Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 25, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-001975

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

Applicant and Appellant: Shimvest Investments Limited

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description: To permit the development of a 6-storey purpose-built rental residential building containing 155 dwelling units

Reference Number: OPA-2021-04

Property Address: 271 Holladay Drive

Municipality/UT: Town of Aurora/ Regional Municipality of York

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-001975

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-001975

OLT Case Name: Shimvest Investments Limited v. Aurora (Town)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Shimvest Investments Limited

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit the development of a 6-storey purpose-built rental residential building containing 155 dwelling units

Reference Number: ZBA-2021-05

Property Address: 271 Holladay Drive

Municipality/UT: Town of Aurora/ Regional Municipality of York

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-001976

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-001975

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Referred by: Shimvest Investments Limited

Subject: Site Plan

Description: To permit the development of a 6-storey purpose-built rental residential building containing 155 dwelling units

Reference Number: SP-2021-10

Property Address: 271 Holladay Drive

Municipality/UT: Town of Aurora/ Regional Municipality of York

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-001977

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-001975

Heard: June 28, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Shimwest Investments Ltd	Meaghan McDermid
Town of Aurora	Denise Baker Patricia De Sario

MEMORANUDM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY T. PREVEDEL AND M. ARPINO ON JUNE 28, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The matters before the Tribunal are appeals pursuant to s. 22(7), 34(11) and 41(12) of the Planning Act by Shimvest Investments Ltd with respect to the Town of Aurora’s failure to make a decision on the Appellant’s applications for an Official Plan Amendment, a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval within the prescribed timeframe.

2The municipal address of the subject property is 271 Holladay Drive.

3Shimvest Investments Ltd. (the “Appellant”) is proposing to develop 271 Holladay Drive (the “Subject Property”) with a six (6)-storey purpose-built rental apartment building containing 155 units, and two (2) levels of underground parking.

4The municipal address of the Subject Property is 271 Holladay Drive.

5The Tribunal convened this first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) as required pursuant to the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021.

Area Context

6The subject lands are located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Leslie Street and Holladay Drive. They are irregular in shape, with a lot area of approximately 0.525 hectares, and a lot frontage of approximately 36 metres (“m”) onto Leslie Street.

7The Subject Property has frontage on Holladay Drive, and abuts Badgerow Way to the south.

8The Subject Property is located within a recently developed plan of subdivision (Plan 65M- 4519) and was previously used as a sales office and related parking lot. It is currently vacant, and the topography is relatively flat with no vegetation.

9The surrounding land uses are as follows:

1. North: Holladay Drive, natural heritage features and detached dwellings;
2. South: Badgerow Way, townhouse dwellings, Northridge Community Church, Stewart Burnett Park, and the Stronach Aurora Recreation Complex;
3. East: Gas infrastructure (regulator), Leslie Street, Business Park lands, and a Regional Commercial Centre; and,
4. West: Detached dwellings.

Party and Participant Status Requests

10The Tribunal received five (5) requests for Party status in advance of the CMC:

• Regional Municipality of York (“Region”)
• Jack Qi Jia
• Ryan Hamid,
• Edmund Yeung, and
• Tong Tong (Christy) Xie

Party Status

11Mercedes Mueller appeared before the Tribunal on behalf of the Region. She submitted that, as a commenting agency and approval authority for certain planning matters and decisions in the Town of Aurora, York Region has a direct interest in this appeal, such that it would be reasonable and appropriate for York Region to be granted party status in this appeal. York Region initially provided comments to the Town of Aurora for the above applications. These comments have yet to be addressed by the Appellant. As such, York Region wishes to participate in the appeal to ensure that the comments and conditions are addressed in the proceeding.

12Before entertaining the remaining requests for Party Status, the Tribunal outlined the roles and responsibilities of a Party in accordance with Rule 8.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

13Both Jack Qi Jia and Ryan Hamid submitted a Party Status Request Form on behalf of the Aurora Glen Ratepayers Association (“AGRA”). Mr. Jia stated he was the President of the AGRA and Mr. Hamid stated he was the Secretary. They both submitted an Issues List which were very similar in nature, representing the concerns of the area residents.

14During the CMC, Mr. Jia advised that the AGRA is not incorporated and that, as a result, he wished to change his request from Party Status to Participant Status. He confirmed that his home is adjacent to the proposed development and that he has a direct interest in the proceedings.

15Mr. Hamid also advised the Tribunal that he wished to change his request from Party Status to Participant Status and confirmed he has a direct interest in the development of the subject property.

16Tong Tong (Christy) Xie also submitted a Party Request Form, stating that, as the owner of 103 Badgerow Way, her property is immediately next to the Subject Property. She submitted that her views are aligned with many of the Aurora Glen community members, and she can provide a balanced perspective to the case. Ms. Xie revised her request to Participant Status during the CMC.

17Edmund Yeung requested Party Status with the Tribunal. He submitted that he had worked closely with the The AGRA in compiling an Issues List and, while he understood that the AGRA was withdrawing its Party Status request, he still wished to continue as a Party. When questioned, Mr. Yeung stated he did not intend to enlist counsel or call expert witnesses but felt that he understood the concerns of the community and he was prepared to participate fully during the proceedings to assist the Tribunal.

18Ms. Baker supported Mr. Yeung’s request for Party Status, submitting that lay witnesses can provide valuable input during the Hearing. She committed to make sure Mr. Yeung is made aware of the Tribunal process and procedures if he was granted Party Status.

19Ms. McDermid expressed a concern to the Tribunal, stating that it would be more appropriate for Mr. Yeung to be granted Participant Status, as his issues are aligned with the Town’s.

20Mr. Yeung stated that, although many of his issues will be addressed by the Town, there are two (2) additional issues; sufficiency of outdoor parking and density, that are not included in the Town’s Issues List.

Participant Status

21The Tribunal received ten (10) requests for Participant Status from Cynthia Xu, Michael Visconti, Guxiaowan Zhong, Zhao Henry, Ye Liu, Shuk Man Lo, Mary Guo, Loritta Chan, Han Zhang and David Tang.

22Each of the Participant Statements, although not identical, expressed similar concerns to the issues raised by the AGRA, and a distillation of the concerns are as follows:

• A six-storey building is too tall,
• Density of the proposed development
• Blocking the view and concern for shadow impacts,
• Potential for parking and traffic problems,
• Access is only through a single narrow street,
• Original plan was for a three-storey commercial building.
• Lack of amenity area

23During the CMC, three additional residents stated that they had submitted Participant Status Request Forms to the Tribunal; Ricky Lam, Yajing Zhang and Lilian Wang. Counsel for the Appellant and the Town advised they had not received these three statements. The Case Coordinator has since confirmed that these statements were received by the Tribunal . The Case Coordinator has been directed to send copies to all Parties.

24After careful consideration of the Party and Participant Status requests, and the oral submissions provided at the CMC, the Tribunal considered Mr. Yeung’s submissions and the submissions of Counsel and determined that it would be appropriate to grant Party Status to the Regional Municipality of York and to Edmund Yeung.

25The Tribunal directed Mr. Yeung to re-phrase his issues and submit them to the Parties and to the Tribunal no later than July 5, 2022. Ms. Baker kindly undertook to assist him.

26The Tribunal will also grant Participant Status, on consent of the Parties to Cynthia Xu, Michael Visconti, Guxiaowan Zhong, Zhao Henry, Ye Liu, Shuk Man Lo, Mary Guo, Loritta Chan, Han Zhang, David Tang, Jack Qi Jia, Ryan Hamid, Tong Tong (Christy) Xie.

27The Tribunal will grant Participant Status to Ricky Lam, Yajing Zhang and Lilian Wang. The Tribunal directed the Parties to review the Participant Requests of the three (3) individuals and either provide comments or confirm that they consent to them being granted Participant Status in the proceedings by no later than July 5, 2022.

28Subsequent to the drafting of this Decision, the Tribunal received an email from Mr. Yeung indicating that he was satisfied with the Issues List provided by the Town and he formally requested to revise his status request from Party to Participant.

29The Tribunal will grant Participant Status to Mr. Yeung.

Opportunities for Settlement Discussions

30When questioned by the Tribunal, the Parties indicated that they are open to settlement discussions and will pursue this in advance of the Hearing. They will advise the Tribunal in advance of the Hearing with respect to the status of these discussions.

Procedural Order and Issues List

31The Tribunal received a draft Procedural Order and Issues List in advance of the CMC.

32Given the discussions during the CMC, and the addition of Mr. Yeung’s two issues to the Issues List, the Parties were directed to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List and submit it to the Tribunal no later than July 19, 2022.

33The Parties requested a ten (10) day Hearing be scheduled, as they indicated that six to eight witnesses will likely be called.

Scheduling of Hearing

34A ten-day Hearing has been scheduled for Monday, June 12, 2023 at 10 a.m.

35Parties are asked to log into the video Hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/442599157

Access Code: 442-599-157

36Parties 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.

37Persons 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): 1 888 455-1389 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The access code is 442-599-157.

38Individuals 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.

ORDER

39The Tribunal received the final Procedural Order and Issues List, which is attached as Schedule 1 to this Decision. As such, it is in full force and effect.

40The Hearing is scheduled to proceed by video hearing on Monday, June 12, 2023, at 10 a.m. for ten (10) days.

41The Members are not seized, however, may assist with case management, schedules permitting.

42No further notice will be given.

“T. Prevedel”

T. PREVEDEL

MEMBER

“M. Arpino”

M. ARPINO

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.

SCHEDULE 1

ISSUE DATE: August 25, 2022

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

Applicant and Appellant: Shimvest Investments Limited

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description: To permit the development of a 6-storey purpose-built rental residential building containing 155 dwelling units

Reference Number: OPA-2021-04 Property Address: 271 Holladay Drive

Municipality/UT: Town of Aurora/Regional Municipality of York

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-001975

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-001975

OLT Case Name: Shimvest Investments Limited v. Aurora (Town)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Shimvest Investments Limited

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit the development of a 6-storey purpose-built rental residential building containing 155 dwelling units

Reference Number: ZBA-2021-05 Property Address: 271 Holladay Drive

Municipality/UT: Town of Aurora/Regional Municipality of York

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-001976

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-001975

PROCEEDING COMMENDED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Referred by: Shimvest Investments Limited

Subject: Site Plan

Description: To permit the development of a 6-storey purpose-built rental residential building containing 155 dwelling units

Reference Number: SP-2021-10 Property Address: 271 Holladay Drive

Municipality/UT: Town of Aurora/Regional Municipality of York

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-001977

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-001975

PROCEDURAL ORDER

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

1. The Hearing will begin on Monday June 12, 2023 at 10:00a.m. by video hearing.

2. The Hearing is scheduled for 10 hearing 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 found in Attachment 1.

3. The Parties and Participants (see “Attachment 5” for the meaning of these terms) identified at the Case Management Conference are set out in Attachment 2.

4. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. 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, except if the Issues List is modified on consent of the parties, through mediation or pursuant to a settlement between any of the parties.

5. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 4 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the Parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

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

7. Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the Case Management Conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other Parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address, telephone number and (if applicable), fax number, as soon as possible.

8. 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.

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. The Applicant shall advise the Parties and the OLT Case Co-ordinator of any revisions to the plans and drawings that it intends to rely on in the Hearing and provide copies of such revised plans and drawings, together with copies of any new or updated technical reports it intends to rely on in support of the revised proposal to the other Parties on or before Monday February 13, 2023. Should the Applicant make any revisions to the proposal after that date without the consent of the Parties, another Party may exercise its right to request an adjournment of the hearing, which request shall be made in accordance with Rule 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules.

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 Friday February 24, 2023 and in accordance with paragraph 23 below. A Party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified.

11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting by Wednesday March 15, 2023 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting(s), the experts must prepare, and the Parties shall file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT Case Co-ordinator Wednesday March 29, 2023.

12. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 14 below. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.

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

14. On or before Friday April 14, 2023, the Parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other Parties and to the OLT Case Co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

15. On or before Friday April 14, 2023, a Participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other Parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. 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 Friday May 12, 2023, the Parties may provide to all other Parties and the OLT Case Co-ordinator any written response to any written evidence in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

17. On or before Monday May 29, 2023, the Parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other Parties and the OLT Case Co-ordinator in accordance with paragraph 23 below. If a model will be used, all Parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

18. The Parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT Case Co-ordinator on or before Friday June 2, 2023.

19. Any documents which may be used by a Party in cross examination of an opposing Party’s witness may be provided in a format that is password protected and only accessible to the Tribunal and the other Parties if it is introduced as evidence at the hearing. Any such documents shall be provided prior to the commencement of the cross examination of the witness.

20. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the Moving Party provide copies of the motion to all other Parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

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

22. The Parties shall prepare and file a draft hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Friday June 2, 2023, with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the Parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The Parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

23. All filings shall be submitted electronically. 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.

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

This Member is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE:

Name of Member:

Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

Attachment 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
Monday February 13, 2023	Applicant to provide any revised plans
Friday February 24, 2023	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines, and order to be called)
Wednesday March 15, 2023	Experts meeting prior to this date
Wednesday March 29, 2023	Experts’ Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues
Friday April 14, 2023	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
Friday May 12, 2023	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements
Monday May 29, 2023	Exchange of Visual Evidence
Friday June 2, 2023	Joint Document Book filed with Tribunal
Friday June 2, 2023	Hearing Plan filed with Tribunal
Monday June 12, 2023	Hearing commences

Attachment 2

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

PARTIES

1. Shimvest Investments Limited Meaghan McDermid Davies Howe LLP The Tenth Floor 425 Adelaide Street West Toronto, ON M5V 3C1 meaghanm@davieshowe.com Tel: 416-263-4514 Fax: 416-997-8931

2. Town of Aurora Denise Baker WeirFoulds LLP Suite 10, 1525 Cornwall Road Oakville, ON L6J 0B2 dbaker@weirfoulds.com Tel: 416-947-5090

3. Regional Municipality of York Mercedes Mueller Regional Municipality of York 17250 Yonge Street Newmarket, ON L3Y 6Z1 Mercedes.mueller@york.ca Tel: 905-830-4444 ext. 71435

Participants

1. Cynthia Xu xu.cynthia@gmail.com
2. Michael Visconti viscomike@hotmail.com
3. Guxiaowan Zhong zhongmini@hotmail.com
4. Zhao Henry yangguang333333@gmail.com
5. Ye Liu arielqiqi321@gmail.com
6. Shuk Man Lo smshukman@gmail.com
7. Mary Guo winwin70707@gmail.com
8. Loritta Chan loritta_chan@yahoo.com
9. Han Zhang tom.han.zhang@gmail.com
10. David Tang d3tang@gmail.com
11. Jack Qi Jia jack7jia@gmail.com
12. Christy Xie christy.txie@gmail.com
13. Ryan Hamid ryan.e.hamid@gmail.com
14. Lilian Wang lilianwang0719@gmail.com
15. Yajing Zhang yajing.z0811@gmail.com
16. Ricky Lam wkrlam@msn.com
17. Edmund Yeung yesedmund@outlook.com

Attachment 3

ISSUES LIST

The identification of an issue does not mean that all parties agree that such issues, 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.

Issues List of Town of Aurora

1. Do the proposed amendments have regard for matters of Provincial interest as outlined in the Planning Act including the provision of affordable housing?

2. Are the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) given the location and context of the subject lands, and the level of intensification proposed, and with specific consideration for PPS sections 1.1.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.4, 1.4.3, 1.5.1, 1.6.7.1, 1.6.7.2, 1.6.7.4, 4.2, and 4.6?

3. Are the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment in conformity with to A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019), as amended, given the proposed scale of development, specifically considering policies 1.2.1, 2.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.2(3), 5.2.5(6), 5.2.5(8)?

4. Does the proposed development conform to the policies in the Aurora Official Plan, including the Urban Design and Amenity policies, the Residential Neighbourhood policies, the Urban Residential 2 Designation policies, Wellhead Protection Area policies, and policies 7.1.3, and 7.2.2?

5. Does the Proposed Development represent appropriate urban design in addressing matters including height, density, massing, bulk, scale, siting, transitions, building articulation, setbacks, stepbacks, yards, buffers, and screening, having regard for the subject lands and the character of the surrounding lands?

6. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for the Urban and Architectural Design Guidelines for the 2C West Secondary Plan Area?

7. Does the Proposed Development represent an appropriate height, level of density and intensification for the subject lands?

8. Does the proposed development represent an overdevelopment of the subject lands?

9. Is the proposed development in the public interest and does it represent good planning?

10. Does the Proposed Development provide indoor and outdoor amenity area in sufficient amounts and with appropriate configuration and design to accommodate the leisure and recreation needs of future residents?

11. Can the proposed density be accommodated by the existing road network?

12. Does the Proposed Development provide for appropriate streetscapes given that the subject lands are located at a Major Gateway?

13. Is there an appropriate public-private interface, with consideration for the site’s context and the proposed residential uses at grade?

14. Have all of the technical comments pertaining to the site plan application been addressed?

15. What are the appropriate conditions of site plan approval under s.41(7) of the Planning Act?

Issues List of Region of York

16. Does the proposed development satisfy York Region’s site plan requirements?

Attachment 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Shimvest Investments Limited
2. Town of Aurora
3. Region of York
4. Reply by Shimvest Investments Limited, if any

Attachment 5

PURPOSE OF PROCEDURAL ORDER

Case Management Conferences are scheduled by the Tribunal to organize the Hearing. This sample procedural order is provided to identify who may participate in the Hearing, the issues in dispute, and the matters that are required to be carried out before the Hearing. The attachment to this sample procedural order explains the meaning of a number of terms in the sample procedural order, such as a Party or a Participant.

The Tribunal recommends that the appellant, municipality, the applicant (if applicable), or those who wish to seek Party status in this proceeding, meet to discuss this sample procedural order before the date of the Case Management Conference and try to identify the issues and process they want the Tribunal to Order following the conference. The Tribunal will hear submissions on the content of this procedural order at the case management conference and issue a procedural order at a later date.

If you are not represented by a lawyer, you should prepare by reviewing the Appeal Guide matching your appeal type and the Tribunal’s Rules from the Tribunal, which are available on the Tribunal’s website

meaning of terms used in the procedural order

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

NOTE that a person who wishes to become a Party before or at the Hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

A Participant is an individual, group, or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A Participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the Hearing (only a Party may do so). Subsection 33.2 of the Local Planning Appeal 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 Party should the Tribunal direct a Participant to attend a Hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Information

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

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

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