Ontario Land Tribunal

ISSUE DATE: April 21, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001879 (Formerly PL070987)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Robert Salna Subject: Consent Property Address/Description: 83 Sylvan Crescent Municipality: Richmond Hill Municipal File No.: B041/07 OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001879 Legacy Case No.: PL070987 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001879 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL070987 OLT Case Name: Salna v. Richmond Hill (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Robert Salna Subject: Consent Property Address/Description: Residential severance to permit one new single-family dwelling Municipality: Richmond Hill Municipal File No.: B043/07 OLT Case No.: OLT-22-001934 Legacy Case No.: PL070987 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001879

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Robert Salna Subject: By-law No. 64-21 Municipality: Richmond Hill OLT Case No.: OLT-22-001120 Legacy Case No.: PL070987 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001879

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Robert Salna Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 22 Municipality: Richmond Hill OLT Case No.: OLT-22-001530 Legacy Case No.: PL070987 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001879

Heard: January 26, 2023 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Robert Salna	Jeffrey Streisfield
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority	Tim Duncan
City of Richmond Hill	Carlton Thorne

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JATINDER BHULLAR ON JANUARY 26, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1This Case Management Conference ("CMC") was set by the Tribunal due to the difficulties encountered by the Parties to duly develop and present a draft Procedural Order ("PO") to the Tribunal as previously directed in the Tribunal's Decision dated August 23, 2022.

2This matter arises out of Robert Salna's ("Appellant") appeal under s. 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (the "Act") regarding the proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 22 ("OPA 22") by the City of Richmond Hill (the "City"). There is an associated appeal against By-law No. 64-21 under s. 34(19) of the Act.

3In addition, the Appellant is also the appellant party to two legacy appeals under s. 53(19) of the Act.

4The Appellant has a property known municipally as 83 Sylvan Crescent, in the City ("Subject Property").

5With consent of the Parties and as per Rule 16.1 of the OLT Rules of Practice and Procedure, the four appeals identified above were ordered "Consolidated" by the Tribunal for case management and hearing purposes.

SETTING HEARING ON THE MERITS

6Most of the time was spent in reviewing the issues list as well as the possible setting up of a hearing on the merits. The Parties reviewed possible scoping of evidence in terms of calling witnesses. Mr. Salna stated that they will be calling up to four witnesses. The City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ("TRCA") each anticipated calling three witnesses each. The disciplines of the main evidence generally will fall into land use planning, storm water management and water resources engineering. TRCA indicated that they may call an ecologist as well, to be determined later on, in the development of hearing steps governed by a future PO.

7The Parties agreed and requested that a 10 day hearing in early 2024 based on the availability of counsel and witnesses will be appropriate.

8THE TRIBUNAL ORDERED that a hearing for a period of 10 days is set to commence on Monday, February 12, 2024 at 10 a.m. The hearing will be conducted by video unless the Tribunal advises otherwise.

9The hearing technical details are as follows:

a. Parties and participants are asked to log into the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/66014501

Access code: 660-145-013

b. Parties 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

c. Persons 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: Toll Free 1(888) 299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The access code is as indicated above.

d. Individuals 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.

10The Appellant agreed to provide a final draft of the PO on consent of all the Parties by February 24, 2023. The Parties jointly requested an extension to resolve the definition of issues as well as to resolve evidence presentation matters. The Tribunal authorized an extension of time in filing the final draft on consent by the parties. In this respect, the Tribunal assisted the Parties. The Appellant informed the Tribunal on March 14, 2023 that save and except for the order of evidence to be revised, the draft PO submitted previously was a final draft.

11THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Procedural Order attached as Schedule 1 is approved and shall govern the hearing on the merits set to commence on Monday, February 12, 2024.

12On a related matter, the Tribunal notes that the Appellant wishes to raise a motion regarding possible discovery of information and/or consolidation of their other appeal in the matter of the Official Plan 2010 under appeal in Legacy Case File No. PL110189. These matters will follow their due course as per Ontario Land Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

13This Member is not seized for the hearing but will provide case management support leading up to the hearing, as necessary and appropriate.

14There will be no further notice.

15The directions in this decision are so ordered.

"Jatinder Bhullar"

JATINDER BHULLAR

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

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

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

SCHEDULE 1

PROCEDURAL ORDER

Purpose of the Procedural Order

Case management conferences are scheduled by the Tribunal to organize the hearing. This sample procedural order is provided to identify who may participate in the hearing, the issues in dispute, and the matters that are required to be carried out before the hearing. The attachment to this sample procedural order explains the meaning of a number of terms in the sample procedural order, such as a party or a participant.

The Tribunal recommends that the appellant, municipality, the applicant (if applicable), or those who wish to seek party status in this proceeding, meet, remotely if necessary, to discuss this sample procedural order before the date of the case management conference and try to identify the issues and process they want the Tribunal to order following the conference. The Tribunal will hear submissions on the content of this sample procedural order at the case management conference and issue a procedural order at a later date.

If you are not represented by a lawyer, you should prepare by reviewing the Tribunal's Video Hearings Guide, and the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure ("Rules"), particularly Rule 20, which are available on the Tribunal's website.

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001879 (Formerly PL070987)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Robert Salna Subject: Consent Property Address/ Description: 83 Sylvan Crescent, Residential severance to permit one new single-family dwelling Municipality: Richmond Hill Municipal File No.: B041/07 OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001879 Legacy Case No.: PL070987 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001879 OLT Case Name: Salna v. Richmond Hill (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Robert Salna Subject: Consent Property Address/ Description: 83 Sylvan Crescent, Residential severance to permit one new single-family dwelling Municipality: Richmond Hill Municipal File No.: B043/07 OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001934 Legacy Case No.: PL070987 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001879

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Appellant: Robert Salna Subject: By-law No. 64-21 Municipality: Richmond Hill OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001120 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001879 Legacy Case No.: PL070987 OLT Case Name: Salna v. Richmond Hill (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Appellant: Robert Salna Subject: Official Plan Amendment No. 22 Municipality: Richmond Hill OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001530 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001879 Legacy Case File.: PL070987

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 Monday, February 12, 2024 at 10:00 a.m.

Details to be provided by OLT.

3. The parties' initial estimation for 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 – Attachment 5).

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. 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 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. 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 19, 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 July 10, 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 November 3, 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 December 8, 2023, the parties shall provide copies of their [witness and] expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

14. On or before December 8, 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 January 10, 2024, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

16. On or before February 4, 2024, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

17. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before January 12, 2024 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 January 22, 2024.

19. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

20. A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

21. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before February 5, 2024 with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

22. All filings shall be submitted electronically and in hard copy. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Rule 7.

23. 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.

This is the Order of the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
June 19, 2023	Exchange of witness lists
July 10, 2023	Experts Meeting
November 3, 2023	Agreed Statement of Facts
December 8, 2023	Exchange of Witness Statements and Participant Statements
January 10, 2024	Parties to confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required
January 12, 2024	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
January 22, 2024	Finalization of Joint Document Book
February 4, 2024	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
February 5, 2024	Hearing Plan filed with the Tribunal
February 12, 2024 to February 26, 2024	Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES/PARTICIPANTS

PARTIES

1. Robert Salna Jeffrey Streisfield, LandLaw™ Email: jeffrey@landplanlaw.com Tele: 416.460.2518

2. City of Richmond Hill Carlton Thorne, City of Richmond Hill Legal Services Email: carlton.thorne@richmondhill.ca Tele: 905.747.6479

3. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Att: Tim Duncan Fogler, Rubinoff LLP Lawyers Email: tduncan@foglers.com Direct: 416.941.8817

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUES LIST

NOTE: The identification of an issue on this list by a party indicates that party's intent to lead evidence on that issue. Accordingly, no party shall advance an issue not identified on the Issues List without leave of the OLT. The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not mean that all parties agree that such issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is either appropriate or relevant to the determination of the OLT at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the OLT will be a matter of evidence at the hearing or in a motion, as necessary.

I: OLT-21-001530 Official Plan Amendment 22

CITY OF RICHMOND HILL ISSUES

1. Does the Ontario Land Tribunal have jurisdiction to designate a Special Policy Area or make any change or modification to the official plan policies, land use designations or boundaries applying to Special Policy Area lands without first obtaining approval by the Ministers of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Natural Resources and Forestry?

SALNA'S ISSUES

1. OPA 22 now provides for a new/adjusted Special Policy Area (SPA) boundary, therefore, given the proposed new SPA boundary, should the Appellant's lands at 83 Sylvan Crescent be included in the SPA? And if so, should additional lot creation be permitted on 83 Sylvan Crescent – through a site-specific exception to OPA 22?

2. Does OPA 22 unnecessarily sterilize urban residential land on and along Sylvan Crescent and result in land waste and disorderly development contrary to subsections 2(g), (h) and (j) of the Planning Act, RSO 1990, c P.13, as amended. (g) the minimization of waste; (h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities; (j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing;

3. Is OPA 22 consistent with PPS 2020 housing policies including policies 1.1.1; 1.1.3.4; 1.4.3 b-f; and 1.7.1 b?

4. Does OPA 22 conform to the 2020 Growth Plan including housing policies 2.2.6(1) and (2)?

5. Does OPA 22 support housing choice, housing options and complete communities?

6. Is the technical work underlying OPA 22 and any Ministerial approval of the SPA "appropriate"? Further is the technical work underlying a 2017 City document titled "Revised" Justification Report (and OPA 22 and Bylaw 64-21) including any floodplain modelling and mapping – appropriate and has it been correctly carried out in regards to the extent of the floodplain and flood risk in the vicinity of Sylvan Crescent? Is 83 Sylvan within a floodplain?

7. What modifications are required to the OPA 22 to address Salna's concerns as set out above?

II: OLT-21-001120– Bylaw 64-21

CITY OF RICHMOND HILL ISSUES

1. Does the Ontario Land Tribunal have jurisdiction to make any change or modification to the zoning by-law's provisions or boundaries applying to Special Policy Area lands without first obtaining approval by the Ministers of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Natural Resources and Forestry with respect to the City's official plan?

SALNA'S ISSUES

1. Is the technical work underlying bylaw 64-21 and any Ministerial approval of the SPA "appropriate"? Further is the technical work underlying a 2017 City document titled "Revised" Justification Report (and OPA 22 and Bylaw 64-21) including any floodplain modelling and mapping – appropriate and has it been correctly carried out in regards to the extent of the floodplain and flood risk in the vicinity of Sylvan Crescent? Is 83 Sylvan within a floodplain?

2. What amendments are required to bylaw 64-21 to address Salna's concerns as set out above?

III, IV) OLT-21-001879 (PL070985 and PL070987) – Consent Appeals

CITY OF RICHMOND HILL ISSUES

1. Do the proposed consents have appropriate regard for the relevant matters of provincial interest enumerated under Section 2 of the Planning Act, including the matters set out in subsections (a), (h), (l), (o), and (p) therein?

2. Are the proposed consents consistent with the relevant policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, in particular, the natural hazard policies under sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.4, and the definition of Special Policy Area?

3. Do the proposed consents conform with the A Place to Grow, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020, in particular, Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 5.2.5?

4. Do the proposed consents conform with the Regional Municipality of York's Official Plan 2010, in particular, natural hazard policies 2.3.22, 2.3.23, 2.3.25 and 2.3.26?

5. Do the proposed consents have appropriate regard for the Regional Municipality of York's Official Plan 2010, in particular, policies 3.5.1, 3.5.3, 3.5.4 and 3.5.7?

6. Do the proposed consents conform with the City of Richmond Hill's Official Plan as adopted in 2010 and as amended by Official Plan Amendment 22 (approved by the Region and the Ministers of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Natural Heritage and Forestry), in particular Policies 3.2.2.4(7) and 3.2.2.3(6)?

7. Do the proposed consents have appropriate regard to subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act, in particular subsections (a), (c) and (h) therein?

8. In the event that the Tribunal is willing to grant the consents or provisional consents, what conditions of consent should the Tribunal impose in accordance with subsection 51(25) of the Planning Act?

9. Do the proposed consents represent good land use planning and are they in the public interest?

V: TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ISSUES

1. Is the subject property, including both the proposed retained and severed parcels, within the regulatory floodplain?

2. Is safe access to the proposed severed parcels available?

3. Does the application have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest, as set out under section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections 2(o) and (p)?

4. Is the proposed application consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2020), including Section 3.1 (Natural Hazards)?

5. Is the proposed application in conformity with the York Region Official Plan 2010, natural hazard policies, including sections 2.3.22 – 2.3.35?

6. Is the proposed application in conformity with the City of Richmond Hill Official Plan, including sections 3.2.2.3 (Natural Hazards) and 3.2.2.4 (Special Policy Areas), as amended by OPA 22?

7. Does the proposed application demonstrate appropriate regard for TRCA's Living City Policies for Planning and Development in the Watershed of the TRCA, in particular sections 7.3.1.3 (Natural Hazards) and 7.5.2.4 (Zoning By-laws, Draft Plan of Subdivisions and Condominium, Severances/Consents)?

8. Will the effect of the application be to create new and/or increase risk to human life and property as a result of the existing regulatory floodplain?

9. Has there been provided sufficient evidence in support of the application to address all applicable policies to the satisfaction of TRCA?

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

CITY'S PROPOSED ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. City of Richmond Hill;
2. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority;
3. Robert Salna;
4. City of Richmond Hill, in reply

ATTACHMENT 5

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.