Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 26, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002347 (Formerly PL130754)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Subject: Site Plan
Referred by: West Rutherford Properties Ltd.
Property Address/Description: 3660 Rutherford Road
Municipality: City of Vaughan
City of Vaughan File No. DA.11.114
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002347
Legacy Case No.: PL130754
OLT File No.: OLT-22-002347
Legacy File No.: PL130754
OLT Case Name: West Rutherford Properties Ltd. v. Vaughan (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: West Rutherford Properties Ltd.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of the City of Vaughan to adopt the requested amendment
Existing Designation: “Medium Density Residential-Commercial”
Proposed Designation: “High Density Residential-Commercial”
Purpose: To permit the development of two 12-storey apartment buildings consisting of 272 units as well as 21 block townhouse dwelling units within 3 separate blocks
Property Address/Description: 3660 Rutherford Road
Municipality: City of Vaughan
City of Vaughan File No.: OP.11.012
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002347
Legacy Case No.: PL130754
OLT File No.: OLT-22-002348
Legacy File No.: PL130798
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: West Rutherford Properties Ltd.
Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 1-88, as amended – Neglect of application by the City of Vaughan
Existing Zoning: “A Agricultural Zone”
Proposed Zoning: “RM2 Multiple Residential Zone” and “RA3 Apartment Residential Zone”
Purpose: To permit the development of two 12-storey apartment buildings consisting of 272 units as well as 21 block townhouse dwelling units within 3 separate blocks
Property Address/Description: 3660 Rutherford Road
Municipality: City of Vaughan
City of Vaughan File No.: Z.11.043
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002347
Legacy Case No.: PL130754
OLT File No.: OLT-22-002349
Legacy File No.: PL130799
Heard: March 28, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
West Rutherford Properties Ltd. (“Applicant”)
Q. Annibale A. Whyte
City of Vaughan (“City”)
G. Perhar
Region of York (“Region”)
B. Ogunmefun
Rutherford Commercial Holdings Limited
E. Costello
Loblaw Properties Limited
E. Costello
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON ON MARCH 28, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This matter came before the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT” or “Tribunal”) for the fourth Case Management Conference (“CMC”) which was held by video hearing (“VH”).
2The first CMC in this proceeding was held on January 22, 2014 and the 2nd CMC was held on September 22, 2014. The third CMC was then held on October 14, 2020 before Member Taylor. Member Taylor’s Decision issued on October 20, 2020 provides a complete overview of the history of this proceeding and therefore the Tribunal will not repeat those details here.
3At the third CMC, counsel for all Parties advised the Tribunal that they had reached agreement on the terms of a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) and that they sought a 24 day hearing of this appeal.
4The Tribunal has set down the hearing of this appeal to commence on Monday, March 20, 2023 for a period of twenty-four days.
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/442599157
Access code: 442-599-157
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: (647) 497-9391 or Toll Free 1-888-455-1389. The access code is 442-599-157.
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.
9Counsel for the Parties have delivered to the Tribunal a final draft PO in agreed form and content, which is appended hereto as Attachment 1.
ORDER
10The Procedural Order appended hereto as Attachment 1 shall govern this proceeding and the appeal now scheduled as described in paragraph [4] above.
“William R. Middleton”
WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON
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.
Ontario Land Tribunal
ATTACHMENT 1
ISSUE DATE: April 26, 2022 CASE NO(S): PL130754
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Subject: Site Plan
Referred by: West Rutherford Properties Ltd.
Property Address/Description: 3660 Rutherford Road
Municipality: City of Vaughan
City of Vaughan File No.: DA.11.114
OLT Case No.: PL130754
OLT File No.: PL130754
OLT Case Name: West Rutherford Properties Ltd. v. Vaughan (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: West Rutherford Properties Ltd.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of the City of Vaughan to adopt the requested amendment
Existing Designation: “Medium Density Residential-Commercial”
Proposed Designation: “High Density Residential-Commercial”
Purpose: To permit the development of two 12-storey apartment buildings consisting of 272 units as well as 21 block townhouse dwelling units within 3 separate blocks
Property Address/Description: City of Vaughan File No.:
3660 Rutherford Road OP.11.012
Municipality:
City of Vaughan
OLT Case No.:
PL130754
OLT File No.:
PL130798
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: West Rutherford Properties Ltd.
Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 1-88, as amended – Neglect of application by the City of Vaughan
Existing Zoning: “A Agricultural Zone”
Proposed Zoning: “RM2 Multiple Residential Zone” and “RA3 Apartment Residential Zone”
Purpose: To permit the development of two 12-storey apartment buildings consisting of 272 units as well as 21 block townhouse dwelling units within 3 separate blocks
Property Address/Description: 3990 Rutherford Road
Municipality: City of Vaughan
City of Vaughan File No.: Z.11.043
OLT Case No.: PL130754
OLT File No.: PL130799
- The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own motion.
Organization of the Hearing
The video hearing will begin on Monday, March 20, 2023 at 10 a.m.
The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 24 days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible.
The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1 (see the Attachment 4 for the meaning of these terms).
The current issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 2. The City shall provide its final issues list to the parties and the Tribunal no later than 90 days prior to the start of the hearing. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.
The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.
Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.
Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website (https://olt.gov.on.ca/tribunals/lpat/).
Requirements Before the Hearing
A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before Wednesday, January 4, 2023 and in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified. Any challenge by a party to the area of expertise in which a witness is proposed to be qualified and provide expert evidence must be brought no later than Wednesday, January 11, 2023 by way of a Motion in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules.
Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Monday, January 16, 2023 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the LPAT case co-ordinator on or before Thursday, January 19, 2023.
An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 13 below. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.
Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence as in paragraph 13 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 13 below.
On or before Friday, February 10, 2023 the parties shall provide copies of their [witness and] expert witness statements to the other parties and to the LPAT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.
On or before Friday, February 10, 2023 a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.
On or before Monday, March 6, 2023, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.
Parties may provide to all other parties and the LPAT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence within fourteen (14) days (being Friday, February 24, 2023) after the evidence is received and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.
The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the LPAT case co-ordinator on or before Friday, March 10, 2023.
Any documents which may be used by a party in cross examination of an opposing party’s witness shall be password protected and only be accessible to the Tribunal and the other parties if it is introduced as evidence at the hearing, pursuant to the directions provided by the LPAT case co-ordinator, on or before Thursday, March 16, 2023. This paragraph does not prevent Parties from filing materials for cross-examination after this date to the Tribunal for use at the hearing, but any cross-examination materials filed after this date must be filed with the caseworker before 9:00 a.m. on the day the material will be used.
A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.
A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.
The parties shall prepare and file a final hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Friday, March 10, 2023 with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.
All filing shall be electronic and in hard copy. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Rule 7.
No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.
This Member is [not] seized.
So orders the Tribunal.
BEFORE:
Name of Member:
Date:
TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR
ATTACHMENT 1
LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS
A. PARTIES
Counsel/*Agent
City of Vaughan Gurnick Perhar 2141 Major Mackenzie Dr Vaughan, ON L6A 1T1 E-mail: gurnick.perhar@vaughan.ca Tel: 905-832-2281
Region of York Bola Ogunmefun 17250 Yonge Street Newmarket, ON L3Y 6Z1 E-mail: Bola.Ogunmefun@york.ca Tel: 1-877-464-9675 ext. 71459
West Rutherford Properties Ltd. Quinto Annibale Brendan Ruddick Loopstra Nixon LLP 135 Queens Plate Drive, Suite 600 Toronto, ON M9W 6V7 E-mail: qannibale@loonix.com/ bruddick@loonix.com Tel: 416-748-4757 Fax: 416-746-8319
Rutherford Commercial Holdings Eileen Costello Aird & Beris LLP Brookfield Place 181 Bay Street, Suite 1800 Toronto, ON M5J 2T9 E-mail: e.costello@airdberlis.com Tel: 416-865-4740
Loblaw Properties Limited Eileen Costello Aird & Beris LLP Brookfield Place 181 Bay Street, Suite 1800 Toronto, ON M5J 2T9 E-mail: e.costello@airdberlis.com Tel: 416-865-4740
B. PARTICIPANTS
- Elvira Caria 15 Bunting Drive Woodbridge, ON L4H 2E2 Email: elvira@elviracaria.com
Rossana Pillarella 35 Plover Heights Woodbridge, ON L4H 2E4
Narinder Dhaliwal 36 Plover Heights Woodbridge, ON L4H 2E4
Benyamin Benyamin 21 Coyote Way Woodbridge, ON L4H 1Y6
Franco Roccaforte 28 Plover Heights Woodbridge, ON L4H 2E3
John Harvey Vellore Woods Ratepayers’ Association 63 Thicket Trail Woodbridge, ON L4H 1Y1 Email: j.rossharvey@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 by a party indicates that 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.
City of Vaughan
Land Use Policies
Does the OPA, ZBA and Site Plan Application (the “Proposed Development”) have regard to relevant matters of provincial Interest under Section 2 of the Planning Act?
Is the Proposed Development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, including but not limited to, policies 1.1.1(a), 1.1.3.2, (a), (b), (e) and (f), 1.1.3.6, 1.4.3 (b), 1.4.2 (c), 1.4.2 (d), 1.4.3 (f)?
Does the Proposed Development conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 including but not limited to sections: 1.2.1; 2.1; 2.2.1.2 (a) i., ii., iii. and (c) i., ii., iii., iv.; 2.2.1.3 (a) and (c); 2.2.1.4 (a), (c), (d)i and (e); 2.2.2.3; 2.2.4.10; 2.2.6.1 (e); and 2.2.6.3.
Does the proposed development conform with the York Region Official Plan 2010, including but not limited to sections: 1.2.1 1; 1.2.1.3; 3.1.1; 5.2.4; 5.2.8 (a)-(g); 5.2.11; 5.2.21; 5.3.3 (b); 5.3.4 - 5.3.6; 5.4.3; 5.4.9; 5.4.16; 5.5.1; 5.5.4; 7.1.1; 7.1.7; 7.1.8; 7.2.25 (a),(i),(j); 7.2.49 (a) - (b); 7.2.50; 7.2.51; 7.2.53; 7.3.2; 7.4.9; 8.4.1; 8.4.2; 8.4.9; 8.4.11; Regional Structure - Map 1; Regional Cycling Network - Map 10; Transit Network Map - 11.
Does the proposed development conform with the City of Vaughan Official Plan 2010, including but not limited to sections: 1.3, 1.7, 2.1.3.2, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.1.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.5, 3.6.2, 3.6.3.6, 3.6.6.3, 3.6.6.4, 3.6.6.7, 3.6.6.8, 3.6.6.10, 3.6.6.11, 3.6.6.14, 3.6.6.15, 3.6.6.16, 3.6.6.17, 3.6.7, 3.7.1.4 a., 4.1.1.1, 4.1.1.4, 4.2.1.4 - 4.2.1.6, 4.2.1.15, 4.2.1.18., 4.2.1.19., 4.2.2.16, 4.2.2.20, 4.2.3.3 a-d., 4.2.3.4., 4.3.2.2, 5.2.3., 8.1.2.2., 8.1.2.3, 8.2.1.2., 8.2.1.3., 8.3.1.8., 8.5.1.1., 8.5.1.8., 8.6.1.2., 9.1.1.1 - 9.1.1.5., 9.1.1.9 - 9.1.1.12, 9.1.2.1 a-b., 9.1.2.2., 9.1.2.7 - 9.1.2.9., 9.1.2.12., 9.1.3.3., 9.2.1.1., 9.2.1.2., 9.2.1.4 - 9.2.1.7., 9.2.1.12., 9.2.2.4., 9.2.3., 10.1.1.9., 10.1.2.1., 10.1.2.5, 10.1.2.6., 10.1.2.8., 10.1.2.9 - 10.1.2.13., 10.1.2.20, 10.1.2.21., 10.1.2.24. - 10.1.2.27, 10.1.3.4 - 10.1.3.7., 10.2.1.1., 10.2.1.2., 10.2.1.5 - 10.2.1.7., 10.2.2., Schedules 1, 1A, 9 and 13.
Land Use Compatibility
Is the proposed maximum height of 12 storeys and FSI of 2.3 appropriate for the Subject Lands and compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood?
Does the Proposed Development maintain the existing character of the area?
Urban Design
Do the proposed OPA and ZBA conform to the City-Wide Urban Design Guidelines (2018)?
Is the proposed built form appropriate, specifically the heights, form, massing, scale, siting, setbacks, spacing, angular plane and intensification considering the site, the policy context and the character of the surrounding lands?
Does the proposed development establish an appropriate relationship to the public realm and to abutting properties?
Is the interface between the proposed development with the existing townhouse dwellings of the surrounding neighbourhood appropriate?
Has an updated Urban Design Brief been provided to address the changes in site design for the proposed development?
Has a sun-shadow study in support of the proposed development addressed sun-shadow impacts during the summer months?
Engineering (Servicing and Noise)
Are the existing storm and sanitary sewers adequate to accommodate the storm and sanitary sewer needs of the Proposed Development? If downstream system constraints are identified through the Sanitary Sewer System Analysis, will the Proposed Development be required to complete system upgrades to the City’s satisfaction?
Are the water supply connections from the existing watermain on Hawkview Boulevard adequate to support the proposed development?
Has the Proposed Development obtained confirmation that it has sufficient water and sanitary allocation?
Is the Water Balance Analysis for the proposed development to the satisfaction of the City and other agencies?
Does the proposed development maintain predevelopment recharge on the Subject Lands, in accordance with the WHPA-Q (Recharge Management Area CTC Source Protection Plan) water quantity recharge policy?
Has a Phase 2 ESA been provided to the City’s satisfaction?
Does the Proposed Development meet the NPC 300 standard noise criteria?
Is a Class 4 Noise Area Classification (NPC-300) appropriate for the Development Proposal?
Does the Proposed Development appropriately address and/or mitigate potential noise to and from adjacent lands?
Transportation Engineering
Does the Proposed Development provide for appropriate vehicular access to the site through the proposed private driveway between Rutherford Road and Hawksview Boulevard?
Does the proposed north-south private driveway access onto Rutherford Road provide for appropriate separation from the adjacent access onto Rutherford Road?
Does the Proposed Development provide appropriate pedestrian access to the site in relation to adjacent streets (Hawkview Boulevard and Rutherford Road) and neighbouring properties?
Has adequate consideration been given to extending the Plover Heights public right of way south to Rutherford Road to provide vehicular access to the Proposed Development?
Does the Traffic Impact Study (June 2021) (the “TIS”) appropriately address the City’s TIS Guidelines (March 2021), address transportation infrastructure needs for the Proposed Development and appropriately account for future transportation demand of the area?
Does the TIS include a signal pattern analysis or an assessment of improvements that might be required for the intersection of Hawksview Boulevard and Vellore Woods Boulevard, considering scenarios both with and without an access to Rutherford Road?
Has the TIS assumed the appropriate level of trip generation and are the proposed modal split adjustments reflective of future travel behavior for the Proposed Development and surrounding area?
Are the proposed Active Transportation (AT) and Travel Demand Management (TDM) measures sufficient to alleviate traffic operation concerns and do they support the estimated trip generation for the Proposed Development?
Is the Proposed Development adequately served by the existing or planned transportation system consisting of local and regional roads, easements, private driveways, site triangles, transit service, resident pick-up and drop-off areas, pedestrian walkways and cycling storage/facilities? If improvements are required, should they be completed prior to final approval of the Proposed Development?
Has a Parking Study provided justification for the proposed parking ratios, the number of parking spaces for unit types and for associated visitor parking? Do the proposed parking ratios contribute to promoting transit usage?
Does the Proposed Development, located within a Primary Intensification Corridor, provide appropriate short and long term bicycle parking spaces?
Proposed Zoning
Are the proposed Block Townhouse dwellings appropriate within a RA3 Apartment Residential Zone?
Does the proposed development meet the minimum requirements of the City’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law 1-88 for RA3 Apartment Residential Zone, including but not limited to setback requirements, landscaping, building height, parking space requirements and minimum amenity space?
Parks
Does the Proposed Development provide adequate active recreational servicing opportunities/facilities to serve the Proposed Development and the surrounding community?
Does the Arborist Report for the proposed development propose tree removal that result in Tree Compensation and/or tree protection requirements or securities?
Conditions of Site Plan Approval
- If the OPA and ZBA for the Proposed Development are approved by the OLT, in whole or in part, what Conditions of Site Plan Approval, pursuant to Section 41 of the Planning Act, will be required?
Implementation
- In the event that the Tribunal allows the appeal, in whole or in part, should the proposed development be subject to a Holding Provision (“H”) to require among other things the completion of, to the satisfaction of the City, a Site Plan, Phase 2 ESA, Section 37 Agreement, confirmation of site servicing and implementation of necessary transportation improvements to permit the proposed development?
Region of York
Is the proposed access onto Rutherford Road appropriate and consistent with the recommendations of the Regional Access Guidelines?
Does the transportation study submitted in respect of the proposed development appropriately address the overall operational and safety concerns related to the proposed development access?
Does the proposed development provide for and reflect York Region’s right-of-way requirement of 43 m in the proposed development concept?
Rutherford Commercial Holdings Limited and Loblaw Properties Limited
Noise
Are the noise mitigation measures proposed by the applicant appropriate and ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses and future permitted development?
Is it appropriate for the applicant to be responsible for the costs of implementation and maintenance of such mitigation measures? If so, how will that be secured?
Has the appropriateness of a Class 4 designation on the 3660 Rutherford property been sufficiently demonstrated? If not, and a Class 4 designation is not achieved, can the proposed development proceed?
Is the loading dock enclosure recommended by the 3660 Rutherford application an appropriate acoustic solution and has it been sufficiently demonstrated that it will ensure mitigation without impacting the commercial operations on the Rutherford Commercial Holdings Limited site?
Transportation
How does the 3660 Rutherford proposal address the lands previously dedicated by Rutherford Commercial Holdings Limited for the unopened public road allowance sought by the Block 32 plan and the approved contemplated road network?
Will the proposed development negatively impact the full-build out of the planned public road network contemplated in the Block 32 plan? If so, is it appropriate to approve the development in advance of securing that road network?
Would the implementation of the Block 32 planned road network improve and or alleviate the traffic constrained in the area? If so, should that network be a pre-requisite to the proposed development?
Does the proposed right in right out access by 3660 Rutherford function, and will there by any impact to the existing driveway operation to the Rutherford Commercial Holdings Limited site?
Will a proposed loading dock enclosure for 3660 Rutherford application impact the existing loading operation to the Loblaw Properties Limited food store operation? How will the loading dock enclosure be constructed and maintained without interference with existing operations?
How does the proposal address the Rutherford Commercial Holdings Limited property adjacent to Hawkview Blvd, and are easements required for access to the proposed driveway? Is it appropriate to approve the proposed development without such easements being secured?
Has the Transportation Impact Study (TIS) prepared by 3660 Rutherford appropriately accounted for the future development potential on adjacent parcels as designated in VOP 2010?
Land Use Planning
- Does the proposed driveway eliminate the opportunity to provide for the contemplated public road network in the Block 32 Plan? If so, does the result appropriately provide for the planned intensification in this corridor and area?
ATTACHMENT 3
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.
Evidence-in-Chief
West Rutherford Properties Ltd.
City of Vaughan
Region of York
Rutherford Commercial Holdings Limited/ Loblaw Properties Limited
Reply Evidence
- West Rutherford Properties Ltd.
ATTACHMENT 4
Meaning of terms used in the Procedural Order:
Party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. If an unincorporated group wishes to become a party, it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer, and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written 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, group 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). Subsection 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 the witness’ opinions on those issues; and a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing.
An expert witness statement should include 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 for the opinions and (5) a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing.
A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submission of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.
Additional Information
Summons: A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons. This request must be made before the time that the list of witnesses is provided to the Tribunal and the parties. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) If the Tribunal requests it, an affidavit must be provided indicating how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the affidavit, it will require that a motion be heard to decide whether the witness should be summoned.
The order of examination of witnesses: is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:
direct examination by the party presenting the witness;
direct examination by any party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;
cross-examination by parties of opposite interest;
re-examination by the party presenting the witness; or
another order of examination mutually agreed among the parties or directed by the Tribunal.
ATTACHMENT 5
KEY DATES
Item
Deadline
City of Vaughan to provide Final Issues List
Tuesday, December 20, 2022
Witness List
Wednesday, January 4, 2023
Motions challenging qualifications of Experts
Wednesday, January 11, 2023
Expert’s Meetings
Monday, January 16, 2023
Agreed Statement of Facts and Issues
Thursday, January 19, 2023
(Expert) Witness Statements, Participant Statements, Outlines of Evidence
Friday, February 10, 2023
Reply Witness Statements
Friday, February 24, 2023
Hearing Plan
Friday, March 10, 2023
Visual Evidence
Monday, March 6, 2023
Joint Document Books to be provided to all Parties and the Tribunal
Friday, March 10, 2023
Cross Examination Material
Thursday, March 16, 2023
Hearing Commences
Monday, March 20, 2023