Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: November 10, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000484

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

Appellant: 33HC TAS LP, 33HC Corp., 3168HS LP and 3168HS Corp. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit five apartments, 46, 43, 43, 39, and 34 storeys Reference Number: OZ/OPA 22-19 W7 Property Address: 0, 25 Hillcrest Avenue and 3154, 3168 Hurontario Street Municipality/UT: Mississauga/Peel OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000484 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000484 OLT Case Name: 33HC TAS LP, 33HC Corp., 3168HS LP and 3168HS Corp. v. Mississauga (City)

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

Appellant: 33HC TAS LP, 33HC Corp., 3168HS LP and 3168HS Corp. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – neglect to make a decision Description: To permit five apartments, 46, 43, 43, 39, and 34 storeys Reference Number: OZ/OPA 22-19 W7 Property Address: 0, 25 Hillcrest Avenue and 3154, 3168 Hurontario Street Municipality/UT: Mississauga/Peel OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000485 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000484

Heard: October 12, 2023 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
33HC TAS LP, 33HC Corp., 3168HS LP, and 3168HS Corp. (“Applicants”)	David Bronskill Rodney Gill (in absentia)
City of Mississauga (“City”)	Michael Minkowski Katie Pfaff
Regional Municipality of Peel	Rachel Godley
Metrolinx	Isaac Tang Jonah Kahansky

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS ON OCTOBER 12, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The Applicants seek to develop a site known municipally as 0 and 25 Hillcrest Avenue and 3154 and 3168 Hurontario Street in the City to construct five mixed-use towers of 46, 43, 43, 39 and 34 storeys. To this end, the Applicants made applications for an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law amendment. The Appeals are brought pursuant to sections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, due to the failure of the City to decide in the prescribed time.

2On October 12, 2023, the Tribunal held its second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) to organize the Appeals and establish next steps in this proceeding.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR SETTLEMENT

3Counsel for the Parties advised that they will be engaged in settlement discussions and may be seeking Tribunal assisted mediation.

NEXT STEPS

4A draft Procedural Order, including an Issues List, was provided to the Tribunal prior to the CMC. The Issues List is fulsome. Counsel for the Parties indicated that they were prepared to work quickly to finalize the Procedural Order. The Tribunal directed the Applicants to finalize the draft Procedural Order in consultation with all Parties, and to file it with the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator by Friday, October 27, 2023. A finalized draft Procedural Order was filed with the Tribunal on October 31, 2023.

5The draft Procedural Order contained the following paragraph:

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 [·] (date at least 130 days before the start of the hearing). The applicant acknowledges that any revisions to the proposal after that date without the consent of the parties may be grounds for the Tribunal to adjourn the hearing. [Emphasis added]

6There was discussion at the CMC whether the word “may” or “shall” should be used in the second sentence. Counsel for the Applicants advocated for “may”. By contrast, Counsel for the City supported the use of the word “shall”. Having heard the Parties, the Tribunal directs the use of the term “may”. That term aligns better with the Tribunal’s ultimate discretion on matters of adjournments as set out in Rule 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”). Moreover, the term “shall” may work as a disincentive for the Applicants to reach a last-minute settlement with respect to some the issues, or with respect to some of the Parties. As a matter of policy, the Tribunal favours outcomes based on the settlement of issues between the Parties. However, the ability for the Parties to duly consider a revised proposal after the 130-day period set out in the first sentence of the proposed paragraph above may hypothetically give rise to a detrimental situation. That will be a matter for the Tribunal to consider at the appropriate time, based on facts known at the time. The Tribunal is not ready to speculate on the potential behavior of Parties in the future. Nevertheless, it is important for the Applicants to act diligently and to provide a potential revised proposal in a timely way. Under the Rules, it is open to the Parties to seek an adjournment by way of Motion, provided proper notice is provided, and subject to the Rules.

7Counsel for the Applicants indicated that a 10-day hearing would be required to consider the matter. However, Counsels for the other Parties submitted that more hearing days would be required if none of the issues are resolved before the Hearing.

8Having heard the positions of Counsel, the Tribunal finds that setting a 14-day Merit Hearing is reasonable in the circumstances and directs that the Hearing commences at 10 a.m. on Monday, September 16, 2024, to Friday, October 4, 2024, by Video Hearing. Given the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, the Tribunal will not sit on Monday, September 30, 2024.

9The Parties are directed to advise the Tribunal of any settlement as soon as possible. Given potential settlement discussions and mediation, the Tribunal further directs that, on or before Friday, July 26, 2024, the Parties must advise the Tribunal if fewer than 14 days are required for the Hearing.

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://meet.goto.com/370987861

Access code: 370-987-861

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) 497-9391 or (Toll Free) 1-888-455-1389. The access code is the same as the access code indicated above.

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 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.

14To update the Tribunal on the status of the Appeals, and to ensure an efficient Hearing process, the Tribunal directs that a third CMC, by means of a telephone conference call (“TCC”) is scheduled to proceed at 9 a.m. on Friday, August 2, 2024, with the following dial-in instructions: Individual(s) are directed to call 416-212-8012 or (Toll Free) 1-866-633-0848. When prompted, enter the code 4779874 to be connected to the call. It is the responsibility of the person(s) participating in the call to ensure that they are properly connected to the call and at the correct time. Questions prior to the call may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

ORDER

15THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS its directions as set out in this Decision.

16THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that the Procedural Order, including the Issues List, attached as Attachment A to this Order, is approved.

“Jean-Pierre Blais”

JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS MEMBER

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 A

Procedural Order

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

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will begin on September 16, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., as directed by the Tribunal. A teleconference call update is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on August 2, 2024.

3. The length of the hearing is fourteen (14) days (the hearing will not occur on September 30, 2024). 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.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1. See Attachment 4 for the meaning of these terms.

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 2. The Parties may agree to scope and/or remove issues as part of attempting to resolve the issues prior to the hearing on the merits of the appeal. There will otherwise 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 shall be as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

7. Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.

8. In the event that any part of the hearing proceeds as a video hearing, any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. 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 May 30, 2024, 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 prepared to be qualified.

10. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before June 19, 2024, 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 July 4, 2024.

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. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 13 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.

12. 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 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 13 below.

13. On or before July 12, 2024, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

14. On or before July 12, 2024, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

15. On or before July 26, 2024, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are required.

16. On or before August 30, 2024, 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.

17. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence within twenty (20) days after the evidence is received and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

18. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before August 30, 2024.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before September 9, 2024 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.

22. 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. 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.

23. 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 May 10, 2024. The applicant acknowledges that any revisions to the proposal after that date without the consent of the parties may be grounds for the Tribunal to adjourn the hearing.

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

So orders the Tribunal.

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
May 10, 2024	Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any)
May 30, 2024	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
June 19, 2024	Experts Meeting
July 4, 2024	Agreed Statement of Facts
July 12, 2024	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
July 12, 2024	Filing of Participant’s Statements
July 26, 2024	Parties to Update Tribunal Regarding Length of Hearing
August 2, 2024	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
August 2, 2024	Teleconference Call to update Tribunal
August 16, 2024	Preliminary Hearing Plan filed with the Tribunal
August 30, 2024	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
August 30, 2024	Preparation of Joint Document Book
September 9, 2024	Final Hearing Plan filed with the Tribunal
September 16, 2024	Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 1 PARTIES/PARTICIPANTS

Parties

1. 33HC TAS LP, 33HC Corp., 3168HS LP and 3168HS Corp. David Bronskill (416) 597-4299 dbronskill@goodmans.ca

2. City of Mississauga Michal Minkowski (905) 615-3200, x. 3280 michal.minkowski@mississauga.ca Katie Pfaff (905) 615-3200, x. 5413 Kathryn.Pfaff@mississauga.ca

3. The Regional Municipality of Peel Althaf Farouque/Rachel Godley (905) 791-7800 ext. 4416/(416) 557-7811 althaf.farouque@peelregion.ca; rachel.godley@peelregion.ca

4. Metrolinx Isaac Tang (416) 367-6143 itang@blg.com

Participants

None

ATTACHMENT 2 ISSUES LIST

City of Mississauga

PLANNING ACT:

1. Does the proposed development have regard to matters of Provincial Interest as outlined in Section 2 of the Planning Act as it relates to:

(f) the adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems;

(i) the adequate provision and distribution of educational, health, social, cultural and recreational facilities;

(j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing

(p) the appropriate location of growth and development;

(q) the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians;

(r) the promotion of built form that;

(i) is well-designed;

(ii) encourages a sense of place; and

(iii) provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant?

PROVINCIAL POLICIES:

2. Does the proposed development demonstrate consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, including but not limited to Policy 1.1.3.4 - appropriate development standards should be promoted which facilitate intensification, redevelopment and compact form, while avoiding or mitigating risks to public health and safety.

3. Does the proposed development conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, including but not limited to:

   a) Policy 2.2.4.3 – Major transit station areas on priority transit corridors or subway lines will be planned for a minimum density target of:

b) 160 residents and jobs combined per hectare for those that are served by light rail transit or bus rapid transit?

c) Policy 5.2.5? d) Schedule 4?

REGION OF PEEL OFFICIAL PLAN, OFFICE CONSOLIDATION 2021:

4. Does the proposed development conform to the Region of Peel Official Plan as it relates to development and intensification, including policies 5.2.2.1, 5.3.1.4, 5.3.1.5, and 5.3.2.6?

REGION OF PEEL OFFICIAL PLAN, 2022:

5. Does the proposed development conform to the Region of Peel Official Plan in relation to Section 5.6 Urban Systems, taking into account the characteristics of existing communities, to include in their official plans that: b) support pedestrian friendly and transit supportive urban development?

6. Does the proposed development conform to the Region of Peel Official Plan in relation to Section 5.6.19?

MISSISSAUGA OFFICIAL PLAN:

7. Does the proposed development conform to the Mississauga Official Plan, including but not limited to policies in:

   a) Chapter 6: Value the Environment – Sections 6.3.68, 6.3.73; b) Chapter 7: Complete Communities – Sections 7.1.6, 7.2.2, 7.2.3, 7.2.4, 7.2.5; c) Chapter 9: Build a Desirable Urban Form – Sections 9.1.10, 9.1.11, 9.1.14, 9.2.1.3, 9.2.1.10, 9.2.1.14, 9.2.1.15, 9.2.1.16, 9.2.1.21, 9.2.1.22, 9.2.1.29, 9.2.1.36, 9.3.5.6, 9.5.1.1, 9.5.1.2, 9.5.1.3, 9.5.1.5, 9.5.1.9, 9.5.2.2, 9.5.3.7, 9.5.3.9; d) Chapter 12: Downtown – Section 12.1.1.3, 12.1.1.4, 12.1.2.2, 12.1.3, 12.4.1.2, 12.4.1.3, 12.4.1.4, 12.4.1.6, 12.4.1.9; and e) Chapter 19: Implementation – Section 19.5 Criteria for Site Specific Official Plan Amendments?

PLANNING & URBAN DESIGN ISSUES:

8. Are the proposed zoning by-law and exception standards appropriate?

9. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard to the Downtown Cooksville Character Area?

10. Have the City’s Downtown Fairview, Cooksville and Hospital Built Form Standards been adequately addressed?

11. Does the proposal appropriately address matters of built form, including pedestrian scale and the nature of the buildings, massing, orientation and location?

12. Have the City’s standards for Shadow Study requirements been adequately addressed, in terms of sunlight on the public realm and private and communal amenity area(s)?

13. Have the City’s standards for Pedestrian Wind Comfort and Safety Study been adequately addressed?

14. Does the proposal adequately provide for amenity areas?

15. Does the proposal adequately provide landscape buffers?

16. Has the Streetscape Feasibility Plan adequately addressed City requirements?

17. Is there an adequate supply of affordable units being proposed?

COMMUNITY SERVICES ISSUE:

18. How will this development address parkland deficit in the Downtown Cooksville Character Area and identify a City owned parkland to be located on this site in keeping with Parks Plan 2022 and Future Directions Parks and Forestry Master Plan?

REGIONAL SERVICING ISSUE:

19. In accordance with concerns identified by the Region of Peel, has the Applicant demonstrated that regional sanitary sewer infrastructure can accommodate the proposal?
20. a) To our knowledge, the GO Access Road and John Street extension west of Hurontario Street are currently owned by Metrolinx, and therefore access to the development may only be provided onto Hillcrest Avenue at the present time. Has it been demonstrated that the proposal is feasible with only a single access onto Hillcrest Avenue?

(b) In the event the Applicant is able to secure alternative access(es) to public road(s), then should the issue of access fall under an “H” provision in the event the Tribunal allows the appeal in whole or in part, with the following condition “Satisfactory access arrangements made for interconnecting the subject site with the adjacent lands to the west/north”?

TRANSPORTATION & WORKS:

HOLDING “H” PROVISION

21. In the event that the Tribunal allows the appeal in whole or in part, should the Zoning By-law include an “H” (Holding) provision which requires the following conditions to be satisfied:

a) Execution of a satisfactory Development Agreement with Municipal Infrastructure Schedules; b) Receipt of updated reports, including a Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, Traffic Impact Study, and Noise and Vibration Report; c) Receipt of revised drawings including grading plans, servicing plans, cross-sections, and architectural drawings showing any required noise barriers; d) Receipt of the required land dedications and easements; e) Receipt of satisfactory environmental studies and documents, including a reliance letter for the Phase One ESA, A Phase Two ESA report along with the reliance letter, a Storm Sewer Use By-law Acknowledgement form, a letter certified by a Qualified Person, stating that land to be dedicated to the City is environmentally suitable for the proposed use, and a written document prepared by a Professional Engineer that includes a plan to decommission the wells or proof of decommissioning; and f) Receipt of a Record of Site Condition

22. In the event that the Tribunal allows the appeal in whole or in part, should the Final Order be withheld pending the City Solicitor advising the Tribunal that the Owner and City have agreed to the final form of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment?

SUMMARY:

Does the proposed development represent good planning and is it in the public interest?

Region of Peel

23. Has a satisfactory functional servicing report been submitted to the Region?

24. Has a satisfactory site servicing submission / servicing concept plan been submitted to the Region?

25. Is there sufficient sanitary sewer capacity for the site?

26. Has a satisfactory waste management plan been submitted?

Metrolinx

Planning Act

27. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard to matters of Provincial interest as outlined in Section 2 of the Planning Act, as it relates to:

(f) the adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems;

(p) the appropriate location of growth and development;

(q) the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians;

(r) the promotion of built form that, (i) is well-designed, (ii) encourages a sense of place, and (iii) provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant?

Provincial, Regional and City Policies

28. Are the proposed amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, including policies: 1.1.1c), e), 1.1.3.2a), f), 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, 1.2.1a), 1.2.6.1, 1.4.3d), e) 1.5.1a), 1.6.7.3, 1.6.7.4, 1.6.8.1, 1.6.9.1, 1.7.1c), 1.8.1 (e) and 4.6?
29. Do the proposed amendments conform to A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, including policies: 2.2.1.2c), 2.2.1.3, 2.2.4.8, 2.2.4.9, 3.2.1.1, 3.2.1.3, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.2.3 and 5.2.5.6?
30. Do the proposed amendments conform to the Region of Peel Official Plan (2021 Office Consolidation), including policies: 5.3.1.4, 5.3.1.5, 5.3.2.6 (b) and (c), 5.3.3, 5.3.3.1.1, 5.3.3.1.2, 5.9.5.1.4, 5.9.5.2.10, 5.9.5.2.12, 5.9.5.2.13 and 5.9.10.2.1?
31. Do the proposed amendments conform to the Region of Peel Official Plan, 2022, including policies: 5.4.5, 5.4.6, 5.4.7, 5.4.18, 5.6.3, 5.6.4, 5.6.18.1, 5.6.19.1, 5.6.19.2, 5.6.19.18, 5.9.1, 5.9.27, 5.10.3, 5.10.7, 5.10.13, 5.10.14 and 5.10.16?
32. Do the proposed amendments maintain the intent and principles of, and do they generally conform to the City of Mississauga Official Plan, including policies: 5.3.1, 5.5.1, 5.5.9, 5.5.10, 5.5.14, 5.5.16, 8.1.14, 8.2.2.4, 8.2.2.5, 8.2.2.7, 8.3.1.2, 8.3.2.2, 8.3.3.3, 8.6.4, 9.1.10, 9.1.11, 9.2.1, 9.3.1, 9.4.1, 9.5,1, 9.5.2, 12.4 and 19.5?

Other Issues

33. Will the proposed development negatively impact the ability of Metrolinx to develop its lands located to the north and to the west?
34. Does the proposed development appropriately consider how vehicular and pedestrian access will be provided to and from roads owned by Metrolinx (e.g., John Street extension and GO Access Road)?
35. Does the proposed development appropriately consider how it will connect with and provide access to the Cooksville GO Station and related transit facilities, including the provision of marked and/or signalized pedestrian crossings?
36. Will the proposed development result in adverse traffic impacts at surrounding intersections? Will vehicle traffic arising from the proposed development adversely impact access to the Cooksville GO parking structure, bus terminal, passenger pick up and drop off area, and surface parking lots during peak arrival and departure times?
37. Does the proposed development provide for an appropriate interface with the future Hazel McCallion LRT station, including any reinstatement of boulevard/curb for Hurontario Street?
38. If the proposed development is approved, what are appropriate conditions for approval to address Metrolinx’s interests (e.g., warning clauses, environmental easements, construction/staging plans)?

ATTACHMENT 3 ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. 33HC TAS LP, 33HC Corp., 3168HS LP and 3168HS Corp.
2. City of Mississauga
3. Region of Peel
4. Metrolinx
5. 33HC TAS LP, 33HC Corp., 3168HS LP and 3168HS Corp. in reply (if any)

Attachment 4

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.