Donshep Developments Limited v. Toronto (City), 2023 CanLII 73684

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 09, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000093

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

Applicant and Appellant: Donshep Developments Limited Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit the development of 823 residential units and 982.4 square metres of at-grade commercial space Reference Number: 22 135742 NNY 17 OZ Property Address: 2500 Don Mills Road Municipality: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000093 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000093

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

Applicant and Appellant: Donshep Developments Limited Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit the development of 823 residential units and 982.4 square metres of at-grade commercial space Reference Number: 22 135742 NNY 17 OZ Property Address: 2500 Don Mills Road Municipality/UT: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000094 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-000093 OLT Case Name: Donshep Developments Limited v. Toronto (City)

Heard: July 21, 2023 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Donshep Developments Limited.	Michael Foderick Jonathan Nehmetallah
City of Toronto	Laura Bisset Daniel Elmadany (in absentia)
2076203 Ontario Ltd. and 2076204 Ontario Ltd.	Justine Reyes Christopher Tanzola (in absentia)
FVM Property Inc. and CF/Realty Holdings Inc.	Max Laskin
Hunters Lodge Apartments Inc.	Bruce Engell
Nuberg & Dale Construction Limited and Anspor Construction Limited	Aaron Platt

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY Eric S. CROWE ON July 21, 2023 and order of the Tribunal

INTRODUCTION

1This was the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) with respect to appeals brought pursuant to sections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA”) for the property municipally addressed as 2500 Don Mills Road (“Subject Property”) located in the City of Toronto (“City”), for the failure of council to adopt or to make a decision within the legislated timeframe.

2The purpose of the OPA and ZBA is to permit the development of two towers with heights at 30 and 39 storeys consisting of 823 residential units and 982.4 square metres (“m2”) of at-grade commercial space.

HEARING

3Michael Foderick, counsel for Donshep Developments Limited (“Applicant/Appellant”), provided the current update to the application. He advised there have been continued discussions with the City in regard to the draft Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List (“IL”). Mr. Foderick noted the Parties are all in agreement with the draft PO and IL with one exception. The City and the Applicant/Appellant were not in agreement with the wording of section 22 of the Tribunal’s draft PO template. Section 22 states;

“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, as may be necessary to understand the proposed revisions, to the other Parties on or before , 202 (ninety (90) days before Expert Witness Statements as stated in Section 0). 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.”

4Mr. Foderick had concerns with the word including “all” revised plans. Mr. Foderick suggested using other language as in other paragraphs of the draft PO or add the word all “necessary” revised plans or have the Tribunal ensure that its order clarify the literal meaning of “all”. Mr. Foderick also provided comments on cases he has been involved with which has changed the wording in the draft PO from the Tribunal template.

5Laura Bisset, counsel for the City, confirmed section 22 was in dispute but submitted that Mr. Foderick has now proposed new wording in which the City is agreeable to.

MEDIATION

6The Parties were reminded that mediation was still available and noted the previous outcome provided by the Tribunal led mediation in the previous Block Context Plan/OPA.

DRAFT PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST

7The Tribunal canvassed the Parties regarding the time needed to revise the draft P O and IL. On consent, the Tribunal directed that the complete draft PO be provided to the Case Coordinator no later than Monday, July 28, 2023. Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant will co-ordinate and provide the draft PO to the Tribunal by the appointed date.

8The Tribunal has received the Final draft of the PO including the IL. The Final PO as approved by the Tribunal is appended to this Order as Attachment 1.

HEARING DATES

9The Tribunal finds a 15-day hearing is reasonable considering the six Parties involved and with the City preparing to call four to five expert witnesses. The City advised it was not available before October 2024 and other Parties had conflicts in the time period of May until August 2024. Therefore, the Tribunal directs that a 15-day hearing will be held by video commencing on Monday, October 21, 2024, at 10 a.m.

10The hearing is scheduled to proceed by video on Monday, October 21, 2024, to Friday, November 8, 2024.

11Parties 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/660145013

Access code: 660-145-013

12Parties 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

13Persons 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

14Individuals 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.

15No further notice will be given.

ORDER

16The Member is not seized of the matter, but subject to scheduling availability, may be spoken to related to case management.

17The directions in this Decision are so ordered.

“Eric S. Crowe”

ERIC S. CROWE

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.

ATTACHMENT 1

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

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

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000093

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

Applicant and Appellant: Donshep Developments Limited Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit the development of 823 residential units and 982.4 square metres of at-grade commercial space Reference Number: 22 135742 NNY 17 OZ Property Address: 2500 Don Mills Road Municipality: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000093 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000093 Case Name: Donshep Developments Limited v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Donshep Developments Limited Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit the development of 823 residential units and 982.4 square metres of at-grade commercial space Reference Number: 22 135742 NNY 17 OZ Property Address: 2500 Don Mills Road Municipality: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000094 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000093 OLT Case Name: Donshep Developments Limited v. Toronto (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 of the Hearing

2. The hearing will begin on October 21, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. as directed in the Tribunal’s Decision and Order.

3. The length of the hearing will be about 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 procedural order deadlines are generally found in Attachment 1.

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

5. The Issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3 to this Order. 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 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 shall provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal. Any such person who retains a representative must advise the other Parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number.

8. If the hearing is to proceed electronically, any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including Parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. Expert witnesses in the same discipline(s) shall have at least one meeting before the hearing to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. The experts shall prepare a list of any agreed facts and the remaining issues to be addressed at the hearing, and provide this list to all of the Parties and the Tribunal at least fifteen days (15) days prior to date for Expert Witness Statements as stated in Section 14 (on, or before, Thursday August 1, 2024) if this meeting takes place and if agreement is reached.

10. A Party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other Parties a list of the witnesses, the witness' curriculum vitae and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered at least one hundred and twenty (120) calendar days before the hearing (on, or before Friday June 21, 2024). For expert witnesses, a Party is to identify the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified. Any challenges to the witness, including qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence in the area of expertise proposed shall be made by motion in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules and notice of same must be served on the other Parties on, or before July 12, 2024 (100 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence).

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, the acknowledgement of expert's duty and curriculum vitae. Copies of this must be provided as in Section 14. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony. For greater certainty, each expert witness statement must comply with the minimum content requirements specified in Rule 7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. If the expert witness has prepared any report(s) that he/she intends to rely on at the hearing, and which did not form part of the submissions made to the City, such report(s) shall be provided to the other Parties at the same time as the delivery of expert witness statements, as in Section 14.

12. A witness or participant must provide to the Tribunal and the Parties a witness statement or participant statement, respectively, Monday August 19, 2024 (sixty-five (65) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing) or the witness or participant may not give oral evidence at the hearing. Participants are only permitted to provide written evidence to the Tribunal, unless otherwise permitted by the Tribunal.

13. 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 Section 14.

14. On or before Monday August 19, 2024 (sixty-five (65) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing), the Parties shall provide copies of their witness statements and expert witness statements (full disclosure including reports) to the other Parties.

15. On or before Friday September 6, 2024 (forty-five (45) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing) the Parties may provide to all other Parties a written response to any written evidence.

16. On or before Wednesday September 11, 2024 (forty (40) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing), the Parties shall advise the Tribunal of whether any hearings dates scheduled for this matter may be released from the Tribunal's calendar. This request may only be made on consent of all of the Parties. If no hearing dates are intended to be released from the Tribunal's calendar, no Party is required to advise the Tribunal anything further in that regard.

17. On or before Friday September 20, 2024 (thirty (30) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing), the Parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other Parties. The Tribunal and all Parties shall be notified if a model will be used, and all Parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the scheduled commencement of the hearing.

18. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. Such a motion shall be in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rule 10, which requires that the moving Party provide copies of the motion to all other Parties at least 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

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

20. On or before Friday September 20, 2024 (thirty (30) days before the commencement of the hearing), the Parties shall prepare and file a detailed Work Plan that identifies the following, at a minimum: the identified Parties participating in the Hearing Event, preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the date a witness is intended to attend the Tribunal, the identified witness name/expertise, and the approximate time allotted for Examination in Chief, Cross Examination and any re-examination (if any) (the “Work Plan”). The Work Plan should be adhered to guide the Hearing Event to the best ability of all the Parties, and any and all witnesses shall be available on the identified date(s), unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the Work Plan throughout the Hearing Event.

21. The Parties shall prepare a Joint Document Book on, or before, Tuesday October 1, 2024 (20 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), and which, if requested by the Tribunal, one (1) hard copy will be filed with the Tribunal as soon as practicable in advance of the Hearing. All Parties must be served with the Joint Document Book in paper or an accessible electronic format in accordance with Section 23.

22. If the applicant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing, the applicant shall provide copies of the revised proposal, including revised plans, drawings, proposed instruments, updated supporting documents and reports to the other Parties on, or before, Friday May 17, 2024 (ninety (90) days before Expert Witness Statements as stated in Section 14). 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.

23. All filing of documents and materials shall be electronic to the Tribunal, the Parties and Participants (if any). The Tribunal will be provided a hard copy of documents and materials in advance of the hearing event as soon as practicable should it request same. 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. All documents to be filed with the Tribunal shall be organized, tabbed and digitally searchable and such materials will be filed in accordance with directions contained in the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, or as may be amended. Section 23 applies regardless if the hearing event is in-person or electronic.

24. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness or as permitted by Section 22. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

25. The Tribunal may conduct mediation on consent of all Parties, on consent of those Parties who wish to participate in mediation, or if the Tribunal sees fit.

26. The purpose of this Procedural Order and the meaning of the terms used in this Procedural Order are set out in Attachment 5.

This Member is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
May 17, 2024 (90 days before Witness Statement Date)	Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any)
June 21, 2024 (120 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
July 12, 2024 (100 days prior to hearing)	Last date to challenge identification of expert witness
August 2, 2024 (80 days prior to hearing)	Experts meeting prior to this date
August 2, 2024 (80 days prior to hearing)	Agreed Statement of Facts
August 19, 2024 (65 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
September 6, 2024 (45 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
September 11, 2024 (40 days prior to hearing)	Parties to Advise Tribunal if any hearing dates are to be released from the hearing calendar (if any)
September 20, 204 (30 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
September 20, 2024 (30 days prior to hearing)	Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal
October 1, 2024 (20 days prior to hearing)	Finalize Joint Document Book
October 21, 2024	Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

1. Donshep Developments Limited Michael Foderick and Jamie Cole McCarthy Tétrault LLP Suite 5300, TD Bank Tower Box 48, 66 Wellington Street West Toronto, ON M5K 1E6 Email: mfoderick@mccarthy.ca and jpcole@mccarthy.ca Tel: (416) 601-7783 and (416) 601-7811

2. City of Toronto Daniel Elmadany and Laura Bisset City of Toronto, Legal Services Metro Hall, 26th Floor 55 John Street Toronto, Ontario M5V 3C6 Email: daniel.elmadany@toronto.ca and laura.bisset@toronto.ca Tel: (416) 397-5709 and (416) 392-8782

3. 2076203 Ontario Limited and 2076204 Ontario Limited Christopher Tanzola and Justine Reyes Overland LLP 5255 Yonge Street, Suite 1101 Toronto, ON M2N 6P4 Email: ctanzola@overlandllp.ca and jreyes@overlandllp.ca Tel: (416) 730-0645 and (416) 730-0337 x. 115

4. Nuberg & Dale Construction Limited and Anspor Construction Limited Aaron Platt Loopstra Nixon LLP Richmond-Adelaide Centre 120 Adelaide Street West, Suite 1901 Toronto, ON M5H 1T1 Email: aplatt@loonix.com Tel: (416) 624-7316

5. Hunters Lodge Apts. Inc. Bruce Engell WeirFoulds LLP 4100 – 66 Wellington St. W. PO Box 35, TD Bank Tower Toronto, ON M5K 1B7 Email: bengell@weirfoulds.com Tel: (416) 947-5081

6. FVM Property Inc. and CF/Realty Holdings Inc. Max Laskin Bay Adelaide Centre - West Tower 333 Bay Street, Suite 3400 Toronto, ON M5H 2S7 Email: mlaskin@goodmans.ca Tel: (416) 849-6938

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUES LIST

NOTE: The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the Tribunal or any Party that the issue is either relevant or appropriate. The identification of an issue on this list by a Party indicates that Party’s intent to lead evidence or argue that the issue is relevant to the proceeding, for the purpose of fairly identifying to the other Parties the case they need to meet and shall not be construed as the Tribunal have jurisdiction over such matters in each circumstance. Accordingly, no Party shall advance an issue not identified on the Issues List without leave of the Tribunal.

CITY OF TORONTO

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 these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing.

Planning Act

1. Do the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interests as set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections 2(f), (h), (i), (j), (k) and (r)?

2. Would the approval by the Tribunal of the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments have regard for the decision of the Tribunal to approve Official Plan Amendment No. 476, the decision of City Council to approve Official Plan Amendment No. 490, and information and material that each approval authority considered in making their decisions to approval Official Plan Amendments Nos. 476 and 490, in accordance with Subsection 2.1(1) of the Planning Act?

3. Would the approval by the Tribunal of the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments have regard for any information and material received by City Council, in accordance with Subsection 2.1(2) of the Planning Act?

Provincial Policy Statement (2020)

4. Are the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), including policies 1.1.1. b) g) c) e) f), 1.1.3.2 a), b) and e), 1.1.3.3., 1.1.3.6., 1.1.3.7., 1.2.1, 1.3.1 a), b), d), and e), 1.4.3 b) 2, 1.5.1 a) and b), 1.6.1 b), 1.6.6, 1.6.7, 1.7, 1.8 and 4.6?

5. Are the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) by failing to provide:

a) the necessary infrastructure to achieve the orderly development of the development site within the context of the block; or

b) affordable housing and public service facilities to establish a complete community?

A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020)

6. Do the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments conform with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020), including policies 1.2.1, 2.2.1.4, 2.2.2.3., 2.2.4.10, 2.2.5 b) and d), 2.2.5.2, 2.2.6 1 a) and b), 2.2.6.3, 3.2.1.1., 3.2.1.2., 3.2.2, 3.2.5, 3.2.7, 3.2.8, 4.2.5 a) and c), 4.2.5.2, 5.2.5?

7. Do the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments fail to conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe by failing to:

a) provide for a transit supportive mix of uses including major office, to support a major transit station area; or

b) optimize planned infrastructure to support the achievement of complete communities; or

c) have regard to the plan established to ensure the orderly development of the block in which the site is located?

City of Toronto Official Plan

8. Is the proposed amendment to the Official Plan consistent with the general intent of the Official Plan, including the Sheppard East Corridor Secondary Plan?

9. Is it appropriate to defer planning for the public streets in the transportation network, anticipated by Policy 4.2.10(a) of Section 4.2.10 of the Sheppard – Don Mills – Leith Hill Block Context Plan, to the site plan control process,? Has the applicant demonstrated that the City has authority to require the construction and conveyance of new public streets (not just widening of public streets) through site plan control?

10. Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment conform with the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, including the policies related to:

a. Structuring Growth in the City (Policy 2.2.2);

b. Healthy Neighbourhoods (Section 2.3.1);

c. Bringing the City Together, Transportation (Policies 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3);

d. Public Realm (Policies 3.1.1.1, 3.1.1.2, 3.1.1.3, 3.1.1.6, 3.1.1.8, 3.1.1.15, 3.1.1.18, 3.1.1.19);

e. Built Form (Section 3.1.2, 3.1.3, and 3.1.4);

f. Housing (Section 3.2.1);

g. Building New Neighbourhoods (3.3 1a and g), 3.3 2e))

h. Parks and Open Spaces (Section 3.2.3);

i. Natural Environment (Section 3.4);

j. Mixed Use Areas (Section 4.5); and

k. Implementation (Sections 5.1.2, 5.2, 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.6)?

11. Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment conform with the policies of the Sheppard East Corridor Secondary Plan being Chapter 6, Section 9 of the Official Plan, including the policies related to: Section 2 (Goals and Objectives), Section 3 (Land Use), Policies 4.1 to 4.4, Section D. 4.2.10 Sheppard – Don Mills – Leith Hill, and Section 9 (Key Development Areas)?

Land Use

12. Do the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments provide for an appropriate mix of uses and a range of housing options including affordable housing and/or community services and facilities, and appropriately sized larger residential units?

13. Do the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments provide for a mix of uses that will reduce automobile dependency, meet the needs of the local community, or the vision for a complete community articulated through the Block Context Plan and OPA 476?

14. Should active uses be provided at the terminus of the angular mid-block connection, connecting the south-east corner of the site from Don Mills Road and Sheppard Avenue East to the block's public park, to provide opportunities for casual overlook to help animate the public realm and provide for "eyes on the street"?

15. Is the proposed density of 7.35 times the area of the lot appropriate?

Built Form and Public Realm

16. Does the proposed development fit appropriately within the existing and planned built form context, with regard to its setbacks, step backs, scale, height, separation distances, base building and streetwall heights, density, and floorplate size consistent with applicable policies and relevant guidelines?

17. Notwithstanding that the Block Context Plan and Urban Design Guidelines for this site envisioned a variety of housing types and built form including mid-rise buildings on Sheppard Avenue East that establishes a strong built form relationship with the adjacent public streets and open spaces, is a tall building typology nevertheless appropriate?

18. Is the proposal designed to minimize negative impacts on the public realm and the nearby school yard, including shadows and wind impacts?

19. Should the height, orientation and relationship of the tower to the base building be re-designed to minimize shadow and wind impacts on the adjacent public realm and the school yard?

20. As a result of the proposed presence of balconies in the proposed stepback from the base building to the tower elements along Sheppard Avenue East, are the base building and the tower element appropriately distinguished from each other, in accordance with applicable policies and relevant guidelines?

21. Does the proposed base building establish an appropriate pedestrian perception? Does it establish appropriate street proportion?

22. Does the proposal contribute to the connected and accessible network of public streets, pedestrian connections and cycling routes that encourage active transportation through the block while limiting the creation of new curb cuts and driveways to new public streets and existing public sidewalks, as planned for in the Block Context Plan? Should the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments include a sidewalk wider than 2.1 metres, to support the planned active transportation? Should the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments include pedestrian amenity on the corner and along Don Mills Road and Sheppard Avenue East, in the form of privately-owned, publicly-accessible spaces?

23. Should additional active ground floor spaces facing the internal courtyard be provided to meet the public realm objectives of the Official Plan, the Secondary Plan and the Block Context Plan Urban Design Guidelines?

24. Is adequate soil volume for tree planning proposed?

25. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for, and meet the intent and purpose of, the applicable City of Toronto Guidelines, particularly:

a) Sheppard-Don Mills – Leith Hill Block Context Plan Urban Design Guidelines;

b) Tall Building Design Guidelines;

c) Mid-rise Building Performance Standards;

d) Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities;

e) Retail Design Manual;

f) Pet Friendly Design Guidelines for High Density Communities;

g) Development Infrastructure Policy and Standards (DIPS)?

Transportation

26. Is the proposed private driveway to Don Mills Road appropriate in the context of the planned east-west Public Street B directly adjacent to the north as approved through Official Plan Amendment No. 490?

27. Does the proposed interim private driveway conform to the transportation network for the block, approved through OPA 490,, which seeks to promote active transportation within and around the block and to reduce the creation of new curb cuts and driveways to new public streets and existing public sidewalks?

28. Has the proposed parking supply been justified?

29. Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment provide sufficient building setbacks from the existing and planned intersections abutting the site to allow for corner roundings at Don Mills Road and Sheppard Avenue East and Don Mills Road and planned Street B?

30. Is the proposed Transportation Demand Management strategy adequate to support the additional growth represented by the proposal?

Amenity Space

31. Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment provide for sufficient indoor and outdoor amenity space?

Servicing

32. Is the proposed servicing infrastructure functional and coordinated with the block's planned servicing infrastructure, which is intended to realign and reconnect the existing municipal water, sanitary, and stormwater services within the new planned public streets?

33. Has it been demonstrated that there are adequate municipal services in place to support the proposed development? Is there adequate sanitary, storm and water capacity available to allow for adequate water pressure, and appropriate stormwater and groundwater management?

34. Is appropriate and adequate access to the below grade parking garage and loading/service area proposed?

Orderly Development of the Site and Coordination with Adjacent Landowners

35. Should a holding provision be included in the Zoning By-law Amendment to prohibit development until:

a. the necessary servicing infrastructure has been planned for and secured, in coordination with the abutting landowners;

b. the block's transportation network has been implemented;

c. access to the planned public park from the development site, and frontage of the planned public park on a public street, have been provided; and/or

d. the necessary conveyances of land into public ownership have been completed?

Public Interest and Good Planning

36. Do the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments provide for good planning and good urban design and are they in the public interest?

Conditions

37. If the proposal is approved in whole or in part, should the Tribunal's Order be withheld until the following conditions are satisfied, and the Tribunal has received confirmation from the City Solicitor that:

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

b) the final form and content of the proposed Zoning By-law(s) are to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

c) the Owner has at its sole cost and expense:

i. submitted a revised Functional Servicing Report and Stormwater Management Report, Hydrogeological Review, including the Foundation Drainage Report ("Engineering Reports") to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, in consultation with the General Manager, Toronto Water;

ii. secured the design and provision of financial securities for any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure identified in the accepted Engineering Reports, to support the development, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and the General Manager, Toronto Water, should it be determined that improvements or upgrades are required to support the development, according to the accepted Engineering Reports, accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and the General Manager, Toronto Water;

iii. implemented the accepted Engineering Reports and confirmed that the implementation does not require changes to the proposed amending By-laws or any required changes have been made to the proposed amending By-laws to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner, City Planning and the City Solicitor; and

iv. submitted a revised Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Study, including a revised Travel Demand Management Plan, satisfactory to the General Manger, Transportation Services and thereafter implement any such requirements in a manner satisfactory to the City?

2076203 ONTARIO LIMITED AND 2076204 ONTARIO LIMITED, NUBERG & DALE CONSTRUCTION LIMITED AND ANSPOR CONSTRUCTION LIMITED, AND HUNTERS LODGE APTS. INC.

Provincial Policy

1. Does the proposed development and implementing official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment (“Proposed Development”) have regard to matters of provincial interest under the Planning Act, specifically with respect to sections 2(f), (g), (h), (i), (n), (p) and (r)?

2. Does the Proposed Development appropriately address provincial policies regarding efficient development that optimize the use of land, resources and investment in infrastructure, servicing, and other facilities, consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and in conformity with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2022? *

*NTD: In the event that the Province issues the proposed Provincial Planning Statement prior to the hearing on the merits in this matter, the Parties reserve their right, for practical reasons, to reframe issues in light of the updated provincial policies, where applicable.

City of Toronto Official Plan

Official Plan

3. Does the Proposed Development conform with City of Toronto Official Plan policies with respect to the provision and configuration of new public streets, the location of parkland and public open spaces, and the adequacy and an efficiency of infrastructure and servicing (policies 3.1.1(8), 3.1.1(19), 3.2.2(8), and 3.3(1))?

4. Should a holding provision be in place until such time as requirements for transportation/servicing improvements, parks and open space, phasing of development, and the entering into of agreements, including subdivision agreements, have been addressed by the Proposed Development (policy 5.1.2)?

Sheppard East Subway Corridor Secondary Plan

5. Does the Proposed Development conform with Sheppard East Subway Corridor Secondary Plan policies with respect to: transportation considerations, including the layout of public streets and connectivity through the block; the provision and configuration of parkland within the block; the requirement for comprehensive development, including through the use of context plans; and the adequacy of servicing infrastructure, including the need for any holding provisions (policies 5.2, 6.2, 9(a) – (f))?

OPA 476

6. Does the Proposed Development conform with site and area specific policy 4.2.10 “Sheppard-Don Mills-Leith Hill”?

7. Does the Proposed Development conform with the requirement to provide new public streets via a draft plan of subdivision?

8. Is the location and planned delivery of the proposed on-site parkland appropriate?

9. Is the Proposed Development supported by a satisfactory Functional Servicing Report that demonstrates that sufficient capacity exists to accommodate the proposed development, and does it demonstrate a coordination with and optimization of the planned servicing infrastructure for the Block?

10. Should a holding provision be in place to require the build-out of necessary municipal infrastructure and the provision of an acceptable transportation study (policy 2(f)?

OPA 490

11. Does the Proposed Development conform with the planned transportation network for the Block, taking into account any new public roads, driveways and other connections that are proposed for the development?

Sheppard-Don Mills- Leith Hill Block Context Plan Urban Design Guidelines

12. Does the Proposed Development have appropriate regard for the Sheppard-Don Mills- Leith Hill Block Context Plan Urban Design Guidelines as it relates to the organization of new public streets, new public parkland, and new buildings within the Block?

General

13. Does the Proposed Development appropriately address issues related to the cost-sharing of planned municipal infrastructure (i.e., sanitary/stormwater service improvements and public streets) and community services and facilities?

14. Does the Proposed Development appropriately contribute to the comprehensive development of the block?

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

NOTE: Where Parties of like interest have issues in common, they shall make reasonable efforts to coordinate their examinations-in-chief and cross-examinations so as to minimize any duplication or overlap of evidence.

1. Donshep Developments Limited

2. City of Toronto

3. 2076203 Ontario Limited and 2076204 Ontario Limited

4. Nuberg & Dale Construction Limited and Anspor Construction Limited

5. Hunters Lodge Apts. Inc.

6. FVM Property Inc. and CF/Realty Holdings Inc.

7. Reply of Donshep Developments Limited, if any

ATTACHMENT 5

PURPOSE OF THE PROCEDURAL ORDER AND MEANING OF TERMS

Party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other Party, and making submissions on all of the evidence. If an unincorporated group wishes to become a Party, it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a Party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer, and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorization from the Party.

NOTE that a person who wishes to become a Party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

Participant is an individual, group, or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may attend all or part of the proceeding and may only make a written statement to the Tribunal on all or some of the issues in the hearing in accordance with Rule 7.7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

NOTE that such persons will likely not receive notice of a mediation or conference calls on procedural issues. They also cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision as Parties can.

Written and Visual Evidence:

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.

Written Statements:

A witness statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience, and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which the witness will discuss and the witness’ opinions on those issues; and a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include the expert’s (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons for the opinions and (5) a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which the Participant will address and a short outline of the evidence on those issues; and a list of reports, relied upon, if any, which the Participant will provide to the Tribunal for consideration of the written statement at the hearing.

Additional Information:

Summons: A Party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons. This request must be made before the time that the list of witnesses is provided to the Tribunal and the Party. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) If the Tribunal requests it, an affidavit must be provided indicating how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the affidavit, it will require that a motion be heard to decide whether the witness should be summoned.

The order of examination of witnesses: is usually direct examination, cross-examination, and re-examination in the following way:

• direct examination by the Party presenting the witness;
• direct examination by any Party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;
• cross-examination by Parties of opposite interest;
• re-examination by the Party presenting the witness; or
• another order of examination mutually agreed among the Parties or directed by the Tribunal.