7080 Yonge Limited v. Vaughan (City), 2023 CanLII 23956

ISSUE DATE: March 22, 2023 CASE NO.: OLT-21-001436

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

Applicant and Appellant: 7080 Yonge Limited Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure of City of Vaughan to adopt the requested amendment Existing Designation: General commercial Proposed Designation: High Rise Mixed use with commercial site specific provisions Purpose: To permit residential development Property Address/Description: 7080 Yonge Street Municipality: City of Vaughan Approval Authority File No.: OP.20.011 & Z.20.026 OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001436 OLT File No.: OLT-21-001436 OLT Case Name: 7080 Yonge Limited v. Vaughan (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: 7080 Yonge Limited Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 1-88 – neglect of City of Vaughan to make a decision Existing Zoning: “C1” Restricted Commercial Zone subject to site-specific Exception 882 Proposed Zoning: “RA3” Apartment Residential Zone with site-specific provisions to facilitate the development of a mixed-use high-rise apartment building Purpose: To permit residential development Property Address/Description: 7080 Yonge Street Municipality: City of Vaughan Municipality File No.: OP.20.011 & Z.20.026 OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001436 OLT File No.: OLT-21-001438

BEFORE: JATINDER BHULLAR MEMBER

Wednesday, 22nd day of March, 2023

THESE MATTERS having come before the Tribunal for a Case Management Conference on May 6, 2022 and a subsequent Case Management Conference on September 14, 2022;

AND THE TRIBUNAL having received the requested copy of the Procedural Order, on consent,

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Procedural Order attached hereto as Schedule 1 is in full force and effect.

“Euken Lui” EUKEN LUI ACTING REGISTRAR Ontario Land Tribunal Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

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

SCHEDULE 1

ISSUE DATE: March 22, 2023 CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001436

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

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

Organization of the Hearing

The video hearing will begin on Monday, October 23, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. The hearing will be held by video and can be accessed using the following link or telephone number and access code:

Link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/519389173
Telephone: 1-888-299-1889 or 1-647-497-9373
Access Code: 519-389-173

The length of the hearing shall be fifteen (15) 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 parties and participants to the hearing are set out in Attachment 1 (see the sample procedural order for the meaning of these terms).
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.
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.
Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.
Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.

Requirements Before the Hearing

If the applicant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing, the applicant shall provide copies of the revised proposal, including all revised plans, drawings, proposed instruments, updated supporting documents and reports, to the other Parties on or before Monday, June 12, 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.
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 Friday, July 7, 2023 and in accordance with paragraph 23 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified.
Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Friday, July 28, 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 with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Friday, August 10, 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. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 14 below. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.
Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence as in paragraph 14 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 14 below.
On or before Friday, September 8, 2023 the parties shall provide copies of their witness outlines, reports and/or expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.
On or before Monday, September 8, 2023 a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.
On or before Monday, September 18, 2023 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.
On or before Friday, October 13, 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.
Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence within 15 days after the evidence is received and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.
The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Friday, October 13, 2023.
A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.
A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.
The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Monday, October 16, 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.
All filings shall be submitted electronically and in hard copy. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Rule 7.
No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

This Member is [not] seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE: Name of Member: Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
Monday, June 12, 2023	Appellant to provide revised plans, if any
Friday, July 7, 2023	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
Friday July 21, 2023	Last date to challenge identification of expert witness
Friday, July 28, 2023	Experts Meeting
Friday, August 10, 2023	Agreed Statement of Facts
Monday, September 8, 2023	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
Friday, September 29, 2023	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
Friday, October 13, 2023	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
Friday, October 13, 2023	Preparation of Joint Document Book
Monday, October 16, 2023	Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal
Monday, October 23, 2023	Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 1

LIST OF PARTIES/PARTICIPANTS

PARTIES

7080 Yonge Limited David Bronskill dbronskill@goodmans.ca
City of Vaughan Bruce Engell/Effie Lidakis bengell@weirfoulds.com/effie.lidakis@vaughan.ca
Regional Municipality of York Bola Ogunmefun bola.ogunmefun@york.ca
Development Group (100 SAW) Inc. Tom Halinski thalinski@airdberlis.com
Mizrahi Constantine (180) Saw Inc. Brandon Ruddick/Quinto Annibale bruddick@loonix.com/qannibale@loonix.com
Yonge & Steeles Developments Inc. Daniel Artenosi/Natalie Ast dartenosi@overlandllp.ca/nast@overlandllp.ca
72 Steeles Holding Limited &7040 Yonge Holdings Limited Chris Barnett cbarnett@osler.com
Auto Complex Ltd. Susan Rosenthal/Samantha Lampert susanr@davieshowe.com/samanthal@davieshowe.com
Yonge Steeles Landowners Group Inc. Kristie Stitt, Sarah Kagan, Ira Kagan, Jason Park kstitt@ksllp.ca/skagan@ksllp.ca/ikagan@ksllp.ca/jason.park@devinepark.com

PARTICIPANTS

Victor Manoharan
Morguard Investments Limited Johanna Shapira jshapira@woodbull.ca

ATTACHMENT 2

ISSUES LIST

City of Vaughan

Does the proposed development have regard to Section 2 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended?
Is the proposed development consistent with the applicable policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, including but not limited to Sections 1.1.1 a) b), c), e) and g), 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.4, 1.2, 1.4.1, 1.4.3, 1.6.7 and 1.6.8 and the applicable definitions therein?
Is the proposed development in conformity with the applicable policies of A Place to Grow, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020, including but not limited to Sections 2.2.1 3b) and c) and 2.2.1.4 a), d), e), 2.2.4 9a) and 11, 2.2.5. 2, 3, 4 and the applicable definitions therein?
Is it good planning to approve any new development in the Yonge Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan area in advance of final approval of the entire Yonge Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan?
Does the proposed development have the appropriate regard to sections 3 and 5 of the Yonge Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan?
Is the proposed development in conformity with the applicable policies of the York Region Official Plan 2010, including the Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 7?
Is the proposed development in conformity/harmony with the applicable policy goals and objectives of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 Volume 1 and the Yonge Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan, and does it appropriately address the following, but not limited to, matters:

Increase in permitted FSI
Height
Official Plan policies regarding affordable housing
Secondary Plan policies regarding the minimum number of jobs required
The minimum target population established in the Yonge Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan
VOP 2010 built form and urban design polices (9.1.2) and High-Rise buildings (9.2.3.6)
Yonge and Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan; built form and urban design policies (3.1)
Percentage of mandatory retail uses along Yonge Street
Population thresholds as identified by the Yonge Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan (policy 9.1.1)
Water and Servicing capacity allocation
Orderly development with adjacent lands
Coordination with surrounding municipalities, external and provincial agencies
Requirements for public and private rights-of-ways,
Proper transition to existing residential development

Is there adequate transportation and servicing capacity to support the proposed development along with the development of the balance of the Yonge Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan?
Are the proposed densities and heights appropriate for the location and context of the subject lands?
Does the proposed development conform with the transportation infrastructure requirements of the Secondary Plan as identified in policy 8.5.4?
How much of the anticipated population in this area would be appropriately allocated to the proposed development, both pre-subway and post subway?
Does the proposed development appropriately address all matters related to compatibility of built form including but not limited to; compliance with the 45-degree angular plan, tower separation within the site and with towers on adjacent properties, building front, side and rear setbacks requirements, wind mitigation, and minimizing shadow impact on established low-rise residential communities?
Does the proposed development meet the objectives and guidelines set out in City-Wide Urban Design guidelines performance standard 5.2.1 for Building location and orientation, performance standard 5.2.2 microclimate and sky view, performance standard 5.3.2 for high-rise envelopes, and performance standard 5.3.7 separation distances?
Does the proposed development meet the VOP 2010 policy requirement (9.2.2.5.a) delivering a high standard of public realm?
Does the proposed development appropriately address community service provision and parkland dedication/CIL requirements?
Does the transportation analysis adequately support the development without the signalization of Yonge Street and the extension of Royal Palm Drive intersection under the interim condition?
Does the proposal appropriately consider and protect for the required road Right of Way (ROW) and alignment for the future extension of Royal Palm Drive consistent with Yonge Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan?
Is the design of Yonge Street and extension of Royal Palm Drive intersection for the interim and ultimate conditions appropriate? Are the design drawings and the subsequent property requirements consistent with City of Vaughan Engineering Standards?
Has the development proposal appropriately shown and addressed the impacts on the neighboring property to the south? Has the necessary coordination with the landowner to the south been conducted regarding the land dedication for the design and construction of the extension of Royal Palm Drive and its intersection with Yonge Street as shown in the Yonge Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan?
Do the proposal and technical reports adequately justify the deviation from the minimum requirements of the Zoning By-law and/or the Yonge Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan, and do they support the parking supply ratios proposed?
Is the stratification of the future Royal Palm Drive required to support the proposal/future development?
Is the proposed non-standard stratified municipal road going to function and perform in equivalent to a regular standard municipal road as specified in City’s Standard Road Drawings and Sections 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.8 of City of Vaughan Design Criteria?
Can all required public utilities, services, street lightings, traffic control utilities, electrical utilities, streetscape elements, road pavement structure, municipal infrastructure i.e. watermain, sanitary and storm sewers and appurtenances, reasonably be accommodated per equivalent City of Vaughan standard road cross-section, within the proposed non-standard stratified municipal road right-of-way?
In the event that the Tribunal allows the appeals, in whole or in part, is it appropriate for the implementing zoning by-law amendment to be subject to a Holding Symbol (H) for any provisions/conditions?

Yonge Steeles Landowners Group Inc., 1163919 Ontario Limited, 1888836 Ontario Limited, 1211712 Ontario Limited, Mizrahi Constantine (180 SAW Inc.), Development Group (100 SAW) Inc., 72 Steeles Holdings Limited, 7040 Yonge Holdings Limited, Yonge & Steeles Developments Inc.

Do the applications appropriately address the phasing of development relative to the development of adjacent lands in the Yonge Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan area?

Is there, or will there be, adequate servicing infrastructure for the proposed development?

Is there, or will there be, adequate transportation infrastructure for the proposed development including, but not limited to, the provision of the Royal Palm Drive extension through the subject lands?

Do the applications appropriately address the coordination and cost-sharing of infrastructure so as to ensure the development of the Yonge Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan area in a comprehensive manner? Does the proposed zoning by-law amendment include appropriate holding symbol provisions to address cost sharing?

Will the proposed development appropriately provide for or contribute to community facilities and community uses?

Does the proposed development and zoning by-law amendment conform to the approved Yonge Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan?

Regional Municipality of York

Does the Transportation Consideration Report (“Transportation Study”) submitted by the applicant in respect of the Applications identify the transportation improvements recommended in the OLT approved Yonge Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan (“Secondary Plan”)?
Does the Transportation Study appropriately address the transportation infrastructure needs of the proposed development, including: a. Adopting appropriate transit modal split for each phase of the development? b. Using appropriate background growth rates? c. Including background development levels as contemplated in the Secondary Plan? d. Identifying which components of the fine grid road network identified in the Secondary Plan, as well as infrastructure improvements required to accommodate each phase of the proposed development? e. Including and analyze all new proposed intersections along Yonge Street, north of Steeles Avenue, as identified in the Secondary Plan? f. Assessing the impacts of U-turns at the area intersections? g. Undertaking the steps to calibrate the existing traffic signals and transportation network to ensure that the model accurately reflects the field conditions? h. Adopting appropriate peak hour factors (PHF) to ensure the actual traffic conditions are analyzed during the peak hour? i. Adopting the appropriate bus-blockage information in the Synchro analysis at the intersections along Yonge Street and Steeles Avenue? j. Providing information regarding the existing transit buses ridership/occupancy levels? k. Taking into consideration coordination of traffic signals upstream and downstream, as well as queuing as a result of the signal progression when recommending optimizing total split timings during all three peak hours for all scenarios (Existing, Future background) to improve LOS and delay at existing signals? l. Identifying the appropriate Transportation Demand Management measures and incentives to accommodate the proposed development?
Does the proposed development concept: a. Provide sufficient and appropriate access arrangement to accommodate the proposed development? b. Identify an appropriate development phasing plan? c. Identify and provide the required infrastructure improvements to accommodate each phase of the proposed development? d. Provide the fine grid road network identified in the Secondary Plan?

York Region also adopts the following City of Vaughan issues:

(16) Does the transportation analysis adequately support the development without the signalization of Yonge Street and the extension of Royal Palm Drive intersection under the interim condition?

(17) Does the proposal appropriately consider and protect for the required road Right of Way (ROW) and alignment for the future extension of Royal Palm Drive consistent with Yonge Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan?

(18) Is the design of Yonge Street and extension of Royal Palm Drive intersection for the interim and ultimate conditions appropriate? Are the design drawings and the subsequent property requirements consistent with City of Vaughan Engineering Standards?

(19) Has the development proposal appropriately shown and addressed the impacts on the neighboring property to the south? Has the necessary coordination with the landowner to the south been conducted regarding the land dedication for the design and construction of the extension of Royal Palm Drive and its intersection with Yonge Street as shown in the Yonge Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan?

Auto Complex Ltd.

Is the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, and in particular, Policies 1.1.1(g), 1.1.3.2(b), 1.1.3.7(b), 1.2.1(a) & (d), 1.4.3(c) & (d), 1.6.1, 1.6.3, 1.7.1(c)?
Will the proposed development conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020, and in particular Policy 2.2.1.4(d)?
Will the proposed development conform with the York Region Official Plan, in particular, Policies 5.1.7, 5.1.9 and 5.4.6(f)?
Is the proposed development in harmony with the policy goals and objectives of the City of Vaughan Official Plan 2010, in particular, Policies 2.1.3.2(o), 8.1.1.6, 8.1.1.7, 8.2.1.1., 9.1.2.5 (block plan phasing), 10.1.1.3(i.) & (o.), 10.1.1.7, 10.1.1.8, 10.1.1.9, 10.1.1.10, 10.1.1.11, 10.1.1.14, 10.1.1.15, 10.1.1.17, 10.1.1.18, 10.1.1.19, 10.1.1.20, 10.1.1.21, 10.1.1.22, 10.1.1.23, 10.1.1.24, 10.1.1.25, 10.1.1.26, 10.1.2.5, 10.1.2.6, 10.1.2.7, 10.1.2.8?
Is the proposed development in harmony with the policy goals and objectives of the Yonge-Steeles Secondary Plan, in particular, Section 2.0 Visions and Principles, and Policies 6.3, 8.1, 8.4 (deferred), 8.5.3, 8.5.4, 8.6 and 9.1?
Do the applications appropriately address the phasing of development within the Yonge Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan area?
Have the applications appropriately addressed co-ordination of infrastructure and cost sharing?
Has the zoning by-law provided for appropriate holding provisions to ensure orderly and appropriate development?
Does the proposed development and zoning by-law conform to the approved Yonge Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan?
Does the proposed development represent good planning in the public interest?

ATTACHMENT 3

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

7080 Yonge Limited
City of Vaughan
Regional Municipality of York
Other Landowners
7080 Yonge Limited, 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.

7302687