Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 21, 2022 CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001745

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

Appellant: Future Delight Investment Ltd. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit the construction of a new 8 and 14 storey mixed-use building Reference Number: 21 168610 NNY 08 OZ Property Address: 3280 Dufferin Street and 12-16 Orfus Road Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001745 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001745 OLT Case Name: Future Delight Investment Ltd. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A

Appellant: Future Delight Investment Ltd. Subject: Site Plan Description: To permit the construction of a new 8 and 14 storey mixed-use building Reference Number: 22 114271 NNY 08 SA Property Address: 3280 Dufferin Street and 12-16 Orfus Road Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-21-003303 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001745

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15.1) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A

Appellant: Future Delight Investment Ltd. Subject: Site Plan Description: To permit the construction of a new 8 and 14 storey mixed-use building Reference Number: 19 264594 STE 13 SA Property Address: 3280 Dufferin Street and 12-16 Orfus Road Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-21-003304 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001745

Heard: July 19, 2022 by Video Hearing and August 18, 2022 by Telephone Conference Call

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Future Delight Investment Ltd.	Alan Heisey
City of Toronto	Uttra Gautam and Laura Bisset
Holiday Sportswear Manufacturing Ltd. and Vivian Rosenberg Investments Inc.	Max Laskin
7420443 Ontario Inc.	David Bronskill

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY M.A. SILLS ON JULY 19, 2022 AND AUGUST 18, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1This was the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) regarding appeals by Future Delight Investment Ltd. (“Appellant”) from the failure or refusal of the City of Toronto (“City”) to make a decision on an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) pertaining to the property municipally known as 3280 Dufferin Street and 12-16 Orfus Road (“subject property”) (Phase 1).

2The Appellant has further appealed from the failure of the City to approve a Site Plan Control Application, pursuant to s. 114(15) and (15.1) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 (Phase 2).

3The purpose and effect of the ZBA is to facilitate the development of an eight-storey and a 14-storey mixed-use building on the subject property. The development proposal consists of 352 residential units (28,646 square metres (“sq m”)), and non-residential floor space (246 sq m), culminating in an overall floor space index of 5.6 (28,892 sq m). An existing one-storey and two-storey commercial building will be demolished.

4The purpose of the current CMC is to establish a date for the hearing on the merits, and/or to otherwise update the Tribunal on the status of the appeals.

5Alan Heisey informed the Tribunal that mediation has taken place and a Draft Procedural Order has been prepared and will be finalized once a hearing date is set. Mr. Heisey is requesting that a 10-day hearing be scheduled in the last quarter of 2022.

6Laura Bissett advised that due to the pending municipal election, the earliest possible opportunity she can obtain instruction from City Council is February 23, 2023. She has requested that the hearing be scheduled in the second half of 2023.

7After canvassing the Tribunal’s calendar for the earliest availability for a 10-day hearing, the hearing was scheduled for May 2023. Mr. Heisey, subsequently become aware that some earlier hearing dates had become available on the Tribunal’s calendar, and renewed his request for the scheduling of the hearing in the last quarter of 2022.

8However, not all of the Parties were either available or willing to consent to any of the available dates, including that Mr. Heisey was not available for one of the available dates.

9At the request of Mr. Heisey, a telephone conference call was convened on August 18, 2022, to further explore the possibility of setting an earlier hearing date. In this regard, he reported that his client was currently involved in discussions that could lead to a shortening of the time required for the hearing.

10Accordingly, the Tribunal has scheduled a (7) seven-day hearing commencing on Monday, January 9, 2023 at 10 a.m.

11Parties 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:

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/660145013

Access code: 660-145-013

12Parties 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

13Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: (Toll-Free)1-888-299-1889 or +1(647) 497-9373. The access code is as indicated above.

14Individuals 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.

15No further notice will be provided.

16This Member is not seized.

17The Procedural Order to govern the conduct of the hearing appended to this Order as Schedule 1 is approved and comes into full force and effect on the date of issue of this Decision.

“M.A. Sills”

M.A. SILLS

VICE-CHAIR

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.: OLT-21-001745

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

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15.1) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A

Appellant: Future Delight Investment Ltd. Subject: Site Plan Description: To permit the construction of a new 8 and 14 storey mixed-use building Reference Number: 19 264594 STE 13 SA Property Address: 3280 Dufferin Street and 12-16 Orfus Road Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-21-003304 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001745

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 Monday, January 9, 2023 at 10 a.m. at https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/660145013. The appeals shall be heard together one after the other with the Zoning Amendment Application Appeal heard first followed by the Site Plan Appeal. A further case management conference will held 45 days after the issuance of the Tribunal's Decision/Order with respect to the Zoning Appeal. The purpose of this second case management conference is to consider settlement, scope issues and resolve any procedural matters with respect to the Site Plan Appeal. The City will provide the Appellant with a list of conditions of site plan approval no later than 30 days prior to this further case management conference.
The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 7 days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible. The procedural order deadlines are generally found in Attachment 1.
The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 2
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.
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.
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

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 September 9, 2022. 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.
A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before September 9, 2022 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. 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 September 15, 2022.
Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before October 15, 2022 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before October 20, 2022.
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.
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.
On or before November 9, 2022 , the parties shall provide copies of their [witness and] expert witness statements to the other parties, the Clerk of the City of Toronto and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below. 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. 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.
On or before November 9, 2022 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.
On or before November 15, 2022 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.
On or before December 13 , 2022 , the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties 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.
On or before November 23, 2022 parties may provide to all other parties , the Clerk and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence in accordance with paragraph 23 below.
The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before December 13, 2022.
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 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.
The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before December 5, 2022 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 submitted electronically and 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 the Rule 7.
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.

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
September 9, 2022	Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any)
September 9, 2022	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
September 15, 2022	Last date to challenge identification of expert witness
October 15, 2022	Experts meeting prior to this date
October 20, 2022	Agreed Statement of Facts
November 9, 2022	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
November 23, 2022	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
December 5 , 2022	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
December 5, 2022	Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal
December 13 , 2022	Finalize Joint Document Book
January 9, 2023	Hearing of Zoning Appeal commences

ATTACHMENT 2

Parties and participants

*Counsel/Agent

Future Delight Investments Limited Alan Heisey Papazian Heisey Myers Barristers & Solicitors 510-121 King Street West Toronto, Ontario M5H 3T9 Email: heisey@phmlaw.com Tel.: 416-601-2702
City of Toronto Laura K. Bisset / Uttra Gautam City of Toronto, Legal Services Metro Hall, 26th Floor 55 John Street Toronto, Ontario M5V 3C6 Email: laura.bisset@toronto.ca uttra.gautam@toronto.ca Tel: 416.392.8782
7420443 Ontario Inc. David Bronskill Goodmans LLP Bay Adelaide Centre - West Tower 333 Bay Street, Suite 3400 Toronto, ON M5H 2S7 Email: dbronskill@goodmans.ca Tel.: 416.597.4299
Holiday Sportsway Manufacturing Ltd. & Vivian Rosenberg Investments Inc. Max Laskin Goodmans LLP Bay Adelaide Centre - West Tower 333 Bay Street, Suite 3400 Toronto, ON M5H 2S7 Email: mlaskin@goodmans.ca Tel: 416.849.6938

ATTACHMENT 3

List of Issues

The inclusion of an issue on this list is not an admission of relevance by any party, but is simply the identification of an aspect of the case that at least one party will seek to establish as relevant.

CITY OF TORONTO AND NON-APPELLANT PARTY ISSUES

Zoning By-law Amendment

Issue 1: Does the proposed development and zoning by-law amendment represent good planning, have regard to the matters of provincial interest, conform with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020), conform with the Toronto Official Plan, and are they consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020?

Site Organization

Issue 2: Does the proposed development's site organization, including vehicular and pedestrian access, parking and loading, and building siting and orientation represent good planning?

(a) Does it conform to policies in sections 1-11 of the Dufferin Street Secondary Plan?

(b) Does it conform to policies 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 4.5, and 5.2.1 of the City of Toronto Official Plan?

(d) Is the proposed development consistent with the PPS (2020)? In particular, Policies 1.1.3.4 and 4.6?

(e) Does it have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest in Section 2 (h), 2(p) and 2 (r) of the Planning Act?

(f) Does it have appropriate regard for the Dufferin Street Urban Design Guidelines, Growing Up Urban Design Guidelines, Pet Friendly Design Guidelines and Best Practices for Multi-Unit Buildings, Tall Building Design Guidelines, Mid-Rise Buildings Performance Standards and Addendum, Bird Friendly Guidelines and Toronto Retail Manual?

(g) Does it meet the requirements of the Toronto Green Standard and OPA 479 and 480?

Built Form

Issue 3: Does the proposed development provide for a built form that represents good planning? Is the proposed built form appropriate including the building type, setbacks, building height, streetwall heights, number of storeys, and density? In particular:

(a) Does it conform to policies in Sections 3 and 5 of the Dufferin Street Secondary Plan?

(b) Does it conform to policies 3.1.2.1, 3.1.2.3, 3.1.2.4. f), 3.1.2.5, 3.1.2.6, 3.1.2.7, 3.1.2.8, 3.1.2.9, 3.1.2.10, 3.1.2.13, 3.1.3.4, 3.1.3.5, 3.1.3.6, 4.5, and 5.2.1 of the City of Toronto Official Plan?

(c) Does it conform to policies 1.2.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.4.10, and 5.2.5.6 of A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020)?

(d) Is the proposed development consistent with the PPS (2020)? In particular, Policies 1.1.1(g), 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.2.6.1, 1.4.3, 1.6.7.2, and 4.6?

(e) Does it have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest in Section 2 (h), 2(p) and 2 (r) of the Planning Act?

(g) Does it meet the requirements of the Toronto Green Standard and OPA 480?

Public Realm

Issue 4: Does the proposed development's relationship with the public realm, including the existing and proposed streetscape improvements and proposed parkland represent good planning? Does it result in a high quality public realm? In particular:

(a) Does it conform to policies in Section 3, 4, 6, and 7 of the Dufferin Street Secondary Plan?

(b) Does it conform to policies 3.1.1.10, 3.1.1.11, 3.1.1.15, 3.1.1.16, 3.1.1.18 c), 3.1.1.19 b), 3.1.2.1, 3.1.2.9, 3.1.2.10, 3.1.2.11, 3.1.2.12, 3.1.2.13, 3.2.3, 4.5, and 5.2.1 of the City of Toronto Official Plan?

(d) Is the proposed development consistent with the PPS (2020)? In particular, Policies 1.1.1(g)(h)(i), 1.5, 1.6, 1.7. 1.8, and 4.6?

(e) Does it have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest in Section 2 (h), 2(p) and 2 (r) of the Planning Act?

(g) Does it meet the requirements of the Toronto Green Standard and OPA 479?

(h) Should there be street tree planting along Dufferin Street if the sidewalk is adjusted in order to accommodate trees along the Dufferin Street frontage?

CITY OF TORONTO ISSUE

Conditions of Approval

Issue 5:

(i) The OLT has been advised by the City Solicitor that the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendments are satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the City Solicitor;

(j) The owner has submitted revised architectural and landscape plans to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

(k) The owner has submitted revised shadow study and wind tunnel test and study, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

(l) The owner has submitted an updated Transportation Impact Study to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services, and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

(m) The owner has submitted a revised Travel Demand Management (TDM) 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;

(n) The owner has addressed all outstanding engineering issues outlined in the memo dated August 3, 2021 from Engineering and Construction Services as they relate to the Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Control applications, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;

(o) The owner has provided a revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report to determine the storm water runoff, sanitary flow and water supply demand resulting from this development and whether there is adequate capacity in the existing municipal infrastructure to accommodate the proposed development, satisfactory to the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, and the General Manager, Toronto Water;

(p) owner has designed and provided financial securities for any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure identified in the accepted Functional Servicing Report and Stormwater Management Report, to support the development, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and General Manager, Toronto Water, should it be determined that improvements or upgrades are required to support the development. In requiring any off site municipal infrastructure upgrades the owner is to make satisfactory arrangements with Engineering & Construction Services for Work on the City's Right-of-Way;

(q) The owner has confirmed from the City Solicitor that the implementation of the Functional Servicing Report and Stormwater Management Report accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, and the General manager, Transportation Services, does not require changes to the proposed amending by-laws, or any such required changes have been made to the proposed amending by-laws to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

(r) The owner has provided space within the development for installation of maintenance access holes and sampling ports on the private side, as close to the property line as possible, for both the storm and sanitary service connections, in accordance with the Sewers By-law Chapter 681.10;

(s) The list of site plan approval conditions has been finalized to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the applicant has satisfied all site plan approval conditions, including entering into and registering a Site Plan Agreement pursuant to Section 41 of the Planning Act and Section 114 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, with such Agreement to include Conditions of Site Plan Approval;

(t) The owner has addressed any issues resulting from the City's peer review of the Compatibility and Mitigation Studies prepared in support of your application by GradientWind, dated May 21, 2021, having accepted on February 28, 2022, the City's terms on the peer review by Arcadis Canada of your Compatibility and Mitigation Studies as set out in our letter dated February 23, 2022 from the Director of Community Planning, North York;

(u) The owner has addressed all outstanding issues related to the Zoning By-law Amendment application within the Planning Memorandum dated August 10, 2021, or as may be updated, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Planning, North York District, and satisfied all other comments and issues of other City Divisions and agencies related to the Zoning By-law Amendment; an

(v) Where applicable, community benefits and other matters in support of the development are secured in a Section 37 Agreement executed by the owner and registered on title to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor.

Issue 6:

Does the proposed development protect for a north-south "potential access lane" between Orfus Road and Bentworth Avenue as per Map 36-6 (Public Streets Plan) of the Dufferin Street Secondary Plan?

7420443 ONTARIO INC.

Issue 7: Does the proposal represent good planning and urban design, with particular regard to:

(h) The proposed setbacks to the east property line;

The location and floor plate size of the tall building component of the proposal;

Shadow impacts on the new park to be created to the east.

Issue 8: What conditions, if any, should be required regarding vehicular access between the properties?

Issue 9: What are appropriate pre-conditions to issuance of a final order by the Ontario Land Tribunal?

HOLIDAY SPORTSWEAR MANUFACTURING LTD. AND VIVIAN ROSENBERG INVESTMENTS INC.

Issue 10: Does the proposal represent good planning and urban design, with particular regard to:

(i) The proposed setbacks of the proposed tall building to the west property line;

Height, mass, setbacks, scale and density, including the impact of the proposed development on matters such as privacy and sunlight penetration; and

The location and floor plate size of the tall building component of the proposal?

Issue 11: Does the proposed development inappropriately limit potential future redevelopment of abutting properties to the west?

Issue 12: What are appropriate pre-conditions to issuance of a final order by the Tribunal?

Issue 13: If approved by the Tribunal, is the form and content of the proposed zoning by-law amendment appropriate?

ATTACHMENT 4

Order of Evidence

Future Delight Investments Limited
City of Toronto
7420443 Ontario Inc
Holiday Sportswear Manufacturing Ltd. and Vivian Rosenberg Investments Inc.
Future Delight Investments Limited

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.

Future Delight Investment Ltd. v. Toronto (City), 2022 CanLII 98471

Case Summary

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY M.A. SILLS ON JULY 19, 2022 AND AUGUST 18, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

SCHEDULE 1

PROCEDURAL ORDER

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 3

ATTACHMENT 4