Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: September 27, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001257

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

Applicant and Appellant: DVP Hotel Development LP

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit four mixed-use buildings

Reference Number: 20 198704 NNY 16 OZ

Property Address: 175 Wynford Drive

Municipality/UT: North York/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001257

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001257

OLT Case Name: DVP Hotel Development LP v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Applicant and Appellant: DVP Hotel Development LP

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision

Description: To permit four mixed-use buildings

Reference Number: 21 201465 NNY 16 SB

Property Address: 175 Wynford Drive

Municipality/UT: North York/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004355

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001257

Heard: September 7, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel

DVP Hotel Development LP Andrew Jeanrie

Toronto Regional Conservation Authority Barbara Montgomery

City of Toronto Laura Bisset Jason Davidson

Toronto Lands Corporation, as agent of the Toronto District School Board Julie Lesage (in absentia) Pitman Patterson

IMARA National Kacie Layton Andrew Biggart (in absentia) Christina Kapelos (in absentia)

Don Mills Residents Inc. Conner Harris Sarah Spitz

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. deBOER ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1This Decision and Order results from the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) conducted in respect of the Appeal from DVP Hotel Development LP (“DVP”) pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act against the City of Toronto’s (“City”) failure to make a decision within the statutory time frames regarding DVP’s proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) for the property municipally known as 175 Wynford Drive (“Subject Property”).

2The application under Appeal proposes to amend the former City of North York Zoning By-law No. 7626, as amended by By-law No. 112-2016 and Toronto Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as amended.

3The Tribunal had previously marked the Affidavit of Service of the Notice of the CMC sworn by Robert Wayne Blunt on March 29, 2022 as Exhibit 1 at the first CMC.

Request for Party and Participant Status

4The Tribunal did not receive any further party or status requests for this CMC.

Opportunities for Settlement Discussion

5The Parties have requested mediation and the dates for this will be finalized on September 12, 2022. Mediation may provide a settlement before the beginning of the hearing or may reduce the issues to be resolved at the hearing.

6Since mediation has been requested and the dates for mediation will not be finalized until September 12, 2022, the final Procedural Order will be submitted to the Tribunal no later than September 16, 2022. If the Tribunal has any concerns with the Procedural Order, the Tribunal may issue a third Case Management Conference at its discretion.

Finalization of a Procedural Order

7Since the time of this CMC, a final Procedural Order has been submitted and approved by the Tribunal. This Procedural order will now govern the process of the hearing which is to commence on Monday April 24, 2023 at 10 a.m. for a duration of ten (10) days.

8Should the parties require less time than what is scheduled, the parties are to notify the Tribunal Registrar as to the required time change so the Tribunal can release the dates in the Tribunal calendar.

9Parties 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:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/979388733

Access code: 979-388-733

10Parties 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.

11Persons 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 979-388-733.

12Individuals 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

13The hearing will commence by video hearing on Monday April 24, 2023 for a duration of ten (10) days and shall be governed by the Procedural Order and Issues List, which is attached as Schedule 1 to this Decision. As such, it is in full force and effect.

14This Member is not seized, however, may assist with case management, schedules permitting.

15No further notice will be given.

“s. deBoer”

S. deBOER

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

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001257

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

Applicant and Appellant: DVP Hotel Development LP

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit four mixed-use buildings

Reference Number: 20 198704 NNY 16 OZ

Property Address: 175 Wynford Drive

Municipality/UT: North York/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001257

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001257

OLT Case Name: DVP Hotel Development LP v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Applicant and Appellant: DVP Hotel Development LP

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision

Description: To permit four mixed-use buildings

Reference Number: 21 201465 NNY 16 SB

Property Address: 175 Wynford Drive

Municipality/UT: North York/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004355

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001257

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

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will begin on April 24, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. using the following log-in information: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/979388733 Access Code: 979-388-733.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. Expert witnesses in the same discipline(s) 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 (15) days prior to the date for Expert Witness Statements as stated in Section 14 (on or before February 2, 2023), 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, a copy of the witness' Curriculum Vitae and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered at least one hundred and eight (108) calendar days before the hearing (on or before January 4, 2023). 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 January 20, 2023) (111 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 witness or participant must provide to the Tribunal and the Parties a witness statement or participant statement, respectively, at least sixty-five (65) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before February 17, 2023), or the witness or participant may not give oral evidence at the hearing. Participants are only permitted to provide written evidence to the Tribunal, unless otherwise permitted by the Tribunal.

13. Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the Party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence, as in Section 14.

14. At least sixty-five (65) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before February 17, 2023), 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-five (45) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before March 10, 2023), the Parties may provide to all other Parties a written response to any written evidence.

16. At least forty (40) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before March 15, 2023), the Parties shall advise the Tribunal of whether any hearings dates scheduled for this matter may be released from the Tribunal's calendar. This request may only be made on consent of all of the Parties. If no hearing dates are intended to be released from the Tribunal's calendar, no Party is required to advise the Tribunal anything further in that regard.

17. At least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before March 24, 2023), the Parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other Parties. The Tribunal and all Parties shall be notified if a model will be used, all Parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the scheduled commencement of the hearing.

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

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

20. On or before (on or before March 24, 2023), (thirty (30) 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 should be adhered to guide the Hearing Event to the best ability of all the Parties, and any and all witnesses shall be available on the identified date(s), unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the Work Plan throughout the Hearing Event.

21. The Parties shall prepare a Joint Document Book on or before (on or before April 4, 2023), (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 23.

22. If the applicant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing, the applicant shall provide copies of the revised proposal, including all revised plans, drawings, proposed instruments, updated supporting documents and reports, to the other Parties on or before (on or before December 2, 2022), (seventy-six (76) 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.

23. All filing of documents and materials shall be electronic to the Tribunal, the Parties and Participants (if any). The Tribunal will be provided a hard copy of documents and materials in advance of the hearing event as soon as practicable. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents email shall be governed by the Rule 7. All documents to be filed with the Tribunal shall be organized, tabbed and digitally searchable and such materials will be filed in accordance with directions contained in the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, dated July 2, 2020, or as may be amended. Section 23 applies regardless if the hearing event is in-person or electronic.

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

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

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

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE EVENT

December 2, 2022 (76 days before Witness Statement Date) Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any)

January 4, 2023 (108 days prior to hearing) Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)

January 20, 2023 (111 days prior to hearing) Last date to challenge identification of expert witness

to be set Experts meeting prior to this date

to be set Agreed Statement of Facts

February 17, 2023 (65 days prior to hearing) Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements

March 10, 2023 (45 days prior to hearing) Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)

March 15, 2023 (40 days prior to hearing) Parties to Advise Tribunal if any hearing dates are to be released from the hearing calendar (if any)

March 24, 2023 (30 days prior to hearing) Exchange of visual evidence (if any)

March 24, 2023 (30 days prior to hearing) Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal

April 4, 2023 (20 days prior to hearing) Finalize Joint Document Book

April 24, 2023 Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

A. PARTIES

Counsel

City of Toronto

Jason Davidson Laura Bisset City of Toronto, Legal Services Metro Hall, 26th Floor 55 John Street Toronto ON M5V 3C6 E-mail: jason.davidson@toronto.ca Tel: (416) 392-4835 E-mail: laura.bisset@toronto.ca Tel: (416) 392-8782

Appellant: DVP Hotel Development LP

Andrew Jeanrie Bennett Jones LLP 3400 One First Canadian Place PO Box 130 Toronto ON M5X 1A4 E-mail: jeanriea@bennettjones.com Tel.: 416-777-4814

Party: IMARA National

Andrew Biggart Christina Kapelos Ritchie Ketcheson Hart & Biggart LLP 1 Eva Road Etobicoke ON M9C 4Z5 E-mail: abiggart@ritchieketcheson.com Tel.: 416-622-6601 E-mail: tkapelos@ritchieketcheson.com

Party: Don Mills Residents Inc.

Conner Harris Sarah Spitz Rayman Beitchman LLP 250 Yonge Street, Suite 2200 PO Box 4 Toronto ON M5B 2L7 E-mail: connor@rbllp.com Tel.: 416-597-5422 E-mail: sarah@rbllp.com Tel.: 416-306-8705

Party: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

Barbara Montgomery Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 101 Exchange Avenue Vaughan ON L4K 5R6 E-mail: barbara.montgomery@trca.ca Tel.: 416-417-8275

Party: Toronto Lands Corporation, as agent for the Toronto District School Board

Julie Lesage Pitman Patterson Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Bay Adelaide Centre, East Tower 22 Adelaide Street West Toronto ON M5H 4E3 E-mail: jlesage@blg.com Tel.: 416-367-6276 E-mail: ppatterson@blg.com Tel.: 416-367-6109

B. PARTICIPANTS

Participant: Oma Sewhdat

E-mail: sewhdat@gmail.com Tel.: 289-380-8203

Participant: Cameron Ridsdale

E-mail: ridsdale@yahoo.com Tel.: 416-925-8686

Participant: Florence Arlene Mawson

E-mail: arlenemawson@gmail.com Tel.: 416-489-6775

Participant: Pascal Dang

E-mail: pdang@gmail.com

Participant: Vaino Einola

E-mail: vainoeinola@sympatico.ca Tel.: 416-391-4398

Participant: Iris Singh

E-mail: irissingh2@gmail.com Tel.: 416-435-1480

Participant: Elaine Selke Representative: Judith McMahon

E-mail: elaineselke@rogers.com Tel.: 416-229-1387 E-mail: jmcmahon349@hotmail.com Tel.: 416-281-6203

Participant: Linda O'Reilly Representative: Judith McMahon

E-mail: lgcor@hotmail.com Tel.: 647-435-9873 E-mail: jmcmahon349@hotmail.com Tel.: 416-580-9701

Participant: Margaret Allen

E-mail: dandma@sympatico.ca Tel.: 416-423-2152

Participant: Maureen Kaukinen

E-mail: mkaukinen@sympatico.ca Tel.: 416-447-0381

Participant: Kevin Meschino

E-mail: kevin.meschino@gmail.com Tel.: 416-791-3419

Participant: Richard MacFarlane

E-mail: rnmacfarlane@gmail.com Tel.: 416-484-4560

Participant: Dilys Jones Representative: Cameron Risdale

E-mail: dilysjones@rogers.com Tel.: 416-385-9418 E-mail: risdale@yahoo.com Tel.: 416-925-8686

Participant: Judith McMahon

E-mail: jmcmahon349@hotmail.com Tel.: 416-281-6203

Participant: Irene Miao-Glass

E-mail: imiaoglass@gmail.com Tel.: 416-422-4327

Participant: Michele Boissiere

E-mail: mboissiere121@gmail.com Tel.: 416-425-3523

Participant: Gerald Mawson

E-mail: arlenemawson1@gmail.com Tel.: 416-489-6775

Participant: Terrie Miller

E-mail: terriemiller@sympatico.ca Tel.: 647-633-0786

Participant: Daniel Serbert Representative: Lorna Eaton-Serbert

E-mail: lornaeatonca@yahoo.com Tel.: 416-543-5629 E-mail: lornaeatonca@yahoo.com Tel.: 416-543-5629

Participant: Marlene Evans-Waisglass

Email: marwaisglass@rogers.com Tel.: 416-445-8248

Participant: Aminmohomed Premji Representative: Irene Miao-Glass

E-mail: aminmohomedpremji@gmail.com Tel.: 416-691-4201 E-mail: imiaoglass@gmail.com Tel.: 416-422-4327

Participant: Patricia Szego

E-mail: patszego@gmail.com Tel.: 416-751-9621

Participant: Judith Halmos-Stark

E-mail: judithstark@hotmail.com Tel.: 416-446-1448

Participant: Craig Hunter

E-mail: rcraighunter@gmail.com Tel.: 416-456-3663

Participant: Delmanor Wynford Inc.

Kelly Oksenberg E-mail: koksenberg@tridel.com Tel.: 647-973-6697

Participant: Karl Frank

E-mail: k.frank@sympatico.ca

Participant: JoAnne Stock

E-mail: joanne.stock@rogers.com Tel.: 416-391-1980

Participant: Nancy VanDerSluis Representative: Irene Miao-Glass

E-mail: nevgirl@icloud.com Tel.: 647-449-0233 E-mail: imiaoglass@gmail.com Tel.: 416-422-4327

Participant: Beryl Macleod Representative: Richard MacFarlane

E-mail: bea-mail@rogers.com Tel.: 416-441-2343 or 416-560-5650 E-mail: rnmacfarlane@gmail.com Tel.: 416-484-4560

Participant: Carlos Arturo Ramirez

E-mail: eramirezcarlos@gmail.com

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUES LIST

NOTE: The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the Tribunal or any Party that the issue is either relevant, appropriate, or that a given issue correctly states the applicable law or test to be applied to the matter before the Tribunal. The identification of an issue on this list by a Party indicates that Party’s intent to lead evidence or argue that the issue is relevant to the proceeding, for the purpose of fairly identifying to the other Parties the case they need to meet and shall not be construed as the Tribunal have jurisdiction over such matters in each circumstance or that any Party has retained all of its right to make arguments or bring evidence as to whether an issue itself is appropriate, represents the applicable law or the test to be applied, and/or is good planning. Accordingly, no Party shall advance an issue not identified on the Issues List without leave of the Tribunal.

A. DVP Hotel Development

1. Is the proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment good planning and in the public interest?

B. City of Toronto

1. Do the proposed development and zoning by-law amendment represent good planning?

2. Do the proposed development and zoning by-law amendment have regard to the matters of provincial interest listed in Section 2 of the Planning Act?

3. Are the proposed development and zoning by-law amendment consistent with 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, and 4.6 of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020?

4. Do the proposed development and zoning by-law amendment conform with 1.2.1, 2.2.4, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 3.2 the Growth Plan, 2019, as amended?

5. Do the proposed development and zoning by-law amendment represent good planning, have regard to the matters of provincial interest, and conform with the Toronto Official Plan?

6. Land Use

Does the proposed development and zoning by-law amendment adequately contribute to creating a complete community, in relation to the proposed non-residential gross floor area?

Site Organization

7. Does the proposed site organization, including the proposed public street, location of buildings, setbacks, location of non-residential uses and servicing, the location and configuration of the park, the manner in which the public realm elements fit and connect within the broader area to create a development that will adequately function as a complete community?

8. Does the proposed development provide an appropriate connection to the LRT station on Eglinton Avenue East, across the private driveway?

9. Height & Density

a. Is the height and density of the proposed development and zoning by-law amendment good planning? Is the proposed height and density appropriate for the site? In particular:

i. Does the proposal have regard for the Planning Act, particularly subsections 2(h) and (p)?

ii. Does the proposal conform with the Toronto Official Plan?

iii. Does the proposal have appropriate regard for the Tall Building Guidelines?

10. Built form

Do the proposed development and zoning by-law amendment provide for a built form that is good planning? Is the proposed built form appropriate in terms of massing and transition? In particular:

a. Does the proposal have regard for the Planning Act, particularly subsections 2(h) and (p)?

b. Does the proposal conform with the Toronto Official Plan?

c. Does the proposal have appropriate regard for the Tall Building Guidelines?

11. Housing

Does the proposed development reflect the Official Plan's city-wide goals of providing a full range of housing in terms of form, tenure, and affordability?

12. Shadow Impact

Is the shadow impact of the proposed development on the public realm, open spaces, and the proposed public street and park acceptable?

13. Wind

Is the wind impact of the proposed development acceptable? In particular on the public realm, open spaces, proposed public street and park, and outdoor amenity areas.

14. Parkland

a. Does the proposed development and proposed parkland dedication conform to Policy 3.2.3 of the City of Toronto Official Plan?

b. Has a parkland dedication of an appropriate size, location and configuration been proposed under Section 42 of the Planning Act?

c. Has a parkland dedication been provided which conforms to Chapter 415 Article III of the Toronto Municipal Code?

15. Amenity Space

Does the proposed development and zoning by-law amendment provide sufficient indoor and outdoor amenity space?

16. Transportation

Do the proposed development and zoning by-law amendment provide sufficient parking for the development?

17. Order if approved

In the event the proposed development is approved in whole or in part, the Tribunal Order should be withheld until the following conditions are satisfied:

a. The final form and content of the zoning by-law amendment is to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

b. Where applicable, community benefits and other matters in support of the development are secured, as applicable, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor;

c. The Owner provides confirmation that the building envelope is outside of the required top-of-bank setback from the ravine to the north of the site, to the satisfaction of the TRCA;

d. The Owner has submitted a revised Arborist report and detailed landscape plans and addressed the outstanding issues from the Urban Forestry memo dated August 10, 2021, and the Urban Forestry- Ravine and Natural Feature Protection memo dated July 28,2021, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Parks Forestry and Recreation;

e. The Owner has addressed all outstanding issues raised by Engineering and Construction Services as they relate to the Zoning By-law Amendment application as set out in their memorandum dated August 11, 2021 or as may be updated in response to further submission(s) filed by the Applicant, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services; and,

f. The Owner has submitted a revised Travel Demand Management Plan acceptable to, and to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the General Manager, Transportation Services.

C. IMARA National (Ismaili Centre Toronto)

1. Would approval of the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment fulfil the purposes of the Planning Act, which are inter alia to provide for a land use planning system led by provincial policy, integrates matters of provincial interest in provincial and municipal planning decisions, and encourages co-operation among various interests?

2. Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment have regard to Section 2(f), (h), (i), (n), (o), (p), (q) and (r) of the Planning Act?

3. Is the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment consistent the Provincial Policy Statement and, in particular, sections 1.1.1(a), (b), (c), (e), (g), 1.1.3.2(b), (c), (f), 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.7(b), 1.2.1(a), (d), 1.4.3(c), (d), (e), 1.6.1, 1.6.3, 1.6.7.1, 1.6.7.2, 1.6.7.4, 1.7.1(c), (e)?

4. Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019, as amended, and, in particular, sections 1.2.1, 1.2.3, 2.1, 2.2.1.2, 2.2.1.4(a), (d), (f), 3.1, 3.2.1.1, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.2.2, 3.2.2.4, 3.2.3, 5.1?

5. Should the objectives of the Focused Area Study be considered and applied when determining whether the subject application should be approved or refused?

6. Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and form of development conform to the City of Toronto Official Plan and, in particular, Policies in sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.2.1, 4.5.

7. Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and form of development meet the intent of the applicable Guidelines, including:

a. Tall Building Design Guidelines;

b. Toronto Complete Streets Guidelines;

8. Are the traffic studies conducted in support of the appeal complete and are there deficiencies within the studies?

9. Are the recommendations within the traffic studies conducted to support the appeal appropriate and should further amendments be made to the proposed development and proposed Zoning By-law to ensure that unacceptable traffic congestion will not occur on the site and upon the roadways in proximity to the proposed development?

10. Is the proposed parking rate appropriate or should it be modified to provide adequate parking?

11. Are the proposed height and density for the subject site appropriate when considering the applicable policies and guidelines as well as the physical constraints of the site.

D. Don Mills Residents Inc.

I. General

1. Do the applications and proposed development, or any proposed modifications thereto, represent good planning

2. Is a secondary planning exercise, and/or a Focused Area Study, appropriate for the area including the subject property to guide future development

a. Should the Focused Area Study set to commence in the Fall of 2022 be considered and applied when determining whether the subject application (or any modifications to it) should be approved or refused

3. Are the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications (including but not limited to: built form and urban design; proposed heights and densities) compatible with the existing neighbourhood

II. Urban Design and Built Form

1. Do the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications, conform to the City of Toronto Official Plan, including but not limited to policies 1, 2, and 3 of section 3.1.2, section 3.1.3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of section 3.1.4, section 3.2.1, and section 3.3

2. Do the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications, provide appropriate setbacks and tower separation

3. Do the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications, meet the general intent of the City of Toronto’s Urban Design Guidelines, including but not limited to:

a. Tall Buildings Urban Design Guidelines

b. Complete Streets Guidelines

c. Privately-Owned Publicly Accessible Spaces (POPS) Urban Design Guidelines

d. Toronto Accessibility Design Guidelines; and

e. Growing Up Urban Design Guidelines

III. Traffic Management and Parking

1. Are the traffic management studies carried out in support of the applications complete and appropriate

2. Do the applications, or any proposed modifications to them, include adequate traffic management measures considering the scale of the proposed development and other development in the surrounding area

3. Do the applications, or any proposed modifications to them, include adequate parking

4. Is a City-led parking and/or traffic management study appropriate for the larger area within which the applications are located

a. If so, what is the appropriate scope of such a study

5. Should a traffic plan during construction for the single roadway into, and out of, the site be prepared and if so, what kind of plan is appropriate

6. Do the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications, conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019), including but not limited to policies 3.2.2, 3.2.3, and 3.2.4

7. Are the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications, consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), including but not limited to policies 1.6.7 and 1.6.8

IV. Heights and Densities

1. Do the applications, or any modifications to the applications, conform to the City of Toronto Official Plan, including but not limited to policies 1 of section 2.1, section 2.2, section 3.3, section 4.2, and section 4.5

2. Do the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications, conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019), including but not limited to policies 2.2.1, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.6, 5.2.1, 5.2.4, and 5.2.5

3. Are the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications, consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), including but not limited to policies 1.1.1, 1.1.3, and 1.4

V. Public Realm, Community Services and Facilities

1. Do the applications, or any modifications to the applications, include adequate public realm resources and community services and facilities – including (but not limited to) childcare and school facilities

2. Do the applications, or any modifications to the applications, meet the directives of establishing a complete community

3. Do the applications, or any modifications to the applications, conform to the City of Toronto Official Plan, including but not limited to policies 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12 of section 2.3.1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 26 and 27 of section 3.1.1, 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7 of section 3.2.2, and 1, 3, 4, 5, and 8 of section 3.2.3

4. Do the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications, conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019), including but not limited to policies 2.2.1.4, 3.2.8 and 4.2.5

5. Are the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications, consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), including but not limited to policies 1.5, 1.6.1, 1.6.2, 1.6.3, 1.6.4, and 1.6.5

VI. Natural Heritage

1. Are the natural heritage studies carried out in support of the applications complete and appropriate

2. Do the applications, or any modifications to the applications, adequately consider natural heritage issues

3. Has preservation of mature trees and an appropriate tree canopy for streets, landscape, and parks in the area been adequately considered

4. Do the applications, or any modifications to the applications, conform to the City of Toronto Official Plan, including but not limited to policies 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, and 11 of section 2.3.2, 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 19, 20, and 21 of section 3.4, and section 4.3

5. Do the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications, conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019), including but not limited to 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.9, and 4.2.10

6. Are the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications, consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), including but not limited to policies 1.8 and 2.1

VII. Geotechnical Concerns

1. Are the geotechnical studies carried out in support of the applications complete and appropriate

2. Do the applications, or any modifications to the applications, adequately account for the geotechnical conditions of the area

VIII. Safety Concerns

1. Has an appropriate disaster management plan and/or study, including but not limited to the risk of derailment from rail corridors in the area, been undertaken with respect to the applications or any modifications to the applications

2. Have safety concerns about the nearby rail corridor, including risks of derailment and other adverse events, been adequately mitigated in the applications or any modifications to them

3. Do the studies performed by the proponent adequately examine all potential adverse scenarios and appropriately assess the risks arising therefrom

4. Do the applications, or any modifications to the applications, conform to the City of Toronto Official Plan, including but not limited to section 4.4

5. Do the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications, conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019), including but not limited to 3.2.5

6. Are the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications, consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), including but not limited to policies 1.6.4 and 1.6.8

E. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

1. Is the proposed amendment consistent with Sections 2.1 (Natural Features) and Section 3.1 (Natural Hazards) of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020?

2. Is the proposed amendment in conformity with the Natural Heritage System policies of the Toronto Official Plan?

3. Have all natural heritage features and all slope/erosion hazards been appropriately delineated and protected, with all applicable buffers applied?

4. Does the proposed ZBA demonstrate that all future building maintenance will be accommodated within the proposed property limits?

5. Has a minimum 3-metre setback been provided for the proposed buildings (above and below grade) measured inland from 10 metre valleyland buffer zone limit.

6. Does the Zoning By-law Amendment identify an acceptable natural heritage system including buffers within an Open Space block, and are appropriate Zoning By-law categories assigned to the block?

F. Toronto Lands Corporation, as agent for the Toronto District School Board

1. Does the proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment have regard to Section 2 (h), (i) (m) and (n) of the Planning Act?

2. Is the proposed Zoning By-Law 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 Zoning By-Law 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 Zoning By-Law Amendment contribute to the achievement of a complete community, as described under the Growth Plan?

4. Does the proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment conform with sections 3.2.2, 4.5.2(g), and 5.1.2 of the City’s Official Plan?

5. Is the approval of the proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment appropriate in the context of availability of school space and accommodation (community/public service facilities)?

6. Should the objectives of the Focused Area Study be considered and applied when determining whether the subject application should be approved or refused?

7. Is it appropriate and good planning to use a holding symbol or other requirement in the Zoning By-Law Amendment to phase development and ensure that educational facilities are developed and provided in tandem with the pace of growth?

8. Is it good planning to approve the Zoning By-Law Amendment without considering the cumulative impact of the other outstanding planning applications in the area on the ability of school facilities to accommodate growth including the subject development?

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

Note: Where Parties of like interest have issues in common, they shall make reasonable efforts to coordinate their examinations-in-chief and cross-examinations so as to minimize any duplication or overlap of evidence.

1. DVP Hotel Development LP
2. City of Toronto
3. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
4. Toronto Lands Corporation, as agent for the Toronto District School Board
5. IMARA National
6. Don Mills Residents Inc.
7. (Reply if any) DVP Hotel Development LP

ATTACHMENT 5

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.