribunal will be provided a hard copy of documents and materials in advance of the hearing event as soon as practicable. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents email shall be governed by the Rule 7. 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 July 2, 2020, or as may be amended. Section 22 applies regardless if the hearing event is in-person or electronic.

23. On or before February 7, 2022, each Appellant shall finalize the issues associated with their appeal contained in the Combined Issues List and part(s) of the plan associated with their appeal contained by indicating that they confirm the issues and identified parts as currently contained in Schedules 3 and 3A, or by amending or removing issues and/or narrowing the identified part(s) of the plan. There will be no changes to the Combined Issues List unless the Tribunal permits, and a Party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

24. The City may not seek approval of a revised Official Plan Amendment at the hearing on or after January 21, 2022. This provision does not preclude the City from seeking the approval of revisions to the Official Plan Amendment after that date that would settle or resolve concerns raised by one or more Appellant(s).

25. 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.

26. For any Appeal in Schedule 5 adjourned sine die on a site specific basis, and should a site specific hearing on Official Plan Amendment 486 be scheduled for one or more site specific appeals, a new procedural order and an amended site specific issues list in Schedule 3 will be established for those site specific appeals.

27. The Tribunal may conduct mediation on consent of all Parties, on consent of those Parties who wish to participate in mediation, or as the Tribunal sees fit.

This Member is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE:

Name of Member

Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

SCHEDULE 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
January 21, 2022	Revisions to Proposed Official Plan Amendment are made by City
February 7, 2022	Any outstanding clarifications and/or revisions to the issues lists permitted
March 30, 2022 (119 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
April 19, 2022 (101 days prior to hearing)	Last date to challenge identification of expert witness
April 19, 2022 (90 days prior to the hearing)	Experts meeting prior to this date
April 29, 2022 (80 days prior to hearing)	Agreed Statement of Facts
May 13, 2022 (66 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
June 8, 2022 (40 days prior to hearing)	Parties to Advise Tribunal if any hearing dates are to be released from the hearing calendar (if any)
June 17, 2022 (31 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
June 17, 2022 (31 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of Visual Evidence (if any)
June 28, 2022 (20 days prior to hearing)	Final Hearing Plan filed with the Tribunal
June 28, 2022 (20 days prior to hearing)	Finalize Joint Document Book
July 18, 2022	Hearing commences

SCHEDULE 2

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

**please note as several parties are represented by the same solicitors, for ease of reference, the list is organized by representation with parties identified by representative to avoid unnecessary repetition and the list below is organized by solicitor name. The complete list of Appellants is in Schedule 2a of this Procedural Order.

A. APPELLANT/PARTY/REPRESENTATIVES

1. City of Toronto Joanna B. Wice Daniel Elmadany City of Toronto, Legal Services Metro Hall, 26th Floor 55 John Street Toronto, Ontario M5V 3C6 E-mail: Joanna.Wice@toronto.ca ; Daniel.Elmadany@toronto.ca Tel: 416.397.5737; 416.397.5709

2. Appeal # 1, 2, 3, 4, 23, 29, 34, 36 David Bronskill Goodmans LLP Bay Adelaide Centre - West Tower 333 Bay Street, Suite 3400 Toronto, ON M5H 2S7 E-mail: dbronskill@goodmans.ca Tel: 416.597.4299

3. Appeal # 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 32, 39 Eileen Costello/Meaghan Barrett Aird & Berlis LLP 181 Bay Street, Suite 1800 Toronto, ON M5J 2T9 E-mail: ecostello@airdberlis.com; mbarrett@airdberlis.com Tel: 416.865.4740; 416.865.3064

4. Appeal # 19, 38, 43 Daniel Artenosi/Michael Cara Overland LLP Yonge-Norton Centre 5255 Yonge Street, Suite 1101 Toronto, ON M2N 6P4 E-mail: dartenosi@overlandllp.ca; mcara@overlandllp.ca Tel: 416.730.0320; 416.730.1529

5. Appeal # 20, 41 Andrew Jeanrie Bennett Jones LLP 3400 One First Canadian Place, P.O Box 130 Toronto, ON M5X 1A4 E-mail: jeanriea@bennettjones.com Tel: 416.863.1200

6. Appeal # 21, 24, 25, 26, 40 Calvin Lantz; Jonathan Cheng Stikeman Elliott 5300 Commerce Court West 199 Bay Street Toronto, ON M5L 1B9 E-mail: clantz@stikeman.com; jcheng@stikeman.com Tel: 416.869.5669; 416.869.6807

7. Appeal # 27, 28 Mary Flynn-Guglietti/Kailey Sutton McMillan Brookfield Place, 181 Bay Street Suite 4400 Toronto, ON M5J 2T3 E-mail: mary.flynn@mcmillan.ca; Kailey.sutton@mcmillan.ca Tel: 416.865.7256

8. Appeal # 30, 31 Patrick Devine/Adrian Frank Devine Park LLP 250 Yonge Street, Suite 2302 P.O. Box 65 Toronto, ON M5B 2L7 E-mail: Patrick.devine@devinepark.com; adrian.frank@devinepark.com Tel: 416.645.4570; 416.645.4582

9. Appeal # 32 Eileen Costello/Maggie Bassani Aird & Berlis LLP 181 Bay Street, Suite 1800 Toronto, ON M5J 2T9 E-mail: ecostello@airdberlis.com; mbassani@airdberlis.com Tel: 416.865.4740; 416.865.3401

10. Appeal # 33 John Alati Davies Howe LLP The Tenth Floor 425 Adelaide Street West Toronto, ON M5V 3C1 E-mail: johna@davieshowe.com Tel: 416.263.4509

11. Appeal # 44 Aaron Platt Davies Howe LLP The Tenth Floor 425 Adelaide Street West Toronto, ON M5V 3C1 E-mail: aaronp@davieshowe.com Tel: 416.263.4500

12. Appeal # 35 Mark Noskiewicz; Max Laskin Goodmans LLP Bay Adelaide Centre - West Tower 333 Bay Street, Suite 3400 Toronto, ON M5H 2S7 E-mail: mnoskiewicz@goodmans.ca; mlaskin@goodmans.ca Tel: 416.597.4136; 416.849.6938

13. Appeal # 37 J. Pitman Patterson/Isaac Tang Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Bay Adelaide Centre - East Tower 22 Adelaide Street West Toronto, ON M5H 4E3 E-mail: ppaterson@blg.com; itang@blg.com Tel.: 416.367.6109; 416.367.6143

14. Appeal # 42 Signe Leisk; Jennifer Evola Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP Suite 2100, Scotia Plaza, 40 King Street West Toronto, ON M5H 3C2 E-mail: sleisk@cassels.com; jevola@cassels.com Tel.: 416.869.5411; 416.860.6753

15. Appeal #45, 46 Susan B. Rosenthal; Andy Margaritis Davies Howe LLP The Tenth Floor 425 Adelaide Street West Toronto, ON M5V 3C1 E-mail: susanr@davieshowe.com; AndyM@davieshowe.com Tel: 416.263.4509; 416.263.4520

B. PARTIES (NON-APPELLANT)

A. HM RB (147 Spadina), LP Eileen Costello/Meaghan Barrett Aird & Berlis LLP 181 Bay Street, Suite 1800 Toronto, ON M5J 2T9 E-mail: ecostello@airdberlis.com; mbarrett@airdberlis.com Tel: 416.865.4740; 416.865.3064

B. 2764432 Ontario Limited Jason Park/Adrian Frank Devine Park LLP 250 Yonge Street, Suite 2302 P.O. Box 65 Toronto, ON M5B 2L7 E-mail: jason.park@devinepark.com; adrian.frank@devinepark.com Tel: 416.645.4572; 416.645.4582

C. 600 KW Limited Andrew Biggart Ritchie Ketchenson Hart & Biggart LLP 1 Eva Road Etobicoke, ON M9C 4Z5 Email: abiggart@ritchieketcheson.com Tel: 416.622.6601

D. Palm One Investments LLC Michael Melling; Andy Margaritis Davies Howe LLP The Tenth Floor 425 Adelaide Street West Toronto, ON M5V 3C1 E-mail: michaelm@davieshowe.com; AndyM@davieshowe.com Tel: 416.263.4515; 416.263.4520

SCHEDULE 2A: APPELLANT LIST AND APPEAL NUMBER

Appellant	Name
1	Lifetime Wellington Street West Inc.
2	Adelaide Nelson Residences LP
3	Charlotte King Residences Corp.
4	Go-To Spadina Adelaide Square LP
5	GG Duncan Inc.
6	Kingsett Capital Inc.
7	Allied Properties REIT
8	Georg Cinq Trading Co. Limited
9	401 Richmond Ltd
10	1094950 Ontario Ltd
11	Riveroaks Investments Inc.
12	Capitol Buildings Properties Inc.
13	Timbercreek 4Q Urban Developments LP (Toronto)
14	Trinity Development Group Inc.
15	RTCB Holdings Ltd.
16	Hazelview Investments Inc.
17	Lamb Development Corp.
18	Hullmark Sun Life (545 King) LP
19	Alterra-Finer (Richmond Street) Limited
20	IRIS International Inc and Balmain Operators Inc.
21	Kingspa Inc.
22	384 Adelaide Street Corporation
23	220 KSW LP
24	217 Adelaide Holdings Limited
25	DevGreat Inc.
26	RioCan Management Inc.
27	462 Wellington Inc.
28	2477879 Ontario Inc. and 1579661 Ontario Inc., Claireville Holdings Limited, and Frances Danyliw (Claireville)
29	C Squared Properties
30	Manga Hotels (Richmond) Inc.
31	Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada
32	Marvin Rubner
33	1758173 Ontario Ltd
34	Lifetime 504 Wellington Street Inc.
35	Hullmark (474 Wellington) LP
36	City Front Developments Inc.
37	Oxford Properties Group Inc.
38	280 Richmond West Limited
39	Hullmark (230-240 Richmond) LP & OCAD University
40	Lanterra 263 Adelaide Developments Limited
41	Adelaide Duncan 1 LP
42	Aptco Capital Corporation
43	Carlyle Peter Street Inc.
44	DoubleDown Holdings Inc.
45	Canada Land Corporation (CLC)
46	Daram Holdings Inc.

SCHEDULE 3

COMBINED ISSUES LIST

NOTE: The identification of an issue on the Issues List is intended to provide notice to all parties that a party will lead evidence and/or argument on the matter. This identification does not serve as an acknowledgment of relevancy or jurisdiction of the Tribunal on such matters; merely notice that a party may seek to establish the issue’s relevancy. The identification of a change to the Issues List does not constitute an admission by the opposing party that the revised issue is relevant, it is only an indication that the identifying party will seek to demonstrate the relevance of the revised issue to the matters before the Tribunal.

Note to reader: The annotations indicates which issue is associated with which appeal. Those with party status are listed as a letter after the appeal/issue under which they are sheltering.

General Provincial and Municipal Policy Issues

Planning Act

1. Do the policies and/or maps of the King-Spadina Secondary Plan, as identified by each Appellant in Schedule 3A, have regard to matters of provincial interest section 2 of the Planning Act, particularly subsections: (f) - Appeal #: 42 (h) - Appeal #: 37, 42 (j) - Appeal #: 6/A, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 32, 37, 38, 39, 42, 46 (k) - Appeal #: 6/A, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 32, 37, 39, 42 (l) - Appeal #: 6/A, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 32, 37, 39, 41, 42 (m) - Appeal #: 6/A, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 32, 37, 39, 42 (n) - Appeal #: 6/A, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 32, 37, 39, 42, 46 (p) - Appeal #: 6/A, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 32, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 46 (q) - Appeal #: 6/A, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 32, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 46 (r) - Appeal #: 6/A, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 32, 38, 39, 42, 46

Growth Plan

2. Do the policies and/or maps of the King-Spadina Secondary Plan, as identified by each Appellant in Schedule 3A, conform to policies of the A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, particularly: 1.2 - Appeal #: 20, 42 1.2.1 - Appeal #: 37, 38, 41, 42, 46 1.2.2 - Appeal #: 38, 42 1.2.3 - Appeal #: 42 2.1 - Appeal #: 20, 42 2.2 - Appeal #: 20, 42 2.2.1.2 - Appeal #: 20, 37, 38, 41, 42 2.2.1.2 (a) - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 42, 45 2.2.1.2 (a) iii - Appeal #: 42 2.2.1.2 (b) - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 42 2.2.1.2 (c) - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 42, 45, 46 2.2.1.2 (c) iii - Appeal #: 42 2.2.1.3 - Appeal #: 37, 42 2.2.1.3 (c) - Appeal #: 7, 20, 42 2.2.1.4 - Appeal #: 20, 37, 38, 41, 42, 45 2.2.1.4 (a) - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 42 2.2.1.4 (b) - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 42 2.2.1.4 (c) - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 42 2.2.1.4 (d) - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 42 2.2.1.4 (e) - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 42 2.2.1.4 (f) - Appeal #: 42 2.2.2.1 - Appeal #: 38 2.2.2.3 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 37, 38, 39, 42, 45 2.2.2.3 (c) - Appeal #: 46 2.2.2.3 (d) - Appeal #: 46 2.2.3 - Appeal #: 20, 38, 42 2.2.3.1 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 37, 39, 42, 45 2.2.3.1 (c) - Appeal #: 42 2.2.3.1 (d) - Appeal #: 42 2.2.3.2 - Appeal #: 42 2.2.3.2 (a) - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 42, 45, 46 2.2.4 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 45, 46 2.2.4.1 - Appeal #: 42 2.2.4.2 - Appeal #: 7, 42 2.2.4.3 - Appeal #: 7, 42 2.2.4.3(a) - Appeal #: 42 2.2.4.6 - Appeal #: 42 2.2.4.9 - Appeal #: 7, 42 2.2.4.9 (a) - Appeal #: 42 2.2.4.9 (d) - Appeal #: 42 2.2.5.1 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 41, 42, 45 2.2.5.2 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 41, 42, 45 2.2.5.3 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 41, 42, 45 2.2.5.14 - Appeal #: 20, 41, 42 2.2.6 - Appeal #: 37, 38, 41, 42 2.2.6.1 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 42, 45 2.2.6.2 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 42, 45 2.2.6.3 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 42, 45 2.2.6.4 - Appeal #: 42, 46 4.2.10.1 - Appeal #: 42 5.2.5 - Appeal #: 42, 46 5.2.5.1 - Appeal #: 37, 41, 42 5.2.5.6 - Appeal #: 42

Provincial Policy Statement

3. Are the policies and/or maps of the King-Spadina Secondary Plan, as identified by each Appellant in Schedule 3A, consistent with the following policies of the Provincial Policy Statement: 1.1.1 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 45 1.1.1(a) - Appeal #: 42, 46 1.1.1(b) - Appeal #: 42, 46 1.1.1(e) - Appeal #: 42, 46 1.1.2 - Appeal #: 42, 37 1.1.3 - Appeal #: 38, 42 1.1.3.1 - Appeal #: 37, 38, 42 1.1.3.2 - Appeal #: 7, 37, 42, 46 1.1.3.2(a) - Appeal #: 42 1.1.3.2(b) - Appeal #: 42 1.1.3.2(c) - Appeal #: 42 1.1.3.2(e) - Appeal #: 42 1.1.3.3 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 37, 38, 39, 42, 45, 46 1.1.3.4 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 37, 39, 42, 45, 46 1.1.3.5 - Appeal #: 42, 46 1.1.3.6 - Appeal #: 37, 42 1.3 - Appeal #: 20 1.3.1 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 41, 42, 45 1.4.1 - Appeal #: 37, 42, 46 1.4.3 - Appeal #: 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 46 1.4.3 (b) - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 42, 45 1.6.3 - Appeal #: 42 1.6.7.2 - Appeal #: 20, 37, 42 1.6.7.4 - Appeal #: 20, 37, 42 1.7.1 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 37, 38, 39, 42, 45, 46 1.7.1(c) - Appeal #: 42 1.8.1 - Appeal #: 7, 37, 42, 46 4.6 - Appeal #: 20, 37, 42

Toronto Official Plan

4. Do the policies and/or maps of the King-Spadina Secondary Plan, as identified by each Appellant in Schedule 3A give appropriate effect to the City of Toronto Official Plan policies: 2.1.3 - Appeal #: 42 2.2.1 - Appeal #: 7, 42 2.2.1.1 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 37, 39, 42, 45 2.2.1.6 - Appeal #: 42, 46 2.2.1.7 - Appeal #: 42, 2.2.1.8 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 37, 39, 42, 45 2.2.1.8(a) - Appeal #: 45 2.2.1.8(c) - Appeal #: 45 2.2.1.9 - Appeal #: 7, 42 2.2.1.10 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 42, 45 2.2.1.11 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 42 2.2.1.12 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 42 2.2.2 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 37, 39, 42, 45 2.2.2(a) - Appeal #: 42 2.4.4 - Appeal #: 42 2.4.7 - Appeal #: 42 2.4.8(a) - Appeal #: 42 3.1.1.2 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39 3.1.1.3 - Appeal #: 42 3.1.1.5 - Appeal #: 42 3.1.2 - Appeal #: 7, 42 3.1.2.1 - Appeal #: 42 3.1.2.1(a)(b) - Appeal #: 7, 46 3.1.2.3 - Appeal #: 7, 45, 46 3.1.2.4 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 3.1.2.5 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 42, 46 3.1.2.6 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 42 3.1.2.7 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 42 3.1.2.8 - Appeal #: 42, 46 3.1.2.9 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 42 3.1.3 - Appeal #: 7, 42 3.1.3.1 - Appeal #: 7 3.1.3.8 - Appeal #: 7, 42 3.1.3.8 - Appeal #: 42 3.1.3.9 - Appeal #: 42 3.1.3.10 - Appeal #: 42 3.1.3.11 - Appeal #: 42 3.1.3.12 - Appeal #: 42 Pre-amble Tall Buildings - Appeal #: 42 3.1.5 - Appeal #: 7, 42 3.2.1.1 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 42, 45 3.5.1 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 37, 39, 42 3.5.1.1 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 37, 39, 42, 45 3.5.1.2 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 37, 39, 42, 45 3.5.1.3 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 37, 39, 42, 45 3.5.1.4 - Appeal #: 7, 37, 42 3.5.1.6 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 42, 45 3.5.1.7 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16 , 17, 18, 39, 42, 45 3.5.1.9 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 42, 45 3.5.2.1 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39 3.5.2.5 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39 3.5.2.6 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 45 4.0 preamble - Appeal #: 42 4.5.1 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 37, 39, 42 4.5.2 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 37, 39, 42 4.5.2 (b) - Appeal #: 20 4.7.1 - Appeal #: 7, 42, 45, 46 4.7.2 - Appeal #: 7, 42, 45 5.1.1.6 - Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 42 5.6.1 - Appeal #: 42 Map 18 - Appeal #: 37, 42

Downtown Plan

5. Do the policies and/or maps of the King-Spadina Secondary Plan, as identified by each Appellant in Schedule 3A give appropriate effect to the City of Toronto Downtown Plan, particularly policies: 1.6 - Appeal #: 37, 42 3 - Appeal #: 20, 42 3.5 - Appeal #: 42, 46 3.18 - Appeal #: 46 4.1 - Appeal #: 6/A 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 32, 37, 39, 42, 46 6.1 - Appeal #: 37, 42 6.9.1 - Appeal #: 42, 46 6.18 - Appeal #: 37, 42 6.19 - Appeal #: 37, 42 6.20 - Appeal #: 37, 42 6.23 - Appeal #: 37, 42 6.26 - Appeal #: 42, 46 6.34 - Appeal #: 6/A, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 32, 37, 39, 42, 46 6.35 - Appeal #: 6/A, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 32, 37, 39, 42 6.36 - Appeal #: 6/A, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 32, 37, 39, 42 6.37 - Appeal #: 6/A, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 32, 39, 42 9.3 - Appeal #: 46 9.23 - Appeal #: 42, 46 Map 41-3 - Appeal #: 37, 42 Map 41-13 - Appeal #: 37

6. Does OPA 486 inappropriately restrict height and density on lands located in an area well served by transit and proximate to a transit station?

• Appeal #: 42

King-Spadina Secondary Plan Policy Issues

Section 1: Interpretation

7. Policy 1.2 – a. Is this policy clear regarding its application to other Site and Area Specific Policies (e.g. OPA 445, Parkdale Main Street and West Queen West)?

• Appeal #: 6/B, 12, 13, 16, 17 b. Is it appropriate for Policy 1.2 to provide that the King-Spadina Heritage Conservation District Plan will prevail over the Secondary Plan in the event of a conflict?
• Appeal #: 20, 38, 41/B c. Is it appropriate for the King-Spadina Secondary Plan to apply to adjacent lands outside of the Secondary Plan boundaries?
• Appeal #: 37

8. Policies 1.4, 1.5 and 8.4 – a. Is it appropriate to provide policy direction on the creation of Urban Design Guidelines intended to guide and evaluate development?

• Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 45 b. Is it appropriate for the King-Spadina Secondary Plan to contain policies that reference Urban Design Guidelines when the non-statutory documents has not yet been adopted by City Council?
• Appeal #: 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 39, 41/B, 42 c. Given the City has not yet adopted Urban Design Guidelines, is it appropriate to specify that development will be evaluated in accordance with such guidelines as provided for in section 8.4 of the Plan?
• Appeal #: 7, 41/B, 42 d. Does referring to guidelines or strategies by name within a Secondary Plan allow for interpretation of these document as being part of the Secondary Plan/Official Plan, and thus having the same statutory status? If these guidelines and strategies are intended to be non-statutory documents, should the Secondary Plan include language consistent with OP policy 5.3.2.1 to confirm this? (e.g. These strategies and guidelines, while they express Council policy, are not part of the Plan and do not have the status of policies in this Plan adopted under the Planning Act)
• Appeal # 6/A, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39

Section 2: Vision

9. Policy 2.2 – a. Should the policy be revised to include the contribution that high-density mixed-use development has played in shaping and defining the identity and character of the King-Spadina Secondary Plan Area?

• Appeal #: 38

10. Policy 2.3 – a. Should Policy 2.3 be revised to recognize that new development in the King-Spadina Secondary Plan Area will continue to support and enhance opportunities for new housing in the form of high-density mixed-use development?

• Appeal #: 20, 38, 42 b. Is the vision set out in Policy 2.3 appropriately worded given the policy context where much of what is described in Policy 2.3.1 to 2.3.5 remains subject of appeals, or requires further clarification or is yet to be prepared and adopted, so as to provide new development with a clear and precise vision?
• Appeal #: 20, 42

11. Policy 2.3.1 – Does this policy appropriately balance heritage character and sensitive infill and investment when considering new development and investment?

• Appeal #: 20, 42

Section 3: Objectives

12. Should Section 3 (Objectives) be revised to include as an Objective the continued support and enhancement of housing opportunities through high-density mixed-use development within the King-Spadina Secondary Plan Area?

• Appeal #: 20, 38, 42

13. Are the objectives set out in section 3.1 appropriate and compatible with the existing and planned context of the King-Spadina area as a mixed use area for growth?

• Appeal #: 42

14. Policies 3.1.1 & 3.1.2 – Is it appropriate and good planning to include a policy requiring the replacement of non-residential uses and/or a minimum amount of total gross floor area as non-residential uses?

• Appeal #: 7, 20, 38/B, 41/B, 42, 45 In particular: a. Does it provide adequate flexibility for residential development and compatible development among existing residential land uses?
• Appeal #: 20, 42 b. Is it appropriate to include Policy 3.1.2 in King-Spadina Secondary Plan when a similar policy was deleted from the approved version of Downtown Plan?
• Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 39, 41, 42, 45, 46 c. It is appropriate to include Policy 3.1.2 without inclusion of policies in King-Spadina Secondary Plan to incentivize employment uses?
• Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 39, 41, 42, 45 d. Has Policy 3.1.2 been drafted with sufficient clarity to understand and implement its intent?
• Appeal #: 20, 41, 42 e. Does policy 3.1.2 appropriately consider the complexities of mixed use building typologies and the programmatic requirements of non-residential uses?
• Appeal #: 7, 20, 41, 42 f. Is it appropriate for the employment policies to focus on floor area equivalent rather than employees as a goal for protection?
• Appeal #: 20, 41, 42 g. Are there changes in the relative demand for non-residential uses that would justify a revision to Policy 3.1.2?
• Appeal #: 20, 42

15. Should Policy 3.1.2 be modified to clarify the requirement to provide the greater of the replacement of all existing non-residential gross floor area or a minimum of 25 per cent of the total gross floor area as non-residential uses?

• Appeal #: 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 41, 42, 46

16. Should a policy be added to the King Spadina Secondary Plan to recognize that non-residential uses, particularly office, have unique built form characteristics and programmatic requirements?

• Appeal # 6/A, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 39, 41

17. Should policy 3.1.2.A provide greater flexibility with regards to allowing the transfer of non-residential gross floor area offsite? Specifically, should the receiving site be restricted to the King Spadina Secondary Plan Area, and should construction on the receiving site be strictly required to occur prior or concurrent with any residential gross floor area on the donor site?

• Appeal #: 7

Section 4: Parks and Public Realm

18. Policy 4.1 – a. Do the improvements shown on Maps 16-3A and 16-3B achieve the intention set out in Policy 4.1?

• Appeal #: 8, 15, 41 b. Do Policies 4.1, 4.2 and 4.15 provide the appropriate level of certainty with respect to the type and location of public realm enhancements, and are the locations illustrated in Map 16-3A and Map 16-3B appropriate?
• Appeal #: 7, 41/B

19. Policy 4.2 and 4.3 : a. Is it appropriate and good planning to use mandatory language in Policy 4.3 when Map 16-3A refers only to potential public realm enhancements?

• Appeal #: 41 b. Is it appropriate and good planning to use mandatory language in Policy 4.2 and 4.3 when Map 16-3A refers only to potential public realm enhancements and Map 16-3B refers to ‘Existing, Planned and Potential Mid-block Connections?
• Appeal #:7 c. Are the locations for public realm enhancements and midblock connections shown on Map 16-3B appropriate and do Policies 4.2 and 4.3 provide an appropriate level of certainty to property owners regarding the type of public realm enhancement that will be requested by the City?
• Appeal #: 7, 8, 13, 15, 41 d. Should policy 4.3 reference Map 16-3A and/or Map 16-3B to provide appropriate clarity on the relationship between this policy and the secondary plan mapping? Should wording in this policy be consistent with wording on the mapping with regards to referring to ‘potential’ public realm enhancements and ‘existing, planned and potential mid-block connections’?
• Appeal #: 7

20. Policy 4.4 – Should policy 4.4 be positioned as the first policy of the ‘King Spadina Public Realm’ section of the Plan, to assist with interpretation of all of the following policies? Should policy 4.4 reference Map 16-3A and/or Map 16-3B to provide appropriate clarity on the relationship between this policy and the potential public realm enhancements and midblock connections identified on the secondary plan mapping?

• Appeal #: 7

21. Policy 4.6.2 – Is the proposed policy with respect to laneways allowing for views of side and rear elevations appropriate?

• Appeal #: 20, 41

22. Policy 4.7 – Is it appropriate and good planning to use mandatory language in Policy 4.7 without consideration of site-specific circumstances? Is it legal to require laneways to be improved through development review except as a community benefit under the Planning Act?

• Appeal #: 7

23. Do policies 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8 appropriately consider the built form and servicing requirements of non-residential uses?

• Appeal #: 7

24. Policies 4.9 – It is appropriate and good planning to use mandatory language in Policy 4.9 without consideration of site-specific circumstances? Would a requirement to secure new mid-block connections constitute expropriation without compensation? Should the potential for mid-block connections be achieved as a community benefit under the Planning Act?

• Appeal #: 7

25. Do Policies 4.7, 4.9, 4.11 and 4.12 constitute a taking of land without compensation?

• Appeal #: 7, 8, 13, 15,

26. Policies 4.9, 4.10, 4.12 – a. Do Policies 4.9, 4.10, and 4.12 provide the appropriate level of certainty with respect to potential mid-block connections, and do the locations of potential mid-block connections in Map 16-3B appropriately consider redevelopment opportunities on affected properties?

• Appeal #: 7, 8, 13, 15,

27. Are Policies 4.11 and 4.12 consistent with Downtown Plan policies 7.44, 8.5 and 9.2?

• Appeal #: 7, 12

28. Are Policies 4.7, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4,12, 4.13 and 4.14 appropriate and do they provide adequate direction respecting mid-block connections and properties that abut laneways?

• Appeal #: 20

29. Do the Section 4, Parks and Public Realm, policies give appropriate consideration to the built form and functional requirements of non-residential uses, particularly in light of the King-Spadina Secondary Plan vision that development and investment will support and enhance the cluster of employment (2.3.2) and the KSSP objectives to strengthen the Area’s important economic role as a location for jobs and employment (3.1.1) and to ensure the continued support and enhancement of the cluster of employment in the Area (3.1.2)?

• Appeal #: 7, 42

Section 6: Built Form

30. Policy 6.1 and 6.2 - Do Policies 6.1 and 6.2 fail to recognize each site on its own merits with respect to redevelopment?

• Appeal #: 20, 41/B

31. Policy 6.2 – a. Is the requirement for development to provide setbacks from property lines adjacent to streets appropriate in all cases?

• Appeal #: 20, 41 b. Is Policy 6.2 which would require base building setbacks in all circumstances except for portions of the site that contain on-site heritage resources appropriate given the variation in existing and planned context across the Secondary Plan area? Is the requirement for base building setbacks in all circumstances akin to a taking and as such an inappropriate policy? If so, should the policy instead recognize that base building setbacks, or enhanced base building setbacks, could be secured through development application review and as a community benefit instead of a Secondary Plan requirement?
• Appeal #: 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 20, 41 c. Should Policy 6.2. recognize base building setbacks as community benefits consistent with the Minister’s modifications to OPA 406 (Downtown Plan)?
• Appeal # - 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 20, 42

32. Policy 6.2.3 – Is it appropriate to require design and programmatic requirements for exterior areas adjacent to new retail spaces?

• Appeal #: 38/B, 41

33. Policy 6.3 – a. Are the proposed stepback policies appropriate? Do the proposed base building stepback policies represent good planning and urban design?

• Appeal #: 20, 41 b. Do the stepbacks set out in Policy 6.3 provide sufficient flexibility to permit a variety of built forms that are sensitive to their context?
• Appeal #: 8/C, 10/C, 13/C, 15/C, 20/C, 38/B/C, 41/B/C, 45/C, 46/C c. And is it fundamentally appropriate to specify a general numerical standard in an official plan, leaving specific numerical standards for related zoning by-laws, where appropriate standards can be determined based on site and context specific considerations?
• Appeal #: 7, 8/C, 13/C, 15/C, 20, 41, 45/C, 46/C d. Does policy 6.3 provide sufficient flexibility to allow responsiveness to context and to ensure the built form requirements of office and employment uses, and specifically the requirement for efficient floorplates that are typically much larger than residential uses?
• Appeal #: 7, 13, 20

34. Policy 6.4 – a. Does Policy 6.4 accurately capture the policy direction of the Queen Street West Heritage Conservation District Plan, and is the policy required given the in-force Queen West HCD and King-Spadina Secondary Plan Policy 1.2?

• Appeal #: 6/B, 7, 12, 16, 17, 18, 39, 41, 45 b. Is Policy 6.4 which requires that no net-new shadow be cast on the north sidewalk of Queen Street West, particularly in the spring, summer and fall—appropriate, and is it sufficiently clear in the absence of specified dates and times?
• Appeal #: 7, 41/B c. Does Policy 6.4 inappropriately limit the scale of redevelopment despite site and contextual circumstances that could warrant greater intensification on a site specific basis?
• Appeal #: 38 d. Should policy 6.4 be further clarified? Specifically should it include the word "particularly"?
• Appeal #: 7

35. Policy 6.5 and 8.1 – a. Is the proposed no net-new shadow policy appropriate and does it represent good planning?

• Appeal #: 41, 46 b. Is it appropriate for Policy 8.1 to exclude development applications that have been approved by Council or the Tribunal for which a zoning by-law has not yet been enacted?
• Appeal #: 6/B, 7, 10, 12, 16, 17, 39, 41/B c. Is it appropriate for Policy 8.1 to limit the potential scale of development and does it have regard for contextual circumstances that may warrant a greater level of intensification?
• Appeal #: 38/B d. Is it appropriate for Policy 6.5 to reintroduce the no “net-new shadow” test that was removed from the Downtown Plan by the Minister?
• Appeal #: 6/B, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 41/B

36. Policy 6.6 – a. Do the height transition zones represent good planning and urban design?

• Appeal #: 42, 46 b. Does policy 6.6 appropriately consider the existing and planned built form context, the proximity of properties to existing or planned transit and the land use permissions set forth in the Downtown Plan for Mixed Use Areas?
• Appeal #: 7, 38/B, 42, 46 c. Are the height transition polices in Policy 6.6 as illustrated in the Height Transition Zones identified in Map 16-4 appropriate?
• Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 42, 45 d. Does Height Transition Zone B, which is designated as Mixed Use Areas 1 in Downtown Plan, and Policy 6.6 conflict with the policies in the Downtown Plan, including but not limited to, Sections 4, 6, 9 and the accompanying Maps?
• Appeal #: 42

37. Policy 6.4A – Is the requirement to minimize shadow on the sidewalk on the west side of Spadina Avenue appropriate?

• Appeal #: 6/A, 7, 12, 16, 17, 18, 38, 39

38. Are the three Precincts identified on Map 16-1 and further described in Policy 6.7 appropriately delineated?

• Appeal #: 7

39. Policy 6.8 & 6.9 – a. Does Policies 6.8 for the East Precinct appropriately consider the existing and planned built form context, the proximity of properties to existing or planned transit, and the land use permissions set forth in the City’s Downtown Plan for Mixed Use Areas 1 and 2?

• Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 12, 16, 17, 20, 39, 41, 42, 45

40. Is Policy 6.8.2—which refers to the provision of “appropriate” setbacks, stepbacks, and separation distance from other buildings and from all property lines—appropriate, and is it sufficiently clear?

• Appeal #: 41/B

41. Is Policy 6.8.3—which requires building heights in the East Precinct to be “subordinate” to the building heights of the Financial District north of Front Street—appropriate, and is the term “subordinate” sufficiently clear?

• Appeal #: 41/B, 42

42. Policy 6.10 – Does Policy 6.10 for the West Precinct appropriately consider the existing and planned built form context, the proximity of properties to existing or planned transit, and the land use permissions set forth in the City’s Downtown Plan for Mixed Use Areas 2?

• Appeal #: 7, 8, 10, 13, 15

43. Policy 6.11 and 6.12 – a. Is the maximum height of 50 metres proposed for Mixed-Use Areas 2 within the West Precinct in Policy 6.11 appropriate, having regard to the surrounding built form context and the area’s proximity to existing and/or planned transit and height permissions set forth in the City’s Downtown Plan for Mixed-Use Areas 2 properties?

• Appeal #: 6/B, 46 b. Do Policies 6.11 and 6.12 for the West Precinct appropriately consider the existing and planned built form context, the proximity of properties to existing or planned transit, and the land use permissions set forth in the City’s Downtown Plan for Mixed Use Areas 2?
• Appeal #: 6/B, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18

44. Policy 6.13 and 6.14 – a. Do the mandatory and prescriptive building setback and stepbacks proposed in Policies 6.13 and 6.14 represent good planning and urban design?

• Appeal #: 7, 8, 13, 15, 18, 46/C b. Policy 6.14 – Is a mandatory stepback of 5.5 metres appropriate without regard to existing and/or planned uses of adjacent properties?
• Appeal #: 7, c. Is it appropriate for Policies 6.13. and 6.14. to seek setback and stepback standards which are different than those recently approved pursuant to OPA 352 (Downtown Tall Buildings), for the same lands?
• Appeal #: 7, 8, 10, 13, 15

45. Policy 6.15, 6.16 and 6.17 – a. Are Policies 6.15 and 6.16 for the Spadina Precinct appropriate in light of the scale of Spadina Avenue, the “Great Streets” designation in Policy 4.15 and the proximity of properties to existing or planned transit?

• Appeal #: 7 b. Is Policy 6.15 the specification that development in the Spadina Precinct will be predominantly mid-rise appropriate and does it represent good planning?
• Appeal #: 7

46. Do the policies 6.3, 6.13, 6.14, 6.15, 6.16 and 6.17 allow for appropriate consideration of unique site circumstances and the unique requirements of non-residential uses?

• Appeal #: 7

47. Do the Section 6, Built Form, policies give appropriate consideration to the built form requirements of non-residential uses, particularly in light of the KSSP vision that development and investment will support and enhance the cluster of employment (2.3.2) and the KSSP objectives to strengthen the Area’s important economic role as a location for jobs and employment (3.1.1) and to ensure the continued support and enhancement of the cluster of employment in the Area (3.1.2)?

• Appeal #: 7, 42

48. How are the King-Spadina Secondary Plan's objectives to strengthen the Area’s important economic role as a location for jobs and employment and to ensure the continued support and enhancement of the cluster of employment in the Area implemented in the Section 6 built form policies?

• Appeal #: 7, 42

Section 7: Areas of Special Identity

St. Andrew's Playground

49. Are the mandatory Policies 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6 regarding the St Andrews Playground Area of Special Identity identified on Map 16-5 overly prescriptive and do they appropriately consider built form and functional considerations for surrounding properties?

• Appeal #: 7, 8, 15, 16

Wellington Place

50. Are the mandatory Policies 7.8, 7.11, and 7.12 regarding the "Wellington Place" Area of Special Identity overly prescriptive, and do they consider built form and functional considerations for surrounding properties?

• Appeal #: 7, 16

51. Policy 7.8 – Are the policies in Policy 7.8, in particular the 10 metre stepback suggested by Policy 7.8.3, appropriate having regard to the existing and/or planned context?

• Appeal #: 7, 10

Duncan Street

52. Are the mandatory Policies 7.13, 7.14, and 7.15 related to the Duncan Street Area of Special Identity identified on Map 16-5 overly prescriptive, and do they appropriately consider built form and functional considerations for surrounding properties?

• Appeal #: 6/B, 7, 12, 16, 17, 39, 41

53. Policy 7.13 – a. Is the requirement for a 6 metre stepback appropriate having regard to the existing and/or planned context?

• Appeal #: 41 b. Is a policy requiring "greater building setbacks" "at appropriate locations" sufficiently informative to be implemented? What are the standards for determining what is an "appropriate location" in Policy 7.14?
• Appeal #: 41 c. Is the requirement for a 6 metre stepback appropriate, having regard to the existing and/or planned context, and/or the provision of employment uses?
• Appeal #: 7

Draper Street

54. Are the mandatory Policies 7.1, 7.16, 7.17, 7.18, and 7.19 related to the Draper Street Area of Special Identity identified on Map 16-5 overly prescriptive, and do they appropriately consider built form and functional considerations for surrounding properties?

• Appeal #: 7, 10

Other Matters

55. Should the King-Spadina Secondary Plan include a transition policy that recognizes existing applications and/or approvals that were complete prior to the approval of the King-Spadina Secondary Plan?

• Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 32, 38, 41/B

56. Is approval of the King-Spadina Secondary Plan premature pending completion of the City’s ongoing local area studies for Protected Major Transit Stations Areas within the King Spadina area?

• Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 41/B, 42, 45

57. Is the approval of the following Policies in the King-Spadina Secondary Plan, 1.2; 2.2; 2.3.3; 3.1.3; 4.6.2; 6.3.3; 6.4; 6.17; 7.8.1; 7.8.2; 7.14 and 8.3, premature in light of the outstanding appeals of the King Spadina Heritage Conservation District Plan and in light subsection 41.2(2) of the Ontario Heritage Act?

• Appeal #: 6/A/B, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 41, 45

Site Specific Issues by Appeal Number

Appeal 1 (485-489 Wellington Street West)

1. Would Policies 6.10, 6.11, 6.13, 6.14, 7.8, and 7.83 of the King-Spadina Secondary Plan preclude the redevelopment of 485-489 Wellington Street West as approved in principle by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (Tribunal Case File No. PL170348)?

Appeal 3 (400-420 King Street West)

2. Would the Policies 1.4, 1.5, 2.3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.7, 4.9, 4.12, 6.3, 6.6 and 8.3 of the King-Spadina Secondary Plan preclude the redevelopment of 400-420 King Street West as approved in principle by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (Tribunal Case File No. PL180387)?

Appeal 4 (355 Adelaide Street West and 46 Charlotte Street)

3. Would the Policies 1.4, 1.5, 2.3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.7, 4.9, 4.12, 6.3, 6.6 and 8.3 of the King-Spadina Secondary Plan preclude the redevelopment of 355 Adelaide Street West and 46 Charlotte Street as proposed?

Appeal 5 (266-270 King Street West and 274-322 King Street West)

4. Is it appropriate to apply the policies of the King-Spadina Secondary Plan to the properties located at 266-270 King Street West and 274-322 King Street West given that the properties have been subject to a recent SASP and zoning by-law amendment?

Appeal 19 (520 Richmond Street West and 49-51 Camden Street)

5. Do the proposed policies in OPA 486 conflict with the planned function of 520 Richmond Street West as set out in the zoning by-law amendment enacted by City Council in July 2018 (Zoning By-law No. 1265-2018; City File No. 12 279689 STE 20 OZ) (the “520 Richmond Site-Specific Approval”)? Should a Site and Area Specific Policy to the King-Spadina Secondary Plan to expressly recognize the development standards permitted in the Site-Specific Approval?

6. Do the proposed policies in OPA 486 conflict with the planned function of 49-51 Camden Street as set out in the zoning by-law amendment enacted by City Council in July 2016 (Zoning By-law Nos. 697-2016 and 698-2016; City File No. 15 209675 STE 20 OZ) (the “49-51 Camden Site-Specific Approval”)? Should a Site and Area Specific Policy to the King-Spadina Secondary Plan to expressly recognize the development standards permitted in the Site-Specific Approval?

Appeal 21 (401-415 King Street West)

7. Should Policy 7.8.1—which requires that the development respect the scale and pattern of the built heritage resources of Wellington Place—apply to the property at 401-415 King Street West?

8. Should any portion of the property at 401-415 King Street West be included in Height Transition Zone C on Map 16-4?

9. Are the boundaries of the Wellington Place Area of Special Identity on Map 16-5 appropriate, and should they include the Spadina Avenue frontage of the property at 401-415 King Street West?

Appeal 23 (212-220 King Street West)

10. Would the Policies 1.4, 1.5, 2.3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.7, 4.10, 4.13, 4.14, 6.3, 6.6 and 8.3 of the Plan inappropriately preclude the redevelopment of a tall building on 212-220 King Street West as proposed?

Appeal 24 (217 Adelaide Street West)

11. Is the depiction of a north-south “Existing, Planned and Potential Mid-block Connection” on Map 16-3B in the vicinity of the property at 217 Adelaide Street West appropriate? If so, should the associated policies (Policies 4.9 to 4.12) be modified to specify that a Mid-Block Connection is not to be located on the property at 217 Adelaide Street West?

Appeal 25 (101 Spadina Avenue)

12. Is the depiction of the “Potential Public Realm Enhancement” on Map 16-3A in the vicinity of the property at 101 Spadina Avenue appropriate?

13. Are the public realm enhancements set out in Policy 4.1 and illustrated on Maps 16-3A and 16-3B appropriate, and do they take into consideration site-specific limitations and context?

14. Is the depiction of a north-south “Existing, Planned and Potential Mid-block Connection” on Map 16-3B in the vicinity of the property at 101 Spadina Avenue appropriate, and does it take into consideration site-specific limitations and context to realize such a connection?

15. Should any portion of the property at 101 Spadina Avenue be included in Height Transition Zone C on Map 16-4?

Appeal 26 (126-142 John Street, 259-267 Richmond Street West & 41-59 Widmer Street)

16. Should any portion of the property at 126-142 John Street, 259-267 Richmond Street West and 41-59 Widmer Street be included in Height Transition Zone E on Map 16-4?

Appeal 27 (462 Wellington Street West)

17. Do the built form policies of the KSSP, including policies 3.1.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6, undermine the intensification potential of 462 Wellington Street West?

18. Does the KSSP appropriately recognize and permit the opportunity for significant residential intensification and office uses on the 462 Wellington Street West at an appropriate mix?

19. Is the inclusion of numerical physical requirements and reference to specific building elements, such as those referenced in policies 6.3, 6.11, 6.14, 7.8.3, appropriate for a secondary plan that should consider a variety of lot sizes and contextual relationships, and a range of uses including residential and retirement home uses?

20. Will the following policies of the KSSP limit the ability to develop 462 Wellington Street West in accordance with the site-specific application?

a. Policy 6.3, which states that “Development will provide stepbacks on all elevations facing public streets, not including laneways. The stepbacks [...] will be a minimum of three metres above the height of the streetwall or base building”:

b. Policy 6.5, which states that “No net-new shadow shall be cast on Victoria Memorial Square, Clarence Square, St. Andrew's Playground, 456 Wellington Street West and 543 Richmond Street West, as measured from March 21st to September 21st from 10:18 a.m.- 4:18 p.m.”;

c. Policy 6.11, which states that “Development in Mixed Use Areas 2 within the West Precinct will not exceed 50 metres in height including the mechanical penthouse and all projections, with the exception of an exit stair for roof access and the elevator overrun.”;

d. Policy 6.14, which states that “Above the base building, development will include stepbacks from adjacent properties to provide separation distances between buildings that protect access to light, view and privacy. A minimum stepback of 5.5 metres will be provided from any property line that is not adjacent to a public street or public lane. Where a property line is adjacent to a public lane, a minimum stepback of 5.5 metres will be provided from the centre line of the lane”; and

e. Policy 7.8.3, which states that, in the Wellington Place Area of Special Identity, “Development and enhancements to the public realm will [...] provide a minimum stepback of 10 metres above the streetwall or base building for all elevations fronting Wellington Street West.”

Appeal 28 (301-319 King Street West)

21. Do the built form policies of the KSSP, including policies 3.1.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6, undermine the intensification potential of 301-309 King Street West?

22. Does the KSSP appropriately recognize and permit the opportunity for significant residential intensification and office uses on 301-319 King Street West at an appropriate mix?

23. Is the inclusion of numerical physical requirements and reference to specific building elements, such as those referenced in policies 6.3, 6.11, 6.14, 7.8.3, appropriate for a secondary plan that should consider a variety of lot sizes and contextual relationships, and a range of uses?

Appeal 29 (578-80 King Street West)

24. Would the above-noted policies of the Plan inappropriately preclude the redevelopment of 578-580 King Street West as approved in principle by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (Tribunal Case File No. PL190124)?

Appeal 33 (127 Portland Street)

25. Is it appropriate to seek a Potential Public Realm Enhancement at the front of 127 Portland Street, as identified on Map 16-3A?

26. Is it appropriate to seek physical enhancements and public access/use rights on private lands, beyond what would normally be achieved through Site Plan Control, as are being sought in policies 2.3.5, 3.1.4.3 and 4.3?

27. Is it appropriate to include the lane running north/south between Richmond Street West and Adelaide Street West, behind the properties fronting Portland Street (including 127 Portland Street) as an “Existing, Planned and Potential Mid-block Connection” on Map 16-3B and policy 4.9?

28. Does the lane running north/south between Richmond Street West and Adelaide Street West form part of a network or series of pedestrian connections and desire lines, as articulated in policies 4.10 and 4.11, or is that purpose better served by nearby public streets?

29. Is it appropriate to seek the improvements and increased public activity sought by policies 4.6, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11 and 4.12 in the lane running north/south between Richmond Street West and Adelaide Street West, behind the properties fronting Portland Street?

30. Is it appropriate to seek the dedication of additional lands, as outlined in policies 4.7 and 4.9 along the lane running north/south between Richmond Street West and Adelaide Street West, especially when only the minimum dedications to bring the lane up to service access standards, have been secured through recent development applications along approximately 50% of the length of that lane and specifically on lands immediately south and north of 127 Portland Street?

31. With respect to policy 6.3, are the proposed stepback policies appropriate? Do the proposed base building stepback policies represent good planning and urban design?

32. With respect to policy 6.3, is it fundamentally appropriate to specify numerical minimums in an official plan?

33. Is it appropriate for policies 6.13 and 6.14 to seek setback and stepback standards which do not meet the intent of policies recently approved under OPA 352, for the same lands?

Appeal 34 (504 Wellington Street)

34. Would the above-noted Policies of the Plan inappropriately preclude the redevelopment of 504 Wellington Street West as approved in principle by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (PL171178)?

Appeals 35 & 44 (470 – 478 Wellington Street)

35. Would policies 2.2, 2.3.1, 4.6.2, 6.3, 6.5, 8.1, 6.11, 6.13, and 7.8 inappropriately preclude the development of a 15-storey office building on 470-478 Wellington as proposed by the rezoning applications of Hullmark and Doubledown (City Application Nos. 16 261191 STE 20 OZ & 16 270154 STE 20 OZ; Tribunal Case Nos. PL170893 & PL171231)?

36. If an office building on 470-478 Wellington is approved as a result of Hullmark’s and Doubledown’s above-noted rezoning applications, should the King-Spadina Secondary Plan include a transition policy that recognizes that approved office building?

Appeal 36 (400 Front Street West)

37. Would the above-noted policies of the Plan inappropriately preclude the redevelopment of 400 Front Street West as approved in principle by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT Case File No. PL160685)?

Appeal 37 (Oxford Lands)

38. Are the Secondary Plan policies and maps for the Oxford Lands appropriate, given the location of the David Pecaut Square and existing office buildings, including those related to the public realm, mid-block connections and privately owned publicly accessible spaces (Policies 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 4.1, 4.3, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12 and Maps 16-3A and 16-3B)?

Appeal 42 (50 John Street)

39. Do Policies 6.8 and 6.9 fail to recognize that greater heights may be appropriate on lands that directly abut the Financial District, such as 50 John Street?

Appeal 43 (120-128 Peter Street)

40. Do proposed policies in King-Spadina Secondary Plan conflict with the planned function of 120-128 Peter Street and 357-359 Richmond Street West as set out in the zoning by-law amendment approved by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal in its decision dated August 14, 2020 (Tribunal Case No. PL161152; City File No. 15 255425 STE 20OZ) (the “Site-Specific Approval”)? Should a Site and Area Specific Policy to the King-Spadina Secondary Plan to expressly recognize the development standards permitted in the Site-Specific Approval?

SCHEDULE 3A

SIMPLIFIED APPELLANT NUMBER AND ISSUE-ASSOCIATED POLICIES UNDER APPEAL – PRELIMINARY AS IDENTIFIED BY APPELLANTS

Appeal #	Policies Under Appeal
1.	6.10, 6.11, 6.13, 6.14, 7.8.3
2.	1.4, 1.5, 2.3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 4.9, 4.12, 6.3, 6.5, 6.6, 7.13, 8.3
3.	1.4, 1.5, 2.3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.7, 4.9, 4.12, 6.3, 6.6, 8.3
4.	1.4, 1.5, 2.3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.7, 4.9, 4.12, 6.3, 6.6, 8.3
5.	All Policies and Maps
6.	All Policies and Maps
7.	All Policies and Maps
8.	All Policies and Maps
9.	All Policies and Maps
10.	All Policies and Maps
11.	All Policies and Maps
12.	All Policies and Maps
13.	All Policies and Maps
14.	[APPEAL WITHDRAWN]
15.	All Policies and Maps
16.	All Policies and Maps
17.	All Policies and Maps
18.	All Policies and Maps
19.	1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1 – 3.1.4.5, 4.9, 4.12, 6.2.3, 6.3, 6.4, 6.6, 6.11, 6.14, 8.1, 8.4, Map 16-3B
20.	1.4, 1.5, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 4.7, 4.9, 4.10, 4,11, 4.12, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.6.2, 6.8, 6.9, 8.4
21.	1.2, 1.5, 3.1.2, 6.2, 6.3, 6.5, 6.6, 6.8.2, 6.8.3, 6.15, 6.16, 6.17, 7.8.1, 8.1, 8.4, Map 16-4, Map 16-5
22.	[APPEAL WITHDRAWN]
23.	1.4, 1.5, 2.3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 4.9, 4.12, 6.3, 6.3, 6.5, 6.6, 6.8.3, 8.3, Map 16-3B
24.	1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 6.2, 6.3, 6.8.2, 8.4, Map 16-3A and Map 16-3B
25.	1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 3.1.2, 4.1, 4.3. 4.3.2, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.6.1, 6.6.2, 6.6.3, 6.6.4, 6.15, 6.16, 6.17, 8.1, 8.4, Map 16-3A, Map 16-3B and Map 16-4
26.	1.2, 1.5, 3.1.2, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.6, 6.6.1, 6.6.5, 6.8.2, 6.8.3, 8.1, 8.4, Map 16-4
27.	1.4, 1.5, 6.3, 6.5, 6.11, 6.14, 7.8.3
28.	1.4, 1.5, 3.1.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6
29.	1.4, 1.5, 6.10, 6.11, 6.13, 6.14
30.	1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 4.1, 4.3, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 6.3, 6.4, 6.6, 6.11, 6.14, 8.1, 8.4, Map 16-3A, Map 16-3B
31.	1.4, 1.5, 2.3, 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 4.1, 4.3, 4.9, 4.10, 4.12, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.8.3, 8.1, 8.4, , Map 16-3A, Map 16-3B, Map 16-4
32.	All Policies and Maps
33.	2.2, 2.3.5, 3.1.2, 3.1.4.3, 4.3, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 6.11 Map 16-3A and Map 16-3B
34.	6.10, 6.11, 6.13, 6.14, 7.83, Map 16-3B
35.	2.2, 2.3.1, 4.6.2, 6.3, 6.5, 6.11, 6.13, 7.8, 8.1
36.	6.3, 6.5, 6.9
37.	1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 4.1, 4.3, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, Maps 16-3A and 16-3B
38.	All Policies and Maps
39.	All Policies and Maps
40.	1.2, 1.5, 3.1.2, 6.2, 6.3, 8.4
41.	1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 4.1, 4.3, 4.15, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.8.2, 6.8.3, 7.13, 7.14, 8.1, 8.4, Map 16-3A
42.	1.5, 2.3, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 4, 6.6, 6.8, 6.9, 8.4
43.	1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1 – 3.1.4.5, 4.9, 4.11, 6.2.3, 6.3, 6.4, 6.6, 6.8, 6.14, 8.1, 8.4, Map 16-3A, Map 16-3B
44.	2.2, 2.3.1, 4.6.2, 6.3, 6.5, 6.11, 6.12, 6.13, 6.14, 7.8, 8.1
45.	1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 2.2, 2.3.3, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 4.6.2, 6.3, 6.3.3, 6.4, 6.6, 6.8, 6.9, 6.17, 7.8.1, 7.8.2, 7.14, 8.3, 8.4, Map 16-4
46.	3.1.2, 6.3, 6.3.2, 6.5, 6.6.7, 6.11, 6.13, 6.14, Map 16-4

SCHEDULE 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

NOTE: Where parties of like interest have issues in common, they shall make reasonable efforts to coordinate their examinations-in-chief and cross-examinations so as to minimize any duplication or overlap of evidence. This list will be revised and refined through the final hearing plan.

1. City of Toronto
2. Appeal 6, 12, 17, 18, 39
3. Appeal 7
4. Appeal 8 and 15
5. Appeal 10
6. Appeal 11
7. Appeal 13
8. Appeal 15
9. Appeal 16
10. Appeal 20
11. Appeal 32
12. Appeal 37
13. Appeal 38
14. Appeal 39
15. Appeal 41
16. Appeal 42
17. Appeal 45
18. Appeal 46
19. Reply by City of Toronto (if any)

SCHEDULE 5

The Tribunal Orders:

The following site and policy specific appeals of Official Plan Amendment 486 are adjourned sine die. Any future decision made by the Tribunal in these proceedings is without prejudice to the resolution of these appeals and does not limit the right to make arguments about the relevance or weight to be given to the policies under appeal:

Appeal#	Appellant	Municipal Address(es)	Policies Under Appeal
1	Lifetime Wellington Street West Inc.	485-489 Wellington Street West	6.10, 6.11, 6.13, 6.14, 7.8.3
2	Adelaide Nelson Residences LP	254 Adelaide Street West	1.4, 1.5, 2.3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 4.9, 4.12, 6.3, 6.5, 6.6, 7.13, 8.3
3	Charlotte King Residences Corp	400-420 King Street West	1.4, 1.5, 2.3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.7, 4.9, 4.12, 6.3, 6.6, 8.3
4	Go-To Spadina Adelaide Square LP	355 Adelaide Street West & 46 Charlotte Street	1.4, 1.5, 2.3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.7, 4.9, 4.12, 6.3, 6.6, 8.3
19	Alterra-Finer (Richmond Street) Limited	520-530 Richmond Street West & 49-51 Camden Street	1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1 – 3.1.4.5, 4.9, 4.12, 6.2.3, 6.3, 6.4, 6.6, 6.11, 6.14, 8.1, 8.4, Map 16-3B
21	Kingspa Inc.	401-409, 415 King Street West	1.2, 1.5, 3.1.2, 6.2, 6.3, 6.5, 6.6, 6.8.2, 6.8.3, 6.15, 6.16, 6.17, 7.8.1, 8.1, 8.4, Map 16-4, Map 16-5
23	220 KSW LP	212 – 220 King Street West	1.4, 1.5, 2.3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 4.9, 4.12, 6.3, 6.3, 6.5, 6.6, 6.8.3, 8.3, Map 16-3B
24	217 Adelaide Holdings Limited	217 Adelaide Street West	1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 6.2, 6.3, 6.8.2, 8.4, Map 16-3A and Map 16-3B,
25	DevGreat Inc.	101-105 Spadina Avenue and 363 Adelaide Street West	1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 3.1.2, 4.1, 4.3. 4.3.2, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.6.1, 6.6.2, 6.6.3, 6.6.4, 6.15, 6.16, 6.17, 8.1, 8.4, Map 16-3A, Map 16-3B and Map 16-4
26	RioCan Management Inc.	126-142 John Street & 259-267 Richmond Street West	1.2, 1.5, 3.1.2, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.6, 6.6.1, 6.6.5, 6.8.2, 6.8.3, 8.1, 8.4, Map 16-4
27	462 Wellington Inc.	462 Wellington Street West	1.4, 1.5, 6.3, 6.5, 6.11, 6.14, 7.8.3
28	2477879 Ontario Inc. and 1579661 Ontario Inc., Claireville Holdings Limited, and Frances Danyliw (Claireville)	301-319 King Street West	1.4, 1.5, 3.1.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6
29	C Squared Properties	578-580 King Street West	1.4, 1.5, 6.10, 6.11, 6.13, 6.14
30	Manga Hotels (Richmond) Inc.	465-471 Richmond Street West & 38 Camden Street	1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 4.1, 4.3, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 6.3, 6.4, 6.6, 6.11, 6.14, 8.1, 8.4, Map 16-3A, Map 16-3B,
31	Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada	90 & 100 Simcoe Street 130 Pearl Street, 203, 207, & 211 Adelaide Street West	1.4, 1.5, 2.3, 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 4.1, 4.3, 4.9, 4.10, 4.12, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.8.3, 8.1, 8.4, , Map 16-3A, Map 16-3B, Map 16-4
33	1758173 Ontario Ltd	127 Portland St	2.2, 2.3.5, 3.1.2, 3.1.4.3, 4.3, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 6.11 Map 16-3A and Map 16-3B,
34	Lifetime 504 Wellington Street Inc.	504 Wellington Street West	6.10, 6.11, 6.13, 6.14, 7.83, Map 16-3B
35	Hullmark (474 Wellington) LP	470-474 Wellington Street West & 482-488 Wellington Street West	2.2, 2.3.1, 4.6.2, 6.3, 6.5, 6.11, 6.13, 7.8, 8.1
36	City Front Developments Inc	400 Front Street West	6.3, 6.5, 6.9
40	Lanterra 263 Adelaide Developments Limited	263-267 Adelaide Street West	1.2, 1.5, 3.1.2, 6.2, 6.3, 8.4
43	5047373 Ontario Inc.	120-128 Peter Street & 357-359 Richmond Street West	1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1 – 3.1.4.5, 4.9, 4.11, 6.2.3, 6.3, 6.4, 6.6, 6.8, 6.14, 8.1, 8.4, Map 16-3A, Map 16-3B
44	DoubleDown Holdings Inc.	482-488 Wellington Street West	2.2, 2.3.1, 4.6.2, 6.3, 6.5, 6.11, 6.12, 6.13, 6.14, 7.8, 8.1