Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 24, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004116 OLT-22-004117

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

Applicant/Appellant: PR Bloor Street GP Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit the development of a 79-storey mixed-use development Reference Number: 21 249697 STE 11 OZ Property Address: 83-95A Bloor Street W Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-22-004116 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004116 OLT Case Name: PR Bloor Street GP Inc. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Applicant/Appellant: PR Bloor Street GP Inc. Subject: Site Plan Description: To permit the development of a 79-storey mixed-use development Reference Number: 21 249696 STE 11 SA Property Address: 83-95A Bloor Street W Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-22-004117 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004116

Heard: January 16, 2023 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
PR Bloor St GP Inc (“PR Bloor Street”)	D. Bronskill (in absentia) R. Gill
City of Toronto (“City”)	S. O’Connor
ABC Residents Association (“ABC”) The Greater Yorkville Resident’s Association (“GYRA”)	A. Biggart (in absentia) C. Kapelos
Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1255 (“MTCC No. 1255”)	T. Bui G. Miller (in absentia)
23 St. Thomas Inc. (“23 St. Thomas”) Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1271 (“MTCC No. 1271)	C. Lantz
Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1924 (“TSCC No. 1924”) Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No.1251 (“MTCC No. 1251”)	M. Flynn–Guglietti K. Sutton

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BRYAN W. TUCKEY ON JANUARY 16, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The Tribunal convened the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) for the above-noted matter. PR Bloor Street has filed an appeal against the City for failing to make a decision for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) pursuant to s. 34(11) and a Site Plan Control Application (“SPA”) pursuant to s. 41(12) of the Planning Act. The property is known municipally as 83-95A Bloor Street West in the City (“subject property”). The purpose of this CMC is to determine if there are additional persons or organizations who seek Participant or Party status and to review a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) to manage the conduct of the proceedings.

2The effect of the ZBA and SPA is to permit a proposed 79-storey, mixed use development (“proposal”) consisting of approximately 1,118 dwelling units and 1,153 square metres of commercial space. The subject property includes several properties and is generally located at the southwest corner of Bay Street and Bloor Street West. The subject property includes almost the entire block from St. Thomas Street, east to Bay Street and presently consists of 2-3 storey buildings. The existing heritage property located at 95A Bloor Street West is proposed to be retained and incorporated into the current development proposal.

3There are two additional Party and no additional Participant status requests at this CMC with respect to this matter.

4The first Party request is from 23 St. Thomas and MTCC No. 1271 represented by Calvin Lantz. Both entities were previously granted Participant status at the October 5, 2022 CMC but made a further request to the Tribunal for Party status on December 23, 2022. These entities are located adjacent to and immediately south of the subject property. Mr. Lantz noted that the PO has not yet been finalized, he has submitted an Issues List to PR Bloor Street and is not requesting any changes to the timing or length of the September 18, 2023 Merits Hearing. Therefore, Mr. Lantz submits there is no prejudice to PR Bloor Street.

5Mr. Gill representing PR Bloor Street, was in opposition to Mr. Lantz’s clients being granted Party status. He submitted that only Parties that should be considered for status at this CMC are those who may have inadvertently not received notice prior to the first CMC. All other parties consented to 23 St. Thomas and MTCC No. 1271 being given party status

6Ms. Flynn-Guglietti requested Party status on behalf of TSCC No. 1924 located at 1 St. Thomas Street and MTCC No. 1251 located at 22 St. Thomas Street. All parties consented to this request.

7The Tribunal is advised by both Parties that neither will add time to the scheduled merits hearing, will work with PR Bloor Street to reduce or resolve issues and are either adjacent or nearby properties that have a direct interest in the proposal.

8The Tribunal finds that both satisfy necessary applicable legislative tests and “their presence is necessary to enable the Tribunal to adjudicate effectively and completely on the issues in the proceeding” (Rule 8.2 -Ontario Land Tribunal – Rules of Practice and Procedure) and there is no prejudice to any other Party. Therefore, the Tribunal grants Party status to 23 St. Thomas, MTCC No. 1271, TSCC No. 1924 and MTCC No. 1251 to these proceedings.

9Mr. Gill provided background information with respect to the proposal for the benefit of the Tribunal and Parties present. The proposal is for a mixed-use development on underutilized properties. He noted that PR Bloor St. is engaged with without prejudice discussions between the Parties involved in an effort to find resolution to or reduction of Issues found in the Issues List. A draft PO is provided to the Tribunal, but dates and a final Issues List may only be completed when the Tribunal has determined the status of all Parties.

10Mr. Gill requested the Tribunal to direct a deadline for the submission of the Parties’ issues.

11The Tribunal directs that all Parties provide to PR Bloor Street Issues for the PO’s Issue List no later than 4:30 p.m. Monday, January 30, 2023. PR Bloor Street will submit a final PO to the Tribunal and all Parties no later than 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, February 2, 2023 for review and approval. Should a consensus not be found, Mr. Gill will notify the Tribunal Case Coordinator in writing with respect of the reasons the PO is not in a final form and provide advice to the Tribunal on a go-forward strategy.

12The Parties are aware of the availability of Tribunal-led mediation. Parties are of the opinion this may be a possible path for this matter and understand they may request this mediation at their convenience.

13The Tribunal notes that the hearing is scheduled to commence by video on Monday, September 18, 2023 for ten (10) days. The administrative coordinates for this hearing are found in the decision issued November 3, 2022 and are not repeated in this decision.

ORDER

14Accordingly, the Tribunal Orders.

1. That the Tribunal grants Party status to 23 St. Thomas Inc., Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1271, Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1924, and Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No.1251, and

2. The Procedural Order found in Attachment 1 is approved and comes into full force and effect.

15The Member is not seized.

“Bryan W. Tuckey”

BRYAN W. TUCKEY MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

ISSUE DATE: February 24, 2023 CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004116 & OLT-22-004117

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

Applicant/Appellant: PR Bloor Street GP Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit the development of a 79-storey mixed-use development Reference Number: 21 249697 STE 11 OZ Property Address: 83-95A Bloor Street West Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004116 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004065 OLT Case Name: PR Bloor Street GP Inc. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: PR Bloor Street GP Inc. Subject: Site Plan Description: To permit the development of a 79-sotrey mixed-use development Reference Number: 21 249696 STE 11 SA Property Address: 83-95A Bloor Street West Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004117 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004116

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 18, 2023 at 10:00 a.m.

3. The length of the hearing is ten (10) days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1 (see the sample procedural order for the meaning of these terms).

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 2. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6. The order of evidence 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. 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 June 9, 2023 and in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified.

10. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before June 30, 2023 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 August 18, 2023.

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 21, 2023, the parties shall provide copies of their 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 21, 2023, 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 21, 2023 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

16. On or before August 30, 2023 , the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

17. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before August 4, 2023 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, 2023.

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 6, 2023 with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

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.

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 12, 2023. 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.

This Member is [not] seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE:

Name of Member:

Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
May 12, 2023	Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any)
June 9, 2023	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
June 30, 2023	Experts Meeting
August 18, 2023	Agreed Statement of Facts (if any)
July 21, 2023	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
August 4, 2023	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
August 30, 2023	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
August 30, 2023	Preparation of Joint Document Book
September 6, 2023	Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal
September 18, 2023	Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 1 PARTIES/PARTICIPANTS

1. PR Bloor Street GP Inc. David Bronskill (416) 597-4299 dbronskill@goodmans.ca

2. City of Toronto Sarah O’Connor (416) 397-5378 sarah.oconnor@toronto.ca

3. ABC Residents Association / The Greater Yorkville Residents’ Association Andrew Biggart (416) 622-6601, x. 1003 abiggart@ritchieketcheson.com

4. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1255 Gerald Miller (416) 363-2614, x. 228 Gerry.miller@gmalaw.ca

5. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1924 / Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1251 Mary Flynn-Guglietti 416-865-7256 mary.flynn@mcmillan.ca

6. 23 St. Thomas Inc. / Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1271 Calvin Lantz 416-869-5669 clantz@stikeman.com

ATTACHMENT 2 ISSUES LIST

Issues List of City of Toronto

Matters of Provincial Interest

1. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest set forth in section 2 of the Planning Act, including 2(h), (j), (k), (l), (n), (o), (q) and (r) and section 2.1 of the Planning Act?

2. Is the proposed development consistent with Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, pursuant to section 3 of the Planning Act, including policies 1.3.1(a) and (d); 1.4.3 (b); 1.5.1(a); and, 1.7.1(b)?

3. Does the proposed development conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, as amended, including 2.2.1.4 (a), (c), (e); 2.2.3.1 (c), 2.2.6.2 (c), and (d)?

City of Toronto Official Plan Conformity

4. Does the proposed development conform with the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, as modified, including the policies related to: a. Downtown: The Heart of Toronto (2.2.1.4); b. The Public Realm (3.1.1); c. Built Form (3.1.2); d. Built Form – Building Types (3.1.3); e. Heritage Conservation (3.1.5); f. Housing (3.2.1.1); g. The Future of Retailing (3.5.3); h. Mixed Use Areas (4.5.2); i. Secondary Plans: Policies for Local Growth Opportunities (5.2.1); and j. Interpretation (5.6).

Downtown Secondary Plan Conformity

5. Does the proposed development conform with the policies of the Downtown Secondary Plan being Section 6, Chapter 41 of the Official Plan, including the policies related to: a. Goals – Complete Communities (3.1; 3.3; 3.4; 3.5); b. Goals – Prosperity (3.11); c. Land Use and Economy – Bay-Bloor Office corridor (6.7); d. Land Use and Economy – Mixed Use Areas 1 – Growth (6.24); e. Land Use and Economy – Retail (6.42); f. Parks and Public Realm (7.1; 7.3); g. Mobility – A Walkable Downtown (8.4; 8.5); h. Mobility – Parking and Curbside Management (8.27; 8.28); i. Built Form – Improving the Public Realm (9.1; 9.3; 9.4; 9.8; 9.10); j. Built Form – Physical Determinants of Intensity and Scale (9.11; 9.13 – 9.15 inclusive); k. Built Form – Creating a Comfortable Microclimate (9.17; 9.18; 9.20; 9.21) l. Built Form – Transition (9.22; 9.23; 9.24 – 9.27 inclusive); and m. Built Form – Amenity Space (9.30 – 9.33 inclusive); n. Interpretation (15.1)

Bloor Yorkville/North Midtown Area SASP 211

6. Does the proposed development conform with the Mixed Use Areas policies (b)?

Official Plan Amendment 352/SASP 517

7. Does the proposed development conform with Official Plan Amendment 352 (SASP 517), and relating Zoning By-law Amendments?

Tall Building Design Guidelines

8. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for and achieve the intent and purpose of the applicable Tall Building Design Guidelines?

Other Design Guidelines

9. Does the development have appropriate regard for the applicable Bloor-Yorkville/North Midtown Guidelines?

10. Does the development have appropriate regard for the applicable Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities Guidelines?

11. Does the development have appropriate regard for the applicable Retail Design Manual guidelines?

Site-Specific Issues

12. Does the proposed development represent good land use planning, and urban design, having appropriate regard for matters such as: a. The existing and planned context; b. The proposed built form, massing and scale, building setbacks and stepbacks, streetwall height, building height, density, and design; c. The built form relationship to the adjacent and abutting properties regarding the proposed setbacks, stepbacks, base building heights, overall building height and separation distances; and d. The appropriate mix of uses in the appropriate quantity.

13. Does the proposed development establish appropriate relationships at grade, including provision of an appropriate pedestrian realm, streetscaping and contributions to public space?

14. Does the proposed development comply with the City of Toronto's Private Tree By-law and City Street Tree By-law, and does the proposed development provide sufficient soil volumes to support the proposed trees?

15. Does the proposed development provide adequate indoor and outdoor amenity space?

16. Has the proposed development demonstrated that there is sufficient infrastructure capacity to accommodate the proposed development?

17. Is the form and content of the Zoning By-law Amendment appropriate and is its approval of the proposal in the public interest?

Conditions to OLT Order on Zoning By-law Amendment

18. If the proposed development is approved in whole or in part, should the Tribunal Order be withheld until the following conditions are satisfied and the Tribunal receive confirmation from the City Solicitor that: a) the final form and content of the draft Zoning By-law are to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning; b) the owner has addressed all outstanding issues raised by Urban Forestry as they relate to tree planting, soil volume, utility conflicts, tree protection, and Toronto Green Standards, to the satisfaction of the Supervisor, Tree Protection and Plan Review; and c) the owner has resolved matters related to roadway widenings and conveyances, as well as matters related to functional servicing and stormwater management, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services.

Issues List of ABC Residents Association and the Greater Yorkville Ratepayers Association (“GYRA”)

1. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest set forth in section 2 of the Planning Act, including 2(h), (n), (o) and (r) and section 2.1 of the Planning Act?
2. Is the proposed development consistent with Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, pursuant to section 3 of the Planning Act?
3. Does the proposed development conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, as amended.
4. Does the proposed development conform to the adopted and in-force policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, including policy 2.3.1 (Healthy Neighbourhoods); policy 3.1.2 (Built Form); policy 3.1.3 (Built Form – Tall Buildings); policy 4.5 (Mixed Use Areas); Policy 5.1.1 (Height and/Density Incentives); Area Specific Policy 211; OPA 320 (Healthy Neighbourhoods); OPA 406 (Downtown Secondary Plan); and the Yorkville-Hazelton Area Heritage Conservation District Plan?
5. Will the loss of retail space on the ground floor of this Bloor Street site result in an inappropriate and unplanned change to the character of the area and does the loss of retail space conform with the applicable policy documents?
6. Is it appropriate and consistent with good planning and good urban design for the proposed development to be substantially in excess of CR Zoning by reaching a height of 76 storeys and with the proposed setbacks and setbacks, as well as other performance standards, as proposed by the developer?
7. Does the proposed development provide a sufficient contribution, and an appropriate relationship, to the public realm, especially when considered in the context of the height and density that is proposed for this site?
8. Does the proposed development represent good land use planning and urban design, having regard to the existing and planned land use context and the following matters:
   1. The appropriateness of the built form, building type, massing and scale, building heights, density, urban design as well as transition and fit with adjacent areas, ad the transition and fit within the urban structure of the Bloor-Yorkville/North Midtown;
   2. Whether the proposed development is consistent with approved City of Toronto Design Guidelines, including Tall Building Guidelines and the Bloor-Yorkville/North Midtown Urban Design Guidelines;
   3. Whether the proposed development would create unacceptable shadow and wind impacts upon the both the public and private realms?

Issues List of 23 St. Thomas Inc./Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1271

1. Is the location of the vehicular access, including parking, loading, and pick-up and drop-off activity, for the proposed development appropriate, and in particular, in relation to the adjacent lands at 23 St. Thomas Street, and if not, what is the appropriate location for the vehicular access for the proposed development?
2. Is the location of the mechanical room for the proposed development appropriate, and in particular, in relation to the adjacent lands at 23 St. Thomas Street, and if not, what is the appropriate location for the mechanical room for the proposed development?
3. Does the proposed development provide appropriate transition and compatibility relative to neighbouring developments and land uses, particularly in view of concerns regarding noise and shadow impact?
4. Is the size and configuration of the tower of the proposed development appropriate, including with respect to setbacks to the property 23 St. Thomas Street?
5. Is the size and configuration of the podium of the proposed development appropriate, including with respect to its interface with the property at 23 St. Thomas St?
6. What are the implications of the proposed development on the future development of the balance of the properties on the block? Has an appropriate block plan been prepared and secured for the development of the block?
7. Will the construction of the proposed development interfere with existing buildings, structures, and uses on adjacent lands at 23 St. Thomas Street, Toronto? If the appeal for the proposed development is allowed in whole or in part, what form of construction management plan should be secured and implemented to ensure that any adverse impacts on adjacent lands are mitigated?
   1. In the event of approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment for 83-95A Bloor Street West, should a Holding Symbol “H” be applied to the property requiring the provision of a satisfactory construction management plan for the development, including but not limited to size and location of staging areas, location and function of fences and gates, vehicular parking and queuing locations, street closures, coordination with adjacent properties and on-going development activities and operating businesses, laneway uses and access, refuse storage, communication strategies, site contact information, and measures to mitigate adverse impacts related to noise, air quality, dust, and odour?

Issues List of TSCC 1924 and MTCC 1251

Matters of Provincial Interest

1. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest set forth in section 2 of the Planning Act, including 2(h), (j), (k), (l), (n), (o), (q) and (r) and section 2.1 of the Planning Act?

2. Is the proposed development consistent with Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, pursuant to section 3 of the Planning Act, including policies 1.3.1(a) and (d); 1.4.3 (b); 1.5.1(a); and, 1.7.1(b)?

3. Does the proposed development conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, as amended, including 2.2.1.4 (a), (c), (e); 2.2.3.1 (c), 2.2.6.2 (c), and (d)?

City of Toronto Official Plan Conformity

4. Does the proposed development conform with the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, as modified, including the policies related to: a. Downtown: The Heart of Toronto (2.2.1.4); b. The Public Realm (3.1.1); c. Built Form (3.1.2); d. Built Form – Building Types (3.1.3); e. Housing (3.2.1.1); f. The Future of Retailing (3.5.3); g. Mixed Use Areas (4.5.2); h. Secondary Plans: Policies for Local Growth Opportunities (5.2.1); and i. Interpretation (5.6).

Downtown Secondary Plan Conformity

5. Does the proposed development conform with the policies of the Downtown Secondary Plan being Section 6, Chapter 41 of the Official Plan, including the policies related to: a. Goals – Complete Communities (3.1; 3.3; 3.4; 3.5); b. Goals – Prosperity (3.11); c. Land Use and Economy – Mixed Use Areas 1 – Growth (6.24); d. Land Use and Economy – Retail (6.42); e. Parks and Public Realm (7.1; 7.3); f. Mobility – A Walkable Downtown (8.4; 8.5); g. Mobility – Parking and Curbside Management (8.27; 8.28); h. Built Form – Improving the Public Realm (9.1; 9.3; 9.4; 9.8; 9.10); i. Built Form – Physical Determinants of Intensity and Scale (9.11; 9.13 – 9.15 inclusive); j. Built Form – Creating a Comfortable Microclimate (9.17; 9.18; 9.20; 9.21) k. Built Form – Transition (9.22; 9.23; 9.24 – 9.27 inclusive); and l. Interpretation (15.1)

Bloor Yorkville/North Midtown Area SASP 211

6. Does the proposed development conform with the Mixed Use Areas policies (b)?

Official Plan Amendment 352/SASP 517

7. Does the proposed development conform with Official Plan Amendment 352 (SASP 517), and relating Zoning By-law Amendments?

Tall Building Design Guidelines

8. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for and achieve the intent and purpose of the applicable Tall Building Design Guidelines?

Other Design Guidelines

9. Does the development have appropriate regard for the applicable Bloor-Yorkville/North Midtown Guidelines?

Site-Specific Issues

10. Does the proposed development represent good land use planning, and urban design, having appropriate regard for matters such as: a. The appropriateness of the built form, building type, massing and scale, setbacks, stepbacks, streetwall height, building heights, density and urban design as well as appropriate transition and fit with the planned context; and, b. The built form relationship to the adjacent properties and in particular its relationship to 1 and 22 St. Thomas Street regarding the proposed setbacks, stepbacks, base building heights and overall building height.

11. Does the proposed development establish appropriate relationships at grade, including provision of an appropriate pedestrian realm, streetscaping and contributions to public space?

12. Has the proposed development demonstrated that there is sufficient infrastructure capacity to accommodate the proposed development?

13. Is the location and design of the vehicular access appropriate to accommodate parking, loading, pick-up and drop-off activity for residents and delivery persons, as well as emergency vehicles such as ambulances and fire trucks, and in particular, in relation to the adjacent lands at 1 and 22 St. Thomas Street, and if not, what is the appropriate location and design for the vehicular access for the proposed development?

14. Is the location and design of the mechanical room for the proposed development appropriate, and in particular, in relation to the adjacent lands at 1 and 22 St. Thomas Street, and if not, what is the appropriate location and design for the mechanical room for the proposed development?

15. Does the proposed development provide appropriate transition and compatibility relative to neighbouring developments and land uses, particularly in view of concerns regarding noise and shadow impact?

16. What are the implications of the proposed development on the future development of the balance of the properties on the block? Has an appropriate block plan been prepared and secured for the development of the block?

17. Is the form and content of the Zoning By-law Amendment appropriate and is its approval of the proposal in the public interest?

18. Will the construction of the proposed development interfere with existing buildings, structures, and uses on adjacent lands at 23 St. Thomas Street, Toronto? If the appeal for the proposed development is allowed in whole or in part, what form of construction management plan should be secured and implemented to ensure that any adverse impacts on adjacent lands are mitigated?

19. In the event of approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment for 83-95A Bloor Street West, should a Holding Symbol “H” be applied to the property requiring the provision of a construction management plan for the development, including but not limited to size and location of staging areas, location and function of fences and gates, vehicular parking and queuing locations, street closures, coordination with adjacent properties and on-going development activities and operating businesses, laneway uses and access, refuse storage, communication strategies, and site contact information?

ATTACHMENT 3 ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. PR Bloor Street GP Inc.
2. City of Toronto
3. ABC Residents Association/GYRA
4. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1255
5. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1924/Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1251
6. 23 St. Thomas Inc./Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1271
7. PR Bloor Street GP, in reply (if any)

Attachment to Sample Procedural Order

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.

7308204