Ontario Land Tribunal 655 Bay Street, Suite 1500 Toronto ON M5G 1E5 Telephone: (416) 212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248 Website: olt.gov.on.ca

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire 655 rue Bay, suite 1500 Toronto ON M5G 1E5 Téléphone: (416) 212-6349 Sans Frais: 1-866-448-2248 Site Web: olt.gov.on.ca

July 10, 2023

TO: All recipients of the Ontario Land Tribunal Decision and Order issued on July 05, 2023

RE: OLT CASE NO.: OLT-22-003397 & OLT-23-000097 – ORDER ISSUED JULY 05, 2023

On July 05, 2023, the Ontario Land Tribunal issued its Order (“Order”) on the above noted case.

Rule 24.4 of the Ontario Land Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure states that the Tribunal may at any time correct a technical or typographical error made in a Decision or Order.

The Tribunal has amended Schedule 1 to the Order under the authority of this Rule by attaching the current/most recent version of the Procedural Order.

Enclosed with this communication please find the Order issued on July 05, 2023, containing the updated/correct Procedural Order (of June 16, 2023).

This enclosed Order replaces the Order issued on July 05, 2023. Thank you.

“Euken Lui”

EUKEN LUI REGISTRAR

Encl.

OLT-01-JUN-2021

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 05, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003397 (Formerly DC150001) OLT-23-000097

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 14 of the Development Charges Act, S.O. 1997, c. 27, as amended

Appellant: Dunster Investments Inc. Appellant: J. Stollar Construction Limited Appellant: Mason Homes Limited Appellant: The Orsi Land Group Subject: Development Charges By-law No. 2014-238 Municipality: City of Kawartha Lakes OLT Case/File No.: OLT-22-003397 Legacy Case No.: DC150001 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003397 Legacy Lead Case No.: DC150001 OLT Case Name: Dunster Investments Inc. v. Kawartha Lakes (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 14 of the Development Charges Act, S.O. 1997, c. 27, as amended

Appellant: Dunster Investments Inc. Appellant: J. Stollar Construction Limited Appellant: Mason Homes Limited Appellant: The Orsi Land Group Subject: Development Charges By-law No. 2014-264 Municipality: City of Kawartha Lakes OLT Case/File No.: OLT-22-003398 Legacy Case No.: DC150002 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003397 Legacy Lead Case No.: DC150001

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 14 of the Development Charges Act, S.O. 1997, c. 27, as amended

Appellant: J. Stollar construction Limited Appellant: Mason Homes Limited Appellant: The Orsi Land Group Subject: Development Charges By-law No. 2015-224 Municipality: City of Kawartha Lakes OLT Case/File No.: OLT-22-003390 Legacy Case No.: DC150001 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003397 Legacy Lead Case No.: DC150001

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 14 of the Development Charges Act, S.O. 1997, c. 27, as amended

Appellant: J. Stollar Construction Limited Subject: Development Charges By-law No. 2019-184 Municipality: City of Kawartha Lakes OLT Case/File No.: OLT-23-000097 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003397 Legacy Lead Case No.: DC150001 OLT Case Name: J. Stollar Construction Limited v. Kawartha Lakes (City)

Heard: June 12, 2023 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
J. Stollar Construction Limited (“Appellant”)	D. Baker
City of Kawartha Lakes (“Kawartha Lakes”)	S. D’Agostino

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. TOUSAW ON JUNE 12, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1This further Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was convened to address procedural matters in advance of the Phase 1 Merit Hearing of the Appellant’s appeals to four by-laws passed by Kawartha Lakes under the Development Charges Act (“DCBLs”).

2On the Tribunal’s previous direction that certain procedural matters be clarified, Kawartha Lakes sought two motions:

• to formally dismiss three Appellants who have either confirmed their withdrawal of appeal in writing or have not participated in the lengthy and most recent stages of this procedure; and
• to hear the appeal to DCBL 2019-184 together with the appeals to the other three DCBLs, which the Tribunal previously directed be heard together.

3No responses to the motions were filed and no Party affected by these motions appeared at this CMC. To the motion to formally dismiss three Appellants, Kawartha Lakes and the Appellant confirmed that, based on correspondence or the absence thereof, they are the only remaining Parties in these appeals. To the motion to hear all four DCBLs together, the Parties advised that a sequential Hearing is necessary for development charges appeals, given that a Decision on one DCBL will affect the financial inputs for the next DCBL and enable the possible further resolution of issues.

4The Tribunal granted both motions as set out in the Order below.

5The Parties sought a delay to the scheduled Hearing dates to enable their productive discussions to continue on remaining issues. The original 19-day Hearing for Phase 1, previously scheduled to begin on July 24, 2023, will now be replaced with the Hearings noted below.

6As directed by the Tribunal, the Parties’ revised draft Procedural Order was received following this CMC and is now approved as set out in the Order below.

[7] Pre-Hearing CMC (1 day) – July 24, 2023 at 10 a.m. by Video Hearing

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/442599157

Access Code: 442-599-157

Audio Only: +1 (647) 497-9391 or Toll-Free: 1-888-455-1389

Phase 1 Merit Hearing (8 days) – September 5 – 8 and 12 – 15, 2023 at 10 a.m.

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/692665589

Access Code: 692-665-589

Audio Only: +1 (647) 497-9373 or Toll-Free: 1-888-299-1889

8Parties and Participants are asked to log in to the Video Hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections.

9Parties 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.

10Individuals 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 Video Hearing 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

11The Tribunal Orders as follows.

12The motions of the City of Kawartha Lakes are allowed, and:

• The appeals of Dunster Investments Inc., Mason Homes Limited, and The Orsi Land Group are dismissed; and
• The appeal to DCBL 2019-184 (OLT-23-000097) will be heard together with the other three DCBLs being heard together, those being DCBLs 2015-224 (OLT-22-003390), 2014-264 (OLT-22-003398) and 2014-238 (OLT-22-003397).

13The Procedural Order is approved, as contained in Schedule 1.

14The CMC and Merit Hearing will proceed on the dates set out above.

15This Member is not seized but may be contacted through the Case Coordinator should procedural matters arise.

“S. Tousaw”

S. TOUSAW VICE CHAIR

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

CASE NOS.: OLT-22-003397 (formerly DC150001), OLT-23-000097

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 14 of the Development Charges Act, S.O. 1997, c. 27, as amended

Appellant: Dunster Investments Inc. Appellant: J. Stollar Construction Limited Appellant: Mason Homes Limited Appellant: The Orsi Land Group Subject: Development Charges By-law No. 2014-238 Municipality: City of Kawartha Lakes OLT Case/File No.: OLT-22-003397 Legacy Case No.: DC150001 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003397 Legacy Lead Case No.: DC150001 OLT Case Name: Dunster Investments Inc. v. Kawartha Lakes (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 14 of the Development Charges Act, S.O. 1997, c. 27, as amended

Appellant: Dunster Investments Inc. Appellant: J. Stollar Construction Limited Appellant: Mason Homes Limited Appellant: The Orsi Land Group Subject: Development Charges By-law No. 2014-264 Municipality: City of Kawartha Lakes OLT Case/File No.: OLT-22-003398 Legacy Case No.: DC150002 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003397 Legacy Lead Case No.: DC150001

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 14 of the Development Charges Act, S.O. 1997, c. 27, as amended

Appellant: J. Stollar construction Limited Appellant: Mason Homes Limited Appellant: The Orsi Land Group Subject: Development Charges By-law No. 2015-224 Municipality: City of Kawartha Lakes OLT Case/File No.: OLT-22-003390 Legacy Case No.: DC150001 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003397 Legacy Lead Case No.: DC150001

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 14 of the Development Charges Act, S.O. 1997, c. 27, as amended

Appellant: J. Stollar Construction Limited Subject: Development Charges By-law No. 2019-184 Municipality: City of Kawartha Lakes OLT Case/File No.: OLT-23-000097 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003397 Legacy Lead Case No.: DC150001 OLT Case Name: J. Stollar Construction Limited v. Kawartha Lakes (City)

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 and Phasing of the Hearing

2. The parties and participants are set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.

3. The Issues for Phase 1 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.

4. 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 Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on consent or by Order of the Board.

5. The “Phase 1” video hearing will begin on Tuesday, September 5, 2023. The length of the Phase 1 hearing will be 8 days, ending on Friday, September 15, 2023. The length of the hearing may be shortened as issues are resolved or settlement is achieved.

6. The hearing has been organized into phases.

a. The purpose of the Phase 1 hearing is to adjudicate the issues set out on Attachment 2 relating to By-laws 2014-238 and 2014-264.

b. The purpose of the “Phase 2” hearing is to adjudicate the issues relating to By-law 2015-224.

c. The purpose of the “Phase 3” hearing is to adjudicate the issues relating to By-law 2019-184.

7. The parties will request on consent that the Board issue a written decision determining the Phase 1 issues (the “Phase 1 Decision”) and schedule a further CMC before proceeding with the Phase 2 hearing. Similarly, the parties will request on consent that the Board issue a written decision determining the Phase 2 issues (the “Phase 2 Decision”) and schedule a further CMC before proceeding with the Phase 3 hearing

8. The Phase 2 Procedural Order will be finalized following the determination by the Tribunal of By-laws 2014-238 and 2014-264. The Phase 3 Procedural Order will be finalized following the determination by the Tribunal of By-laws By-law 2015-224.

9. If so required by the Phase 1 Decision, the City shall within 45 days of receiving the Phase 1 Decision from the Board, reconcile the Development Charges Reserve Fund, amend the Background Studies supporting By-law 2015-224, and recalculate the charge imposed by By- law 2015-224 to accord with the findings of the Phase 1 Decision.

10. 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.

11. 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 Phase 1 Hearing

General

12. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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 Tuesday, April 25, 2023 and in accordance with paragraph 14 above. 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.

17. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Wednesday, May 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 Friday, July 7, 2023.

18. 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 20 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.

19. 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 20. A party who intends to summons a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 20 below.

20. On or before Monday, July 31, 2023, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator in accordance with paragraph 14 above.

21. On or before Monday, July 24, 2023, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

22. Parties may provide to all other parties a written response to any written evidence on or before Monday, August 21, 2023.

23. On or before Monday, August 28, 2023, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 14 above. If a model is proposed to be used the Tribunal must be notified before the hearing. All parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

24. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Monday, August 28, 2023.

25. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Monday, August 28, 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.

26. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Monday, August 28, 2023.

This Member is not seized.

ATTACHMENT 1 PARTIES

Appellant/Party	Counsel	Contact Email
City of Kawartha Lakes	Stephen D’Agostino	sdagostino@trlaw.com
J.Stollar Construction Limited	Denise Baker	dbaker@weirfoulds.com

ATTACHMENT 2

ISSES LIST

Ineligible Projects

1. Does the 2014 Development Charge Background Study, (the "Study") upon which By-law 2014-238 (the "2014 DCB") is based, improperly include future projects which are ineligible in contravention of Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27 (the "Act")?

2. Has the Study included categories of expenditure which are ineligible, in contravention of the Act?

Benefit to Existing

3. Has the Study appropriately allocated capital costs between growth and benefit to existing development, as is required by the Act, including but not limited to the following projects:

• Little Britain Fire Hall Replacement
• Bethany Fire Hall Replacement
• Tanker and Pumper Truck Replacement
• Fire Administration
• Fire Central Training Facility
• Urban Depot Construction
• 7 Library Expansions
• Library Collection
• The Parkland Development & Improvement Projects
• Airport
• 2012 Airport Business Plan
• Development Charge Study Review/Update
• Various Plans/Studies/Reviews
• Scugog River Bridge/Crossing
• Lindsay Water Treatment Plant Expansion and Low Lift Pumping Station Upgrades
• Watermain Replacement Projects
• Sewer Replacement Projects
• Lindsay Water Pollution Control Plant
• Fenelon Falls Water Pollution Control Plant
• Colborne Sewage Pumping Station
• Mary Street Sewage Pumping Station
• Hamilton Court Housing
• Fire/Paramedic Service Administration Land Acquisition
• William Street North Bridge over Jennings Creek
• Jennings Creek Culvert Structure

4. Has the Study included categories of expenditure and projects for which there is no growth related share, in contravention of the Act?

5. Has the Study failed to include projects identified in prior studies, master plans and/or forecasts as being required to facilitate future development?

Residual Capacity beyond the Planning Period

6. Does the size and scope of the projects identified in the Study exceed the amount needed to service the anticipated growth within the planning period?

7. Are there projects included in the Study, the need for which is largely or exclusively triggered by growth beyond the planning period?

8. Has the residual capacity, if any, been calculated and attributed appropriately, and in accordance with the Act?

Project and Study Costs

9. Are there estimated project costs that have been overstated, taking into consideration the City's approved capital budgets, master plans and capital forecasts and previous development charge background studies? These include, but are not limited to, the estimated costs posited in relation to:

• Scugog River Bridge/Crossing
• Williams Street North Bridge over Jennings Creek
• Jennings Creek Culvert Structure
• Lindsay Water Treatment Plant Expansion and Low Lift Pumping Station Upgrades
• Watermain Replacement Projects
• Sewer Replacement Projects
• Lindsay Water Pollution Control Plant Expansion
• Fenelon Falls Water Pollution Control Plant Expansion
• Colborne Sewage Pumping Station
• Mary Street Sewage Pumping Station
• Hamilton Court Housing
• Fire/Paramedic Service Administration Land Acquisition

10. Does the 2014 DCB accurately reflect the correct adjusted development charge per capita from the cash flow worksheets?

Level of Service

11. Has a level of service calculation been done for the roads capital program in accordance with the Act?

12. Are the level of service calculations reasonable and consistent with the requirements of the DC Act and regulations?

Roads

13. Are the costs attributed to unspecified bridge projects appropriate?

14. Are the costs attributed to culvert structure replacement appropriate given that the City's capital budget contemplates the funding for these projects coming from the tax base?

15. Are the costs attributed to urban/rural road reconstruction growth related?

16. Are the costs attributed to urban and arterial/rural/gravel road resurfacing appropriate given that they are not adding any capacity to the road network?

17. Are the costs attributed to the annual provision for sidewalk reconstruction appropriate given that it reflects the upgrade of existing sidewalks?

18. Are the costs attributed to the annual provision for streetlight and traffic signal improvements appropriate?

19. 1s it reasonable to allocate 100% of the costs of traffic light/intersection improvement works that are located within existing areas of the City to growth?

20. Are the costs attributed to parking lot improvements appropriate?

21. 1s the proposed substantial increase in the annual roads program realistic and achievable?

22. 1s it appropriate that the costs attributed to road improvements in the 2014 DCB substantially deviate from the City's Transportation Master Plan?

Phasing in of Development Charge Rates

23. Have the Phased-in development charge rates set out in Schedules 1 and 2 of the 2014 DCB been determined in accordance with the Act?

24. Did the replacement of Schedules 1 and 2 in the 2014 DCB with revised versions of Schedules 1 and 2 through the adoption of By-law 2014-264 (the "2014 DCBA"), remedy all of the contraventions of the Act?

25. Did the adoption of the 2014 DCBA rectify the entirety of the 2014 DC By-law's contraventions of the Act, as claimed in staff Report CORP2014-023?

26. Did the adoption of the 2014 DCBA result in increases in the aggregate development charge rates payable during remainder of 2014 and as well as in 2015? If so, was such an outcome consistent with the directions of, as well as the information supplied to, Council at the time of its adoption?

27. 1n the event that the Tribunal determines that the 2016 development charge rates are to be reduced, should the 2015 phased-in rates be correspondingly reduced as well?

28. Were DC payments collected under the 2014 DCB prior to the 2014 DCBA's coming into force on October 15, 2014? If so:

• Has the City issued the required refunds?
• If so, have the Development Charge reserves been adjusted accordingly?

Non-Residential Development

29. Have the development charges for non-residential development been appropriately determined?

30. Is it reasonable that the industrial development charge rate is significantly higher than the commercial development charge rate and the institutional development charge rate? Has the proportionate allocation reflected in the comparative commercial, industrial and institutional charge rates been property computed?

31. Is the percentage of growth related costs attributable to non-residential development appropriate or is it too high given the forecasts for residential growth and employment growth within the City?

Reserve Funds

32. Are the carried-forward DC Reserve Fund balances and Committed Excess Capacity calculations that have been incorporated into the computation of the 2014 DCB's development charge rates correct and appropriate?

33. Has the City's prior administration of the DC Reserve Funds complied with the requirements of the Act, including but not limited to:

a. whether it is appropriate to have made provisions for appropriations from DC Reserves for projects that were never incorporated into a DC By-law, Background Study or approved capital budget or other similar expression of Council?

b. whether it is appropriate to have made provision for draws against the DC Reserves for ineligible projects?

c. whether, for projects that were eligible, the provisions for draws against the DC Reserves reflected the appropriate allocation of costs between growth and existing development?

d. whether the City has made the top-up contributions to those Reserve Funds required as a consequence of exemptions and partial exemptions granted, as well as the phasing-in of rates, under predecessor DCBs?

General

34. Should the date on which annual indexing is to occur be fixed in the 2014 DCB so to provide clarity and transparency, rather than being left to the discretion of staff?

35. Are there projects with a local servicing component that has not been recognized in the Study?

36. Are the provisions under which the City may require the pre-payment of a portion of the development charge relating to sewer, water and road services for lots and blocks within a plan of subdivision in conjunction with the execution of the subdivision agreement, sufficiently comprehensible so as to understand whether such a prepayment is required and how it is to be calculated and later credited?

a. If not, should the 2014 DCB be amended to restore the previous prepayment provisions from the 2009 Development Charge By-law which are detailed and transparent with respect to the pre-payment requirement and process?

37. 1s it appropriate to have exemption for development on certain parcels within the Northwest Lindsay Development Area under the 2015 DCB, but not under the 2014 DCB?

38. Have the growth forecasts been accurately calculated? Do they conform to the Growth Plan?

39. Does the 2014 DCB appropriately account for new seasonal dwelling units?

40. 1s it appropriate for the Development Charge Background Study to correlate the level of fire service on a per agent basis?

41. Did the 2014 DCB include Water & Sewer Projects which extend services beyond the Lindsay Urban Servicing Boundary? Was the inclusion of these projects appropriate and in accordance with the Act?

ATTACHMENT 3

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. J. Stollar Construction Limited
2. City of Kawartha Lakes
3. J. Stollar Construction Limited (Reply)

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.