Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 14, 2022 CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002490

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

Applicant and Appellant: Augend Investments Ltd. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit a new 24-storey residential building Reference Number: 21 177893 STE 12 OZ Property Address: 438-440 Avenue Road & 169-171B Balmoral Avenue Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002490 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002490 OLT Case Name: Augend Investments Ltd. v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Augend Investments Ltd. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit a new 24-storey residential building Reference Number: 21 177893 STE 12 OZ Property Address: 438-440 Avenue Road & 169-171B Balmoral Avenue Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002491 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002490

Heard: June 28, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Augend Investments Ltd. (“Appellant”)	J. Park, O. Rasekhi
City of Toronto (“City”)	R. Ivanov, U. Gautam
Toronto Lands Corporation as Agent for the Toronto District School Board (“Board”)	J. Lesage
Balmoral and Avenue Neighbourhood Alliance, Ltd. (“BANA”)	R. Kehar
Anne Lawson and Paul Brehl	I. Flett

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON ON JUNE 28, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) in this proceeding was conducted by videoconference on June 28, 2022 (“CMC”).

2This matter concerns the appeal by the Appellant of the City’s failure to make a decision on the Appellant’s application for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) to permit a new 24-storey residential building (“Development”) at the address municipally known as 438-440 Avenue Road and 169-171B Balmoral Avenue in the City (“Subject Site”).

3There were several requests for Party status and Participant status.

4Counsel for the Board advised that her client operates an elementary school which together with its associated facilities and grounds will likely be affected by the shadow impacts and future traffic generated by the Development, which will be located very close to that school if the OPA and ZBA are approved. Neither the City or the Appellant objected to the granting of Party status to the Board, and in light of its interest in the appeal, the Tribunal granted Party status to the Board.

5Counsel for BANA advised that his client is an incorporated entity representing a number of homeowners who own and reside in properties adjacent to the proposed Development. Neither the City or the Appellant objected to the granting of Party status to BANA, and in light of its interest in the appeal, the Tribunal granted Party status to BANA.

6Counsel for Anne Lawson and Paul Brehl advised that his clients also own a property adjacent to the Subject Site and are concerned about a number of issues arising from the OPA and ZBA applications. Neither the City or the Appellant objected to the granting of Party status to Ms. Lawson and Mr. Brehl, and in light of their interest in the appeal, the Tribunal granted Party status to them.

7The Tribunal further noted that counsel for each of BANA, the Board, Ms. Lawson and Mr. Brehl had, prior to the CMC, been in detailed discussions with the solicitors for the City and for the Appellant concerning the substantive content of a draft Procedural Order (“PO”). In fact, all Parties have reached agreement on all material provisions of the PO, including the Issues List.

8There were also several requests for Participant status made by the following individuals: Sandra Aronowicz and Harry Aronowicz; Marcus Macrae; Mary-Ann Metrick; and Nancy Pei.

9All of the proposed Participants described in paragraph [8] above submitted detailed written status requests to the Tribunal, and all of them reside in properties located adjacent to the Subject Site and proposed Development. There were no objections by any Party to their requests. Therefore, in recognition of their obvious concerns regarding and interests relating to the Development, the Tribunal granted Participant status to each individual, save and except for Mr. Aronowicz who agreed that Ms. Aronowicz should be the sole Participant in respect of their joint residence.

10All Parties agreed that a 15-day merits hearing is required although all also agreed to pursue Ontario Land Tribunal facilitated mediation in order to attempt to achieve a resolution of all issues on this appeal. To permit this, the Tribunal agreed to schedule a hearing to commence on Monday, May 15, 2023. The Parties advised that they will contact the Tribunal forthwith in order to seek mediation.

11The hearing is scheduled to proceed by video on Monday, May 15, 2023 at 10 a.m. and will not be sitting on May 22 (Victoria Day), May 29 and May 30, 2023. As a result, the last day of the hearing is June 7, 2023.

12Parties 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/927921077

Access code: 927-921-077

13Parties 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

14Persons 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 or Toll Free 1-888-299-1889. The access code is 927-921-077.

15Individuals 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. Subsequent to the CMC, the Parties submitted a final PO in agreed form and content which has been approved by the Tribunal and is appended as Attachment 1 hereto.

ORDER

16The Tribunal Orders as follows

(a) the following entities are granted Party status: Toronto Lands Corporation as Agent for the Toronto District School Board; Balmoral and Avenue Neighbourhood Alliance, Ltd.; Ms. Anne Lawson and Mr. Paul Brehl;

(b) the following individuals are granted Participant status: Sandra Aronowicz; Marcus Macrae; Mary-Ann Metrick; and Nancy Pei;

(c) the Procedural Order appended as Attachment 1 shall govern this proceeding.

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

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

ATTACHMENT 1

ISSUE DATE: CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002490

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

Applicant and Appellant: Augend Investments Ltd. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit a new 24-storey residential building Reference Number: 21 177893 STE 12 OZ Property Address: 438-440 Avenue Road & 169-171B Balmoral Avenue Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002490 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002490 OLT Case Name: Augend Investments Ltd. v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Augend Investments Ltd. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit a new 24-storey residential building Reference Number: 21 177893 STE 12 OZ Property Address: 438-440 Avenue Road & 169-171B Balmoral Avenue Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002491 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002490

PROCEDURAL ORDER

The Tribunal orders that:

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, if required, will commence on Monday, May 15, 2023 at 10:00 a.m., at Ontario Land Tribunal, 655 Bay Street, 16th Floor, Toronto, ON M5G 1E5 in the City of Toronto, or virtually by video hearing.

3. The hearing is schedule to proceed by video as follows: Date: Monday, May 15, 2023 GoTo Meeting: Access Code: Audio only telephone line: Audio-only access code:

4. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 15 days and will not be sitting on May 22 (Victoria Day), May 29 and May 30, 2023. As a result, the last day of the hearing is June 7, 2023. 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 length of the hearing may be shortened as issues are resolved or settlement is achieved. The procedural order deadlines are generally found in Attachment “1” to this Order.

5. The parties and participants identified at the Case Management Conference are listed in Attachment “2” to this Order.

6. The Issues are set out in the Issues List referred to below and included as Attachment “3” to this Order. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits it, unless such changes reflect the narrowing or elimination of issues, or such changes arise from the submission of revised plans. A party who asks for changes to this list may have costs awarded against it.

7. The order of evidence at the hearing shall be as set out in Attachment “4” hereto. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on consent or by Order of the Tribunal.

8. All parties and participants (or their representatives) shall provide a mailing address, email address, and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible. Any such person who retains a representative (legal counsel or agent) subsequent to the first Case Management Conference must advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, mailing address, email address and phone number as soon as possible.

9. 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

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 Friday, January 13, 2023. For expert witnesses, a party is to include a copy of the Curriculum Vitae and 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 Friday, February 3, 2023.

11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Tuesday, March 7, 2023 to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting, on or before Tuesday, March 21, 2023, the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case coordinator.

12. The parties shall prepare and file a hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Friday, April 14, 2023, with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, at a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time, prior to, or in the course of the hearing.

13. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement that shall include: an acknowledgement of expert’s duty form, the area(s) of expertise, any reports prepared by the expert, and any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in Section 16. 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 16 below.

14. 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 16 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in Section 16 below.

15. On or before Wednesday, April 5, 2023, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

16. On or before Wednesday, April 5, 2023, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements (full disclosure including reports) to the other parties and to the OLT case coordinator, in accordance with Section 24 below.

17. On or before Thursday, April 6, 2023, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

18. Any party may reply to an expert report, witness statement, outline of expert’s evidence or participant statement, provided that such reply is provided to all other parties on or before Friday, May 5, 2023.

19. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal in accordance with the Tribunals Rules (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.

20. On or before Friday, April 28, 2023, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties. The Tribunal and all parties shall be notified if a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

21. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case coordinator on or before Friday, April 28, 2023, to be filed in both electronic and hardcopy format in accordance with Section 24 below.

22. A party who provides the written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have that witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the Tribunal and the parties are notified on or before Monday, May 8, 2023, that the written evidence will not form part of their record.

23. 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.

24. Any documents which may be used by a party in cross examination of an opposing party’s witness shall be password protected and only be accessible to the Tribunal and the other parties if it is introduced as evidence at the hearing, pursuant to the directions provided by the OLT case coordinator or as directed by the Tribunal.

25. All filings shall be submitted electronically and in hard copy, to the Tribunal and the Parties. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Rule 7. All documents to be filed with the Tribunal shall be organized, tabbed and digitally searchable and such materials will be filed in accordance with directions contained in the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, dated June 29, 2021, or as may be amended. This Section 24 applies regardless of whether the hearing event is in-person or electronic.

26. 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 Thursday, January 5, 2023. 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.

27. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. Tribunal Rule 17 applies to such requests.

28. 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.

29. 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 KEY DATES

Date	Hearing Event
Thursday, January 5, 2023	Filing of revised proposal, including all revised plans, drawings, proposed instruments, updated supporting documents and reports (if required) – para. 26
Friday, January 13, 2023	Exchange of List of Witnesses and the order in which they will be called – para. 10
Friday, February 3, 2023	Notice of Motion (if required) to challenge witness(es) – para. 10
Tuesday, March 7, 2023	Expert Witness Meeting – para. 11
Tuesday, March 21, 2023	Filing of Statement(s) of Agreed Facts and Issues – para. 11
Wednesday, April 5, 2023	Exchange of Witness Statements – para. 16
Thursday, April 6, 2023	Confirmation to Tribunal if all reserved hearing dates are still required – para. 17
Friday, April 14, 2023	Filing of Hearing Plan – para. 12
Friday, April 28, 2023	Exchange of Visual Evidence – para. 20
Friday, April 28, 2023	Filing of Joint Document Book – para. 21
Friday, May 5, 2023	Exchange of Reply Evidence/Statements – para. 18
Monday, May 8, 2023	Notification to Tribunal and Parties if witness not to provide oral evidence – para. 22
Monday, May 15, 2023	Contested Hearing (if required) – para. 2

ATTACHMENT “2”

PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

PARTIES

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

CITY OF TORONTO Roman Ivanov / Uttra Gautam Legal Services, Planning & Administrative Tribunal Law 26th fl., 55 John St. Toronto ON M5V 3C6 T: 416.392.4807 / 416.396.7986 E: Roman.Ivanov@toronto.ca / Uttra.Gautam@toronto.ca

TORONTO LANDS CORPORATION AS AGENT FOR TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Julie Lesage / Pitman Patterson Borden Laden Gervais LLP Bay Adelaide Centre, East Tower 22 Adelaide Street West, Suite 3400 Toronto, ON M5H 4E3 T: 416.367.6276 / 416.367.6109 E: JLesage@blg.com / PPatterson@blg.com

PAUL BREHL AND ANNIE LAWSON Ian Flett Eric K. Gillespie Professional Corporation 160 John Street, Suite 300 Toronto, ON M5V 2E5 T: 416.939.6396 E: iflett@gillespielaw.ca

BALMORAL & AVENUE NEIGHBOURHOOD ALLIANCE, LTD. Raj Kehar WeirFoulds LLP 1525 Cornwall Road, Suite 10 Oakville, ON L6J 0B2 T: 416.947.5051 E: rkehar@weirfoulds.com

PARTICIPANTS

Sandra Aronowicz T: 416.414.7674 E: saronowicz@rogers.com

Nancy and York Pei T: 416.595.2761 E: nancy.pei@rogers.com

Mary-Ann Metrick T: 416.417.6225 E: mmetrick@elte.com

Marcus Macrae: T: 416.967.9876 E: marcus.macrae@gmail.com

ATTACHMENT “3”

ISSUES LIST

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

CITY OF TORONTO

Planning Act

1. Do the proposed development and the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments have regard for the matters of provincial interest as set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, in particular Sections 2 (f), (h), (j), (p), and (r)?

City of Toronto Official Plan

2. Do the proposed tall building development and the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment conform to the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan with respect to Healthy Neighbourhoods (2.3.1), the Public Realm (3.1.1), Built Form (3.1.2), Built Form – Building Types (3.1.3), Housing (3.2.1), Neighbourhoods (4.1), Apartment Neighbourhoods (4.2), and Implementation (5)?

Guidelines

3. Does the proposed development appropriately respond to and meet the intent and purpose of the Tall Buildings Guidelines?

4. Does the proposed development appropriately respond to, and satisfy the intent of, the residential unit mix and size guidelines of Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities (2020)?

Height and Massing

5. Is the development's proposed height appropriate for the area? Specifically, does the height fit within the existing and planned context of the Avenue Road corridor?

6. Is the development's proposed height appropriate for the site? Does the height of the proposed development provide good transition and mitigate impacts to low-rise Neighbourhoods?

7. Is the development's proposed massing, including setbacks, step backs, scale, separation distances, streetwall height, density, and design appropriate?

8. Does the development provide good transition to low-rise Neighbourhoods?

9. Is the height and massing of the proposed development appropriate in terms of their impact on access to sunlight, overlook, privacy, wind effects, and shadow?

10. Are the proposed setbacks on Balmoral Avenue in keeping with the character of the area?

Streetscape & Public Realm

11. Is the proposed development's relationship with the public realm and resulting streetscape appropriate?

12. Does the proposed development establish appropriate relationships at grade, including provision of an appropriate pedestrian realm, streetscaping and contributions to public space?

13. Do the proposed the setbacks on the Avenue Road and the cantilevered second floor provide sufficient space to facilitate the planting of street trees?

14. Does the proposed development meet the requirements of the Toronto Green Standard?

Shadow Impacts

15. Does the proposed development limit shadow impacts on Brown Junior Public School and adjacent Neighbourhoods?

Wind Impacts

16. Does the proposed development provide comfortable wind conditions and limit wind impacts on the public realm, outdoor amenity areas, and adjacent properties?

Land Redesignation

17. Is the proposed redesignation of 171A and 171B from Neighbourhoods to Apartment Neighbourhoods appropriate?

Housing

18. Does the proposal appropriately address the replacement of rental housing on site?

19. Does the proposal conform with the City of Toronto Official Plan, in particular policy 3.2.1.6 (replacement of rental housing), including the full replacement of existing rental housing units and the provision of an acceptable Tenant Relocation and Assistance Plan addressing the right to return to occupy one of the replacement units at similar rents?

Servicing

20. Is the proposed development 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?

Parking and Loading

21. Is the proposed vehicle and bicycle parking and loading appropriate for the development?

Transportation

22. Has the appropriate Transportation Demand Management Plan been submitted?

Public Interest and Good Planning

23. Are the proposed development, Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments good planning and in the public interest?

24. In the event the proposed development is approved in whole or in part, the applicant and the City have agreed they should be given the opportunity to reach agreement on the provision of appropriate community benefits pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act or any successor thereto. In the event agreement is not reached, what are appropriate community benefits to be secured pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act or any successor?

Conditions on any Approval

25. In the event the proposed development is approved in whole or in part, what conditions would be appropriate and should the Tribunal Order be withheld until the City Solicitor has indicated that the following conditions have been satisfied:

a) the final form and content of the draft Official Plan and Zoning By-laws are to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

b) the owner has provided confirmation of water, sanitary and stormwater capacity to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, or the determination of whether holding provisions are required in the Zoning By-law Amendment;

c) City Council has approved the Rental Housing Demolition Application (file 21 177893 STE 12 RH) in accordance with Chapter 667 of the Toronto Municipal Code pursuant to Section 111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, which allows for the demolition of the ten (10) existing rental dwelling units on the Site;

d) if applicable, community benefits and other matters in support of the development are secured in a Section 37 Agreement executed by the owner and registered on title to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor.

TORONTO LANDS CORPORATION AS AGENT FOR TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD

1. Do the proposed official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment have regard to Section 2 (f), (h) and (n) of the Planning Act?

2. Are the proposed official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment consistent with policies 1.1.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3 and 1.1.3.4 of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020?

3. Do the proposed official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment conform with policies 1.2.1, 2.1, 2.2.1.4 and 3.2.8 of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2019 as amended?

4. Does the proposed zoning by-law amendment conform, and is the proposed official plan amendment harmonious, with sections 2.3.1.1, 2.3.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 3.1.2.5, 3.1.2.6, 3.1.3.10, 4.2.2, and 4.2.3 of the City’s Official Plan?

5. Does the proposed development meet the intent of and have appropriate consideration for the Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines in respect of shadow impact, access to sunlight, sky view and impact on public spaces and ensuring tall buildings fit within the context and provide appropriate transition?

6. Does the proposed development meet the intent of and have appropriate consideration for the Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities Urban Design Guidelines, particularly sections 1.2 and 1.4?

7. Is it good planning to approve the proposed development with the extent of shadow impact demonstrated on the Brown Junior Public School site including playground and athletic facilities? Should the extent of the shadow impact be mitigated in order to preserve the usability and quality of the Brown Junior Public School site, particularly the playground and athletic facilities?

PAUL BREHL AND ANNIE LAWSON

Planning Act

1. Is the Application consistent with the purposes of the Planning Act, in particular, those set out at section 2 (h), (j), (n), (p), (q), (r) and (s)?

Growth Plan

2. Does the Application conform to, and not conflict with, the A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (2020 consolidation), and specifically Policy 1.2.1, 1.2.3, 2.2.1, 2.2.4 and 2.2.6?

Official Plan

3. Does the proposed development conform to the City of Toronto Official Plan, namely policies:

a) 2.3.1 (Healthy Neighbourhoods);

b) 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.3, 3.1.3 (Public Realm, Parks and Open Spaces and Built Form); and

c) 4.5 (Mixed Use Areas).

Guidelines

4. Does the proposed development achieve the objectives of the Tall Buildings 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, schools 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?

Transportation

9. 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?

10. 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?

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

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

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

BALMORAL & AVENUE NEIGHBOURHOOD ALLIANCE, LTD.

NOTE: The Balmoral & Avenue Neighbourhood Alliance, Ltd. reserves the right prior to finalization of the draft procedural order to modify and/or supplement the above-noted issues upon review of the issues lists filed by other parties

1. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest in section 2 of the Planning Act, including but not limited to, subsections 2(f), (h), (j), (n), (p) and (r)?

2. Does the proposed development have regard for City Council’s decision regarding the subject application pursuant to section 2.1 of the Planning Act and/or any information and materials that were before City Council?

3. Is the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 including, but not limited to: Part I, Part V policies 1.1, 1.4, 1.6,7, 1.7 and 4.0?

4. Does the proposed development conform to, and not conflict with, the Growth Plan, 2020, including, but not limited to: sections 2.1, 2.2, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, and 5.2?

5. Does the proposed development appropriately implement and conform with the City of Toronto’s Official Plan, including, but not limited to policies: 2.3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.2.1, 4.1, 4.2, 5.0?

6. Does the proposed development have regard for all applicable urban design guidelines including the City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines?

7. Is the proposed height, massing, scale, streetwall height, density, separation distances, step backs, setbacks, and design of the development appropriate for the subject site and surrounding context?

8. Does the proposed development cause any adverse impacts on surrounding properties including as it pertains to shadow and privacy? Are the proposed setbacks to these surrounding properties appropriate?

9. Does the proposed development fit the character of the surrounding community? Is it compatible with adjacent Neighbourhoods lands? Is there appropriate transition?

10. Does the proposed development have an appropriate relationship with the public realm and streetscape?

11. Are there any concerns with the proposed development from a traffic capacity, pedestrian connectivity and public safety perspective?

12. Is the proposed parking supply appropriate?

13. Is the proposed development appropriate and does it represent good planning?

14. Should the Tribunal seek to approve the proposed development in whole or in part, should a final order be withheld until the form of the draft instruments is satisfactory to all parties to the proceeding, and such instruments only implement the development proposal as approved in part or whole by the Tribunal and not something more?

ATTACHMENT “4”

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Augend Investments Ltd.
2. City of Toronto
3. Toronto Lands Corporation as agent for Toronto District School Board
4. Paul Brehl and Annie Lawson
5. Balmoral & Avenue Neighbourhood Alliance, Ltd.
6. Reply by Augend Investments Ltd. (if any)

ATTACHMENT “5”

Purpose of the Procedural Order and Meaning of Terms

A party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. An unincorporated group cannot be a party and it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written 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 (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

A participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.

A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.

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

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

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

An expert witness statement should include his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons supporting their opinions and conclusions and (5) a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the participant’s position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submissions of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports or materials, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.

a. Additional Information

A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.

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

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