Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 24, 2023

CASE NO.: OLT-23-000182

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

Applicant and Appellant: Tri-Metro Investments Inc.

Subject: Official Plan Amendment

Description: To permit mixed-use development consisting of 35-storey and 55-storey towers, providing 1,139 residential units

Property Address: 2721 Danforth Avenue

Municipality/UT: Toronto

Municipal File No.: 21 235157 STE 19 OZ

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000182

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000182

OLT Case Name: Tri-Metro Investments Inc. 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: Tri-Metro Investments Inc.

Subject: Zoning Bylaw Amendment

Description: To permit mixed-use development consisting of 35-storey and 55-storey towers, providing 1,139 residential units

Property Address: 2721 Danforth Avenue

Municipality/UT: Toronto

Municipal File No.: 21 235157 STE 19 OZ

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000183

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000182

OLT Case Name:

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

Applicant and Appellant: Tri-Metro Investments Inc.

Subject: Plan of Subdivision

Description: To permit mixed-use development consisting of 35-storey and 55-storey towers, providing 1,139 residential units

Property Address: 2721 Danforth Avenue

Municipality/UT: Toronto

Municipal File No.: 21 235158 STE 19 SB

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000184

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000182

OLT Case Name:

BEFORE:

JATINDER BHULLAR

Tuesday, the 22nd

MEMBER

day of August, 2023

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that further to the Decision issued on July 25, 2023, the Procedural Order, as agreed to between the Parties and attached hereto as Schedule “A”, shall be in force and effect for the purpose of governing the required procedures leading up to and including the hearing, which is scheduled to commence on September 23, 2024. The Tribunal has set aside 15 day(s) for the hearing.

“Euken Lui”

EUKEN LUI

ACTING REGISTRAR

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

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 September 23, 2024 at 10 a.m at:

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/719383509

Access Code: 719-383-509

3. The length of the hearing will be about 15 days, scheduled to conclude on October 11th, 2024. 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 set out in Attachment 2.

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. Aside from the potential for the scoping or removal of issues as they may be resolved, 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. 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. 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, to the other Parties on or before April 19th, 2024. 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.

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 and the order in which they are intended to be called. This list must be delivered on or before May 24th, 2024 and in accordance with paragraph 25 below. A Party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area(s) 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 June 14th, 2024.

11. In the event a Party files a list of witnesses that does not include a witness with the technical expertise to address such Party’s technically related issues, said issues shall be struck from the Issues List set out in Attachment 3 based upon an appropriate review before the Tribunal in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules.

12. Expert witnesses in the same field(s) shall meet at least once on or before July 5th, 2024 to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the Hearing. Following the experts’ meeting, and if any agreement is reached, the witnesses shall prepare an Agreed Statement of Facts and identify the remaining issues to be addressed at the Hearing, and provide this statement to all of the Parties on or before July 15th, 2024.

13. 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 paragraph 15 below. Instead of a Witness Statement, the expert may file their 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 7.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules. 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 as the delivery of Expert Witness Statements, as in paragraph 15.

14. 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 15 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 15 below.

15. On or before July 19th, 2024, the Parties shall provide copies of their witness statements and Expert Witness Statements to the other Parties in accordance with paragraph 25 below.

16. On or before July 19th, 2024, Participant shall provide copies of their written Participant statement to the Parties and the Tribunal case co-ordinator in accordance with paragraph 25 below. A Participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

17. On or before August 16th, 2024, the Parties may provide to all other Parties a written response to any written evidence received and in accordance with paragraph 25 below.

18. On or before August 19th, 2024 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.

19. On or before August 23rd, 2024, the Parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other Parties in accordance with paragraph 25 below. 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.

20. 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 fifteen (15) days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

21. 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 other Parties and the Tribunal at least seven (7) days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

22. On or before September 9th, 2024, the Parties shall prepare and file with the Tribunal a Hearing 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 re-examination, if any (the “Hearing Plan”). The Hearing Plan should be used to guide the Hearing Event, 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 Hearing Plan throughout the Hearing Event.

23. The Parties shall prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the Tribunal case co-ordinator on or before September 9th, 2024. All Parties must be served with the joint document book in an accessible electronic format in accordance with paragraph 25.

24. Any documents which may be used by a Party in cross examination of an opposing Party’s witness shall be put to the witness and shared with the Tribunal and the other Parties at that time, or pursuant to the directions provided by the Tribunal or the case co-ordinator.

25. All filings of documents and materials shall be in electronic to the Tribunal, the Parties and Participants (if any). If requested, the Tribunal will be provided a hard copy of documents and materials in advance of the hearing event as soon as practicable. 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 Rule 7.11 to 7.13. 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, dated June 29, 2021, or as may be amended. Paragraph 25 applies regardless if the hearing event is in-person or electronic.

26. 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.

27. 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.

BEFORE:

) Date: August 24, 2023

JATINDER BHULLAR )

Member )

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

Attachment 1

Summary of Dates

DATE	EVENT
On or before April 19th, 2024	Applicant to circulate revised proposal, if any, together with supporting materials to the Parties.
On or before May 24th, 2024	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
On or before June 14th, 2024	Deadline to challenge witness qualifications
On or before July 5th, 2024	Experts meetings, if any, prior to this date
On or before July 15th, 2024	Experts to file agreed statement of facts and remaining issues (if any)
On or before July 19th, 2024	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
On or before August 16th, 2024	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements
On or before August 19th, 2024	Parties to advise Tribunal if any hearing dates are to be released from the hearing calendar (if any)
On or before August 23rd, 2024	Exchange of visual evidence
On or before September 9th, 2024	Hearing Plan filed with the Tribunal
On or before September 9th, 2024	Joint Document Book filed with the Tribunal
September 23rd, 2024	Hearing commences

Attachment 2

List of Parties/Participants

Parties

1. Tri-Metro Investments Inc.

Davies Howe LLP The Tenth Floor 425 Adelaide Street West Toronto, Ontario M5V 3C1 Mark Flowers E-mail: markf@davieshowe.com Tel: 416-263-4513 Andy Margaritis E-mail: andym@davieshowe.com Tel: 416-263-4520

2. City of Toronto

Legal Services Division 26th Floor, Metro Hall 55 John Street Toronto, Ontario M5V 3C6 Nathan Muscat E-mail: nathan.muscat@toronto.ca Tel: 416-397-5475 Michelle LaFortune E-mail: michelle.lafortune@toronto.ca Tel: 416-338-0642 Jason Davidson E-mail: jason.davidson@toronto.ca Tel: 416-392-4835

3. Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited

Cassels Brock LLP Scotia Plaza 40 King Street West, Suite 2100 Toronto, Ontario M5H 3C2 Signe Leisk E-mail: sleisk@cassels.com Tel: 416-869-5411 Jennifer Evola E-mail: jevola@cassels.com Tel: 416-860-6753

4. Minto Communities Canada Inc. on behalf of Minto (Dawes) GP Inc.

McCarthy Tetreault LLP Toronto Dominion Centre 66 Wellington Street West, Suite 5300 Toronto, Ontario M5K 1E6 John Dawson E-mail: jdawson@mccarthy.ca Tel: 416-601-8300 Belinda Schubert E-mail: bschubert@mccarthy.ca Tel: 416-601-8212

5. Jacob’s Tent Inc.

Overland LLP Yonge-Norton Centre 5255 Yonge Street, Suite 1101 Toronto, Ontario M2N6P4 Daniel Artenosi E-mail: dartenosi@overlandllp.ca Tel: 416-669-4366 Michael Cara E-mail: mcara@overlandllp.ca Tel: 416-730-8844

6. 6 Dawes Fitzrovia Inc.

Overland LLP Yonge-Norton Centre 5255 Yonge Street, Suite 1101 Toronto, Ontario M2N6P4 Daniel Artenosi E-mail: dartenosi@overlandllp.ca Tel: 416-669-4366 Michael Cara E-mail: mcara@overlandllp.ca Tel: 416-730-8844

7. Dandaw Developments Limited

McCarthy Tetreault LLP Toronto Dominion Centre 66 Wellington Street West, Suite 5300 Toronto, Ontario M5K 1E6 Michael Foderick E-mail: mfoderick@mccarthy.ca Tel: 416-601-7783

Participants

None

Attachment 3

Issues List

Note: The identification of an issue on this list does not mean that all Parties agree that such an issue, or the manner in which it is expressed, is appropriate or relevant for the proper determination of the appeals. The extent of the appropriateness and/or relevance of the issue may be a matter of evidence and/or argument at the hearing.

City of Toronto

Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Issues

Planning Act

1. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendment have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest as set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including (f), (q) and (r)?

2. Would the approval of the proposed development, the Zoning By-law Amendments and Official Plan Amendments have regard for the decisions of City Council as required by Section 2.1 of the Planning Act?

Provincial Policy Statement

3. Is the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), particularly 1.1.1, 1.1.3.2, and 4.6, pursuant to Section 3 of the Planning Act?

Growth Plan

4. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendment conform with and not conflict with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019), particularly 2.2.1.4, 2.2.2.3, 2.2.3.1, and 5.2.5.6?

City of Toronto Official Plan

5. Does the proposed development conform to the in-force policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, including sections: 3.1.1 (The Public Realm), 3.1.3 (Built Form), 3.1.4 (Built Form – Building Types), 3.2.3 (Parks and Open Spaces), and 4.5 (Mixed Use Areas)?

6. Does the proposed development conform to the SASP 577 as approved by the Tribunal, being Chapter 7 to the City’s Official Plan (adopted through Official Plan Amendment 478 or "OPA 478"), particularly policies 2 (Public Realm), 6 (Land Use), 7 (Built Form), 11 (Servicing)?

7. Is the requested Official Plan Amendments to SASP 577 (OPA 478) to permit the proposed development appropriate?

Urban Design Guidelines

8. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for the city-wide Tall Building Design Guidelines, particularly guidelines 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4.

9. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for the Danforth Avenue Urban Design Guidelines, particularly guidelines 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4?

Site-Specific Issues

10. Is the site organization and built form of the proposed development appropriate, including:

i. Are the proposed building configurations, orientations, heights, setbacks, appropriate?

ii. Does the proposal provide an appropriate transition to surrounding land uses and built form?

iii. Are the shadow impacts from the proposed development adequately limited, on the sidewalk on the north side of Danforth Avenue?

iv. Are the wind impacts from the proposed development adequately limited, particularly on spaces where people are expected to congregate and sit, such as outdoor amenity spaces?

v. Does the proposed development represent principles of good planning and urban design?

11. Does the proposed development provide an appropriate relationship with the adjacent development proposal at 2681 Danforth Avenue? In particular, does the proposed development provide for appropriate block planning and the midblock connections outlined in Official Plan Amendment 478?

12. Does the proposed public park have public access and public frontage and does its size and configuration accommodate appropriate programming?

13. Does the proposed development resolve issues related to transportation, including the provision of road widenings as set out in the Engineering & Construction Services Memorandum dated March 20, 2023?

14. Does the proposed development resolve issues related to servicing capacity and appropriate stormwater management as set out in the Engineering & Construction Services Memorandum dated March 20, 2023?

15. In light of the foregoing issues, do the proposed development, proposed Official Plan Amendment, and proposed Zoning By-law Amendment represent good planning and good urban design, and is approval of the proposal in the public interest?

16. In the event that the Ontario Land Tribunal allows the appeals in whole or in part, should the Tribunal withhold its Order(s) on the Zoning By-law Amendment and Official Plan Amendment until City Solicitor has confirmed that the following conditions have been satisfied:

a. the final form and content of the draft Official Plan Amendment is to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning; and

b. the final form and content of the draft Zoning By-law is to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.

Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited

Provincial Legislation and Policy

17. Does the proposed development have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections (h), (i), (j), (m), (n), (p), (q) and (r)?

18. Does the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision have regard to the criteria set out in subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act, including to the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants and to subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (k) and (m)?

19. Is the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), including policies 1.1.1b), 1.1.1g), 1.1.3.2a), 1.1.3.2b), 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, 1.5.1a), 1.5.1b), 1.6.2, 1.7.1(e) and 4.6?

20. Does the proposed development conform to and not conflict with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020), including policies 2.1, 2.2.1.3, 2.2.1.4, 2.2.4.8, 2.2.4.9, 4.2.5.1, 4.2.5.2 and 5.2.1?

City Policy and Guidelines

21. Does the proposed development conform to and/or maintain the intent and purpose of the City of Toronto Official Plan, including the following policies:

i. Avenues: Reurbanizing Arterial Corridors – 2.2.3.1 and 2.2.3.2

ii. Healthy Neighbourhoods – 2.3.1.3 and 2.3.1.7

iii. The Public Realm – 3.1.1.1, 3.1.1.2, 3.1.1.3, 3.1.1.10, 3.1.1.11, 3.1.1.12. 3.1.1.14, 3.1.1.15, 3.1.1.18 and 3.1.1.19

iv. Built Form – 3.1.3.1, 3.1.3.2, 3.1.3.3, 3.1.3.4, 3.1.3.5, 3.1.3.6, 3.1.3.7, 3.1.3.8 and 3.1.3.10

v. Built Form – Building Types – 3.1.4.10 and 3.1.4.11

vi. Parks and Open Spaces – 3.2.3.1, 3.2.3.2, 3.2.3.4, 3.2.3.5, 3.2.3.6 and 3.2.3.8

vii. Mixed Use Areas – 4.5.2

22. Does the proposed development conform to and/or maintain the intent and purpose of Official Plan Amendment 420 and Site and Area Specific Policy 552, including the following policies:

i. Public Realm – 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3

ii. Development Criteria – Entire Study Area – 5.1 and 5.2

iii. Urban Design Guidelines – 9.1

23. Does the proposed development have adequate regard to Official Plan Amendment 478 and Site and Area Specific Policy 577, including the following policies:

i. Objectives – 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 1.8 and 1.12

ii. Public Realm – 2.1.1, 2.1.8, 2.2.3, 2.2.5, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.4, 2.3.5, 2.3.7 and 2.3.9

iii. Built Form – 7.3.1 7.3.2, 7.3.6, and 7.4.2

24. Does the proposed development provide adequate tower setbacks and separation distances from the adjacent property at 2681 Danforth Avenue, in respect of the above policies?

25. Does the proposed development provide an appropriate parkland dedication location in respect of the above policies and the adjacent property at 2681 Danforth Avenue?

26. Does the proposed development provide an appropriate mid-block connection location in respect of the above policies and the adjacent property at 2681 Danforth Avenue?

27. Does the proposed development appropriately respond to Council-approved urban design guidelines, including the Tall Building Design Guidelines?

Good Planning and Public Interest

28. Is the form and content, including regulatory standards, of the proposed Draft Official Plan Amendment and Draft Zoning By-law Amendment appropriate?

29. In respect of the foregoing issues, does the proposed development including the Draft Plan of Subdivision, Draft Official Plan Amendment and Draft Zoning By-law Amendment represent good planning and good urban design, and is approval in the public interest?

Minto Communities Canada Inc. on behalf of Minto (Dawes) GP Inc.

30. Has the servicing proposal in respect of the development which would be permitted by the proposed Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Plan of Subdivision included provisions appropriate to secure that it does not unduly impact the servicing of proximate lands, including but not limited to with reference to the process/protocol set out in OPA 478 or Official Plan policy otherwise? If not, what changes to the servicing proposal or development permissions would be required to avoid such impact(s)?

31. Is the impact of the net vehicular traffic anticipated to be generated by the development which would be permitted by the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment on affected properties acceptable? If not, should such instruments or the proposed Plan of Subdivision be modified to provide for:

i. different development permissions; and/or

ii. secured improvements to traffic infrastructure;

such that affected lands are not subject to undue impact. If such is the case, what would the necessary changes be?

Jacob’s Tent Inc.

32. Will the proposed development result in unacceptable adverse impact to the existing uses at 2575 and 2625 Danforth Avenue or the redevelopment of these lands as proposed by the Zoning By-law Amendment application filed by Jacob’s Tent Inc. (City File No. 22 196279 STE 19 OZ)?

33. Does the proposed development appropriately provide for or contribute to the community infrastructure planned for the area through Official Plan Amendment No. 478 including but not limited to new parks and public roads?

6 Dawes Fitzrovia Inc.

34. Will the proposed development result in unacceptable adverse impact to the redevelopment of 6 Dawes Road and the approvals granted by the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT Case No. PL210195)?

35. Does the proposed development appropriately provide for or contribute to the community infrastructure planned for the area through Official Plan Amendment No. 478 including but not limited to new parks and public roads?

Dandaw Developments Limited

36. Does the proposed development provide an appropriate relationship with the adjacent approved development proposal at 10-30 Dawes Road? Including but not limited to:

i. With respect to tower and podium spacing and separation;

ii. Use of the proposed public lane being created by 10-30 Daws;

iii. Proposed servicing connections.

Tri-Metro Investments Inc.

37. Is the proposed development required to conform to OPA 478 / SASP 577?

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

Attachment 4

Order of Evidence

1. Tri-Metro Investments Inc.

2. City of Toronto

3. Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited

4. Minto Communities Canada Inc. on behalf of Minto (Dawes) GP Inc.

5. Jacob’s Tent Inc.

6. 6 Dawes Fitzrovia Inc.

7. Dandaw Developments Ltd.

8. Reply by Tri-Metro Investments Inc. (if any)

Attachment 5

Purpose of the Procedural Order and Meaning of Terms

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, 2021 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 the witness will discuss; and a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An Expert Witness Statement should include expert witness' (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues the expert witness 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 expert 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.