Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: Aug 01, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000166

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

Applicant/Appellant: Bara Group (River Oak) Inc.

Subject: Official Plan Amendment

Description: To permit a nine-storey mixed-use building containing 247 residential units with commercial space on ground floor

Property Address: 2163 and 2169 Sixth Line

Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton

Municipal File No.: OPA1415.14

OLT Case No: OLT-23-000166

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000166

OLT Case Name: Bara Group (River Oak) Inc. v. Oakville (Town)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Bara Group (River Oak) Inc.

Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment

Description: To permit a nine-storey mixed-use building containing 247 residential units with commercial space on ground floor

Property Address: 2163 and 2169 Sixth Line

Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton

Municipal File No.: Z.1415.14

Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton

OLT Case No: OLT-23-000167

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000166

Heard: June 26, 2023 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel

Bara Group (River Oak) Inc. (the “Appellant”) D. Baker

Town of Oakville (the “Town”) J. Huctwith P. DeMelo (in absentia) S. Kagan

Regional Municipality of Halton (the “Region of Halton”) K. Yerxa B. Maione (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY D. ARNOLD ON JUNE 26, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This first 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 or neglect of the Town to make decisions with respect to the Appellant’s applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments within the respective prescribed statutory timelines (the “Appeals”) to permit the redevelopment of the lands municipally known as 2163 and 2169 Sixth Line, in the Town (the “Subject Property”), with a mixed-use redevelopment, including 247 residential units and commercial space on the ground floor (the “Proposed Development”).

2The Tribunal entered into evidence as Exhibit 1 in these proceedings, the Affidavit of Service of Marie Wakefield sworn on May 25, 2023, and is satisfied that the same demonstrates proper notice such that no further notice is required in these proceedings.

PARTY AND PARTICIPANT STATUS

3There were two requests for party status, in the subject proceedings, as follows:

(a) The Region of Halton –the Region of Halton seeks party status in order to address conformity with the Region of Halton’s Official Plan, including with respect to site contamination, the Regional Heritage System, and waste management, as well as conformity with the applicable Provincial Growth Plan and consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement in the adjudication of the Appeals. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Region of Halton has genuine land use planning interests pertaining to the Appeals and, on no opposition of the Appellant or the Town, grants Party status to the Region of Halton.

(b) Julia Kelly - Julia Kelly resides adjacent to the Subject Property and attended the CMC in furtherance of a written request for Party status. In this regard, Julia Kelly raised concerns, including traffic and the compatibility of the Proposed Development with the existing River Oaks community. Upon further discussion, regarding the roles and responsibilities of a Party versus a Participant, in the proceedings, Julia Kelly amended her request to seek Participant status instead of Party status. The Tribunal is satisfied that Julia Kelly has genuine land use planning concerns pertaining to the Appeals and, on no opposition of the Parties, grants Participant status to Julia Kelly.

4There were three written requests for Participant status, in the subject proceedings, submitted to the Tribunal, in advance of the CMC:

(a) Samy Beshay – Counsel on behalf of Samy Beshay (M.V. MacLean), attended the CMC to seek Participant status. Samy Beshay resides in close proximity to the Subject Property and has land use planning concerns about the Proposed Development, including compatibility, privacy, shadowing, and vegetation impacts. The Tribunal is satisfied that they are raising genuine land use planning concerns and, on no opposition of the Parties, grants Participant status to Samy Beshay.

(b) Marcus Dillon and David Sweezie – Marcus Dillon and David Sweezie did not attend the CMC to address their respective requests for Participant status. The Appellant objected to Participant status being granted to these requestors given their non-attendance and, in this regard, referred the Tribunal to the Notice document, which states in bold “Attendance by the requestor, or their representative, at the CMC is required for all status requests.” While mindful of the difficulties sometimes encountered by persons who are unfamiliar with the procedural requirements of the Tribunal, the Tribunal is also mindful of the importance of fairness and consistency in applying the requirements for seeking status in a proceeding, including attendance at the CMC, and given the Appellant’s objections, denies Participant status to Marcus Dillon and David Sweezie.

HEARING DATES AND PROCEDURAL ORDER

5The Appellant submitted that five hearing days is required for a hearing on the merits of the Appeals. The Town and the Region of Halton concurred with this estimate. The Parties anticipate that approximately five to seven witnesses are to provide evidence regarding land use planning, urban design, and possibly, parking issues if there is an adjudication of all issues of the Appeals. The Tribunal concurs with the Parties’ hearing estimate of five days.

6A hearing is scheduled to take place commencing on Monday February 26, 2024, at 10 a.m. by video.

7Parties 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://meet.goto.com/943363669

Access code: 943-363-669

8Parties 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

9Persons 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 943-363-669.

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 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.

11A draft Procedural Order, including Issues List, was submitted by the Appellant to the Tribunal that includes input from the Town and the Region of Halton. The Parties were directed to cooperate on revising the draft Procedural Order to reflect the hearing dates provided at the CMC and to submit it to the Tribunal through the Case Coordinator on or before Wednesday, July 12, 2023. The Procedural Order attached as Schedule “A” to this Order is approved and will govern the proceedings up to and including the hearing.

MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS

12The Tribunal encourages the Parties to seek opportunities for settlement or narrowing of some or all of the issues and, in this regard, consideration for the Tribunal-facilitated mediation may be requested through the Case Coordinator.

ORDER

13The Tribunal orders as follows:

• the Regional Municipality of Halton is granted Party status in the subject proceedings;

• Julia Kelly and Samy Beshay are granted Participant status in the subject proceedings;

• a hearing is scheduled to take place, commencing Monday, February 26, 2024 at 10 a.m. by video and will continue for five days, including and concluding on Friday, March 1, 2024;

• the Procedural Order attached as Schedule A to this Order is approved; and,

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

14The Member is not seized in this matter but will remain available for continued case management to the extent that the Tribunal calendar permits.

15No further notice is required or will be given.

“D. Arnold”

D. ARNOLD

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

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

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

SCHEDULE A

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000166

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

Applicant/Appellant: Bara Group (River Oak) Inc.

Subject: Official Plan Amendment

Description: To permit a nine-storey mixed-use building containing 247 residential units with commercial space on ground floor

Property Address: 2163 & 2169 Sixth Line

Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton

Municipal File No. OPA1415.14

OLT Case No: OLT-23-000166

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000166

OLT Case Name: Bara Group (River Oak) Inc. v. Oakville (Town)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Bara Group (River Oak) Inc.

Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment

Description: to permit a nine-storey mixed-use building containing 247 residential units with commercial space on ground floor

Property Address: 2163 & 2169 Sixth Line

Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton

Municipal File No. Z1415.14

OLT Case No: OLT-23-000167

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000166

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 video hearing will begin on February 26, 2024 at 10:00 a.m.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is five 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 2 (see the sample procedural order for the meaning of these terms).

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 October 27, 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 November 24, 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 December 8, 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 22, 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 22, 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 26, 2024, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

16. On or before February 9, 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. On or before January 26, 2024, Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence 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 February 16, 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 16, 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. 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.

So orders the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE EVENT

October 27, 2023 Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines, CVs included)

November 24, 2023 Experts meeting prior to this date

December 8, 2023 Agreed Statement of Facts

December 22, 2023 Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements

January 26, 2024 Exchange of response to Witness Statements (if any)

January 26, 2024 Deadline to advise OLT of any reductions in hearing time.

February 9, 2024 Exchange of visual evidence (if any)

February 16, 2024 Finalize & submit Joint Document Book

February 16, 2024 Hearing Plan filed with the Tribunal

February 26, 2024 Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 2

PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

Appellant/Party Counsel Contact

Bara Group (River Oak) Inc. Denise Baker Chantal deSereville WeirFoulds LLP Suite 10, 1525 Cornwall Road, Oakville, Ontario L6J 0B2 416-947-5090 dbaker@weirfoulds.com 416-895-6478 cdesereville@weirfoulds.com

Town of Oakville Jennifer Huctwith Town of Oakville 1225 Trafalgar Road Oakville, Ontario L6H 0H3 905-845-6601, ext 3017 Jennifer.huctwith@oakville.ca

Regional Municipality of Halton Brittany Maione Halton Region 1151 Bronte Road Oakville, ON L6M 3L1 905-825-6000 Brittany.maione@halton.ca

Participant Contact

Marcus Dillon 905-914-8316 Dillmm6@gmail.com

Samy Beshay 289-400-8915 beshay59@hotmail.com Counsel: M. Virginia Maclean M.Virginia MacLean K.C. Barrister & Solicitor 235 Lakeshore Rd E, Suite 206 Oakville, Ontario L6J 1H7 416-365-1993 virginia@virginiamaclean.com

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUES LIST

Note: The identification of an issue does not mean that all parties agree that such issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing. The extent to which the issues are appropriate, within the jurisdiction of the OLT, or relevant to the determination at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and/or argument at the hearing.

Town of Oakville

1. Do the applications have appropriate regard for section 2 of the Planning Act, including 2 (a), (h), (i), (k), (n), (p) (q), (r) and (s);

2. Are the applications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, in particular sections 1.1.1, 1.1.3.2 to 1.1.3.5, 1.3.1, 1.4.1, 1.4.3, 1.6.7.4, 1.7.1, 1.8.1 and 4.6.

3. Do the applications conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019, in particular sections 1.2.1, 2.1, 2.2.1.2, 2.2.1.4, 2.2.2.3, 2.2.5.14, 2.2.5.15, 2.2.6, 4.2.10?

4. Does the proposed development appropriately implement the Guiding Principles found in section 2.2 of the Livable Oakville Official Plan?

5. Do the applications conform to the policies and evaluative criteria of Section 4.3 and 11 of the Livable Oakville Official Plan for residential intensification, including policies related to neighbourhood character and the town’s urban structure (in particular Section 3.9 of the Livable Oakville Plan)?

6. Do the proposed official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment appropriately implement the urban design policies within Section 6, in particular sections 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.9, 6.11, 6.13, and 6.16.

7. Does the development proposal have sufficient regard for the guidelines of Part A of the Livable By Design Manual referred to in section 6.1.2 of the Livable Oakville Official Plan?

8. Are the height, scale and massing of the proposed development appropriate?

9. Does the development proposal adequately address the integration/transition of development in relation to existing adjacent low density residential uses and natural areas?

10. Does the proposed development create unacceptable adverse impacts on adjacent properties, including shadow impacts on adjacent residential uses and natural areas?

11. Does the proposed development sufficiently maintain the neighborhood commercial function of the site (described in section 13.5 of the Livable Oakville Official Plan) and conform with section 11.1.9(j) of the Livable Oakville Plan? In particular:

    1. Is the proposed reduction of commercial floor area and resulting amount of commercial floor area within the proposed development appropriate?
    2. Would the proposed development allow for an appropriate range of commercial uses?

12. Are the proposed number, type and location of parking spaces appropriate?

13. Does the proposed development within the portions of the site designated Natural Area conform with the policies of Section 16 of the Livable Oakville Plan? What zoning regulations are appropriate for this area?

14. Does the proposed OPA satisfy the policies for site specific OPA’s found in section 28.2 of the Livable Oakville Plan?

15. Would the use of the proposed Main Street 2 designation and corresponding Mixed Use 2 (MU2) zone, as modified by site specific regulations, be appropriate to implement a development within a residential area identified on Schedule A1, Urban Structure of the Livable Oakville Official Plan?

16. Are the regulations in the draft zoning by-law appropriate to implement the proposed development?

Region of Halton:

1. Would the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment (hereinafter the “Applications”) be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (PPS), including Section 2.1, and specifically regarding the issues identified herein and to be addressed in the context of the Halton’s Regional Official Plan 2009 (as amended) (ROP)?

Regional Natural Heritage System

2. Would the Applications be in conformity with the ROP Regional Natural Heritage System (RNHS) goals, objectives, and policies, including:

   1. Sections 114 and 114.1
   2. Sections 115.2, 115.3, and 115.4
   3. Section 118
   4. Definitions of Part VI (definitions included in the aforementioned sections)

Site Contamination

3. Would the Applications be consistent with the PPS, including Section 3.2.2, and specifically regarding the site contamination issues identified herein and to be addressed in the context of the ROP?

4. Have the subject lands and proposed use been adequately assessed and appropriately addressed from a site contamination perspective in accordance with sections 147(17) and (18) of the ROP and Halton Region’s Protocol for Reviewing Development Applications with Respect to Contaminated or Potentially Contaminated Sites?

5. If the Applications are approved, is it appropriate to include the following Holding (H) Provision as part of any implementing Zoning By-law:

The Holding (H) Symbol may be removed from the zoning designation by way of an amending Zoning By-law when the following has been completed:

1. That prior to any site alteration, servicing or grading of the site and to the satisfaction of Halton Region, the Owner submits updated Phase One and Two Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs), at minimum (and any further subsequent reports/ documentation as recommended per updated Phase One and Two ESAs) and a Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) acknowledged Record of Site Condition (RSC) that is certified by (a) Qualified Person(s) as defined under O. Reg. 153/04 and indicates the environmental condition of the site is suitable for the proposed land use (and all environmental documentation, including any ESAs, used for filing the RSC). The updated Phase One and Two ESAs and any other environmental reports/ documentation must be completed in accordance with O. Reg. 153/04, and signed and stamped by (a) Qualified Person(s) as defined under O. Reg. 153/04. The author(s) of the environmental reports/ documentation and RSC submitted to the Region must also extend third party reliance to Halton Region. The Owner complies with O. Reg. 153/04 and Halton Region’s Protocol for Reviewing Development Applications with respect to Contaminated or Potentially Contaminated Sites, to the satisfaction of Halton Region.

Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, this Holding (H) Provision does not prevent the issuance of a building permit necessary to authorize:

i. the removal of soil, rock or fill for the purpose of making an excavation; or the erection of a retaining structure or other structure to support the sides of the excavation, that are erected to assist in the conduct of an investigation in relation to property, or for any other activity necessary to accommodate site remediation for the purpose of filing a Record of Site Condition.”

Waste Collection

6. Does the development proposal allow for waste collection in accordance with Section 148 of the ROP and the Region’s Development Design Guidelines for Source Separation of Solid Waste?

General

7. Would the proposed Developments represent good planning in the context of the ROP as it relates to the Regional issues identified herein?

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Bara Group (River Oak) Inc.
2. Town of Oakville
3. Region of Halton
4. Bara Group (River Oak) Inc. 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.