Riverview Highlands (St. George) Holdings Ltd. v. Brant (County), 2023 CanLII 73708

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 10, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004179

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

Applicant and Appellant: Riverview Highlands (St. George) Holdings Ltd.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit a residential development with single-detached residential dwellings, a multiple-residential block, and neighbourhood commercial

Reference Number: ZBA-18-RA

Property Address: 70 & 72 Beverly Street West

Municipality/UT: County of Brant

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004179

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004179

OLT Case Name: Riverview Highlands (St. George) Holdings Ltd. v. Brant (County)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Riverview Highlands (St. George) Holdings Ltd.

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision

Description: To permit a residential development with single-detached residential dwellings, a multiple-residential block, and neighbourhood commercial

Reference Number: PS1-18-RA

Property Address: 70 & 72 Beverly Street West

Municipality/UT: County of Brant

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004180

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004179

Heard: July 24, 2023 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Riverview Highlands (St. George) Holdings Ltd.

Courtney Boyd

County of Brant

Brian Duxbury

Losani Homes (1998) Ltd.

Raj Kehar as Agent

William Liske (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY W. DANIEL BEST ON JULY 24, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1This was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held for the purpose of organizing appeals brought by Riverview Highlands (St. George) Holdings Ltd. (“Applicant”) against the failure of the County of Brant (“County”) to make decisions on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and a Draft Plan of Subdivision (“Draft Plan”) (collectively the “Applications”) in relation to the property at 70 and 72 Beverly Street West in the community of St. George (“Subject Lands”).

2The Subject Lands are designated as Urban Residential and Natural Heritage and are within the Primary Urban Settlement Boundary, as defined by the County of Brant Official Plan (2012) (“OP”). This designation contemplates and permits residential development.

3The purpose of the Applications is to rezone the Subject Lands from Urban Residential (R2), Agriculture (A) and Natural Heritage (NH) to Residential Singles Holding Exception (H-Rl-X), Residential Singles Holding Exception (H-Rl-X)/ Neighbourhood Commercial Holding (H-C1), Residential Multiple Low Density Holding (H-RMl), and Natural Heritage (NH) in order to implement a Draft Plan of Subdivision containing 37 lots for single-detached dwellings, a split 0.27 hectare (“ha”) residential/commercial block and a 1.24 ha low-density multiple residential block.

4The Applications were initially submitted in 2008. The Applications were put on hold given ongoing hearings at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (“LPAT”) and servicing constraints. The Applications were reactivated in 2021.

5The Affidavit of Service, sworn on June 08, 2023, was marked as Exhibit 1. No further notice is required.

6The Tribunal received one written request for Party status from Losani Homes (1998) Ltd. (“Losani”). This request is marked as Exhibit 2.

7No other written requests for Party or Participant status were received and no individuals appeared at the CMC requesting status of any kind. Accordingly, the Appeals will proceed with the involvement and participation of the Parties as noted below.

PARTY STATUS REQUEST

Losani Request

8Losani is the abutting landowner to the East, South and West of the Subject Lands. If approved, the proposed development will share certain facilities and services with Losani, which will include a common roadway and stormwater management pond. The Losani project was granted draft plan approval by this Tribunal in a decision issued on September 03, 2020, under Case Number PL171215. Losani is requesting Party Status to participate in the proceedings and address a need that conditions be imposed, which provide for reciprocal easements, cost sharing, grading and other development matters among the common boundaries and shared services between properties. Losani will also be requesting that a condition be imposed matching its Condition 56, which, in the September 30, 2020 Tribunal decision, references the ‘St. George Land Owners Group’:

56. That prior to final approval of all or any part of the Subdivision, the Developer/Owner shall enter into one or more cost sharing or similar agreements with other developers of abutting lands or other development lands in close proximity, known as the “Land Owners Group” to ensure the provision of, or funding for the community and common facilities (such as, without limitation, municipal services and public roads) as required by the County and also with regard to any other cost sharing obligations reflected within these conditions. An executed copy of such agreement shall be provided to the County. It is understood and acknowledged by the Developer / Owner that the County shall retain the absolute discretion to determine the specifications required for the construction of all community and common facilities that will be subject to such agreement. The Developer/Owner acknowledges and agrees that the County shall not be obligated, required or demanded to release the Subdivision or any phase thereof until the Developer/Owner has obtained and provided a certificate confirming that it has entered into such cost sharing agreements or made alternative arrangements and satisfied any obligations outlined in the cost sharing agreements to the satisfaction of the escrow agent or Trustee of the Land Owners Group.

9Party Status was granted to Losani on consent of the Parties. As the adjacent landowner, it has a genuine and direct interest in the proceeding, will be impacted by the decision in relation to the appeals and will assist the Tribunal in making its decision.

NEXT STEPS

10The Parties informed the Tribunal that they have been actively working through the Issues List and it is their intention to continue such discussions.

11The Parties were reminded of the availability of Tribunal assisted mediation and are further reminded that they may reach out to the Case Coordinator for assistance, should they wish to avail themselves of this resource in the future.

12The Applicant circulated a draft Procedural Order (“PO”), which was presented to the Tribunal. The Tribunal requested that a revised draft PO be submitted, on consent, to ensure that the Issues of all Parties are included and that the appropriate dates for the exchange of documents and meetings of expert witness are reflected. The Applicant was directed to submit the draft PO before Friday, July 28, 2023, to the Case Coordinator.

13Having the benefit of receiving the submitted revised draft PO from the Applicant prior to the issuance of this Decision and having examined the Issues List attached to the PO, the Tribunal deems the attached PO to be in force and effect to govern the proceedings at the hearing of the merits scheduled below. Any changes to the PO will require the approval of the Tribunal.

14Based on the discussions during the CMC regarding the scope of the issues and the expected number of witnesses each Party will rely on, the Tribunal determined that it would be reasonable to schedule the hearing for five days.

15The Tribunal inquired as to whether there were any other matters to be addressed which might assist in the fair, just and expeditious resolution of this matter. The Parties indicated there were none.

16A five-day hearing of the merits is scheduled to commence at 10 a.m. on Monday, February 05, 2024, by Video Hearing.

17Parties 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:

GoTo Meeting: https://meet.goto.com/278736685

Access code: 278-736-685

18Parties 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

19Persons 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: +1 (647) 497-9391 or (Toll-Free) 1-888-455-1389. The access code is the same as the access code noted above.

20Individuals 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.

ORDER

21THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS the directions contained in this Decision.

22The Procedural Order, appended to this Decision as Schedule 1, is approved and in force and effect.

23There will be no further notice.

24The Member is not seized and may be spoken to through the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator if there are any issues with respect to the implementation of this Order.

“W. Daniel Best”

W. DANIEL BEST

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

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

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

SCHEDULE 1

CASE NO.: OLT-22-004179

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

Applicant and Appellant: Riverview Highlands (St. George) Holdings Ltd.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit a residential development with single-detached residential dwellings, a multiple-residential block, and neighbourhood commercial

Reference Number: ZBA-18-RA

Property Address: 70 & 72 Beverly Street West

Municipality/UT: County of Brant

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004179

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004179

OLT Case Name: Riverview Highlands (St. George) Holdings Ltd. v. Brant (County)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Riverview Highlands (St. George) Holdings Ltd.

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision

Description: To permit a residential development with single-detached residential dwellings, a multiple-residential block, and neighbourhood commercial

Reference Number: PS1-18-RA

Property Address: 70 & 72 Beverly Street West

Municipality/UT: County of Brant

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004180

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004179

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 5, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. by video conference.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is five (5) days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1 (see the attachment for the meaning of these terms).

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 2. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

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 9, 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 proposed to be qualified.

10. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before November 7, 2023 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting, and if the expert witnesses reach an agreement, the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before November 22, 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 7, 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 21 below.

14. On or before December 7, 2023, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties and 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 1, 2024, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

16. On or before January 15, 2024, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

17. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before January 5, 2024, and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

18. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before January 26, 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 and the other parties 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 January 15, 2024 with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

22. All filings shall be submitted electronically, and in hard copy to the Tribunal if requested. 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.

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.

ATTACHMENT 1 – LIST OF PARTIES / PARTICIPANTS

Parties

Riverview Highlands (St. George) Holdings Ltd.

Courtney J. Boyd Waterous Holden Amey Hitchon LLP PO Box 1510, 20 Wellington Street Brantford, Ontario N3T 5V6

Tel: (519) 759-6220 Ext. 338 Email: cboyd@waterousholden.com

County of Brant

Brian Duxbury Duxbury Law 1 King Street, Suite 500 Hamilton, Ontario L8P 1A4

Tel: 905-570-1242 Email: brian@duxburylaw.ca

Jyoti Zuidema County of Brant 26 Park Avenue, P.O. Box 160 Burford, Ontario N0E 1A0

Tel: 519-449-2451 Email: jyoti.zuidema@brant.ca

Losani Homes (1998) Ltd.

William Liske Losani Homes (1998) Ltd. 430 McNeilly Road, Suite 203 Stoney Creek, Ontario L8E 5E3

Tel: 905-561-1700 Email: wLiske@losanihomes.com

Participants

N/A

ATTACHMENT 2 – 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 relevant or appropriate, or that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over it. The identification of an issue by a party indicates that party’s intent to tender evidence and/or make submissions on it, for the purpose of fairly identifying to the other parties the case they need to meet.

Issues of County of Brant

1. Are the applications consistent with the PPS 2020? Specifically in regard to the following policies:
   1. 1.1.1(c), 1.1.1(d), 1.1.1(e), 1.1.1(f) 1.1.1(g)
   2. 1.1.3.1
   3. 1.1.3.2(a), 1.1.3.2(b), 1.1.3.2(e)
   4. 1.1.3.4
   5. 1.1.3.6
   6. 1.4.3(c)
   7. 1.5.1(a), 1.5.1(b)
   8. 1.6.1(b)
   9. 1.6.6.2
   10. 1.6.6.6
   11. 1.6.6.7(a) – 1.6.6.7(f)
   12. 2.1.1
   13. 2.1.2
   14. 2.1.5
   15. 2.1.8
   16. 2.2.1
   17. 3.1.1
   18. 3.1.2
2. Do the applications conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020)? Specifically in regard to the following policies:
   1. 2.2.1.2(a), 2.2.1.2(c), 2.2.1.2(d)
   2. 2.2.1.4(a) – 2.2.1.4(g)
   3. 2.2.7.1(a) & 2.2.7.1(b)
   4. 3.2.6.2(a) & 3.2.6.2(b)
   5. 3.2.7.2(a) – 3.2.7.2(d)
3. Do the applications conform to the County of Brant Official Plan (2012)? Specifically in regards to the following policies:
   1. 1.11.2.2.2(a), 1.11.2.2.2(c), 1.11.2.2.2(e),1.11.2.2.2(f), 1.11.2.2.2(g) & 1.11.2.2.2(i)
   2. 1.11.2.4.2(a), 1.11.2.4.2(c), 1.11.2.4.2(d) - 1.11.2.4.2(f)
   3. 1.11.2.5.2(a), 1.11.2.5.2(c), 1.11.2.5.2(d), 1.11.2.5.2(f) – 1.11.2.5.2(h)
   4. 2.2.3.1.1(c), 2.2.3.1.1(d), 2.2.3.1.1(g), 2.2.3.1.1(h), 2.2.3.1.1(i), 2.2.3.1.1(j), 2.2.3.1.1(k)
   5. 2.2.5.1(d) & 2.2.5.1(e)
   6. 2.3, 2.3.2.2 (a), (e), (g), (h), (i), 2.3.2.3.2 (g), (j), (k), 2.3.3.1 (a), 2.3.3.3 (d), (e)
   7. 3.4.2(a) – 3.4.2(e)
   8. 3.4.3(a)
   9. 3.4.4(a) – 3.4.4(e)
   10. 3.4.5(a) – 3.4.5(e)
   11. 3.4.6(a) – 3.4.6(e)
   12. 5.2.1(a), 5.2.1(d), 5.2.1(e)
   13. 5.2.2(a) – 5.2.2(e), 5.2.2(h)
   14. 5.2.3.1(a), 5.2.3.1(b)
   15. 5.2.3.2(a), 5.2.3.2(c), 5.2.3.2(d), 5.2.3.2(f) - 5.2.3.2(h)
4. Does the draft plan of subdivision properly illustrate connections to the surrounding draft plans of subdivision?
5. Does the draft plan of subdivision properly illustrate trail connections?
6. Does the development respect the County’s policies in connection with appropriate subdivision design?
7. Are the significant natural heritage and hydrologic features, areas, systems, functions and associated vegetation protection zones protected and provided with opportunities for enhancement through the use of Open Space Blocks, public ownership and restoration?
8. Have the recommendations of all technical studies, reports and drawings been implemented?
9. Will the County of Brant have servicing capacity for the subject lands once the St. George Water Pollution Control Plant is complete?
10. Has an archaeological study been completed and accepted by the Province? If so, what phases were completed?
11. Is this development satisfying the servicing hierarchy once capacity is available?
12. How is the commercial component being maintained?
13. Is sufficient visitor parking being provided for the multiple residential block(s)?
14. Is sufficient parking being provided for the commercial block(s)?
15. Is appropriate screening/ buffering being provided for the commercial block(s)?
16. Is there a need for a cost sharing agreement with the surrounding residential developments in regard to extending servicing?
17. Have the appropriate lands been conveyed to the surrounding residential development?

Issues of Riverview Highlands (St. George) Holdings Ltd.

1. If the proposed plan of subdivision is to be approved, what are the appropriate conditions of draft plan approval?

Issues of Losani Homes (1998) Ltd.

1. Is there a need for a cost sharing agreement with the surrounding residential developments in regard to extending servicing?
2. Should the application be approved, it is appropriate to include draft plan conditions which relate to matters external to the development? Should these draft plan conditions related to external development encompass the same or similar language implemented by the Tribunal in its decisions dated September 19, 2019, October 16, 2020, and September 3, 2020 under file numbers PL160641, PL161164 and PL171215 respectively?

ATTACHMENT 3 – ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Riverview Highlands (St. George) Holdings Ltd.
2. County of Brant
3. Losani Homes (1998) Ltd.
4. Reply of Riverview Highlands (St. George) Holdings Ltd.