Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 02, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001701 (Formerly) PL200237

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

Applicant and Appellant: Calloway REIT (1900 Eglinton) Inc.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of the City of Toronto to adopt the requested amendment

Existing Designation: Mixed Use

Proposed Designated: Mixed Use with a Site and Area Specific Policy (SASP)

Purpose: To permit a mixed-use community of commercial, residential, park, and open space uses

Property Address/Description: 1900 Eglinton Avenue East

Municipality: City of Toronto

Approval Authority File No.: 19 208733 ESC 21 OZ

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001701

Legacy Case No.: PL200237

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001701

Legacy Lead Case No.: PL200237

OLT Case Name: Calloway REIT (1900 Eglinton) Inc. 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: Calloway REIT (1900 Eglinton) Inc.

Subject: Application to amend former City of Scarborough Employment Districts Zoning By-law No. 24982 – Neglect or Refusal of application by City of Toronto

Existing Zoning: Mixed Employment

Proposed Zoning: Mixed Use

Purpose: To permit a two building, 899 unit mixed use development

Property Address/Description: 1900 Eglinton Avenue East

Municipality: City of Toronto

Municipality File No.: 21 111522 ESC 21 OZ

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001334

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001701

Heard: January 12, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
City of Toronto	Nathan Muscat Amanda Hill
Calloway REIT (1900 Eglinton) Inc.	Max Laskin Joe Hoffman David Bronskill
Bell Canada	Lee English
Toronto District School Board and Toronto Lands Corporation	Julie Lesage
Yorkreal Holdings Inc.	John Dawson

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY R.G.M. MAKUCH ON JANUARY 12, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1This is the third Case Management Conference (“CMC”) respecting an appeal by Callaway REIT (1900 Eglinton) Inc. (“Callaway”) from the failure by the City of Toronto (“City”) to render a decision respecting an application for official plan amendment pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Planning Act (“Act”). This is also the first CMC respecting an appeal by Callaway pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Act for failure by the City to render a decision respecting an application for a zoning by-law amendment for the same property.

2The affidavit of service of the Notice of CMC for the zoning by-law appeal was entered as Exhibit 1.

3It is noted that the hearing of the official plan appeal has been scheduled to commence on June 6, 2022 for 15 days.

4The following are added as parties to the zoning by-law appeal:

• Yorkreal Holdings Inc.;
• Toronto District School Board and Toronto Lands Corporation;
• Bell Canada.

5A further CMC respecting the zoning by-law appeal is scheduled for April 22, 2022. The purpose of the second CMC is to finalize the Issues List and Procedural Order (“PO”) and set a hearing date for the zoning by-law amendment appeal.

6The CMC for this matter will commence by a video hearing, scheduled on Friday, April 22, 2022 at 10 a.m. as follows:

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/709076365

Access Code: 709-076-365

7Parties 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.

8Parties 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.

9Persons 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: Toll-Free 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The Access Code is as indicated above.

10Individuals 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.

11The hearing of the official plan appeal will be governed by Attachment “1” hereto.

12There will not be any further notice.

13I am not seized.

14It is so ordered.

“R.G.M. Makuch”

R.G.M. Makuch

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-21-001701 - Attachment 1

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

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

Applicant and Appellant: Calloway REIT (1900 Eglinton) Inc.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of the City of Toronto to adopt the requested amendment

Existing Designation: Mixed Use

Proposed Designated: Mixed Use with a Site and Area Specific Policy (SASP)

Purpose: To permit a mixed-use community of commercial, residential, park, and open space uses

Property Address/Description: 1900 Eglinton Avenue East

Municipality: City of Toronto

Approval Authority File No.: 19 208733 ESC 21 OZ

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001701

Legacy Case No.: PL200237

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001701

Legacy Lead Case No.: PL200237

OLT Case Name: Calloway REIT (1900 Eglinton) Inc. 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: Calloway REIT (1900 Eglinton) Inc.

Subject: Application to amend former City of Scarborough Employment Districts Zoning By-law No. 24982 – Neglect or Refusal of application by City of Toronto

Existing Zoning: Mixed Employment

Proposed Zoning: Mixed Use

Purpose: To permit a two building, 899 unit mixed use development

Property Address/Description: 1900 Eglinton Avenue East

Municipality: City of Toronto

Municipality File No.: 21 111522 ESC 21 OZ

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001334

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001701

Procedural Order

1. The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the Parties’ request or its own motion.

Organization of the Hearing

2. The hearing will begin on Monday, June 6, 2022, at 10 a.m. by video. Parties are directed to the following link to access the video hearing:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/740954221

Audio-only telephone line: Toll Free 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373

Access Code: 740-954-221

Parties 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.

3. The length of the hearing will be about 15 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 order of evidence is set out in Attachment 3 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

6. The Issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 4 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.

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

8. If the hearing is to proceed electronically, any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including Parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website (https://olt.gov.on.ca/appeals-process/video-hearing/).

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. 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 at least fifteen days (15) days prior to date for Expert Witness Statements as stated in Section 14 (on or before March 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, curriculum vitae, and the intended order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered at least one hundred and nineteen (119) calendar days before the hearing (on or before February 7, 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 (on or before February 25, 2022) (101 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence).

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 participant must provide to the Tribunal and the parties a participant statement, respectively, at least sixty (60) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before April 7, 2022), or the 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. At least sixty (60) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before April 7, 2022), the parties shall provide copies of their witness statements and expert witness statements (full disclosure including reports) to the other parties.

15. At least forty-six (46) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before April 21, 2022), the parties may provide to all other parties a written response to any written evidence.

16. At least thirty-one (31) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before May 6, 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. On or before (on or before May 6, 2022), (thirty-one (31) days before the commencement of the hearing), the Parties shall prepare and file a detailed Work Plan that identifies the following, at a minimum: the identified parties participating in the Hearing Event, preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the date a witness is intended to attend the Tribunal, the identified witness name/expertise, and the approximate time allotted for Examination in Chief, Cross Examination and any re-examination (if any) (the “Work Plan”). The Work Plan will be adhered to guide the Hearing Event to the best ability of all the Parties, and any and all witnesses shall be available on the identified date(s), unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the Work Plan throughout the Hearing Event.

20. The Parties shall prepare a Joint Document Book on or before (on or before May 17, 2022), (20 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), and which one (1) hard copy will be filed with the Tribunal as soon as practicable in advance of the Hearing. All parties must be served with the Joint Document Book in paper or an accessible electronic format in accordance with Section 22.

21. 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 (on or before January 7, 2022), (ninety (90) days before Expert Witness Statements as stated in Section 14). 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.

22. All filing of documents and materials shall be electronic to the Tribunal and the Parties. The Tribunal will be provided a hard copy of documents and materials in advance of the hearing event as soon as practicable. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents email shall be governed by the Rule 7. All documents to be filed with the Tribunal shall be organized, tabbed and digitally searchable and such materials will be filed in accordance with directions contained in the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, dated July 2, 2020, or as may be amended. Section 22 applies regardless if the hearing event is in-person or electronic.

23. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness or as permitted by Section 21. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

24. 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.

This Member is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
January 7, 2022 (90 days before Witness Statement Date)	Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any)
February 7, 2022 (119 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
February 25, 2022 (101 days prior to hearing)	Last date to challenge identification of expert witness
March 23, 2022 (75 days prior to hearing)	Experts meeting prior to this date
March 23, 2022 (75 days prior to hearing)	Agreed Statement of Facts
April 7, 2022 (60 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
April 21, 2022 (46 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
May 6, 2022 (31 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
May 6, 2022 (31 days prior to hearing)	Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal
May 17, 2022 (20 days prior to hearing)	Finalize Joint Document Book
June 6, 2022	Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

PARTIES	COUNSEL
1. Calloway REIT (1900 Eglinton) Inc.	Goodmans LLP Bay Adelaide Centre – West Tower 333 Bay Street, Suite 3400 Toronto, ON M5H 2S7 David Bronskill Email: dbronskill@goodmans.ca Tel: (416) 597-4299
2. City of Toronto	Legal Services Metro Hall 55 John Street, 26th Floor Toronto, ON M5V 3C6 Amanda S. Hill Email: amanda.hill@toronto.ca Tel: (416) 338-5790 Daniel Elmadany Email: daniel.elmadany@toronto.ca Tel: (416) 397-5709 Nathan Muscat Email: nathan.muscat@toronto.ca Tel: (416) 397-5475
3. Toronto District School Board Toronto Lands Corporation	Borden Ladner Gervais LLP East Tower, Bay Adelaide Centre 22 Adelaide Street West, Suite 3400 Toronto, ON M5H 4E3 J. Pitman Patterson Email: ppatterson@blg.com Tel: (416) 367-6109 Julie Lesage Email: jlesage@blg.com Tel: (416) 367-6276
4. Bell Canada	Borden Ladner Gervais LLP East Tower, Bay Adelaide Centre 22 Adelaide Street West, Suite 3400 Toronto, ON M5H 4E3 Isaac Tang Email: itang@blg.com Tel: (416) 367-6143 Lee English Email: lenglish@blg.com Tel: (416) 367-6169
5. Yorkreal Holdings Inc.	McCarthy Tétrault LLP TD Bank Tower 66 Wellington Street West, Suite 5300 Box 48 Toronto, ON M5K 1E6 John Dawson Email: jdawson@mccarthy.ca Tel: (416) 601-8300

ATTACHMENT 3

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Calloway REIT (1900 Eglinton) Inc.
2. Yorkreal Holdings Inc.
3. City of Toronto
4. Toronto District School Board
5. Bell Canada
6. Calloway REIT (1900 Eglinton) Inc. (reply, if any)

ATTACHMENT 4

ISSUES LIST

Yorkreal Holdings Inc.

1. Could any aspect of the servicing of the development contemplated by the proposed official plan amendment, or the framework put in place to provide for such servicing, negatively affect the servicing, including its timeliness, of Yorkreal’s proposed development at 1910 Eglinton Avenue East and, if so, what changes would be appropriate to the proposed official plan amendment to remedy that situation?

City of Toronto

1. Is the hearing premature in the absence of the applicant revising the proposed development and Official Plan Amendment to show the parkland conveyance in the size, location and configuration that is satisfactory to the City, pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act, and the City’s Parkland Dedication By-law (Chapter 415, Article III of the Municipal Code)?

2. Where the City has determined that on-site parkland will be required pursuant to section 42(1) of the Planning Act and the City’s Parkland Dedication By-law Chapter 415, Article III of the Municipal Code (the “Section 42 Parkland”), does the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal have the jurisdiction to determine the size, location and configuration of the Section 42 Parkland for a site?

3. Has the infrastructure required to support the anticipated growth in the overall context of the Golden Mile Secondary Plan ("GMSP") area, including streets, density, servicing, parks, and community service facilities been addressed comprehensively and in coordination with other GMSP landowners?

4. If the answer to Issue #3 is no, is the approval of the proposed Official Plan Amendment premature?

Planning Act

5. Would approval of the proposed development by the Tribunal have regard for the purposes of the Planning Act in Section 1.1?

6. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections 2(f),(h),(i),(j),(k),(n), (o),(p) (q), and (r)?

7. Would approval of the proposed Official Plan Amendment by the Tribunal have regard to the decision of City Council and the information and material that City Council considered in making its decision as required by Section 2.1 of the Planning Act?

Provincial Policy Statement, 2020

8. Is the proposed Official Plan Amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement including policies 1.1.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.6, 1.1.3.7, 1.2.1, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.4.3, 1.5, 1.6.1, 1.6.5, 1.6.6, 1.6.7, 1.7, 1.8, 2.2, and 4.6?

A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020)

9. Is the proposed scale of development and transition of built form to adjacent areas appropriate and is the proposed intensification appropriate in light of other objectives of A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020)?

10. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment conform to and not conflict with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020), including policies 1.2.1, 2.2.1.4, 2.2.2.3, 2.2.6,, 3.2.1.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.5, 3.2.6, 3.2.7, 3.2.8, 4.2.5, 5.2.4, and 5.2.5?

Official Plan

11. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment conform with the intent of policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan and Secondary Plans, including the policies related to:

a. Structuring Growth in the City (Section 2.2.); b. Avenues (Section 2.2.3); c. Employment Areas (Section 2.2.4); d. Bringing the City Together, Transportation (Section 2.4); e. Public Realm (Section 3.1.1); f. Built Form (Section 3.1.2, Section 3.1.3); g. Public Art (Section 3.1.4); h. Housing (Section 3.2.1); i. Community Services and Facilities (Section 3.2.2); j. Parks and Open Spaces (Section 3.2.3); k. Building New Neighbourhoods (Section 3.3); l. Natural Environment (Section 3.4); m. Mixed Use Areas (Section 4.5); and n. Implementation (Section 5).

12. Has the Official Plan Policy in Section 2.2.3, including policies 2.2.3.2, 2.2.3.4 and 2.2.3.6 of the Official Plan been satisfied?

Land Use Planning and Urban Design

13. Does the proposal represent a scale of development and density that is appropriate for the surrounding area and does it provide an appropriate transition in scale and massing, within the Ashtonbee Transition Area, and to adjacent areas?

14. Does the proposal contemplate adequate lands to be identified, set aside and orientated for public park purposes?

15. Should the proposal be revised to include more non-residential uses to provide a greater mix of land uses on site that support the investment in transit infrastructure?

16. Should the proposal be revised to include policies that direct that affordable housing be provided, overall and adequately secured over each phase of residential development, through one or more of the following delivery mechanisms or an equivalent mechanism:

(i) The conveyance of land to the City sufficient to accommodate 20 per cent of the residential gross floor area; (ii) The provision of a minimum of 10 per cent of the residential gross floor area as affordable housing with affordable rents or prices secured for a period of no less than 20 years: and/or (iii) The conveyance to the City of 5 per cent of the residential gross floor area as purpose-built rental units or affordable ownership units?

17. Should the proposal be revised to ensure that the site, overall and over each phase of residential development, will achieve a balanced mix of unit types, and to support the creation of housing suitable for families, development or redevelopment containing more than 80 new residential units will include larger units, including policy direction for:

(i) A minimum of 10 per cent of the total number of units will be 3-bedroom units; and (ii) An additional minimum of 25 per cent of the total number of units will be 2-bedroom units?

18. Does the proposal provide for a built form that is appropriate urban design, including appropriate building types, stepbacks and setbacks, base building heights, mid-rise heights and massing, separation distances between tall building towers, tower floor plate size, tall building heights and shadow impacts consistent with applicable policies and relevant guidelines?

Transportation

19. Should the proposal be revised to include new public streets to provide access and service to individual buildings?

20. Does the proposal consider the required network improvements for all modes, to support the proposed development and density increase, including:

(i) Off-site improvements; and/or (ii) Financial contributions towards the costs associated with future land acquisition and construction of the required transportation improvements in the event that the off-site improvements cannot be achieved?

21. Does the proposal’s Transportation Study appropriately and comprehensively review the constraints identified in the Transportation Master Plan for the Golden Mile, to ensure there are adequate network improvements and mitigating measures for all modes?

22. Does the Official Plan Amendment consider the adequacy and sufficiency of hard infrastructure investments and financial contributions to the Transportation Demand Management ("TDM") Plan?

Phasing of Development

23. Should the Official Plan Amendment be revised to include policies related to phasing of development addressing matters, including affordable housing, community service facilities, municipal infrastructure, public streets, public parkland and other such matters required to support the development of the site?

Compatibility/Mitigation

24. Do the proposed official plan policies appropriately implement the polices of the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan related to employment areas, and specifically those policies that require the protection and preservation of employment areas for current and future uses?

25. Do the proposed official plan policies appropriately mitigate against the potential adverse effects arising from the introduction of sensitive land uses on the Employment Areas north and south of the subject lands?

26. Does the Official Plan Amendment conform to policy 2.2.4 and 3.4.21 of the Official Plan, including the requirement for Compatibility and Mitigation Studies, Noise, Odour, Vibration and Air Quality Studies to be submitted for a Zoning By-law Amendment application and peer reviewed at the applicant's expense?

Public Interest and Good Planning

27. Is the proposed Official Plan Amendment good planning and in the public interest?

Implementation

26. If the requested Official Plan Amendment is approved by the Tribunal, in whole or in part, should the Tribunal's final order be withheld until it has been advised by the City Solicitor that the final form of the Official Plan Amendment is in a manner satisfactory to the Chief Planner and the City Solicitor?

Toronto District School Board

1. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment have regard to Section 2 (h), (i) (m) and (n) of the Planning Act?

2. Is the proposed Official Plan Amendment consistent with sections 1.1.1(b) and (g), 1.1.3.2(b), 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.7(b), 1.2.1(d), 1.4.3(c) and (d), 1.6.1, and 1.7.1(c) of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020?

3. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment conform to sections 1.2.1, 2.1, 2.2.1.2(a) and (c), 2.2.1.3(b), 2.2.1.4(a) and (d), 3.1, 3.2.1.5 and 3.2.8 of A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (the “Growth Plan”)?

(a) Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment contribute to the achievement of a complete community, as described under the Growth Plan?

4. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment conform with sections 2.4.14(a), 3.1.1.18, 3.2.2, 4.5.2(g), and 5.1.2 of the City’s Official Plan?

5. Should the proposed Official Plan Amendment provide that a public school is a permitted use of the Subject Property?

6. Is the approval of the proposed Official Plan Amendment premature in the context of availability of school space and accommodation (community/public service facilities)?

7. Is it good planning to approve the proposed Official Plan Amendment without considering the cumulative impact of the development permitted by the proposed Official Plan Amendment together with the other outstanding and approved planning applications for redevelopment in the Golden Mile Secondary Plan area on the ability of school facilities to accommodate such growth in the area?

8. Should the proposed Official Plan Amendment include a policy providing that development on the Applicant’s site may be subject to the use of a Holding Symbol (“H”) in the implementing zoning by law, which will ensure the development proceeds in an orderly fashion with the availability of community services and facilities, and in particular sufficient school capacity to accommodate the proposed development?

Bell Canada

Provincial Policy Statement, 2020

1. Is the Proposed Development consistent with the PPS 2020, including policies 1.1.1(a), (c), (e), and (g), 1.1.3.2(a), (b) (c) and (f), 1.1.3.3, 1.2.1(a), (b) and (d), 1.2.3, 1.2.6.1, 1.2.6.2, 1.3.1 (e), 1.4.3 (c), (d) and (f), 1.6.1, 1.6.4, 1.6.8.1, 1.6.8.5, 1.7.1 (a), (c) and (l)?

A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe

2. Does the Proposed Development conform with the Growth Plan, including section 1.2.1 and policies 2.2.1.3(b) and (c), 2.2.5.1(d), 2.2.5.8, 3.2.1.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.1.3, 3.2.1.4, 3.2.1.5, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.2.2 and 3.2.2.3?

General

3. Will the Proposed Development predetermine or influence the location of the street network, including a “New Conceptual Street” that is proposed to bisect the lands municipally known as 865 Pharmacy Avenue (the “Bell Lands”) as shown on Map 45-7 of OPA 499 (the Golden Mile Secondary Plan)?

4. Is it appropriate to propose a conceptual North-South “Public Street” between the Bell Lands and 1900 Eglinton Avenue East that is to be located, in part, on the eastern portion of the Bell Lands given the current and long term operations of Bell’s telecommunications infrastructure?

5. Does the Proposed Development create land use compatibility issues with the Bell Lands that should be addressed?

6. Does the Proposed Development appropriately protect for future development of the Bell Lands?

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.