Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: November 20, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-001974 (Formerly PL210254)

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

Applicant and Appellant: 2004085 Ontario Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of City of Toronto to adopt the requested amendment Existing Designation: Employment and Mixed Use Proposed Designated: Mixed Use with Site Specific Area Policy (SASP) Purpose: To permit a five-building mixed use community with parkland Property Address/Description: 1891 Eglinton Ave. E. Municipality: City of Toronto Approval Authority File No.: 20158264 ESC 20 OZ OLT Case No.: OLT-22-001974 Legacy Case No.: PL210254 OLT File No.: OLT-22-001974 LPAT Case Name: 2004085 Ontario Inc. v. Toronto (City.)

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

Applicant and Appellant: 2004085 Ontario Inc. Subject: Application to amend former City of Scarborough Zoning By-law No. 24982 - Refusal or neglect of City of Toronto to make a decision Existing Zoning: Mixed Employment Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined) Purpose: To permit a five-building mixed use community with parkland Property Address/Description: 1891 Eglinton Ave. E. Municipality: City of Toronto Municipality File No.: 20 224755 ESC 20 OZ OLT Case No.: OLT-22-001974 OLT File No.: OLT-22-001986 Legacy File No.: PL210255

Heard: October 18, 2023 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Mattamy Eglington Limited (“Appellant / Applicant”)	Andrew Jeanrie Stephanie Brazzell
City of Toronto	Amanda Hill Daniel Elmadany Nathan Muscat (in absentia)
Canadian Tire Real Estate Ltd.	Jennifer Evola Signe Leisk (in absentia) Christie Gibson (in absentia)
IPEX Inc.	Adrian Frank Jason Park (in absentia)
Metro Ontario Real Estate Ltd.	Conner Harris

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY J. INNIS AND BRYAN W. TUCKEY ON OCTOBER 18, 2023 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This is the fourth Case Management Conference (“CMC”) with regard to the property located at 1891 Eglinton Avenue East (“subject lands”) in the City of Toronto (“City”).

2The Applicant intends to redevelop the subject lands with a mixed-use development consisting of four mixed-use tall buildings with heights that range from 33 to 48 storeys, a 10-story residential mid-rise building and create approximately 2,823 square metres of public open space and new streets.

3All five Parties of record attended this CMC.

4Mr. Jeanrie, Counsel for the Applicant, provided a status update on the matters before the Tribunal. He advised that the Tribunal finalized the Procedural Order (“PO”) for a Hearing scheduled to take place on June 26, 2023. He further advised that prior to the deadline for the submission of reply statements in early May 2023, the Parties had requested that the Tribunal adjourn the matter so that the Parties could discuss and explore mediation. A new Hearing date was scheduled for January 15, 2024, with a CMC scheduled for October 18, 2023 to finalize a revised PO, reflective of the new Hearing date.

PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST

5The approved PO for the adjourned Merit Hearing scheduled on June 26, 2023 was still in force and effect. Mr. Jeanrie circulated a revised draft PO for the Merit Hearing scheduled for January 15, 2024, to all Parties and submitted to the Tribunal for consideration at this CMC.

6Mr. Jeanrie advised the Tribunal that a revised application was filed by the Applicant with the City, for the subject lands on October 10, 2023, and that the City has concerns with the appropriateness of the January 15, 2023 Merit Hearing date.

7Ms. Hill directed the Tribunal’s attention to paragraph 23 in the existing PO, which states that all revised proposals were to be filed 91 days in advance of witness statements and noted that the new revised application was not in accordance with those timelines. It was the opinion of Ms. Hill, that should the Tribunal proceed with a Merit Hearing on January 15, 2023 with the revised application, it would result in significant prejudice to the City. Based on Ms. Hill’s preliminary review of the revised application, there are changes to the built form plan, documents, and studies, which include the addition of another building, a change in building heights, and orientation. Ms. Hill requested that the Tribunal adjourn the Merit Hearing on January 15, 2024, and schedule a later date so that the City would have the ability to review the revised application, obtain Council direction and file new witness statements based on the revised application.

8Ms. Evola advised the Tribunal that, based on the original application, her client submitted no issues but had requested to maintain a watching brief. Ms. Evola intends to review the revised application and advise whether her client will maintain or change its position.

9Both Mr. Frank and Mr. Harris confirmed that they are undertaking a preliminary review of the revised application and are unable to advise the Tribunal at this time if the issues identified in relation to the original application would remain identical. Neither would object to the timelines proposed in the revised draft PO, provided that time would be permitted to review witness statements to ensure previously filed statements address the revised application.

10Mr. Jeanrie raised concerns for an expedient Hearing, as the Applicant had previously agreed to an adjournment on June 26, 2023. He proceeded to take the Tribunal through the timelines set out in the revised draft PO to avoid any further delay with respect to the rescheduled Merit Hearing. Mr. Jeanrie highlighted that the Issues List from the City is so extensive that it is likely to capture any potential concerns that the City may have with the revised proposal and that the two months provided in the proposed revised draft PO, would allow sufficient time to prepare for the Hearing in January.

11As it relates to the potential adjournment of the January 15, 2024 Merit Hearing, both Ms. Hill and Mr. Jeanrie informed the Tribunal of their concerns regarding prejudice to the Parties and the timelines required to commence that Hearing. Mr. Jeanrie provided the Tribunal with more context on the revised application and the changes from the original application.

12Mr. Jeanrie confirmed that a list of witnesses had been supplied to all Parties, along with witness statements from all Parties and had been filed with the Tribunal, as required in the PO, by April 28, 2023.

13Mr. Jeanrie confirmed that not all expert witnesses met in April 2023, as some had not yet been retained. The Planning Experts did meet but no report was provided to the Tribunal, as there was no consensus on an agreed upon Statement of Facts. Given previous Tribunal decisions regarding planning matters in the City’s Golden Mile Secondary Plan, the Tribunal urges the Parties’ experts to provide an agreed upon Statement of Facts to the Tribunal, prior to the Merit Hearing.

14Mr. Jeanrie requested that the Tribunal grant the substitution of the Applicant’s Expert Planner Ms. Harris, who retired effective September 01, 2023, for Ms. Cooper and all Parties agreed to this request. The Tribunal finds this request acceptable.

15The Tribunal received and reviewed a revised draft PO on consent from the Parties. The Tribunal finds it acceptable, and the proceedings shall be governed by it (see Schedule 1).

HEARING

16Upon request of the Parties, the Tribunal set a 14-day Merit Hearing commencing on Monday, March 11, 2024, at 10 a.m. by video hearing. No further Notice is required for the Hearing.

17Parties 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://meet.goto.com/943363669

Access code: 943-363-669

18Parties 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

19Persons 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. The access code is 943-363-669.

20Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the Hearing by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

ORDER

21The Tribunal Orders that:

The date and particulars of the Merit Hearing are set out above;
The Procedural Order appended as Schedule 1 shall govern the proceedings.
That the Parties shall provide the Tribunal with an agreed upon Statement of Facts by November 15, 2023, from the Planning Experts.
Should an amendment to the Procedural Order and a reduction in allocated hearing time be required, as a result of a reduced Issues List, the Tribunal is to be notified by November 22, 2023.
That the substitution of an Expert Planner for the Applicant, Ms. Cooper for Ms. Harris is acceptable.

22The Panel Members are not seized and may be spoken to if required for clarification.

19No further Notice is required.

“J. Innis”

J. Innis MEMBER

“Bryan W. Tuckey”

Bryan W. Tuckey 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.

SCHEDULE 1

CASE NO.: OLT-22-001974 (Formerly PL210254)

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

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

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

Unless the Tribunal informs the parties otherwise, the hearing will begin on Monday, March 11, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. virtually at:

https://meet.goto.com/943363669

Access Code: 943-363-669

In the event that the Tribunal informs the parties that the hearing will be held in person, it will be held at the Tribunal’s Offices, 655 Bay Street, 16th Floor, in the City of Toronto.

The length of the hearing will be 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 procedural order deadlines are generally found in Attachment 1.
The Parties and Participants identified at the Case Management Conference are listed in Attachment 2 to this Order.
The Issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3 to this Order. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a Party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.
The order of evidence is set out in Attachment 4 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.
Any person intending to participate in the hearing shall provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal. Any such person who retains a representative must advise the other Parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number.
At the time of cross-examination, the Parties shall provide to all Parties and the Tribunal, in a password protected format, any documents that will be used by the Party in cross-examination of an opposing Party's witness, unless the presiding Member directs otherwise. The password protected documents shall only be accessible to the Tribunal and the other Parties if they are introduced as evidence at the hearing.
If the hearing is to proceed electronically, any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including Parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website (https://olt.gov.on.ca/tribunals/lpat/).

Requirements Before the Hearing

Expert witnesses in the same discipline(s) shall have at least one meeting before the hearing to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. The experts shall prepare a list of any agreed facts and the remaining issues to be addressed at the hearing, and provide this list to all of the Parties and the Tribunal on or before Wednesday, November 15, 2023, if this meeting takes place and if agreement is reached.
A Party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other Parties a list of the witnesses, a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before Wednesday, December 6, 2023. For expert witnesses, a Party is to identify the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified. Any challenges to the witness, including qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence in the area of expertise proposed shall be made by motion in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules and notice of same must be served on the other Parties on or before Wednesday, December 20, 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, the acknowledgement of expert's duty and curriculum vitae. Copies of this must be provided as in Section 15 or 16, as applicable. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony. For greater certainty, each expert witness statement must comply with the minimum content requirements specified in Rule 7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. If the expert witness has prepared any report(s) that he/she intends to rely on at the hearing, and which did not form part of the submissions made to the City, such report(s) shall be provided to the other Parties at the same as the delivery of expert witness statements, as in Section 15.
A witness or participant must provide to the Tribunal and the Parties a witness statement or participant statement, respectively, on or before Wednesday, January 17, 2024, or the witness or participant may not give oral evidence at the hearing. Participants are only permitted to provide written evidence to the Tribunal, unless otherwise permitted by the Tribunal.
Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the Party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence, as in Section 15.
On or before Wednesday, January 17, 2024, the Parties shall provide copies of their witness statements and expert witness statements (full disclosure including reports) to the other Parties.
On or before Wednesday, January 17, 2024, the Parties shall provide copies of their updated or replacement witness statements and expert witness statements (full disclosure including reports), as applicable, to the other Parties.
On or before Wednesday, January 31, 2024, the Parties may provide to all other Parties a written response to any written evidence.
On or before Wednesday, January 31, 2024, the Parties shall advise the Tribunal of whether any hearings dates scheduled for this matter may be released from the Tribunal's calendar. This request may only be made on consent of all of the Parties. If no hearing dates are intended to be released from the Tribunal's calendar, no Party is required to advise the Tribunal anything further in that regard.
On or before Thursday, February 15, 2024, the Parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other Parties. The Tribunal and all Parties shall be notified if a model will be used, all Parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the scheduled commencement of the hearing.
A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. Such a motion shall be in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rule 10, which requires that the moving Party provide copies of the motion to all other Parties at least 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.
A Party who provides a witness’ written evidence to the other Parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the Party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.
On or before Thursday, February 15, 2024, the Parties shall prepare and file a detailed Work Plan that identifies the following, at a minimum: the identified Parties participating in the Hearing Event, preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the date a witness is intended to attend the Tribunal, the identified witness name/expertise, and the approximate time allotted for Examination in Chief, Cross Examination and any re-examination (if any) (the “Work Plan”). The Work Plan should be adhered to guide the Hearing Event to the best ability of all the Parties, and any and all witnesses shall be available on the identified date(s), unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the Work Plan throughout the Hearing Event.
The Parties shall prepare a Joint Document Book on or before Wednesday, February 21, 2024, and which one (1) hard copy will be filed with the Tribunal as soon as practicable in advance of the Hearing. All Parties must be served with the Joint Document Book in paper or an accessible electronic format in accordance with Section 25.
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 Tuesday, October 10, 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.
All filing of documents and materials shall be electronic to the Tribunal, the Parties and Participants (if any). The Tribunal will be provided a hard copy of documents and materials in advance of the hearing event as soon as practicable. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents email shall be governed by the Rule 7. All documents to be filed with the Tribunal shall be organized, tabbed and digitally searchable and such materials will be filed in accordance with directions contained in the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, dated July 2, 2020, or as may be amended. Section 25 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 or as permitted by Section 24. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.
The Tribunal may conduct mediation on consent of all Parties, on consent of those Parties who wish to participate in mediation, or if the Tribunal sees fit.
The purpose of this Procedural Order and the meaning of the terms used in this Procedural Order are set out in Attachment 5.

This Member is [not] seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
Tuesday, October 10, 2023	Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any)
Wednesday, November 15, 2023	Experts meeting prior to this date
Wednesday, November 15, 2023	Agreed Statement of Facts
Wednesday, December 6, 2023	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
Wednesday, December 20, 2023	Last date to challenge identification of expert witness
Wednesday, January 17, 2024	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
Wednesday, January 17, 2024	Exchange of updated or replacement Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements, as applicable
Wednesday, January 31, 2024	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
Wednesday, January 31, 2024	Parties to Advise Tribunal if any hearing dates are to be released from the hearing calendar (if any)
Thursday, February 15, 2024	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
Thursday, February 15, 2024	Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal
Wednesday, February 21, 2024	Finalize Joint Document Book
Monday, March 11, 2024	Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

A. PARTIES

City of Toronto Counsel: Nathan Muscat Daniel Elmadany Amanda Hill City of Toronto, Legal Services Metro Hall, 26th Floor 55 John Street Toronto ON M5V 3C6 E-mail: Nathan.Muscat@toronto.ca Tel: 416-397-5475 Fax: 416-397-5624 E-mail: Daniel.Elmadany@toronto.ca Tel: 416-397-5709 Fax: 416-397-5624 E-mail: Amanda.Hill@toronto.ca Tel: 416-338-5790 Fax: 416-397-5624
Appellant: 2004085 Ontario Inc. & Mattamy Eglinton Limited Partnership ("Mattamy") Counsel: Andrew Jeanrie Stephanie Brazzell Bennett Jones LLP 3400 One First Canadian Place PO Box 130 Toronto ON M5X 1A4 E-mail: jeanriea@bennettjones.com Tel.: 416-777-4814 E-mail: brazzells@bennettjones.com Tel: 416-777-7819
Party: Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited ("Canadian Tire") Counsel: Signe Leisk Christie Gibson Jennifer Evola Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP Suite 2100, Scotia Plaza, 40 King St. W. Toronto ON M5H 3C2 E-mail: sleisk@cassels.com Tel: 416-869-5411 E-mail: cgibson@cassels.com Tel: 416-860-5229 E-mail: jevola@cassels.com Tel: 416-860-6753
Party: IPEX INC. ("IPEX") Counsel: Jason Park Adrian Frank KSDWP LLP 250 Yonge Street, Suite 2302 Toronto ON M5B 2L7 E-mail: jason.park@ksllp.com Tel: 416-645-4584 E-mail: adrian.frank@ksllp.com Tel: 416-645-4584
Party: Metro Ontario Real Estate Limited ("Metro") Counsel: Conner Harris Sarah Spitz Rayman Harris LLP 250 The Esplanade, Suite 202 Toronto ON M5A 1J2 E-mail: conner@raymanharris.com Tel: 416-597-5422 E-mail: sarah@raymanharris.com Tel: 416-306-8705

B. PARTICIPANTS

Muhammad Tabassam
Laura Higgins

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUES LIST

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

In addition, parties have reserved their right to adopt any issues submitted by the appellants and parties to the proceeding.

A. Mattamy

Is the proposed Official Plan Amendment good planning and in the public interest?
Is the proposed zoning by-law amendments good planning and in the public interest?

B. City of Toronto

Has the infrastructure required to support the anticipated growth in the overall context of the Golden Mile Secondary Plan ("GMSP") area, including streets, density, servicing, parks, and community service facilities been addressed comprehensively and in coordination with other GMSP landowners?
If the answer to Issue #1 is no, is the approval of the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment premature?

Planning Act

Would approval of the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment by the Tribunal have regard for the purposes of the Planning Act in Section 1.1?
Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections 2(e), (f), (h), (i), (j), (k), (n), (o), (p), (q), (r) and (s)?
Would approval of the proposed Official Plan Amendment by the Tribunal have regard to the decision of City Council and the information and material that City Council considered in making its decision as required by Section 2.1 of the Planning Act?

Provincial Policy Statement, 2020

Is the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement including policies 1.1.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.6, 1.1.3.7, 1.2.1, 1.2.6, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.4.3, 1.5, 1.6.1, 1.6.5, 1.6.6, 1.6.7, 1.6.8, 1.7, 1.8, 2.2, and 4.6?

A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020)

Is the proposed scale of development and transition of built form to adjacent areas appropriate and is the proposed intensification appropriate in light of other objectives of A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020)?
Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment conform with and not conflict with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020), including policies 1.2.1, 2.2.1.4, 2.2.2.3, 2.2.4.10, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 3.2.1.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.5, 3.2.6, 3.2.7, 3.2.8, 4.2.5, 5.2.4, and 5.2.5?

Official Plan

Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment conform with the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, including the policies related to: a. Structuring Growth in the City (Section 2.2); b. Avenues (Section 2.2.3); c. Employment Areas (Section 2.2.4); d. Bringing the City Together, Transportation (Section 2.4); e. Public Realm (Section 3.1.1); f. Built Form (Section 3.1.2, Section 3.1.3); g. Public Art (Section 3.1.4); h. Housing (Section 3.2.1); i. Community Services and Facilities (Section 3.2.2); j. Parks and Open Spaces (Section 3.2.3); k. Building New Neighbourhoods (Section 3.3); l. Natural Environment (Section 3.4); m. Mixed Use Areas (Section 4.5); and n. Implementation (Section 5).
Has the Official Plan Policy in Section 2.2.3, including policies 2.2.3.2, 2.2.3.4 and 2.2.3.6 of the Official Plan been satisfied?
Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment maintain the intent and purpose of the policies of the Official Plan Amendment 499, Golden Mile Secondary Plan?
Does the proposed development conform with Chapter 7, Site and Area Specific Policy 435 of the Official Plan?

Land Use Compatibility

Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment appropriately implement the polices of the Provincial Policy Statement, A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) and the City's Official Plan related to employment areas, and specifically those policies that require the protection and preservation of employment areas for current and future uses?
Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment appropriately mitigate against the potential adverse effects arising from the introduction of sensitive land uses on the Employment Areas and major facilities within the vicinity of the subject lands?
Does the proposal fit in with the existing and planned context in the Golden Mile Area, as well as the nearby and adjacent Employment Areas lands and industrial uses?
Does the proposed development avoid, or where possible, minimize and mitigate against any adverse impacts on industrial manufacturing or other existing and planned employment uses in the adjacent and/or nearby Employment Areas or within the influence area of any major facility, including impacts such as noise, traffic, odours, vibration, or other contaminants from nearby existing or planned employment uses?
Has the proposed development been designed, sited and/or oriented to address any potential issues that may arise from any existing or planned employment uses, such as such as noise, traffic, odours, vibration, or other contaminants?
Is the proposed residential use on the southern portion of the site (although designated Mixed Use Areas), abutting General Employment Areas and adjacent to Core Employment Areas, compatible, given potential impacts such as noise, vibration and emissions, due to the proximity of the General Employment Areas and Core Employment Areas along Pharmacy Avenue and east of the site?
Have matters such as the Compatibility/Mitigation Report and Noise and Vibration Impact Study been appropriately addressed/resolved to the satisfaction of the City's peer reviewer?

Land Use Planning and Urban Design

Does the proposed development represent a scale of development and density that is appropriate for the surrounding area and does it provide an appropriate transition in scale and massing, within the Mixed Use Transit Nodes, and to adjacent areas, including the General Employment Areas, Core Employment Areas and Neighbourhoods?
Does the proposed development provide for a built form that is good urban design, including appropriate mix of building types, contextually appropriate built form, setbacks and stepbacks, base building heights, mid-rise heights and massing, separation distances between tall building towers, tower floor plate size, and tall building heights consistent with applicable policies and relevant guidelines?
Does the proposed development provide for and contribute to an appropriate public realm, including shadow impacts on existing and proposed parks, streets and open spaces?
Does the proposed development provide for appropriate uses at grade?
Does the proposed development provide for the appropriate location for outdoor amenity space?
Should the proposed development be revised to include the provision of affordable housing?
Does the proposed development achieve a balanced mix of unit types and sizes to support the creation of housing suitable for families and meet the intent and purpose of the Growing Up: Planning for New Vertical Communities, Urban Design Guidelines (2020)?

Community Service Facilities

Does the proposed development accurately and appropriately consider the availability of community service facilities to support the existing and planned population?

Transportation

Does the proposed development consider the required network improvements for all modes, to support the proposed development and density increase, including: (i) Off-site improvements; and/or (ii) Financial contributions towards the costs associated with future land acquisition and construction of the required transportation improvements in the event that the off-site improvements cannot be achieved?
Does the Transportation Study in support of the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment appropriately and comprehensively review the constraints identified in the Golden Mile Transportation Master Plan ("TMP"), to ensure there are adequate network improvements and mitigating measures for all modes?
Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment consider the adequacy and sufficiency of hard infrastructure investments and financial contributions to the Transportation Demand Management ("TDM") Plan?
Does the proposed East-West Street #4, known as the O'Connor Drive extension, propose an intersection at Pharmacy Avenue which aligns with the continuation of East-West Street #4 through the lands municipally known as 40 Eglinton Square (Metro Ontario Real Estate Limited) and 1-70 Eglinton Square (Kingsett) to Victoria Park Avenue?

Servicing

Has the proposed development demonstrated that there is sufficient water, wastewater and sanitary services available to service the proposed development, taking into account existing, planned and proposed development within the applicable water, wastewater or sanitary servicing distribution network?

Phasing of Development

Should the proposed development be revised to address phasing of development to address matters, including affordable housing, community service facilities, municipal infrastructure, public streets, public parkland and other such matters required to support the development of the site?

Public Interest and Good Planning

Is the proposed Official Plan Amendment good planning and in the public interest?
Is the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment good planning and in the public interest?

Implementation

If the proposed Official Plan Amendment is approved by the Tribunal, in whole or in part, should the Tribunal's final order be withheld until it has been advised by the City Solicitor that the final form of the Official Plan Amendment is in a manner satisfactory to the Chief Planner and the City Solicitor?
If the proposed Zoning by-law Amendment is approved, in whole or in part, should the Tribunal's final Order be withheld until the following conditions are satisfied and the Tribunal receive confirmation from the City Solicitor that: a. The Zoning By-law Amendment is in a final form and content acceptable to the City Solicitor and Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, that implement the proposed development; b. That any necessary agreements entered into to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and executed and registered on title to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor; c. The owner has addressed outstanding issues in relation to transportation matters and has submitted a revised Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Study ("MMTIS") to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the General Manager, Transportation Services; and d. The owner has addressed outstanding issues in relation to site servicing and has submitted a revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report and a detailed Hydrogeological Report to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services?

C. IPEX Inc.

Have the proposed instruments and development for the subject site demonstrated having adequate regard for matters of provincial interest pursuant to section 2 of the Planning Act, including those matters addressed in Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) Guidelines D-1 (Land Use Compatibility) and D-6 (Compatibility between Industrial Facilities and Sensitive Land Uses)?
Are the proposed instruments and development for the subject site consistent with (or not inconsistent with) the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), including (but not limited to) in particular Policies 1.1.3.4, 1.2.6.1, 1.2.6.2, 1.3.1, 1.3.2.1, 1.3.2.2 and 1.3.2.3?
Do the proposed instruments and development for the subject site conform to (or not conflict with) the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020), including (but not limited to) in particular Policies 2.2.5.7 and 2.2.5.8?
Do the proposed instruments and development for the subject site conform to (or not conflict with) the Official Plan of the City of Toronto, including (but not limited to) in particular the following sections and policies: a. SASP 435, including Policy 2.2.4; b. Policy 2.2.4.2 e); and c. Policies 2.2.4.5, 2.2.4.6, 2.2.4.7, 2.2.4.8, and 2.2.4.10?
Do the proposed instruments and development for the subject site conform to (or not conflict with the City of Toronto’s adopted but not yet in force Official Plan Amendment 499 – Golden Mile Secondary Plan, including Policies 4.9 and 13.21 c)?
Do the proposed instruments and development for the subject site adequately address any and all noise and air quality issues?

D. Metro Ontario Real Estate Limited

Neighbouring Lands

Do the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications, negatively impact the applied for development on the neighbouring lands at 40 Eglinton Square owned by Metro (the “Metro Lands”);
Do the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications, unduly restrict the future development potential of the Metro Lands.

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

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

Mattamy
Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited
IPEX Inc.
Metro Ontario Real Estate Limited
City of Toronto
(Reply if any) Mattamy

ATTACHMENT 5

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 Parties, 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. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer, and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorization 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, must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

Participant is an individual, group or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may attend only part of the proceeding but who makes a written statement to the Tribunal on all or some of the issues in the hearing in accordance with Rule 7.7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

NOTE that such persons will likely not receive notice of a mediation or conference calls on procedural issues. They also cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision as Parties can.

Written and Visual Evidence:

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a Party 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 intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

Witness Statements:

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 the witness 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 the expert’s (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 will address and a short outline of the evidence on those issues; and a list of reports, relied upon, if any, which the participant will provide to the Tribunal for consideration of the written statement at the hearing.

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 Parties (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 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.

2004085 Ontario Inc. v. Toronto (City), 2023 CanLII 112270

Case Summary