307 Lake Shore Boulevard East Limited v. Toronto (City), 2023 CanLII 149308

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

December 06, 2023

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-23-000378

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

Applicant and Appellant:

307 Lake Shore Boulevard East Limited

Subject:

Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description:

To permit a 49-storey mixed use building with 430 residential units

Reference Number:

22 141954 STE 10 OZ

Property Address:

307 Lake Shore Boulevard East

Municipality/UT:

City of Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-23-000378

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-000378

OLT Case Name:

307 Lake Shore Boulevard East Limited 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:

307 Lake Shore Boulevard East Limited

Subject:

Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description:

To permit a 49-storey mixed use building with 430 residential units

Reference Number:

22 141954 STE 10 OZ

Property Address:

307 Lake Shore Boulevard East

Municipality/UT:

City of Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-23-000379

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-000378

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

Applicant and Appellant:

307 Lake Shore Boulevard East Limited

Subject:

Site Plan

Description:

To permit a 49-storey mixed use building with 430 residential units

Reference Number:

22 141953 STE 10 SA

Property Address:

307 Lake Shore Boulevard East

Municipality/UT:

City of Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-23-000380

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-000378

Heard:

November 14, 2023 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

307 Lakeshore Boulevard

M. Flowers

East Limited (“Appellant”)

M. Cook

City of Toronto (“City”)

L. Pinder

S. O’Connor

Toronto Waterfront Revitalization

A. Biggart

Corp. (“Waterfront Toronto”)

C. Kapelos (in absentia)

Quayside Block 1 Inc. and

A. Benedetti

Quayside Impact Limited

Partnership (“QILP”)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY D. ARNOLD ON november 14, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1This second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was held to prepare for a Hearing on the merits of the Appellant’s appeals to the Tribunal of the failure of the City to make decisions with regard to the Appellant’s applications for an Official Plan Amendment, a Zoning By-law Amendment (the “Appeals”) and Site Plan Control Approval pertaining to the lands municipally known as 307 Lake Shore Boulevard East (“Subject Property”) in order to permit a proposed mixed use development of the Subject Property.

SETTLEMENT OPPORTUNITIES

2The Parties indicated that a mediation assessment was conducted on Monday, November 13, 2023, and it is anticipated that Tribunal-facilitated mediation will occur in early 2024 in an effort to narrow or resolve some or all of the issues of the Appeals. The Parties are directed to advise the Tribunal through the Case Coordinator of any outcome of mediation which may warrant the Tribunal’s consideration of a reduction in the required number of hearing days for the adjudication of the Appeals, and if necessary, the Tribunal may schedule a CMC in this regard.

PROCEDURAL ORDER AND HEARING DATES

3The Parties submitted that approximately 15 to 20 hearing days will be required for a Hearing on the merits of the Appeals if all issues that remain outstanding are to be adjudicated following mediation efforts. The Parties estimate that approximately 17 to 19 witnesses, including expert witnesses in the subject matter of land use planning, urban design, servicing and transportation, would be required in this regard. The Tribunal is satisfied that 19 hearing days will suffice in this regard.

4A draft Procedural Order (‘PO”), including Issues List (“IL”), was submitted to the Tribunal for its consideration prior to the commencement of the CMC. The Parties were directed to cooperate on revising the draft PO to reflect the Hearing dates provided at the CMC as well as some minor edits to the IL and submit same to the Tribunal through the Case Coordinator on or before Friday, November 24, 2023. Upon the Parties so doing, the Tribunal reviewed same, and the PO attached as Schedule A to this Order is approved.

5A Hearing of the Appeals is scheduled to take place by video for 19 days, commencing on Monday, October 28, 2024, at 10 a.m., excluding the dates of Monday, November 11, 2024 (Remembrance Day), Monday, November 18, 2024 and Tuesday, November 19, 2024 (Tribunal Professional Development Days), and concluding on Tuesday, November 26, 2024.

https://meet.goto.com/558205565

Access code: 558-205-565

6Parties 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:

7Parties 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

8Persons 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 the same as the access code noted above.

9Individuals 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

10The Tribunal orders as follows:

a. A Hearing of the Appeal is scheduled to take place, commencing Monday, October 28, 2024 at 10 a.m. by video and continue for 19 days, excluding Monday, November 11, 2024, Monday, November 18, 2024 and Tuesday, November 19, 2024, and concluding on Tuesday, November 26, 2024.

b. The Procedural Order attached as Schedule A to this Order is approved.

c. The Tribunal so orders and provides these Case Management Conference directives for the purposes of the case management of the Appeals.

d. The Member is not seized in this matter but will remain available for continued case management to the extent that the Tribunal calendar permits.

e. No further notice of these proceedings is required or will be given.

“D. Arnold”

D.ARNOLD

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 A

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-23-000378

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

Applicant and Appellant:

307 Lake Shore Boulevard East Limited

Subject:

Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description:

To permit a 49-storey mixed use building with 430 residential units

Reference Number:

22 141954 STE 10 OZ

Property Address:

307 Lake Shore Boulevard East

Municipality/UT:

City of Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-23-000378

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-000378

OLT Case Name:

307 Lake Shore Boulevard East Limited 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:

307 Lake Shore Boulevard East Limited

Subject:

Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description:

To permit a 49-storey mixed use building with 430 residential units

Reference Number:

22 141954 STE 10 OZ

Property Address:

307 Lake Shore Boulevard East

Municipality/UT:

City of Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-23-000379

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-000378

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

Applicant and Appellant:

307 Lake Shore Boulevard East Limited

Subject:

Site Plan

Description:

To permit a 49-storey mixed use building with 430 residential units

Reference Number:

22 141953 STE 10 SA

Property Address:

307 Lake Shore Boulevard East

Municipality/UT:

City of Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-23-000380

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-000378

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 hearing will begin on Monday, October 28, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. as directed in the Tribunal's Decision and Order.

3. The Parties’ initial estimation of the length of the hearing is 19 days (the Tribunal will not sit on November 11, 18, or 19, 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. The procedural order deadlines are generally found in Attachment 1.

4. The Parties and Participants identified at the Case Management Conference are listed in Attachment 2 to this Order.

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3 to this Order. The Parties will attempt to resolve the issues prior to the hearing on the merits of the appeal. There will be no changes to the Issues List unless the Tribunal permits, and a Party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6. 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 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. 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/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Video-Hearing-Guide.html).

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. If the applicant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing, the applicant shall provide copies of the revised proposal, including all revised plans, drawings, proposed instruments, updated supporting documents and reports, to the other Parties on or before Friday, May 24, 2024. 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.

10. 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, the expert witness(es)' curriculum vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert Duty form(s), and the order in which the witnesses will be called. This list must be delivered at least on or before Monday, June 28, 2024. 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 Friday, July 19, 2024.

11. 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, Friday, August 19, 2024, if this meeting takes place and if agreement is reached.

12. 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, and the curriculum vitae and Acknowledgment of Expert Duty Form previously provided as in paragraph 10. Copies must be provided as in paragraph 15. 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 they intend 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 paragraph 15.

13. A witness or participant must provide to the Tribunal and the Parties a witness statement or participant statement, respectively, on or before Friday, August 23, 2024, or the witness may not give oral evidence at the hearing. Participants are only permitted to provide written evidence to the Tribunal, excepted as permitted by the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021 and the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

14. 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 15.

15. On or before Friday, August 23, 2024, the Parties shall provide copies of their expert witness statements (full disclosure including reports) to the other Parties.

16. On or before Wednesday, September 18, 2024, the Parties may provide to all other Parties a written response to any written evidence.

17. On or before Friday, September 13, 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.

18. On or before Friday, September 27, 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. On or before Tuesday, October 8, 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 guide the Hearing Event, 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.

22. The Parties shall prepare and provide to the Tribunal a Joint Document Book On or before Tuesday, October 8, 2024. All Parties must be served with the Joint Document Book in paper or an accessible electronic format in accordance with paragraph 23.

23. All filing of documents and materials shall be electronic to the Tribunal, the Parties and Participants (if any). If requested, 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 by email shall be governed by Rule 7. All documents to be filed with the Tribunal shall be organized, tabbed and digitally searchable and such materials will be filed in accordance with directions contained in the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, dated July 2, 2020, or as may be amended. Paragraph 23 applies regardless if the hearing event is in-person or electronic.

24. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness or as permitted by paragraph 9. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

25. 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.

26. 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

May 24, 2024 (91 days before Witness Statement Date)

Appellant to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any)

June 28, 2024 (122 days prior to hearing)

Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)

July 19, 2024 (101 days prior to hearing)

Last date to challenge identification of expert witness

August 9, 2024 (80 days prior to hearing)

Experts meeting prior to this date

August 9, 2024 (80 days prior to hearing)

Agreed Statement of Facts

August 23, 2024 (66 days prior to hearing)

Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements

September 13, 2024 (45 days prior to hearing)

Parties to Advise Tribunal if any hearing dates are to be released from the hearing calendar (if any)

September 18, 2024 (40 days prior to hearing)

Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)

September 27, 2024 (31 days prior to hearing)

Exchange of visual evidence (if any)

October 8, 2024 (20 days prior to hearing)

Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal

October 8, 2024 (20 days prior to hearing)

Finalize Joint Document Book

October 28, 2024

Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

Parties

1. 307 Lakeshore Boulevard East Limited Davies Howe LLP The Tenth Floor 425 Adelaide Street West Toronto, ON M5V 3C1 Mark Flowers Email: markf@davieshowe.com Tel: 416-263-4513 Michael Cook Email: michaelc@davieshowe.com Tel: 416-263-4515

2. City of Toronto Legal Services Division 26th Floor, Metro Hall 55 John Street Toronto, ON M5V 3C6 Sarah O’Connor Email: sarah.oconnor@toronto.ca Tel: 416-397-5378 Lauren Pinder Email: lauren.pinder@toronto.ca Tel: 416-392-0797

3. Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corp. Ritchie Ketcheson Hart & Biggart LLP 1 Eva Road Toronto, ON M9C 4Z5 Andrew Biggart Email: abiggart@ritchieketcheson.com Tel: 416-622-6601 Tina Kapelos Email: tkapelos@ritchieketcheson.com Tel: 416-622-6601

4. Quayside Block 1 Inc. and Quayside Impact Limited Partnership Goodmans LLP Bay Adelaide Centre - West Tower 333 Bay Street, Suite 3400 Toronto, ON M5H 2S7 Anne Benedetti Email: abenedetti@goodmans.ca Tel: 416-597-5929

Participants

1. Gooderham & Worts Neighbourhood Association Diana Belshaw Email: president@gwna.ca Tel: 416-986-7273

2. East Waterfront Community Association Michael Bethke Email: mike@ewca.ca Tel: 647-899-2231

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 or appropriate. 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. Accordingly, no Party shall advance an issue not identified on the Issues List without leave of the Tribunal.

A. City of Toronto

Planning Act and Provincial Policy

1. Do the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments have appropriate regard to matters of Provincial Interest under Section 2 of the Planning Act including matters (e), (f), (h), (j), (n), (o), (p), (q), and (r)?

2. Is the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) including sections 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8 and 4.6?

3. Does the proposal conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, including sections 1.1, 1.2.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 3.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.2.6, 3.2.7, 4.2.5, 4.2.9, 4.2.10, and 5.2?

City of Toronto Policy, Guidelines, Precinct Plans and Zoning

4. Do the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments conform with the City of Toronto Official Plan, including sections 2.2 (Structuring Growth in the City), 2.3.2 (Toronto’s Greenspace System and Waterfront), 3.1 (The Built Environment), 3.2.1 (Housing), 3.3 (Building New Neighbourhoods), 3.4 (The Natural Environment), 4.7 (Regeneration Areas), 5.1.2 (Holding By-laws), 5.2 (Planning and Acting Locally), 5.3 (Moving Together Beyond the Plan), and Chapter 7 Site and Area Specific Policy 517 (Downtown Tall Buildings)?

5. Do the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments conform with the Central Waterfront Secondary Plan, including:

a) Section One: Core Principle A (including A3, A4, P5, P7, and P9)

b) Section One: Core Principle B (including B10, P10, P11, P12, and P14)

c) Section One: Core Principle C (including P19, P20, P23, P24, P26 and P27)

d) Section One: Core Principle D (including D24, P30, P31, P32, P33, P34, P37, P38, P39, P45, P46, P47, and P54, including Map H1 and Map H2.

e) Section Two: 1 (A Simplified Approach to Land Use Regulation), 2.1 (Planning at a Precinct Level), 2.2. (Precinct Implementation Strategies), 2.4 (Contributions to Infrastructure and Community Facilities), 2.5 (Increases in Height and/or Density), 2.6 (Holding By-laws), 4 (Encouraging Excellence in Design), and 7 (Interpretation of the Plan).

6. Does the proposal have appropriate regard for the East Bayfront Precinct Plan (2005) and the Keating Channel Precinct Plan (2010), including:

a) in the East Bayfront Precinct Plan, Sections 1 (The Vision for East Bayfront), 4 (Community Character), 5 (Plan Components and Concepts), 7 (Development Guidelines), and 9 (Phasing and Implementation); and

b) in the Keating Channel Precinct Plan, the sections entitled Vision for the Keating Channel Precinct, Planning principles for the Keating Channel Precinct, Neighbourhood Building, Public Realm, Built Form, Sustainable Infrastructure, Transportation Network and Phasing and Implementation?

7. Does the proposal have appropriate regard for the City of Toronto’s Tall Building Design Guidelines (2013)?

8. Does the application have appropriate regard for the City of Toronto’s Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities Urban Design Guidelines (2020)?

9. Public Interest and Good Planning

10. Do the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments represent good planning and urban design, and are they in the public interest?

Land Use, Density and Built Form

10. Does the proposed development fit appropriately within the existing and planned context, with regard to its setbacks, step backs, scale, height, separation distances, massing and transition, floor plate size, density, balcony projections and site organization, with applicable policies and relevant guidelines?

11. Are the proposed site-specific land use and built form permissions in accordance with the principles and intent of the Central Waterfront Secondary Plan, with consideration for appropriate distribution of density and for comprehensive planning of the Keating West precinct?

12. Is the site appropriate for a tall building having regard to the size of the site, configuration, context, and tower separation?

13. If approved, would the proposed development result in inappropriate constraints on the development potential of abutting properties with existing as-of-right development permissions?

14. Can a functional tall building of the density proposed be accommodated on this property, if appropriate above and below-grade setbacks and step-backs are provided to address, among other matters, appropriate separation distances from as-of-right development and minimum clearances above and below-grade from the Gardiner Expressway structure?

15. Has the proposal adequately addressed land use compatibility considerations for the Keating Channel West Precinct, including the site’s noise and vibration conditions?

Public Realm

16. Is the proposed site and public realm design consistent with the Central Waterfront Secondary Plan and precinct implementation strategies, including with regard to design excellence in buildings and the public realm, and does the proposal have appropriate regard for the Lake Shore Boulevard East Public Realm Vision, Phasing and Implementation Plan (2020)?

17. Has it been demonstrated that adequate soil volume for tree planting is proposed?

18. Does the proposed built form result in comfortable microclimates on streets, plazas and other parts of the public realm, including appropriate wind conditions?

Transportation

19. Does the proposal provide for appropriate site circulation, vehicular access and loading, including access to the parking and loading/service area?

20. Has an adequate and appropriate Transportation Demand Management Plan been proposed?

21. Is the provision and location of bicycle parking appropriate?

Engineering and Servicing

22. Has the proposal demonstrated that adequate municipal services are in place to support the proposed development, having regard for the coordinated planning of land use and infrastructure at a precinct level in the Central Waterfront?

23. Has the proposal provided a satisfactory strategy for stormwater management?

Amenity Space

24. Has the proposal provided adequate indoor and outdoor amenity space with environmental conditions (e.g. wind and noise) appropriate to the intended use?

Sustainability

25. Does the proposal have appropriate regard for the sustainable design and energy efficiency objectives of the Central Waterfront Secondary Plan and applicable precinct plans?

Housing and Unit Mix

26. Do the proposed Official Plan and Zoning by-law amendments provide for a range of housing options, including affordable housing and appropriately sized larger residential units?

27. Is the proposed provision of affordable rental housing appropriate given the policy direction of the Central Waterfront Secondary Plan and the in-force site-specific affordable housing requirements in Zoning By-law 1174-2010 (OMB)?

Section 37

28. Should the in-force section 37 obligations in By-law 1174-2010 be maintained in accordance with Section 37.1 of the Planning Act and having regard to the direction in the applicable policy framework?

Implementation

29. In the event that the Tribunal allows the appeal in whole or in part, do the form and content of the Official Plan Amendment appropriately secure the proposed development?

30. In the event that the Tribunal allows the appeal in whole or in part, do the form and content of the Zoning By-law Amendment appropriately secure the proposed development, inclusive of appropriate holding (h) provisions?

31. Should a holding provision be included in the Zoning By-law Amendment to prohibit development until the matters in the existing holding provision applicable to the site in By-law 1174-2010(OMB) and as continue to be applicable?

32. If the proposal is approved in whole or in part, what pre-conditions should be satisfied prior to the issuance of a final order? Should the Tribunal’s Order be withheld until such time as the City Solicitor advises that:

a) the final form and content of the draft Official Plan Amendment is to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

b) the final form and content of the draft Zoning By-law is to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, inclusive of any appropriate holding (H) provisions;

c) the plans and studies have been revised to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, the General Manager, Transportation Services, the General Manager, Solid Waste Management, and the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation;

d) the Owner has made satisfactory arrangements with the City and has entered into the appropriate agreement(s) for the design and construction of any improvements to municipal infrastructure, should it be determined that upgrades and/or road improvements are required to the infrastructure to support the development, according to the accepted Engineering Reports and Traffic Impact Study accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and the General Manager, Transportation Services;

e) the appropriate environmental reports and architectural plans have been peer reviewed to ensure that appropriate noise and vibration mitigation measures are implemented and reflected in the final form of the amending Official Plan policies and Zoning By-law Amendment, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning; and

f) the Owner has provided a revised Pedestrian Level Wind Study with recommendations implemented as part of the amending Official Plan policies and Zoning By-law Amendment and the City has advised that any building envelope changes to address the findings of the wind study have been made, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and any mitigation measures secured in a development agreement, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning?

B. Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corp.

33. Does the proposed development (i.e. the proposed Official Plan Amendment and proposed Zoning By-law Amendment) have appropriate regard to matters of Provincial Interest under section 2 of the Planning Act including matters (e), (f), (h), (j), (n), (o), (p), (q), and (r)?

34. Is the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) including sections 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8 and 4.6?

35. Does the proposed development conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe including sections 1.1, 1.2.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 3.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.2.6, 3.2.7, 4.2.5, 4.2.9, 4.2.10 and 5.2?

36. Does the proposed development conform with the City of Toronto Official Plan including sections 2.2 (Structuring Growth in the City), 2.3.2 (Toronto’s Green Space System and Waterfront), 3.1 (The Built Environment), 3.2 (The Human Environment), 3.3 (Building New Neighbourhoods), 3.4 (The Natural Environment), 4.7 (Regeneration Areas), 5.2 (Planning and Acting Locally), 5.3 (Moving Together Beyond the Plan), and Chapter 7 Site and Area Specific Policy 517 (Downtown Tall Buildings)?

37. Does the proposed development conform with the Central Waterfront Secondary Plan including: Section One: Core Principle A (A3, A4, P5, P7 and P9), Core Principle B (B10, P10, P11, P12 and P14), Core Principle C (P19, P20, P21, P23, P24, P26 and P27), Core Principle D (D24, P30, P31, P32, P33, P34,P37, P38, P39, P45, P46, P47 and P54, including Map H1 and H2) and; Section Two: 1 (A Simplified Approach to Land Use Regulations), 2.1 (Planning at Precinct Level), 2.2 (Precinct Implementation Strategies), 2.4 (Contributions to Infrastructure and Community Facilities), 2.5 (Increases in Height and/or Density), 2.6 (Holding By-laws), 4 (Encouraging Excellence in Design), and 7 (Interpretation of the Plan)?

38. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for the East Bayfront Precinct Plan, specifically Sections 4, 5, and 7?

39. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for the Keating Channel Precinct Plan, specifically the sections entitled Neighbourhood Building, and Built Form?

40. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for the City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines and is the site appropriate for a tall building given the applicable policies, the site’s configuration and development planned to occur in proximity to the site?

41. Does the proposed development, due to its size and configuration on its site, risk causing inefficient or inappropriate development on abutting properties?

42. Are the 2016 Minutes of Settlement and the Tribunal’s previous approvals granted to the subject site relevant when considering the now requested Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment and, if they are relevant, what weight should be given to the Minutes of Settlement and the Tribunal’s previous approval for this site in relation to:

a) the permitted GFA;

b) the permitted heights;

c) the permitted setbacks;

d) permitted stepbacks; and,

e) the permitted building separation?

43. Does the proposed development constitute good urban design when considering, among other matters, the development standards set out in Issue 42(a) to (e)?

44. Does the proposed development provide an adequate amount of gross floor area for affordable housing, considering the direction from the Central Waterfront Secondary Plan and the in-force Section 37 obligations?

45. If the proposed development is approved, in whole or in part, should the appellant, as a condition of any approval, be required to coordinate with the owner of the abutting block (Block 3B) for the purpose of ensuring, among other matters, appropriate building separation distances are achieved?

46. If the proposed development is approved, in whole or in part, should the appellant, as a condition of any approval, be required to coordinate with the owner of the abutting block (Block 3B) for the purpose of ensuring the timely and efficient development of infrastructure improvements on the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard East upon Block 3B and the subject site?

47. If the proposed development is approved, in whole or in part, do the form and content of the Official Plan Amendment and the Zoning By-law Amendment appropriately secure the built form and proposed uses for the site?

C. Quayside Block 1 Inc. and Quayside Impact Limited Partnership

48. Do the applications have appropriate regard to matters of Provincial interest under Section 2 of the Planning Act including matters (e), (f), (h), (j), (n), (o), (p), (q) and (r)?

49. Are the applications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), including sections 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.5.1 and 4.6?

50. Do the applications conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, including sections 1.1.1, 1.2.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.2., 2.2.3., 2.2.4, 2.2.6., 3.2.1, 3.2.6, 3.2.7, 4.2.5, and 4.2.10?

51. Do the applications conform with the City of Toronto Official Plan, including sections 2.1 (Building a Move Livable City), 2.2 (Structuring Growth in the City), 2.3.2 (Toronto’s Green Space System and Waterfront), 3.1 (The Built Environment), 3.2 (The Human Environment), 3.3 (Building New Neighbourhoods), 3.4 (The Natural Environment), 4.7 (Regeneration Areas) and Chapter 7 Site and Area Specific Policy 517 (Downtown Tall Buildings)?

52. Do the applications conform with the Central Waterfront Secondary Plan, including Section One: Core Principle A (including A3, A4, and P9), Core Principle B (including B10, P10, P16 and P17), Core Principle C (including P19, P21, P23 and P24), Core Principle D (including D24, P30, P31, P32, P33, P34, P38, P39, P45, P46, P47 and P54) (including Map H1 and Map H2), Section Two: 2.1, (Planning at a Precinct Level) 2.2 (Precinct Implementation Strategies), 2.5 (Increases in Height and/or Density), 2.6 (Holding By-laws), and 4 (Encouraging Excellent in Design)?

53. Do the applications have appropriate regard for the East Bayfront Precinct Plan (2005) and the Keating Channel Precinct Plan (2010)?

54. Do the applications have appropriate regard for the as-of-right building permissions in By-law 1174-2010?

55. Do the applications have appropriate regard for the City of Toronto’s Tall Building Design Guidelines?

56. Is the subject property appropriate for a tall building? In particular, is the site organization and built form of the proposed development on the subject property appropriate, including mass, scale, transition, setbacks and separation distances to adjacent properties?

57. Does the proposal represent good planning and urban design, with particular regard to:

a) the relationship between the proposed tall building to the existing and planned context including the as of right tall building permitted by By-law 1174-2010?

b) the proposed setbacks of the proposed tall building to the property lines, considering light, view and privacy impacts, among other things?

c) the location, stepbacks and floor plate size of the tall building component of the proposed tall building?

d) adequate separation for the purposes of building maintenance and fire separation between the proposed development and the existing planned context including the as of right tall building permitted by By-law 1174-2010?

58. Does the proposed development inappropriately limit potential future redevelopment of the abutting properties, including the balance of the larger block?

59. Has the applicant’s transportation analysis adequately addressed both service and vehicular access for the proposed development without inappropriately limiting the potential future redevelopment of the balance of the larger block as permitted by By-law 1174-2010?

60. Has the applicant’s Block Context Plan adequately considered and addressed the planned / as of right development permissions including the as of right tall building permitted by By-law 1174-2010?

61. What are appropriate pre-conditions to issuance of a final order by the Tribunal?

62. If approved by the Tribunal, does the form and content of the official plan amendment appropriately the policies required to secure the built form and proposed uses within the development?

63. If approved by the Tribunal, does the form and content of the zoning by-law amendment appropriately secure the built form and proposed uses within the development?

D.

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.

1. 307 Lakeshore Boulevard East Limited

2. City of Toronto

3. Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corp.

4. Quayside Block 1 Inc. and Quayside Impact Limited Partnership

5. Reply by 307 Lakeshore Boulevard East Limited (if any)

ATTACHMENT 5

Purpose of the Procedural Order and Meaning of Terms

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. Paragraph 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021 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 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.