Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 30, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004670

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

Applicant/Appellant: Toronto (Scarborough Junction) LP Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: OPA to facilitate redevelopment of subject property with a new master-planned community Reference Number: 20 211430 ESC 20 OZ Property Address: 641-663 Danforth Road Municipality/UT: City of Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-22-004670 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004670 OLT Case Name: Toronto (Scarborough Junction) LP v. Toronto (City)

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

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: OPA to facilitate redevelopment of subject property with a new master-planned community Reference Number: 20 211392 ESC 20 OZ Property Address: 3585-3595 St. Clair Avenue East Municipality/UT: City of Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-23-000123 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004670

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

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: ZBA to facilitate redevelopment of subject property with a new master-planned community Reference Number: 20 211430 ESC 20 OZ Property Address: 641-663 Danforth Road Municipality/UT: City of Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-23-000124 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004670

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

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: ZBA to facilitate redevelopment of subject property with a new master-planned community Reference Number: 20 211392 ESC 20 OZ Property Address: 3585-3595 St. Clair Avenue East Municipality: City of Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-22-004671 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004670

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

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: ZBA to facilitate redevelopment of subject property with a new master-planned community Reference Number: 20 211279 ESC 20 OZ Property Address: 411-415 Kennedy Road and 636-646 Danforth Road Municipality: City of Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-22-004672 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004670

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

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision Description: DPS to facilitate redevelopment of subject property with a new master-planned community Reference Number: 20 211336 ESC 20 SB Property Address: 3585-3595 St. Clair Avenue East and 641-663 Danforth Road Municipality/UT: City of Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-22-004673 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004670

Heard: July 10, 2023 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Toronto (Scarborough Junction) LP

Rodney Gill D. Bronskill (in absentia)

City of Toronto

Adam Ward Mark Crawford (in absentia)

Laurier Paradise CC 375 Kennedy Inc. and Laurier Paradise CC 347-357 Kennedy Inc. (“Laurier Paradise”)

Andrew Valela M. Flowers (in absentia)

Metrolinx

Jennifer Evola Signe Leisk (in absentia)

1166370 Ontario Ltd. and 391300 Ontario Ltd.

Gerry Borean

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY WILLIAM MIDDLETON ON JULY 10, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1This was the third Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held for the purpose of organizing appeals brought by Toronto (Scarborough Junction) LP (“Appellant”) against the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to make decisions on applications for: Official Plan Amendments in relation to the lands at 3585-3595 St. Clair Avenue East and 641-663 Danforth Road; Zoning By-Law Amendments in relation to the lands at 411-415 Kennedy Road, 636-646 Danforth Road and 3585-3595 St. Clair Avenue East; and approval of a draft plan of subdivision incorporating 3585-3595 St. Clair Avenue East and 641-663 Danforth Road to establish eight development blocks, a network of new streets and new parkland.

2At the previous CMC held on May 26, 2023, the Tribunal directed the Parties to submit a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) no later than one week prior to this CMC and arrive prepared to set the matter down for a hearing. Accordingly, the Tribunal did receive a draft PO which was discussed at this CMC. The Parties were in agreement that this appeal should be scheduled for an 18-day hearing and the Tribunal agreed.

3Therefore, the Tribunal has scheduled that the hearing of this matter shall commence on Tuesday, March 5th, 2024, and continue for 18 days until Thursday, March 28th, 2024.

4Parties and Participants are asked to log into the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:

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

Access code: 278-736-685

5Parties and Participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html.

6Persons 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 278-736-685.

7Individuals 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 CMC 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.

8The Parties are once again reminded of the availability of Tribunal-assisted mediation. Should they wish to make arrangements to schedule mediation, they may reach out to the Case Coordinator for assistance in doing so.

ORDER

9THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS as follows:

a) The hearing of this appeal shall commence on Tuesday, March 5, 2024, the details of which are described above;

b) The Procedural Order appended as Attachment A shall govern the conduct of this matter.

10This Member may remain available to assist with the ongoing case management of this proceeding, subject to the Tribunal’s calendar.

“William R. Middleton”

WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON

VICE-CHAIR

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.

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000123/OLT-22-004670/OLT-22-004671/OLT-22-004672/OLT-22-004673

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

Applicant and Appellant: Toronto (Scarborough Junction) LP Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: OPA to facilitate redevelopment of subject property with a new master-planned community Reference Number: 20 211430 ESC 20 OZ Property Address: 641-663 Danforth Road Municipality/UT: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004670 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004670 OLT Case Name: Toronto (Scarborough Junction) LP v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Toronto (Scarborough Junction) LP Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: OPA to facilitate redevelopment of subject property with a new master-planned community Reference Number: 20 211392 ESC 20 OZ Property Address: 3585-3595 St. Clair Avenue East Municipality/UT: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-000123 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004670 OLT Case Name: Toronto (Scarborough Junction) LP v. Toronto (City)

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

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: ZBA to facilitate redevelopment of subject property with a new master-planned community Reference Number: 20 211430 ESC 20 OZ Property Address: 641-663 Danforth Road Municipality/UT: City of Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-23-000124 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004670

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

Applicant and Appellant: Toronto (Scarborough Junction) LP Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: ZBA to facilitate redevelopment of subject property with a new master-planned community Reference Number: 20 211392 ESC 20 OZ Property Address: 3585-3595 St. Clair Avenue East Municipality/UT: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004671 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004670

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

Applicant and Appellant: Toronto (Scarborough Junction) LP Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: ZBA to facilitate redevelopment of subject property with a new master-planned community Reference Number: 20 211279 ESC 20 OZ Property Address: 411-415 Kennedy Road and 636-646 Danforth Road Municipality/UT: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004672 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004670

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

Applicant and Appellant: Toronto (Scarborough Junction) LP Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision Description: DPS to facilitate redevelopment of subject property with a new master-planned community Reference Number: 20 211336 ESC 20 SB Property Address: 3585-3595 St. Clair Avenue East and 641-663 Danforth Road Municipality/UT: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004673 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004670

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 March 5, 2024 at 10:00 a.m.

3. The length of the hearing is eighteen (18) 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.

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. An issue can be removed from the issues list without a formal order of the Tribunal with the consent of all Parties.

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 November 24, 2023 and in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified. 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 December 4, 2023.

10. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before December 21, 2023 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before January 4, 2024.

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 January 10, 2024, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

14. On or before January 10, 2024, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

15. On or before January 30, 2024 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

16. On or before February 9, 2024, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

17. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before January 25, 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 February 23, 2024.

19. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

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

21. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before February 23, 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. 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 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, dated July 2, 2020, or as may be amended.

23. 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 by October 12, 2023. The applicant acknowledges that any revisions to the proposal after that date without the consent of the parties may be grounds for the Tribunal to adjourn the hearing.

24. 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.

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
October 12, 2023	Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any)
November 24, 2023	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
December 21, 2023 and January 4, 2024	Experts Meeting and Agreed Statement of Facts
January 10, 2024	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
January 25, 2024	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
February 9, 2024	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
February 23, 2024	Preparation of Joint Document Book
February 23, 2024	Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal
March 5, 2024	Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 1 PARTIES/PARTICIPANTS

Parties

1. Toronto (Scarborough Junction) LP David Bronskill/Rodney Gill (416) 597-4299/(416) 597-4136 dbronskill@goodmans.ca/rgill@goodmans.ca

2. City of Toronto Mark Crawford/Adam Ward (416) 392-8864/(416) 394-2787 mark.crawford@toronto.ca/adam.ward@toronto.ca

3. Laurier Paradise CC 375 Kennedy Inc. and Laurier Paradise CC 347-357 Kennedy Inc. Mark Flowers (416) 843-4884 markf@davieshowe.com

4. Metrolinx Signe Leisk/Jennifer Evola (416) 869-5411/(416) 860-6753 sleisk@cassels.com/jevola@cassels.com

5. 1166370 Ontario Ltd. and 391300 Ontario Ltd. Gerard C. Borean (905) 850-6068 gborean@parenteborean.com

Participants

1. Roger Flaim
2. K.C. Au (on behalf of Victoria Cheng)
3. Angela Cordi and Frank Cordi

ATTACHMENT 2 ISSUES LIST

City of Toronto Issues List

Planning Act

1. Would approval of the proposed Official Plan Amendments, Zoning By-law Amendments and Draft Plan of Subdivision by the Tribunal have regard for the purposes of the Planning Act in Section 1.1?

2. Do the proposed Official Plan Amendments, Zoning By-law Amendments and Draft Plan of Subdivision have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections 2(e), (f), (h), (i), (j), (k), (n), (o), (p), (q), (r) and (s)?

3. Would approval of the proposed Official Plan Amendments Zoning By-law Amendments and Draft Plan of Subdivision by the Tribunal have regard to the information and material that City Council received in relation to the matter as required by Section 2.1.(2) of the Planning Act?

4. Does the proposed draft plan of subdivision have adequate regard for the criteria set out in Section 51.(24) of the Planning Act?

Provincial Policy Statement, 2020

5. Are the proposed Official Plan Amendments and Zoning By-law Amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement including policies 1.1.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, 1.1.3.6, 1.1.3.7, 1.2.1, 1.2.6, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.4.3, 1.5, 1.6.1, 1.6.5, 1.6.6, 1.6.7, 1.7, 1.8, 2.2, 3.2.2, and 4.6?

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

6. Is the proposed scale of development and transition of built form to adjacent areas appropriate and is the proposed intensification appropriate in light of other objectives of A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020)?

7. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment conform with and not conflict 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, 2.2.6, 3.2.1.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.5, 3.2.6, 3.2.7, 3.2.8, 4.2.5, 5.2.4, and 5.2.5?

Official Plan

8. Do the proposed Official Plan Amendments conform with the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, including the policies related to:

(i) Structuring Growth in the City (Section 2.2); (ii) Avenues (Section 2.2.3); (iii) Employment Areas (Section 2.2.4); (iv) Bringing the City Together, Transportation (Section 2.4); (v) Public Realm (Section 3.1.1); (vi) Built Form (Section 3.1.2, Section 3.1.3); (vii) Public Art (Section 3.1.4); (viii) Housing (Section 3.2.1); (ix) Community Services and Facilities (Section 3.2.2); (x) Parks and Open Spaces (Section 3.2.3); (xi) Building New Neighbourhoods (Section 3.3); (xii) Natural Environment (Section 3.4); (xiii) Mixed Use Areas (Section 4.5); and (xiv) Implementation (Section 5)?

9. Are additional Site and Area Specific Policies under Chapter 7 of the Official Plan warranted to properly accommodate the proposed development?

10. Notwithstanding City Council’s approval of Official Plan Amendment 591, which in part redesignated a portion of the subject lands from General Employment Areas to Mixed Use Areas, does associated Official Plan Amendment application 20 212758 ESC 20 OZ subject to this appeal remain open and active for consideration of other policy matters beyond the land use redesignation itself as now approved?

Land Use Compatibility/Mitigation

11. Do the proposed Official Plan Amendments appropriately implement the polices of the Provincial Policy Statement, A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) and the City's Official Plan related to employment areas, and specifically those policies that require the protection and preservation of employment areas for current and future uses?

12. Do the proposed Official Plan Amendments appropriately mitigate against the potential adverse effects arising from the introduction of sensitive land uses on lands adjacent to General Employment Areas?

13. Does the proposed development avoid, or where possible, minimize and mitigate against any adverse impacts on industrial manufacturing or other existing and planned employment uses in the adjacent General Employment Areas, including impacts such as noise, traffic, odours, vibration, or other contaminants from nearby existing or planned employment uses?

14. Has the proposed development been designed, sited and/or oriented to address any potential issues that may arise from any existing or planned employment uses, such as such as noise, traffic, odours, vibration, or other contaminants?

15. Do the proposed Official Plan Amendments conform to policy 2.2.4 and 3.4.21 of the Official Plan, including the requirement for a Compatibility and Mitigation Study (including noise, odour, vibration and air quality) to be submitted for a Zoning By-law Amendment application and peer reviewed at the applicant's expense?

Land Use Planning and Urban Design

16. Does the proposed development represent a scale of development and overall density that is appropriate for the subject lands and surrounding area and does it provide an appropriate transition in scale and massing to adjacent areas, including nearby General Employment Areas and Neighbourhoods?

17. Should the proposed development and proposed Official Plan Amendments be revised to include more non-residential uses to provide a greater mix of land uses on site that support the public investment in transit infrastructure?

18. Does the proposed development achieve an adequate balanced mix of unit types and sizes to support the creation of housing suitable for families and meet the intent and purpose of the Growing Up: Planning for New Vertical Communities, Urban Design Guidelines (2020)?

19. Should the proposed Official Plan Amendments be revised to include policies that direct affordable housing to be provided and adequately secured over each phase of residential development, through one or more of the following delivery mechanisms or an equivalent mechanism:

(i) The conveyance of land to the City sufficient to accommodate 20 per cent of the residential gross floor area; (ii) The provision of a minimum of 10 per cent of the residential gross floor area as affordable housing with affordable rents or prices secured for a period of no less than 20 years: and/or (iii) The conveyance to the City of 5 per cent of the residential gross floor area as purpose-built rental units or affordable ownership units?

20. Should the proposed Official Plan Amendments be revised to ensure that the site, overall and over each phase of residential development, will achieve a balanced mix of unit types, and to support the creation of housing suitable for families, development or redevelopment containing more than 80 new residential units will include larger units, including policy direction for:

(i) A minimum of 10 per cent of the total number of units will be 3-bedroom units; and (ii) An additional minimum of 25 per cent of the total number of units will be 2-bedroom units?

21. Does the proposed development provide for a built form that is appropriate urban design, including appropriate mix of building types, contextually appropriate built form, building setbacks and step-backs, base building heights, mid-rise heights and massing, separation distances between tall building towers, tower floor plate size, and tall building heights consistent with applicable policies and relevant guidelines?

22. Does the proposed development provide for and contribute to an appropriate public realm, including shadow impacts on existing and proposed parks, streets and open spaces?

23. Does the proposed development provide for appropriate uses at grade?

24. Does the proposed development provide for adequate dedication of new public parkland?

25. Does the proposed development provide for the appropriate location for outdoor amenity space?

26. Does the proposed development adequately address the City of Toronto’s:

(i) Complete Streets Guidelines; (ii) Green Street Technical Guidelines; (iii) Streetscape Manual; (iv) Retail Design Manual; (v) Design Options for Tree Planting in Hard Surfaces; (vi) Privately-Owned Publicly Accessible Spaces Design Guidelines (2014); (vii) Percent for Public Art Program Guidelines (2010); (viii) Mid-rise Building Performance Standards (2010) and Addendum (2016); (ix) Tall Building Design Guidelines (2013); (x) Toronto Green Standard V3 (2019), V4 (2022), including Soil Volumes; (xi) Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities Guidelines (2020); (xii) Pet Friendly Design Guidelines and Best Practices for New Multi-unit Buildings (2019); (xiii) Design Guidelines for Buildings with Residential Units at Grade (Draft)

27. Have discrepancies in information and details under separate planning applications been adequately corrected to achieve consistency across all drawings and plans?

28. Are additional Block Context Plans required and forthcoming to properly assess the development, including 3D modelling of, and Sun/Shadow Studies for, the Block Context Plan Area?

29. Do plans and drawings currently developed for the proposed development provide for adequate Complete and Green Streets, with cross-sections for all existing/new public/private streets that include:

(i) Above/below grade utilities; (ii) Cycling tracks along the existing streets (St. Clair Ave. East., Danforth Rd. and Kennedy Rd.); (iii) Front angular planes starting from ‘80% of ROW’; (iv) Coordinated Conceptual Utility Plans and Soil Volume Plans for public and private lands, with soil volumes meeting TGS standards;

30. Are Urban Design Guidelines for the proposed development required and appropriate to provide further design guidance on issues related to sustainable development, such as but not limited to climate resilience, energy strategies, electric vehicle and cycling infrastructure, tree canopy, biodiversity, urban agriculture and rainwater harvesting/re-use, ratios and orientation of window glazing, solar orientations of façades and balconies.

Community Service Facilities

31. Does the proposed development accurately and appropriately consider the availability of community service facilities to support the existing and planned population?

Transportation

32. Does the proposed development consider the required network improvements for all modes, to support the proposed development and density increase, including but not limited to:

(i) Off-site improvements; (ii) Internal pedestrian and cycling connections within the development; and/or (iii) Financial contributions towards the costs associated with future land acquisition and construction of the required transportation improvements in the event that the off-site improvements cannot be achieved?

33. Does the Urban Transportation Considerations Report submitted in support of the proposed Official Plan Amendments, Zoning By-law Amendments and Draft Plan of Subdivision appropriately and comprehensively review existing and projected local conditions, together with impacts arising from the proposed development, to identify and ensure required network improvements and adequate mitigating measures for all modes will be achieved?

34. How will implementation of Street “C” as a full width and through public street be achieved over neighbouring lands, and what are the specific development limitations until that is achieved?

35. Is the introduction of a new Street “D” at the south end of Block H warranted?

Servicing

36. Has the proposed development adequately demonstrated that there is sufficient water, wastewater and sanitary services available to service the proposed development, taking into account existing, planned and proposed development within the applicable water, wastewater or sanitary servicing distribution network?

Phasing of Development

37. Should the proposed Official Plan Amendments be revised to include policies related to phasing of development addressing matters, including affordable housing, community service facilities, municipal infrastructure, public streets, public parkland and other such matters required to support the development of the site?

38. Should the proposed Zoning By-law Amendments include Holding Provisions (H) on any phased portions of the development?

Public Interest and Good Planning

39. Are the proposed Official Plan Amendments, Zoning By-law Amendments and Draft Plan of Subdivision good planning and in the public interest?

Implementation

40. If the proposed Official Plan Amendments are approved by the Tribunal, in whole or in part, should the Tribunal's final order be withheld until it has been advised by the City Solicitor that the final form of the Official Plan Amendments are satisfactory to the Chief Planner and the City Solicitor?

41. If the proposed Zoning by-law Amendments are approved, in whole or in part, should the Tribunal's final Order be withheld until the following conditions are satisfied and the Tribunal receive confirmation from the City Solicitor that:

a. The Zoning By-law Amendments are in a final form and content acceptable to the City Solicitor and Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, to implement the proposed development; b. Any necessary agreements to secure required infrastructure improvements identified through the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report and Urban Transportation Considerations Report have been entered into to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, and executed and registered on title to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor; c. The owner has addressed outstanding issues in relation to transportation matters to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the General Manager, Transportation Services; and d. The owner has addressed outstanding issues in relation to site servicing and has submitted a revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report and a detailed Hydrogeological Report to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services?

42. If the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision is approved, in whole or in part, should the Tribunal's final Order be withheld until appropriate draft plan of subdivision conditions are in a final form satisfactory to the Chief Planner in consultation with the City Solicitor, Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, General Manager, Transportation Services, and General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation?

Issues List of Laurier Paradise CC 347-357 Kennedy Inc. and Laurier Paradise CC 375 Kennedy Inc.

1. Should the proposed “Public Street C”, as shown on the draft plan of subdivision, be revised to align with the proposed “Public Road” on the draft plan of subdivision for the adjacent lands at 347-357 and 375 Kennedy Road (the “Laurier Paradise lands”)?

2. If the proposed “Public Street C” is to be realigned, should the proposed zoning by-law amendment be revised and, if so, in what manner?

3. Does any portion of the proposed development require the extension of the proposed “Public Street C” to Kennedy Road through adjacent lands, including the Laurier Paradise lands? If so, is it premature to approve that portion of the proposed development until an extension to Kennedy Road has been established and/or secured? Alternatively, should the requirement for the road extension be included in one or more conditions of draft plan approval, conditions for the issuance of an OLT Order and/or holding provisions in the zoning by-law amendment and, if so, what are the appropriate conditions and/or holding provisions?

4. Does any portion of the proposed development require municipal services to be extended through adjacent lands, including the Laurier Paradise lands? If so, what authority, if any, does the applicant have to extend such services, and is it premature to approve that portion of the proposed development until an extension of such services has been established and/or secured? Alternatively, should the requirement for the extension of such services be included in one or more conditions of draft plan approval, conditions for the issuance of an OLT Order and/or holding provisions in the zoning by-law amendment and, if so, what are the appropriate conditions and/or holding provisions?

5. Does the proposed development reflect a coordinated, integrated and comprehensive planning approach in relation to the adjacent Laurier Paradise lands, both in their current condition and as they may be redeveloped in the future?

Note: The above issues list is based on the draft plan of subdivision dated June 20, 2022 and the draft zoning by-law amendment dated June 16, 2022. If there are any changes to the draft plan of subdivision and/or the draft zoning by-law amendment, the issues list may be amended accordingly.

Issues List of Metrolinx

1. Do the subject applications have appropriate regard for the Guidelines for New Development in Proximity to Railway Operations and the report Land Use Study: Development in Proximity to Railway Operations, including securing a peer review of any associated reports in relation to the Subject Applications?
2. Are the subject applications compatible with the adjacent Scarborough GO station and the Metrolinx-operated rail corridor?

OLT CASE NO: OLT-22-004670

391300 Ontario Limited and 1166370 Ontario Limited: 619 & 621 Danforth Road

ISSUES LIST

1. The applications under appeal are supported by an Overall Concept Site Plan comprising Site A (Blocks A-H) to the north and east of our clients lands. It is acknowledged that the remnant lands at 405 Kennedy Road and 619, 621, 625, 627 Danforth Road are peripherally located, comprise an area of approximately 1 acre and have a frontage of approximately 131 m onto Danforth Road and Kennedy Road, including where they intersect. Given their exclusion, the following issues have been raised:

• Do the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications, negatively impact the operations of the existing automotive and commercial uses at 405 Kennedy Road and 619, 621, 625, 627 Danforth Road?
• Do the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications, negatively impact the future redevelopment potential of the existing automotive and commercial uses at 405 Kennedy Road and 619, 621, 625, 627 Danforth Road?
• Do the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications, support the coordinated, appropriate and orderly redevelopment of the lands comprising 405 Kennedy Road and 619, 621, 625, 627 Danforth Road?

2. Would inclusion of the lands at 405 Kennedy Road and 619, 621, 625, 627 Danforth Road within the Overall Concept Site Plan in support of the applications have resulted in an improved plan and a more complete new master planned community by having the benefit of 131 m of additional road exposure and frontage at the intersection of Kennedy Road and Danforth Road?

3. Does the block and building massing layout for proposed Block H, including the heights of proposed podiums and towers limit the ability of the redevelopment of the lands at 405 Kennedy Road and 619, 621, 625, 627 Danforth Road as far as future building floor plate sizes and building separation distances?

4. Is it good planning to exclude the incorporation of the lands at 405 Kennedy Road and 619, 621, 625, 627 Danforth Road into the Overall Concept Site Plan given their inclusion within the Scarborough GO protected MTSA and given the City’s ongoing support for their pending conversion from a General Employment designation to a Mixed Use designation?

5. Would there be merit in utilizing the OLT mediation process to engage with the owners of 405 Kennedy Road and 619, 621, 625, 627 Danforth Road and City Planning Staff to more comprehensively establish an amended Overall Concept Site Plan for Block H which includes these lands and establishes an orderly form of future redevelopment for the built form, massing, height and access of these lands?

ATTACHMENT 3 ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Toronto (Scarborough Junction) LP
2. City of Toronto
3. Laurier Paradise CC 375 Kennedy Inc. and Laurier Paradise CC 347-357 Kennedy Inc.
4. Metrolinx
5. 1166370 Ontario Ltd. and 391300 Ontario Ltd.
6. Reply of Toronto (Scarborough Junction) LP, if any.

Attachment to Sample Procedural Order

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.

7392652