C & P Development Limited Partnership v. Toronto (City), 2022 CanLII 511

Ontario Land Tribunal / Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: January 04, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001034

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

Applicant and Appellant: C & P Development Limited Partnership Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 438-86 - Refusal or neglect of City of Toronto to make a decision Existing Zoning: CR T2.5 C2.0 R2.5 Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined) Purpose: To permit a 29-storey mixed use building with ground floor retail and a 129 sq.m. Privately Owned Publicly Accessible Space Property Address/Description: 717 Church Street and 85, 89, 93 and 97 Collier Street Municipality: City of Toronto Municipality File No.: 20 220898 STE 11 OZ OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001034 OLT File No.: OLT-21-001034 OLT Case Name: C & P Development Limited Partnership v. Toronto (City)

Heard: November 15, 2021 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
C & P Development Limited Partnership	D. Bronskill
City of Toronto	A. Suriano
Collier Asquith Neighbourhood Association	I. Flett

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY HUGH S. WILKINS ON NOVEMBER 15, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision arises from a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) regarding the appeal brought by C & P Development Limited Partnership (“Appellant”) of the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to pass a zoning by-law amendment to facilitate the development of a mixed-use building at 717 Church Street, 85, 89, 93 and 97 Collier Street.

2At the CMC, the Tribunal addressed a request for Party status, the identification of issues to be addressed at the hearing, the preparation of a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, the identification of opportunities for settlement discussions, and the setting of hearing dates.

Request for Party Status

3The Collier Asquith Neighbourhood Association requested Party status. It stated that it is an incorporated local residents association whose members have shadow, built form, and traffic concerns regarding the Appellant’s proposed development. Neither the City nor the Appellant opposed the Association’s request for status. The Tribunal found that the Collier Asquith Neighbourhood Association has a genuine and direct interest in the proceeding, its members will be impacted by the Tribunal’s decision, and the Association will assist the Tribunal in making its decision. The Tribunal found that there are reasonable grounds to add the Collier Asquith Neighbourhood Association as a Party. It granted Party status to the Association, as requested.

Identification of Issues and draft Procedural Order

4The Parties stated that they had discussed the preparation of a draft Procedural Order and Issues List and would promptly file final drafts to the Tribunal. On December 7, 2021, the Parties filed a finalized draft Issues List and Procedural Order, which the Tribunal has reviewed and approves.

Identification of Opportunities for Settlement Discussions

5The Parties stated that they have an interest in pursuing settlement discussions and possibly mediation. The Tribunal encouraged the Parties to pursue settlement discussions and to request Tribunal-assisted mediation, if needed.

Scheduling of Hearing Dates

6The Parties identified the number and types of witnesses that they propose to call at the hearing. They requested a ten-day hearing, which the Tribunal scheduled to commence in late November 2022.

ORDER

7The Tribunal orders that the Collier Asquith Neighbourhood Association is a Party in this proceeding.

8The Tribunal approves the Procedural Order and Issues List attached as Attachment 1 to this Order and Decision.

9The Tribunal orders that the hearing in this matter will be held by video hearing on Monday, November 28, 2022 commencing at 10 a.m. Ten days have been set aside.

10Parties 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/660145013

Access Code: 660-145-013

11Parties are asked to set up the video hearing application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html.

12Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling: +1 (647) 497-9391 or (Toll Free) 1-888-455-1389. The Access Code is 660-145-013.

13Individuals 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.

14There will be no further notice.

15This Member is not seized.

“Hugh S. Wilkins”

HUGH S. WILKINS 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

ISSUE DATE: January 04, 2022 CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001034

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

Applicant and Appellant: C & P Development Limited Partnership Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 438-86 - Refusal or neglect of City of Toronto to make a decision Existing Zoning: CR T2.5 C2.0 R2.5 Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined) Purpose: To permit a 29-storey mixed use building with ground floor retail and a 129 sq.m. Privately Owned Publicly Accessible Space Property Address/Description: 717 Church Street and 85, 89, 93 and 97 Collier Street Municipality: City of Toronto Municipality File No.: 20 220898 STE 11 OZ OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001034 OLT File No.: OLT-21-001034 OLT Case Name: C & P Development Limited Partnership 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 video hearing will begin on November 28, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.

3. The length of the hearing will be ten (10) days. The Parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues, where possible. The procedural order deadlines are generally found in Attachment 1.

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

5. The Issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3 to this Order. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a Party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6. The order of evidence is set out in Attachment 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 the Parties' 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/tribunals/lpat/).

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. Expert witnesses in the same discipline(s) may have at least one meeting before the hearing to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. The experts shall 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 on or before September 23, 2022, if this meeting takes place and if agreement is reached.

10. 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 September 5, 2022. For expert witnesses, a Party is to identify the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified. Any challenges to the witness, including 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 September 19, 2022.

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, the acknowledgement of expert's duty and curriculum vitae. 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 as the delivery of expert witness statements, as in Section 14.

12. A witness or participant must provide to the Tribunal and the Parties a witness statement or participant statement, respectively, on or before October 14, 2022, or the witness or participant 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.

13. 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.

14. On or before October 14, 2022, the Parties shall provide copies of their witness statements and expert witness statements (full disclosure including reports) to the other Parties and the Tribunal.

15. On or before October 28, 2022, the Parties may provide to all other Parties and the Tribunal a written response to any written evidence.

16. On or before November 11, 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.

17. On or before November 4, 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, all Parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the scheduled commencement of the hearing.

18. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. Such a motion shall be in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rule 10, which requires that the moving Party provide copies of the motion to all other Parties at least 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

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

20. On or before November 14, 2022, 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 should 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.

21. The Parties shall prepare a Joint Document Book on or before on or before November 14, 2022, 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 in paper or an accessible electronic format in accordance with Section 23.

22. If the applicant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing, the applicant shall provide copies of the revised proposal, including all revised plans, drawings, proposed instruments, updated supporting documents and reports, to the other Parties on or before July 1, 2022. The applicant acknowledges that any revisions to the proposal after that date without the consent of the Parties may be grounds for a request to adjourn the hearing.

23. 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 by email shall be governed by the Rule 7. All documents to be filed with the Tribunal shall be organized, tabbed and digitally searchable and such materials will be filed in accordance with directions contained in the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, dated July 2, 2020, or as may be amended. Section 23 applies regardless if the hearing event is in-person or electronic.

24. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness or as permitted by Section 22. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

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

26. The purpose of this Procedural Order and the meaning of the terms used in this Procedural Order are set out in Attachment 5.

This Member is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE:

Name of Member:

Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
July 1, 2022	Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any)
September 5, 2022	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
September 19, 2022	Last date to challenge identification of expert witness
September 23, 2022	Experts meeting prior to this date (if any)
September 30, 2022	Agreed Statement of Facts (if any)
October 14, 2022	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
October 28, 2022	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
November 4, 2022	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
November 11, 2022	Parties to advise Tribunal if any hearing dates are to be released from the hearing calendar (if any)
November 14, 2022	Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal
November 14, 2022	Finalize Joint Document Book
November 28, 2022	Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES/PARTICIPANTS

PARTIES

1. C & P Development Limited Partnership David Bronskill, Goodmans LLP dbronskill@goodmans.ca 416.597.4299

2. City of Toronto Alexander J. Suriano, City of Toronto, Legal Services Division alexander.suriano@toronto.ca 416.392.4827

3. Collier Asquith Neighbourhood Association Ian Flett, Eric K. Gillespie Professional Corporation iflett@gillespielaw.ca 416.939-6396

PARTICIPANTS

1. None

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUES LIST

City of Toronto 717 Church Street and 85-97 Collier Street OLT Case No: OLT-21-001034

DRAFT Issues List of the City of Toronto

ISSUES

Issue 1 – Height. Is the development's proposed height appropriate, and does it represent good planning? Specifically, does the height of the development provide good transition to the low-rise Neighbourhood to the north and south? In particular:

a. Does the proposed height conform with Official Plan policies: 2.3.1 (Healthy Neighbourhoods), 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 (Built Form), and 4.5 (Mixed Use Areas)?

b. Does the proposed height conform with the Downtown Plan?

c. Does the proposed height conform with Site and Area Specific Policy 211?

d. Does the proposed height have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines?

e. Does the height of the proposed development responsive to the emerging vision for the Bloor-Yorkville Area Secondary Plan Study?

Issue 2 – Massing. Is the development's proposed massing, including setbacks, stepbacks, scale, separation distances, streetwall height, density, and design appropriate, does the development provide good transition to the low-rise Neighbourhood to the north and south, and does it represent good planning? In particular:

a. Does the proposed massing conform with Official Plan policies: 2.31 (Healthy Neighbourhoods), 3.1.1 (Public Realm), 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 (Built Form) and 4.5 (Mixed Use Areas)?

b. Does the proposed massing conform with the Downtown Plan?

c. Does the proposed massing conform with Site and Area Specific Policy 211?

d. Does the massing of the development have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines?

e. Does the proposed development represent over-development of the site?

f. Does the massing of the proposed development responsive to the emerging vision for the Bloor-Yorkville Area Secondary Plan Study?

Issue 3 – Streetscape & Public Realm. Is the proposed development's relationship with the public realm and resulting streetscape appropriate, and does it represent good planning? In particular:

a. Does it conform with Official Plan policies 3.1.1 (Public Realm), 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 (Built Form), and 4.5 (Mixed Use Areas)?

b. Does it conform with the Downtown Plan?

c. Does it conform with Site and Area Specific Policy 211?

d. Does the development have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines?

e. Does the proposed development's relationship to the streetscape and public realm meet the requirements of the Toronto Green Standard?

Issue 4 – Shadow Impacts. Does the proposed developments shadow impact on Parks (Harold Town Park, Lawren Harris Park, Hazeldean Park) and adjacent Neighbourhoods represent good planning? In particular:

a. Does it conform with Official Plan policies: 2.31 (Healthy Neighbourhoods), 3.1.1 (Public Realm), 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 (Built Form), 3.2.3 (Parks and Open spaces), and 4.5 (Mixed Use Areas)?

b. Does it conform with the Downtown Plan?

c. Does it conform with Site and Area Specific Policy 211?

d. Does the development have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines?

Issue 5 – Wind Impacts. Does the proposed developments wind impacts on the public realm and adjacent properties represent good planning? In particular:

a. Does it conform with Official Plan policies: 2.31 (Healthy Neighbourhoods), 3.1.1 (Public Realm), 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 (Built Form), 3.2.3 (Parks and Open spaces), and 4.5 (Mixed Use Areas)?

b. Does it conform with the Downtown Plan?

c. Does it conform with Site and Area Specific Policy 211?

d. Does the development have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines?

Issue 6 – Amenity Space. Is the proposed development's provision of indoor and outdoor amenity space as contained in the proposed zoning by-law amendment good planning? In particular:

a. Does the development conform to Official Plan policies 3.1.2 (Built Form) and 4.5 (Mixed Use Areas)?

b. Does the development have appropriate regard to the Pet Friendly Design Guidelines for High Density Communities?

c. Does the development have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines?

Issue 7 – Road Widening. Does the proposal provide the required 2.38 metre road widening along Park Road?

Issue 8 – Servicing. Has the applicant demonstrated that adequate municipal services are in place to support the development, including but not limited to the availability of adequate sanitary sewage capacity and the implementation of appropriate stormwater management measures and groundwater management measures?

Issue 9 – Parking and Loading. Has the applicant demonstrated that adequate vehicle parking and loading are in place to support the development?

Issue 10 – Community Benefits. In the event the proposed development is approved by the Tribunal, in whole or in part, the owner and the City have agreed that they should be given the opportunity to reach agreement on the provision of appropriate community benefits pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act. In the event agreement is not reached, may the Tribunal be spoken to as to what are appropriate community benefits to be secured pursuant to Section 37?

Issue 11 - Implementation. In the event the proposed development is approved in whole or in part, should the Tribunal Order be withheld until the City Solicitor has indicated that the following conditions have been satisfied:

a. The proposed Zoning By-law Amendments are in a form and content satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and City Solicitor;

b. The owner has addressed outstanding issues in relation to site servicing and has submitted a revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report and a detailed Hydrogeological providing confirmation of water, sanitary and stormwater capacity to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and entered into and registered a financially secured agreement satisfactory to the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services to construct, provide, make operational, and warrant any necessary upgrades to existing services and facilities or new services and facilities;

c. The owner has entered into a Section 37 Agreement to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and such agreement is registered on title to the site in manner satisfactory to the City Solicitor, or made other satisfactory arrangements for the provision of community benefits?

LEGISLATIVE & POLICY TESTS

Issue 12 – Policy Tests. Does the proposed development satisfy the applicable legislative and policy tests? Specifically:

a. Does the proposed development have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections 2 (f), (h), (p), and (r)?

b. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for the decision of City Council as required by Section 2.1 of the Planning Act?

c. Would a decision to approve the proposed development be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement as required by Section 3(5) of the Planning Act?

d. Would a decision to appove the proposed development conform to and not conflict with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe as required by Section 3(5) of the Planning Act?

e. Does the proposed development conform with the applicable policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, Downtown Plan, and Site and Area Specific Policy 211?

f. Would approval of the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendments represent good planning and good urban design? Would it be in the public interest?

Collier Asquith Neighbourhood Association

Issues of the Collier-Asquith Neighbourhood Association

Official Plan

1. Does the proposed development conform to the City of Toronto Official Plan, namely policies:
   1. 2.3.1 (Healthy Neighbourhoods);
   2. 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.3, 3.1.3 (Public Realm, Parks and Open Spaces and Built Form); and
   3. 4.5 (Mixed Use Areas).

SASP 211

2. Does the proposed development conform to the policies and directions of the Site and Area Specific Plan 211?

Downtown Plan

3. Does the development application conform to the policies of OPA 406 - Downtown Plan?

Guidelines

4. Does the proposed development achieve the objectives of the Downtown Tall Buildings; Vision and Supplementary Design Guidelines?

5. Does the proposed development achieve the objectives of Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities Urban Design Guidelines?

Built Form

6. Is the scale, height and massing of the proposed development appropriate at the subject site given both site constraints and the surrounding context?

7. Does the development proposal use setbacks and stepbacks, street wall heights, angular planes and other massing aspects to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent development, Neighbourhoods and nearby private and public public open spaces, including sidewalks, ravines and parks? If not, is the proposed scale of the development appropriate at the subject site?

8. Would the shadows cast by the proposed development have unacceptable adverse impacts on Neighbourhoods, adjacent properties, and public open spaces, including ravines and parks, including Harold Town Park, Lawren Harris Park, Hazeldean Park?

9. Is the cantilevered aspect of the proposed development on the east elevation appropriate?

Transportation

10. Has the Applicant properly accounted for the most probable non-resident site trip generation, including, but not limited to: online commerce delivery, grocery delivery, food delivery, garbage, compost and recycling collection?

11. Has the Applicant properly accounted for the most probable resident generated site traffic including but not limited to: servicing, ride-share, taxis, car share and other pick-up/drop-off activities?

12. Will the traffic generated by the proposed development site cause adverse impacts?

13. Does the area surrounding the subject site have sufficient capacity for the traffic generated by the proposed development site?

14. Can the proposed development accommodate all site servicing for the long-term?

15. Can the active transportation traffic to and from the site be safely accommodated by the roads and sidewalks servicing it? Is there sufficient active transportation infrastructure surrounding the subject site to support the active transportation needs at and around the site?

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. C & P Development Limited Partnership
2. City of Toronto
3. Collier Asquith Neighbourhood Association
4. C & P Development Limited Partnership, in reply (if any)

ATTACHMENT 5

Purpose of the Procedural Order and Meaning of Terms

Party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other Parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. If an unincorporated group wishes to become a Party, it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a Party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer, and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorization from the Party.

NOTE that a person who wishes to become a Party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the Case Management Conference, must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

Participant is an individual, group or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may attend only part of the proceeding but who makes a written statement to the Tribunal on all or some of the issues in the hearing in accordance with Rule 7.7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

NOTE that such persons will likely not receive notice of a mediation or conference calls on procedural issues. They also cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision as Parties can.

Written and Visual Evidence:

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a Party intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.

Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a Party intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

Witness Statements:

A witness statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which the witness will discuss and the witness’ opinions on those issues; and a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include the expert’s (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons for the opinions and (5) a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

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

Additional Information:

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

The order of examination of witnesses: is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:

• direct examination by the Party presenting the witness;
• direct examination by any Party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;
• cross-examination by Parties of opposite interest;
• re-examination by the Party presenting the witness; or
• another order of examination mutually agreed among the Parties or directed by the Tribunal.

7215968