Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
July 15, 2022
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-22-002343
(Formerly) PL140860
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
10 QEW Inc.
Appellant:
100 Metropolitan Portfolio Inc.
Appellant:
1095909 Ontario Limited (Wynn Group of Companies)
Appellant:
1107051 Ontario Ltd.; and others
Subject:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 231
Municipality:
City of Toronto
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002343
Legacy Case No.:
PL140860
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002343
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL140860
OLT Case Name:
A. Mantella & Sons Limited v. Toronto (City)
Heard:
May 5, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
City of Toronto
Andrew Biggart, Christina Kapelos and
Cameron McKeich
Applicants/Appellants
(listed in Attachment 1)
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY G. BURTON AND D.S. COLBOURNE ON MAY 5, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This was a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held to organize hearing dates for Phase 6C – South West Etobicoke appeals from proposed Official Plan Amendment 231 (“OPA 231”). Ms. Kapelos outlined the rationale behind the hearing groups in this Phase, organized on a geographic basis – 1, north of the Gardiner Expressway, 2 – south of the Gardiner Expressway, and 3 – both south and north of the Gardiner Expressway, but west of Highway 427.
2This affects Hearing Group No. 1: 10 QEW Inc. (Appeal 1), Cinespace (133), Talisker Queensway G.P. Inc (147) and Q Developments (198P).
3A further CMC for Phase 6C has been arranged for September 13, 2022 commencing at 10 a.m. with the following link:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/442599157
Audio-only telephone line: Toll-Free 1-888-455-1389 or +1 (647) 497-9391
Access Code: 442-599-157
4Hearing Group No. 1 has a Hearing commencing on November 7, 2022 at 10 a.m. for 13 days with the following link:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/422130965
Audio-only telephone line: Toll-Free 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373
Access Code: 422-130-965
5The attached Procedural Order for Hearing Group No. 1 has been approved and is appended to the Decision as Attachment 2.
6Hearing Group No. 2 has a Hearing commencing on January 9, 2023 at 10 a.m. for 10 days with the following link. The Parties requested that Hearings for Groups 2 and 3 not be consecutive:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/709076365
Audio-only telephone line: Toll-Free 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373
Access Code: 709-076-365
7Hearing Group No. 3 has a Hearing commencing on April 24, 2023 at 10 a.m. for 10 days with the following link:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/687587165
Audio-only telephone line: Toll-Free 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373
Access Code: 687-587-165
8Parties and participants are asked to log into the hearing event(s) at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections.
9Parties 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.
10Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event(s) can connect to the event(s) by calling into an audio-only telephone line with the Access Code(s) as indicated above.
11Individuals are directed to connect to the event(s) on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the hearing event(s) to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event(s) may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.
12There is to be a settlement hearing with respect to the Champagne Centre. One party, Canadian Fuels Association, has challenged the settlement. The Hearing is scheduled for January 23, 2023 at 10 a.m. for 5 days with the following link:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/719383509
Audio-only telephone line: Toll-Free 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373
Access Code: 719-383-509
13The attendance instructions of paragraphs [8] through [11] above also apply here.
“G. Burton”
G. burton
VICE-CHAIR
“D.S. Colbourne”
d.s. colbourne
VICE-CHAIR
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
OLT-22-002343 – Attachment 1
Attendee
Appeal Number
On Behalf of
Ira Kagan Sarah Kagan Kristie Stitt Kagan Shastri LLP
1
10 QEW Inc.
Jennifer Evola Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP
31
Champagne Centre Ltd.
Christopher J. Tzekas WeirFoulds LLP
133
Cinespace
Barry A. Horosko Horosko Planning Law
198P; 85
Q Developments/ Fima Developments
Amber Stewart Amber Stewart Law
44
855 Oxford Street Investments Ltd.
Jonathan Cheng Stikeman Elliott LLP
196P
SEIEA (South Etobicoke Industrial Employers Association)
Kailey Sutton McMillan LLP
57
Amexon Realty Inc.
Mark Flowers Davies Howe LLP
27
2130254 Ontario Inc.
David Neligan Aird Berlis LLP
87
First Capital
Johanna Shapira Wood Bull LLP
146
Morguard Investments Limited
Raj Kehar WeirFoulds LLP
203P
Jacinto Car Wash Ltd.
Laura Dean Aird Berlis LLP
179P
Canadian Fuel Association
Kat Sliwa Katy Vergis Mayo Dentons
155
Samuel Sarick Limited
Ian Andres Goodmans LLP
36
263468 Ontario Inc. (East Urban Properties)
Michael Cara Overland LLP
23
Berkeley Carlyle (Junction)
Jessica Smuskowitz Sherman Brown LLP
14
Various Appellants
Alex Lusty Davies Howe LLP
143
87 Ethel Avenue
OLT-22-002343 – Attachment 2
Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
10 QEW Inc.
Appellant:
100 Metropolitan Portfolio Inc.
Appellant:
1095909 Ontario Limited (Wynn Group of Companies)
Appellant:
1107051 Ontario Ltd.; and others
Subject:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 231
Municipality:
City of Toronto
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002343
Legacy Case No.:
PL140860
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002343
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL140860
OLT Case Name:
A. Mantella & Sons Limited v. Toronto (City)
Procedural Order
(Phase 6C – South West Etobicoke)
HEARING GROUP NO. 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
- The video hearing will begin on Monday, November 7, 2022 at 10 a.m., for 13 days for Hearing Group No. 1 at the following link:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/422130965
Audio-only telephone line: Toll-Free 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373
Access Code: 422-130-965
The Parties will work together when preparing the hearing Work Plan to accommodate any identified scheduling constraints.
The length of the hearing will be 13 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.
The Parties and Participants are listed in Attachment 2 to this Order.
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 it. A party who seeks changes to this list may have costs awarded against it. An issue can be removed from the Issues List without a formal order of the Tribunal with the consent of all Parties.
The order of evidence is tentatively set out in Attachment 4 to this Order and shall be confirmed between the Parties and reflected in the hearing Work Plan. 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. Any such person who retains a representative must advise the other Parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and phone number.
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/fdfd).
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 Friday, September 30, 2022. For expert witnesses, a party is to identify the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified and a copy of their curriculum vitae.
Expert witnesses in the same discipline(s) shall 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 Monday, October 10, 2022, if agreement is reached.
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 time as the delivery of expert witness statements, as in Section 14.
A witness or participant must provide to the Tribunal and the Parties a witness statement or participant statement, respectively, on or before Monday, October 17, 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.
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.
On or before Monday, October 17, 2022, the Parties shall provide copies of their witness statements and expert witness statements (in accordance with section 11 herein) to the other Parties and to the Tribunal.
On or before Monday, October 24, 2022, the Parties may provide to all other Parties a written response to any written evidence.
On or before Friday, October 28, 2022, 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 scheduled commencement of the hearing.
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.
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.
On or before Friday, October 28, 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.
The Parties undertake to make best their efforts to avoid duplicative evidence to the extent possible.
The Parties shall prepare a Joint Document Book on or before Friday, October 28, 2022, and 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 an accessible electronic format in accordance with Section 23.
If a Party intends to seek approval of revised official plan policies at the hearing, the Party shall provide copies of the revised policy language to the other Parties with their witness statements as exchanged in accordance with Section 14.
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.
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.
The Tribunal may conduct mediation on consent of all Parties, or on consent of those Parties who wish to participate in mediation, or if the Tribunal sees fit.
The purpose of this Procedural Order and the meaning of the terms used in this Procedural Order are set out in Attachment 5.
The hearing dates for Hearing Group No. 2 and Hearing Group No. 3 shall be determined by the Tribunal.
This Member is not seized.
So Orders the Tribunal.
ATTACHMENT 1
sUMMARY OF DATES
(Hearing GROUP No. 1)
DATE
EVENT
Friday, September 30, 2022
Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
Wednesday, October 5, 2022
Last date to challenge identification of expert witness
Monday, October 10, 2022
Agreed Statement of Facts filed with the Tribunal (if agreement)
Monday, October 17, 2022
Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
Monday, October 24, 2022
Exchange of Reply Statements (if any)
Friday, October 28, 2022
Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
Friday, October 28, 2022
Joint Document Book (with 1 hard copy to Tribunal) and Hearing Plan
Monday, November 7, 2022
Hearing commences for 3 weeks
ATTACHMENT 2
List of parties/participants
Parties
Counsel/Representative
Appeal No(s)
Properties
City of Toronto
Andrew Biggart/ Christina Kapelos Ritchie Ketcheson Hart & Biggart LLP 1 Eva Road Toronto, ON M9C 4Z5 Laura Bisset/ Cameron McKeich 55 John Street, 26th Floor Metro Hall, Legal Section Toronto, ON M5V 3C6
Hearing Group 1
10 QEW Inc.
Ira Kagan Kagan Shastri LLP 188 Avenue Road Toronto, ON M5R 2J1
1
2, 7, 10 & 12 Queen Elizabeth Boulevard, 506, 514, 516, 520 & 522 Royal York Road, 3, 5, 15, & 17 Sinclair Street
Hearing Group 1
Talisker Queensway G. P. Inc.
Joel D. Farber Fogler, Rubinoff LLP 77 King Street West, Suite 3000 TD Centre North Tower Toronto, ON M5K 1G8
147
1001-1037 The Queensway
Hearing Group 1
Cinespace (was Pamlimar Investments and Enterprises Inc.)
Christopher J. Tzekas WeirFoulds LLP 66 Wellington Street West Suite 4100 TD Bank Tower Toronto, ON M5K 1B7
133
15 North Queen Street
Hearing Group 1
Q Developments
Barry A. Horosko Horosko Planning Law 300 North Queen Street Suite 101 Etobicoke, ON M9C 5K4
198P
1542, 1548 & 1550 The Queensway, 65 North Queen Street, and 15 Atomic Avenue
Hearing Group 2
855 Oxford Street Investments Ltd.
Amber Stewart Amber Stewart Law 70 Plunkett Road, Unit 6 Toronto, ON M9L 2J5
44
855 Oxford Street
Hearing Group 2
Fima Developments
Barry A. Horosko Horosko Planning Law 300 North Queen Street Suite 101 Etobicoke, ON M9C 5K4
85
See Attachment 6
Hearing Group 2
851653 Ontario Inc./2242781 Ontario Inc.
Barry A. Horosko Horosko Planning Law 300 North Queen Street, Suite 101 Etobicoke, ON M9C 5K4
202P (Sheltering under 85 and 44)
170 and 194 Evans Avenue
Hearing Group 2
SEIEA (South Etobicoke Industrial Employers Association)
Calvin Lantz Stikeman Elliott LLP 199 Bay Street, Suite 5300 Toronto, ON M5L1B9
196P (Sheltering under 85)
Hearing Group 3
Amexon Realty Inc.
Mary Flynn-Guglietti McMillan LLP 181 Bay Street, Suite 4400 Toronto, ON M5J 2T3
57
701-703 Evans Avenue
Hearing Group 3
2130254 Ontario Inc.
Mark Flowers Davies Howe LLP 425 Adelaide Street West Toronto, ON M5V 3C1
27
51 Manstor Road
ATTACHMENT 3
Issues list
Note: The identification of an issue on this Issues List is intended to provide notice to all parties that a party will lead evidence and/or argument on the matter. This identification does not serve as an acknowledgement of relevancy 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.
HEARING GROUP NO. 1
10 QEW Inc. (Appeal 1)
Re 2, 7, 10 & 12 Queen Elizabeth Blvd., 506, 514, 516, 520 & 522 Royal York Rd., and 3, 5, 15 & 17 Sinclair St.
- On Map 41 of Appendix 2 of Item 14 in Official Plan Amendment No. 231, should the proposed Core Employment Areas designation be replaced with a Mixed-Use Areas designation?
(a) Is a Mixed-Use Areas designation on all or a portion of the lands consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golder Horseshoe, and does it represent good planning?
(b) if neither a Core Employment Areas designation or a Mixed-Use Areas designation is appropriate, then what land use designation is appropriate?
Should the proposed identification as “employment Areas” on Map 2 – Urban Structure in Item 7, Appendix 1 of Official Plan Amendment No. 231, be removed?
Is it appropriate to treat all lands designated as Employment Areas in the Official Plan Amendment No. 231 as “Employment areas” as that term is defined for the purposes of the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 and the Growth Plan (2006)?
Are the proposed “Conversion and Removal Policies for Employment Areas” inconsistent with and/or contrary to the Planning Act, the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan (2006), and are they unnecessarily restrictive?
Cinespace (Appeal 133)
A General Employment designation is most appropriate as:
The site adjacent to the lands designated general employment at the corner of Kipling and North Queen;
The site is proximate to residential areas, both existing and proposed, including a proposed mixed-use site in the subject block;
The site is well situated to serve the surrounding employment areas and residential areas with a wide range of commercial uses;
The proposed General Employment designation does not result in a loss of employment lands;
The buildings on the subject site are in the process of demolition and as such, no longer retain any industrial nature or function; and
If the designation of 15 North Queen is to be Core Commercial, then all proposed designations in subject block require reconsideration.
General Policies Appealed
Conversion policies (2.2.4.9-2.2.4.12) are unduly restrictive and beyond what is appropriate or warranted. Policies do not conform to the Growth Plan and are not consistent with P.P.S.
Employment policies related to permitted uses in the Core Commercial designation are unduly restrictive as to commercial uses.
Requirements of Policy 4.6.4 are unduly restrictive in connection with require development conditions for commercial development.
Such further and other grounds as may be advanced by the Appellant.
Talisker Queensway G.P. Inc. (Appeal 147)
Is the proposed General Employment Areas designation in Official Plan Amendment 231 appropriate for the subject lands given the surrounding land use context and the ability to mitigate potential land use conflicts?
Given the surrounding context and the Mixed-Use Areas designation that extends along The Queensway frontage, should the Mixed-Use Areas designation extend into the block in the same manner as those blocks west of St. Lawrence Avenue to Kipling Avenue?
Would redevelopment of the subject lands as a Mixed-Use development impact on the nature of the existing economic functions of the surrounding area?
Are lands on the south side of The Queensway between Islington Avenue and Kipling Avenue viable for employment uses given the changing dynamics and recent residential development throughout that portion of The Queensway corridor?
Would there be a net gain of jobs on the subject lands if redeveloped as a Mixed-Use Area?
Does the existing context of the surrounding area and particularly, the approved and existing abutting and nearby residential development, adversely affect the viability of the subject lands as an employment site?
Would it be appropriate and consistent with Provincial policy to designate the subject lands as Mixed-Use Areas designation?
a. In particular, would the proposed conversion of the subject lands to a Mixed-Use Areas designation:
i. Have appropriate regard to matters of Provincial interest set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act including:
(h) orderly development;
(j) a full range of housing;
(k) adequate provision of employment;
(l) financial and economic well-being;
(o) public health and safety; and,
(p) location of growth and development.
ii. Be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, including the policies in sections 1.1.1, 1.2.6 and 1.3.2?
iii. Conform with the Growth Plan, 2006, including policies 2.2.2, 2.2.6.5 including as follows:
Is there a need for the conversion? Does a Mixed-Use Area designation provide for a more contextually appropriate and efficient use of land including residential intensification? Is the City's approval of other nearby conversions and development applications indicative of a reasonable need for conversion of the subject site?
Will conversion of the site impact the City's ability to meet its employment land needs to 2031?
Will the viability of any employment area be adversely affected by the conversion?
Is there existing or planned infrastructure to accommodate the proposed conversion?
Q Developments (Appeal 198P)
HEARING GROUP NO. 2
Fima Developments (Appeal 85)
(851653 Ontario Inc./2242781 Ontario Inc. Sheltering – 202P / SEIEA 196P)
Is it appropriate to treat all lands designated as Employment Areas in Official Plan Amendment No. 231 as “Employment areas” as that term is defined for the purposes of the Provincial Policy framework, including the Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe?
Is the proposed range of uses to be permitted in the Core Employment Areas designation in Official Plan Amendment No. 231 consistent with the PPS and Growth Plan?
Are the proposed “Conversion and Removal Policies for Employment Areas inconsistent with an/or contrary to the Planning Act, the PPS, the Growth Plan and are they unnecessarily restrictive?
Should Section 2.2.4.9 be amended to allow other employment uses to be considered for Core Employment Areas outside of a Municipal Comprehensive Review?
Should the range of uses permitted for Core Employment Areas on major streets as set out on Map 3 of the Official Plan be expanded to include retail uses? Is it appropriate to exclude non-accessory retail uses from Core Employment Areas?
Should the range of permitted uses for lands south of the QEW and in particular in the area between Evans Avenue and Horner Avenue be expanded to permit a broader range of employment uses?
Is the proposed Core Employment Areas designation in Official Plan Amendment No. 231 for the lands between Evans Avenue and Horner Avenue consistent with the PPS, does it conform with the Growth Plan appropriate? Would it be compatible in instances of abutting sensitive land uses?
Should the City have considered certain lands between Evans Avenue and Horner Avenue for conversion in order to mitigate existing and/or potential land use conflicts as directed in OPA 231?
Would a Mixed Use Areas or Neighbourhoods designation be appropriate for certain lands between Evans Avenue and Horner Avenue and be consistent with the PPS, conform to the Growth Plan, and otherwise constitute good planning?
855 Oxford Street Investments Ltd. (Appeal 44)
Re 855 Oxford Street
Is the proposed Core Employment designation appropriate for 855 Oxford Street given that it is effectively isolated from other employment uses?
Is the designation of 855 Oxford Street for any employment uses appropriate, given the existing context of the surrounding area, and particularly, the adjacent and nearby residential development?
Would the anticipated uses for 855 Oxford Street under the Core Employment designation create land use conflicts with the adjacent and nearby residential development?
Does the existing context of the surrounding area, and particularly, the adjacent and nearby residential development, adversely affect the viability of 855 Oxford Street as an employment site?
Would it be appropriate and consistent with provincial policy to redesignate 855 Oxford Street to a Neighbourhoods designation?
In the alternative, would it be appropriate and consistent with provincial policy to redesignate 855 Oxford Street as Mixed Use Areas?
In particular, would the proposed conversion of 855 Oxford Street to a Neighbourhoods or Mixed Use Areas designation:
a) be consistent with the PPS, 2020, including the policies in section 1.2.6 and 1.3.2?
b) Conform with the GP, 2006, including policy 2.2.6.5?
c) Have appropriate regard for the GP 2020 particularly since the site has not been included in a Provincially Significant Employment Zone?
Has the City given adequate CONSIDERATION AND STUDY TO THE CONVERSION REQUEST FILED IN RESPECT OF 855 Oxford Street?
What mitigation measures, if any, are appropriate for inclusion in a site-specific policy applicable to 855 Oxford Street?
Area-Specific Issues
Is the proposed Core Employment designation appropriate for some or all lands located on Map 40, south of the Gardiner Expressway?
Should a more flexible designation apply to some or all lands located on Map 40, south of the Gardiner Expressway, in order to recognize the appropriateness of certain lands for a broader range of uses?
HEARING GROUP NO. 3
Amexon Realty Inc. (Appeal 57)
Is it appropriate to remove 701-703 Evans Avenue (the “Amexon Lands”) from “Employment Areas” on Appendix 1?
Is it appropriate to re-designate the Amexon Lands “Core Employment Areas”? Is it appropriate and does it represent good planning to instead re-designate the Amexon Lands “Mixed Use Areas”? (Map 39 of Appendix 2, Section 4.6, Policies 4.6.1, 4.6.2, 4.6.3)
Does proposed policy 2.4.5 provide sufficient and appropriate criterion to measure if it is “technically feasible” for multi-storey developments to integrate with subway and underground light rapid transit stations?
Is it appropriate to not permit the demolition of existing office space for new residential building s and new mixed-use buildings containing residential? (Section 3.5.1)
Is it appropriate to require an increase to the existing office gross floor area where new residential development is proposed on a property with at least 1,000m1 of existing office gross floor area and is located within 500 metres of an existing or an approved and funded subway or light rapid transit station? If so, where is the appropriate location for the required development o the replacement and/or increase of office gross floor area? (Section 3.5.1 & Policy 3.5.1.9)
Do proposed Policies 3.5.1.2a and 3.5.1.6 have the effect of discouraging residential and mixed-use development on lands designated Mixed Use Areas that are located within walking distance or 500 metres of existing and approved and funded subway. Light rapid transit and GO Stations?
Is it appropriate to restrict existing or proposed major freestanding office buildings containing a gross floor area equal to or greater than 10,000m2, or the capacity for 500 jobs or more, to be located on lands designated Mixed Use Areas, Regeneration Areas and Employment Areas within the Downtown and Central Waterfront, Centres, and/or within 500 meters of an existing or an approved and funded subway or light rapid transit station? Should the locations of major freestanding office buildings containing 10,000m2 or more gross floor area, or the capacity for 500 jobs or more to be determined on a site-by-site basis through the review of detailed and focused study and analysis? (Policy 3.5.1.7)
Should Policy 4.6.5g, which speaks to the sharing of driveways and parking areas, clarify what is intended by the words “wherever possible”?
Is it appropriate to require development to avoid parking between the public sidewalk and retail uses? Should the word “avoid” be defined to provide clarity? (Policy 4.6.5.h).
2130254 Ontario Inc. (Appeal 27)
Would a Mixed Use Areas designation on the lands municipally known as 51 Manstor Road be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and otherwise constitute good planning?
If it is determined that the lands municipally known as 51 Manstor Road should not be designated as Mixed Use Areas, should the lands instead be designated as General Employment Areas?
Should the proposed identification of the lands municipally known as 51 Manstor Road as “Employment Areas” on Map 2 – Urban Structure be removed?
Depending on the appropriate land use designation of the lands municipally known as 51 Manstor Road, should the lands be subject to any site-specific policies?
ATTACHMENT 4
Order of Evidence
- City of Toronto (non-opinion overview evidence for Hearing Group No. 1)
Appeal No. 1 (10 QEW Inc.)
City of Toronto
10 QEW Inc.
City of Toronto (in reply, if any)
Appeal 157 (Tasliker)
City of Toronto
Talisker
City of Toronto (in reply, if any)
Appeal 133 (Cinespace)
City of Toronto
Cinespace
City of Toronto (in reply, if any)
ATTACHMENT 5
Order of Evidence
Attachment to Sample Procedural Order
Meaning of terms used in the Procedural Order:
A party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. An unincorporated group cannot be a party and it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorisation from the party.
NOTE that a person who wishes to become a party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.
A participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.
A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.
Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.
Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing.
A witness statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which he or she will discuss ; and a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing.
An expert witness statement should include his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons supporting their opinions and conclusions and (5) a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.
A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the participant’s position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submissions of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports or materials, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.
Additional Information
A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.
The order of examination of witnesses is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:
direct examination by the party presenting the witness;
direct examination by any party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;
cross-examination by parties of opposite interest;
re-examination by the party presenting the witness; or
another order of examination mutually agreed among the parties or directed by the Tribunal.
ATTACHMENT 6
List of Addresses for Appeal No. 85 (FIMA)
Address
512-516 Evans Avenue
170 Evans Avenue
518 Evans Avenue
194 Evans Avenue
520 Evans Avenue
196 Evans Avenue
524 Evans Avenue
204 Evans Avenue
528 Evans Avenue
901 Oxford Street
532 Evans Avenue
907 Oxford Street
534 Evans Avenue
915 Oxford Street
540 Evans Avenue
919 Oxford Street
542 Evans Avenue
923 Oxford Street
550 Evans Avenue
208 Evans Avenue
302 Horner Avenue
214 Evans Avenue
320 Horner Avenue
218 Evans Avenue
324 Horner Avenue/322 Horner Avenue
222 Evans Avenue
423 Evans Avenue
224 Evans Avenue
10 Butterick Road
270 Evans Avenue
20 Butterick Road
374 Evans Avenue
36 Butterick Road
376 Evans Avenue
40 Butterick Road
380 Evans Avenue
41 Butterick Road
386 Evans Avenue
105 Brockhouse Road
388 Evans Avenue
378 Evans Avenue
400 Evans Avenue/396 Evans Avenue
510 Evans Avenue
2 Wickman Road
478 Evans Avenue
425 Evans Avenue
80 Evans Avenue
450 Evans Avenue
54 The East Mall
11 Diesel Drive
564 Evans Avenue
10 Diesel Drive
560 Evans Avenue
476 Evans Avenue
415 Evans Avenue
486 Evans Avenue
300 Evans Avenue
488 Evans Avenue
17 Arnold Street
95 Brockhouse Road/496 Evans Avenue
314 Evans Avenue
500 Evans Avenue
9 Arnold Street
502 Evans Avenue
1 Bestobell Road
504 Evans Avenue
3 Bestobell Road
506 Evans Avenue
4 Bestobell Road
111 Brockhouse Road
127 Brockhouse Road