Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 4, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002912
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Bayview Broadway Developments Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: to permit development of a 25 storey, 288 unit development
Reference Number: 21 233980 NNY 15 OZ
Property Address: 1837-1845 Bayview Avenue
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No: OLT-22-002912
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002912
OLT Case Name: Bayview Broadway Developments Inc. v. Toronto (City.)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, R.S.O. 2006, c. 11, as amended
Subject: Site Plan
Description: to permit development of a 25 storey, 288 unit development
Reference Number: 21 250187 NNY 15 SA
Property Address: 1837-1845 Bayview Avenue
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No: OLT-22-002913
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002912
Heard: September 20, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Bayview Broadway Developments Inc.
Marc Flowers and Hannah Ruby
City of Toronto
Jessica Braun and Jessica Jakubowski (in absentia)
Bayview Broadway Good Planning Inc.
Isaac Tang
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY M.A. SILLS ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This was the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) regarding an appeal by Bayview Broadway Developments Inc. (“Applicant/Appellant”) from the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to make a decision on an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) for the lands municipally known as 1837 – 1845 Bayview Avenue (“subject property”). The Appellant also has appealed from the failure of the City to approve a related Site Plan Approval application.
2The Applicant is proposing to construct a 25-storey residential building with commercial uses on the ground floor on the subject property.
3Following from the first CMC, the Tribunal considered additional requests for Participant status, but from only those individuals that had submitted Participant Status Requests forms in advance of the first CMC and were unable to connect to the CMC due to a disruption in internet service.
4Accordingly, the Tribunal further grants Participant status to the following individuals: Geeta Thomas, Graeme Schmidt, Janice Mitchell, Laurie Sims, Linda Vranic, Marie Fullerton, Michael Manion and Peter Shepard.
5No further requests for Party or Participant status will be accepted.
6Subsequent to the first CMC, the Leaside Residents Association (“LRA”), represented by Douglas Obright and granted Participant status at the first CMC, submitted a list of issues and requested that these be included on BBGPI’s Issues List.
7By way of explanation, the intent of the Tribunal at the first CMC was to provide an opportunity for the LRA ‘to further refine its’ original submission materials’, which essentially amounted to a non-expert planning policy analysis. The expectation was that the LRA would submit a Participant Statement detailing its’ specific concerns about the proposal.
8Notwithstanding that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to compel the BBGPI to adopt and consequently provide justification for the issues identified by the LRA, in this case, the BBGPI has not provided an independent issues list, opting rather to adopt the Issues List of the City.
9A 14-day hearing has been scheduled beginning on October 17, 2023.
10Parties 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
11Parties 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.
12Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (Toll-Free) 1(888) 299-1889. Access Code is 979-388-733.
13Individuals 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 video hearing 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.
14No further notice will be given.
15The Procedure Order to govern the conduct of the hearing appended to this Order as Attachment 1 is approved and is in force and effect as at the date of issue of this decision.
16This Member is not seized.
“M.A Sills”
m.a. sills
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
Ontario Land Tribunal
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Bayview Broadway Developments Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law - Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Purpose: To permit development of a 25 storey, 288 unit development
Property Address/Description: 1837-1845 Bayview Avenue
Municipality: City of Toronto
Municipal File No.: 21 233980 NNY 15 OZ
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002912
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002912
OLT Case Name: Bayview Broadway Developments Inc. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, as amended
Referred by: Bayview Broadway Developments Inc.
Subject: Site Plan
Property Address/Description: 1837-1845 Bayview Avenue
Municipality: City of Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002913
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002912
OLT Case Name: Bayview Broadway Developments Inc. v. Toronto (City)
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
The video hearing will begin on Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 10:00 A.M. No further notice shall be required.
The length of the hearing will be approximately 14 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 parties and participants (see Attachment “4” for the meaning of these terms) identified at the Case Management Conference are listed in Attachment “1” to this Order.
The preliminary issues for the hearing are set out in the Preliminary Issues List attached as Attachment “2” to this Order. The City’s final Issues List will be provided no later January 30, 2023, following receipt of City Council instructions. Bayview Broadway Good Planning Inc. is entitled to maintain the City’s Preliminary Issues List, or adopt the City’s final Issues List, at that time. There will be no changes to the final Issues 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.
The Order of Evidence for the hearing is listed 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 the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.
Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal 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 and the phone number as soon as possible.
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
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 are intended to be called. This list must be delivered on or before Friday, June 16, 2023 and in accordance with paragraph 22 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 proposed to be qualified.
Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Friday, July 21, 2023 to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting, and if there is agreement, the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case coordinator on or before Friday, August 4, 2023.
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 13. 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.
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 13. 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 13 below.
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 Friday, April 21, 2023. The applicant acknowledges that any revisions to the proposal after that date without the consent of the Parties may be grounds for a request to adjourn the hearing.
On or before Friday, August 18, 2023, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case coordinator and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.
On or before Monday, September 11, 2023, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.
Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case coordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before Friday, September 15, 2023 and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.
The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case coordinator on or before Friday, October 6, 2023.
On or before Monday, October 2, 2023, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.
Any documents which may be used by a party in cross examination of an opposing party’s witness shall be password protected and only be accessible to the Tribunal and the other parties if it is introduced as evidence at the hearing, pursuant to the directions provided by the OLT case coordinator.
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.
A party who provides a witness’ written evidence or expert witness statement 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 prior to the hearing that same is not part of their record.
The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Monday, October 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.
All filings shall be electronic to the Tribunal, the Parties and Participants, and, if requested by the Tribunal, also in hard copy. 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 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, or as may be amended. Section 22 applies regardless if the hearing event is in person or electronic.
No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.
This Member is not seized. So Orders the Tribunal.
SUMMARY OF DATES
DATE
EVENT
Friday, April 21, 2023
Applicant shall provide copies of any revised proposal, including all revised plans, drawings, proposed instruments, updated supporting documents and reports to the other Parties, if applicable
Friday, June 16, 2023
Parties to exchange lists of witnesses (names, disciplines, and intended order to be called)
Friday, July 21, 2023
Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting
Friday, August 4, 2023
Parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues, if there is agreement
Friday, August 18, 2023
Witness Statements, expert reports and the written evidence of witnesses to be exchanged
Monday, September 11, 2023
Parties to confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.
Friday, September 15, 2023
Reply Witness Statements and the reply to written evidence of witnesses (if any) to be exchanged
Friday, October 6, 2023
Joint document book to be filed
Monday, October 2, 2023
Parties to exchange copies of visual evidence
Monday, October 2, 2023
Parties to file draft hearing plan with the OLT case coordinator
Tuesday, October 17, 2023
Hearing commences
Attachment 1
LIST OF PARTIES
Party
- Bayview Broadway Developments Inc.
Mark Flowers and Hannah Ruby Davies Howe LLP The Tenth Floor 425 Adelaide Street West Toronto, ON M5V 3C1 Email: markf@davieshowe.com and hannahr@davieshowe.com Tel: 416-977-7088 Fax: 416-977-8931
- City of Toronto
Jessica Braun and Jessica Jakubowski City of Toronto Legal Services Planning & Administrative Tribunal Law Section | 55 John Street, 26th Floor Toronto, ON M5V 3C6 Email: Jessica.Braun@toronto.ca and Jessica.Jakubowski@toronto.ca Tel: 416-392-7237 Fax: 416-397-5624
- Bayview Broadway Good Planning Inc.
Isaac Tang and Lee English Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Bay Adelaide Centre, East Tower 22 Adelaide Street West Toronto, ON M5H 4E3 Email: itang@blg.com and lenglish@blg.com Tel: 416-367-6143 / 416-367-6169 Fax: 416-367-6749
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Leaside Residents Association gkettel@gmail.com and dobright@primus.ca
Grace Saati gsaati@gmail.com
Michael Rapson mkrapson@gmail.com
Clare Barry clarebarry@me.com
Nancy Parker camplake@gmail.com
Marina Bass marina.bass@gmail.com
Jill Hamilton jill.hamilton@sympatico.ca
Cathy McKeever cathymckeever@bell.net
Simon Graham simon.graham@utoronto.ca
Alla Prutkin alla_can@hotmail.com
Paul Manley paul.manley@rogers.com
Louise Brisbois lbrisbois@yahoo.ca
Chandra Dawn Bethune Bethune.Design@me.com
Edward Quan equan417@rogers.com and mholland@rogers.com
Geeta Thomas jerryandgeeta@gmail.com
Graeme Schmidt sgraeme06@gmail.com
Janice Mitchell janicemarymitchell@gmail.com
Laurie Sims laurieto@rogers.com
Linda Vranic lmvranic@gmail.com
Marie Fullerton mail@mariefullerton.com
Michael Manion mike.to@outlook.com
Peter Shepard shep81@sympatico.ca
Attachment 2
PRELIMINARY ISSUES LIST
The identification of an issue on this list does not mean that all parties agree that the issue, or the manner in which it is expressed, is appropriate for or relevant to the proper determination of the appeals. The extent of the appropriateness and/or relevance of the issue may be a matter of evidence and/or argument at the hearing.
CITY OF TORONTO
Are the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with the purposes of the Planning Act as set out in Section 1.1 of the Planning Act?
Do the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest as set out in subsections 2(f), (h), (n), (p), (q), and (r) of the Planning Act?
Provincial Policy Statement (2020)
- Are the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) pursuant to Section 3 of the Planning Act, including Policies 1.1.1(g), 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, 1.2.1(a), 1.5, 1.7.1(d) and (e), and 4.6?
A Place to Grow – Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020)
- Do the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment conform to and not conflict with A Place to Grow - Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020), including Policies 2.2.1.4 (e), 2.2.2.3(b), (d) and (f), 2.2.5.3 and 5.2.5.6?
City of Toronto Official Plan
- Do the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment conform with the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan (“the Official Plan”) with respect to the Mixed Use Areas (4.5), Neighbourhoods (4.1), Healthy Neighbourhoods (2.3.1), the Built Environment (3.1), the Human Environment (3.2), the Natural Environment (specifically policies 3.4.1(f) and 3.4.2), and Implementation (5), among others?
Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan (OPA 405)
- Do the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment conform with the policies of the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan (OPA 405), being Chapter 6, Section 21 of the Official Plan, with respect to the following: Vision Statement (1.1), Goals (1.2), Character Areas (1.3), Area Structure (2), Midtown Transit Station Areas (2.4), Land Use (2.5), Retail Streets (2.6), Parks and Public Realm (3), Mobility (4), Built Form (5), Housing (7), Making it Happen (Implementation) (9), and Interpretation (10), among others?
Built Form
Is the Site appropriate for a tall building or a mid-rise building?
Are the built form type, height, density, massing, location, placement and scale of the proposed development appropriate, given principles of good planning and urban design, including the following: the relationship of the proposed development to the surrounding planned and existing context, transition to adjacent and nearby Neighbourhoods lands that are outside of OPA 405 area, shadow impacts, the public realm, and such further issues as are more particularly set out below?
Does the proposed development fit appropriately within the existing and planned built form context, with regard to its setbacks, stepbacks, relative grade, height, density, angular plane, and other aspects, including base building and tower placement, separation and design (if it is determined that a tall building is appropriate for the site)?
Does the proposed development establish appropriate relationships at grade, including setbacks, streetwalls, and the provision of an appropriate pedestrian realm including contributions to streetscaping, public spaces, and private open spaces?
Is the Site appropriately organized to minimize impacts within the site, surrounding areas, and the public realm, and improve the safety and attractiveness thereof including vehicular street access, driveways, ramps, drive aisles, bicycle and vehicle parking, loading, servicing, storage areas, utilities, and related structures?
Guidelines
If it is determined that a tall building is appropriate for the site, does the proposed development meet the intent and purpose of the Tall Building Design Guidelines?
Given the size, location and context of the site, is it more appropriate for development on the site to meet the intent and purpose of the Mid-Rise Buildings Performance Standards and Addendum?
Does the proposed development meet the intent and purpose of the Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities (2020)?
Does the proposed development meet the intent and purpose of the Pet Friendly Design Guidelines and Best Practices for New Multi-Unit Buildings?
Site Specific Issues
- Does the proposed development represent good land use planning and urban design, having regard to matters such as:
a) adequate alterations of the proposed development, below/at/above-grade, to preserve the healthy, private trees along the easterly boundary;
b) provision of soil volume in accordance with Section EC 1.1 of the Toronto Green Standard, and the appropriate configuration of the soil in relationship to the adjacent public realm, below-/above-/at- grade utilities, and vehicular facilities including the below-grade parking garage;
c) appropriateness of the grade- or ground-level buffering along the easterly property boundary, to mitigate nuisance impacts such as noise, light, and privacy overlook?
Should the proposed development include a landscaped midblock connection along the east lot line to allow future pedestrian movements between Broadway Avenue and Craig Crescent, to realize area-wide public realm policies in Section 3.1 of OPA 405?
Does the proposed development provide an appropriate transportation demand management strategy that satisfies Official Plan policies 2.4.2, 2.4.3, and 2.4.9?
Are the water, wastewater, stormwater, and other essential infrastructure of the site and surrounding areas and other relevant areas, able to accommodate the proposed development?
Are the transportation-related facilities of the proposed development, adequate and appropriate based on the questions, comments, standards and requirements detailed in the Part I, Sections ‘A’ and ‘B’ of the Engineering and Construction Services Memorandum dated December 30, 2021?
Are the shadows cast on the adjacent St Augustine of Canterbury Anglican Church and the Children's Garden Nursery School by the proposed development appropriate?
Public Interest and Good Planning
- Is the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment good planning and in the public interest?
Order if approved
- In the event that the proposed development is approved in whole or in part, should the Tribunal Order be withheld until the Tribunal has been advised by the City Solicitor that:
a) the final form of the zoning by-law amendment is finalized, satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
b) the owner has submitted architectural plans and landscaping plans reflecting the proposal as approved in whole or in part, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
c) the owner has submitted an updated complete Toronto Green Standards (TGS) Checklist and Statistics Template;
d) 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 and that such matters arising from such study be secured if required;
e) the owner has satisfactorily addressed the Transportation Services matters in the Engineering and Construction Services Memorandum dated December 30, 2021, and matters that may arise during the course of the application, all to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services;
f) the owner has satisfactorily addressed matters from Engineering and Construction Services and Solid Waste Management Services, outlined in Part I, Sections A and B of the Engineering and Construction Services Memorandum dated December 30, 2021, and matters that may arise during the course of the application, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services?
BAYVIEW BROADWAY GOOD PLANNING INC. (“BBGPI”)
BBGPI adopts the City of Toronto’s Preliminary Issues List and reserves its rights to proceed with calling evidence and/or argument on such issues at the hearing.
BAYVIEW BROADWAY DEVELOPMENTS INC.
Site Plan
- If the site plan application is to be approved, what are the appropriate conditions of approval?
Attachment 3
Order of Evidence
Bayview Broadway Developments Inc.
City of Toronto
Bayview Broadway Good Planning Inc.
Reply of Bayview Broadway Developments Inc., if any
Attachment 4
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.