ISSUE DATE:

October 8, 2024

CASE NO.:

OLT-24-000316

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

Applicant/Appellant:

2114778 Ontario Inc.

Subject:

Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application

Description:

To permit a 35-storey residential building containing 365 dwelling units, including 33 replacement rental units.

Reference Number:

23 217877 STE 11 OZ

Property Address:

40 Walmer Road

Municipality/UT:

Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-24-000316

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-24-000316

OLT Case Name:

2114778 Ontario Inc. v. Toronto (City)

BEFORE:

Eric Crowe

Tuesday, the 8th

MEMBER

day of October, 2024

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that further to the Decision issued on September 23rd, 2024, the Procedural Order, as agreed to between the Parties and attached hereto as Attachment "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 February 3rd, 2024. The Tribunal has set aside 14 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.

Attachment "A"

Ontario Land Tribunal

OLT-24-000316

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

Applicant/Appellant:

2114778 Ontario Inc.

Subject:

Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application

Description:

To permit a 35-storey residential building containing 365 dwelling units, including 33 replacement rental units

Reference Number:

23 217877 STE 11 OZ

Property Address:

40 Walmer Road

Municipality/UT:

City of Toronto

OLT Case No:

OLT-24-000316

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-24-000316

OLT Case Name:

2114778 Ontario Inc. v. Toronto (City)

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 3, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. by video hearing.

3. The parties' initial estimation for the length of the hearing is fourteen (14) days. The Tribunal will not sit on February 17, 2025. 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 Attachment 4 for the meaning of these terms.

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 2. Identification of an issue on the issues list is not an admission of the relevance thereof by any party. There will be no changes to this list after December 9, 2024 (at least 56 days prior to the start of the hearing) unless the Tribunal permits, other than a party's right to remove or narrow issues, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6. The order of evidence as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order may be revised on the consent of the parties on or before January 27, 2025 (at least 7 days prior to the start of the hearing). In the event of a dispute in this regard, the Tribunal may be spoken to. 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 oral argument. Where final oral argument is limited, the parties may provide written argument on a date to be determined by the Tribunal at the hearing.

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 15, 2024 (at least 80 days prior to the start of the hearing) 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 of Practice and Procedure and notice of same must be served on the parties on or before Nov 22, 2024 (at least 73 days prior to the start of the hearing).

10. If an Appellant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing, the Appellant shall provide copies of the revised proposal, including all revised plans, drawings, proposed instruments, and updated supporting documents and reports to the other parties on or before November 1, 2024 (94 days prior to the start of the hearing). The Appellant acknowledges that any revisions to the proposal as described in the plans to be led in evidence in this proceeding except to address comments or Witness Statements from the other parties after that date without the consent of the parties may be grounds for a request to adjourn the hearing. In the event of a dispute, the Tribunal may be spoken to.

11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before December 11, 2024 (at least 54 days prior to the start of the hearing) and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts' meeting the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co- ordinator on or before December 13, 2024 (at least 52 days prior to the start of the hearing) if agreement is reached.

12. 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 14 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. For greater certainty, each expert witness statement must comply with the minimum content requirements specified in Rule 7 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure. If the expert witness has prepared any report(s) that they intend 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 parties at the same time as the delivery of witness statements, as in paragraph 14.

13. Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert's evidence as in paragraph 14 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 14 below.

14. On or before December 20, 2024 (at least 45 days prior to the start of the hearing), the parties shall provide copies of their witness statements, and participants shall provide copies of their participant statements, to the other parties and participants and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 22 below or the witness may not give oral evidence at the hearing. Participants are only permitted to provide written evidence to the Tribunal, except as permitted by the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021 and the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

15. On or before January 20, 2025 (at least 14 days prior to the start of the hearing) the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

16. On or before January 24, 2025 (at least 10 days prior to the start of the hearing), the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

17. On or before January 10, 2025 (24 days prior to the start of the hearing) the parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT and in accordance with paragraph 22 below a written response to any written evidence..

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 27, 2025 (at least 7 days prior to the start of the hearing), and which, if requested by the Tribunal, one (1) hard copy will be filed with the Tribunal as soon as practicable in advance of the Hearing. All parties must be served with the Joint Document Book in an accessible electronic format in accordance with paragraph 22.

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 January 27, 2025 (at least 7 days prior to the start of the hearing) with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, at 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 identified witness name/expertise, 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 "Work Plan"). The Work Plan should be adhered to, to guide the Hearing Event to the best ability of all the parties, and any and all witnesses

shall be available on the identified date(s), unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the Work Plan throughout the Hearing Event.

22. All filings shall be submitted electronically to the Tribunal, the parties and participants (if any). The Tribunal will be provided a hard copy of documents and materials in advance of the hearing event as soon as practicable should it request same. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Rule 7. All documents to be filed with the Tribunal shall be organized, tabbed and digitally searchable and such materials will be filed in accordance with directions contained in the Tribunal's Video Hearing Guide, or as may be amended. Paragraph 23 applies regardless if the hearing event is in-person or electronic.

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.

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

25. The purpose of this Procedural Order and the meaning of the terms used in this Procedural Order are set out in Attachment 4.

This Member is [not] seized. So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE:

Name of Member: Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE

EVENT

November 1, 2024 (94 days prior to hearing)

Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any)

November 15, 2024 (80 days prior to hearing)

Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)

November 22, 2024 (73 days prior to hearing)

Last date to challenge identification of expert witness

December 9, 2024 (56 days prior to hearing)

Last date to make changes to Issues List

December 11, 2024 (54 days prior to hearing)

Experts to meet prior to this date

December 13, 2024 (52 days prior to hearing)

Agreed Statement of Facts

December 20, 2024 (45 days prior to hearing)

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

January 10, 2025 (24 days prior to hearing)

Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)

January 20, 2025 (14 days prior to hearing)

Parties to Advise Tribunal if any hearing dates are to be released from the hearing calendar (if any)

January 24, 2025 (10 days prior to hearing)

Exchange of visual evidence (if any)

January 27, 2025 (7 days prior to hearing)

Last date to revise order of evidence

January 27, 2025 (7 days prior to hearing)

Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal

January 27, 2025 (7 days prior to hearing)

Finalize Joint Document Book

February 3, 2025

Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 1 PARTIES/PARTICIPANTS

Parties

1. 2114778 Ontario Inc.

McCarthy Tétrault LLP Suite 5300

TD Bank Tower

Box 48, 66 Wellington Street West Toronto ON M5K 1E6

Attn: Matthew Schuman Tel: (416) 601-4319

Fax: (416) 868-0673

Email: mschuman@mccarthy.ca

Solicitors for Applicant/Appellant

2. City of Toronto

Legal Services Division

Planning and Administrative Tribunal Law Metro Hall, 55 John Street, 26th Floor Toronto, ON M5V 3C6

Attn: Jason Davidson Tel: (416) 392-4835

Fax: (416) 397-5624

Email: jason.davidson@toronto.ca

Attn: Amrit Sandhu Tel: (416) 338-1617

Fax: (416) 397-5624

Email: amrit.sandhu@toronto.ca

3. 38 WR LP and the Trustees of the Walmer Road Baptist Church (the "38 Walmer Applicants")

Goodmans LLP

Bay Adelaide Centre

333 Bay Street, Suite 3400 Toronto, ON M5H 2S7

Attn: David Bronskill Tel: (416) 597-4299

Fax: (416) 979-1234

Email: dbronskill@goodmans.ca

Solicitors for the 38 Walmer Applicants

4. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation ("TSCC") 1896 (the "Loretto")

Davies Howe LLP The Tenth Floor

425 Adelaide Street West Toronto, ON M5V 3C1

Attn: Michael Cook Tel: (416) 263.4515

Email: michaelc@davieshowe.com

Solicitors for the Loretto

5. Annex Residents' Corporation c/o Rita Bilerman

P.O. Box 19057, RPO Walmer Toronto ON M5S 3C9

Attn: Henry Wiercinski Tel: (416) 399-6963

Email: hwiercinski@rogers.com

Participants

1. Gregory Sorbara

Tel: (416) 450-1336

Email: gregorysorbara@gmail.com

2. Barry Glaspell

Tel: (416) 729-6104

Email: barryglaspell@gmail.com

Applicant/Appellant Issues

ATTACHMENT 2 CONSOLIDATED ISSUES LIST

1. Does the development permitted by the proposed zoning by-law appropriately implement provincial policy, as expressed in legislation and otherwise, which directs or encourages intensification in areas served by infrastructure, including without limitation infrastructure related to higher order transit?

2. How ought the identification of the proposal as being within two separate PMTSA's adopted by City council factor in to the overall land use planning analysis of the proposal?

Consolidated Issues

3. Does the proposed development satisfy the applicable legislative and policy tests? Specifically:

(a) Does the proposed development have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections 2 (d), (f), (h), (j), (n), (p), (q), and (r)? [City; the Loretto; 38 Walmer Applicants]

(b) Would a decision to refuse the proposed development be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement as required by Section 3(5) of the Planning Act, specifically with respect to policies:

(i) Introductory Language to Part IV [38 Walmer Applicants]

(ii) 1.1 [38 Walmer Applicants]

(iii) 1.1.1 [City; the Loretto; 38 Walmer Applicants but only a) and e)]

(iv) 1.1.3.2 [the Loretto; 38 Walmer Applicants but only a), e) and f)]

(v) 1.1.3.3 [the Loretto; 38 Walmer Applicants]

(vi) 1.1.3.4 [the Loretto; 38 Walmer Applicants]

(vii) 1.1.3.5 [38 Walmer Applicants]

(viii) 1.4 [38 Walmer Applicants]

(ix) 1.4.1 [City]

(x) 1.4.3 [City; the Loretto; 38 Walmer Applicants but only b), c), d), e) and f)]

(xi) 1.5.1 [City]

(xii) 1.6 [38 Walmer Applicants]

(xiii) 1.6.1 [City]

(xiv) 1.6.2 [City]

(xv) 1.6.3 a) [38 Walmer Applicants]

(xvi) 1.6.6.1 [City]

(xvii) 1.6.7 [38 Walmer Applicants]

(xviii) 1.6.7.4 [38 Walmer Applicants]

(xix) 1.71 [City]

(xx) 1.8 [38 Walmer Applicants]

(xxi) 1.8.1 b) and e) [38 Walmer Applicants]

(xxii) 2.6.1 [City; the Loretto]

(xxiii) 2.6.3 [City; the Loretto]

(xxiv) 2.6.4 [City]

(xxv) 4.6 [City; the Loretto]

(xxvi) 4.7 [City]

(xxvii) All PPS policies "regarding appropriate intensification and implementation through municipal Official Plans" [Annex Residents' Corporation]

(c) Would a decision to refuse the proposed development conform to and not conflict with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe as required by Section 3(5) of the Planning Act, specifically with respect to:

(i) guiding principles in Section 1.2.1, non-policy text in Sections 1.2.3 and

2.1 [38 Walmer Applicants]

(ii) 1.2.1 [the Loretto]

(iii) 2.2.1 – all [the Loretto]

(iv) 2.2.1.2 c) [38 Walmer Applicants]

(v) 2.2.1.3 [City; 38 Walmer Applicants but only c)]

(vi) 2.2.1.4 [City; 38 Walmer Applicants but only d) i., ii., iii. and iv. and e)]

(vii) 2.2.2 [the Loretto]

(viii) 2.2.2.3.c), d), e) and f) [38 Walmer Applicants]

(ix) 2.2.3 [the Loretto]

(x) 2.2.4.1 [38 Walmer Applicants]

(xi) 2.2.4.2 [38 Walmer Applicants]

(xii) 2.2.4.3 a) [38 Walmer Applicants]

(xiii) 2.2.4.8 a), b), and c) [38 Walmer Applicants]

(xiv) 2.2.4.9 a), b), c) and d) [38 Walmer Applicants]

(xv) 2.2.4.10 [38 Walmer Applicants]

(xvi) 2.2.6.1 a) i. and ii., b), c), d) and e) [38 Walmer Applicants]

(xvii) 2.2.6.2.a), b), c) and d) [38 Walmer Applicants]

(xviii) 2.2.6.3 [38 Walmer Applicants]

(xix) 3.2.1.2 [City]

(xx) 3.2.2.3 [City]

(xxi) 3.2.6.2 [City]

(xxii) 3.2.7.1 [City]

(xxiii) 3.2.8.3 [City]

(xxiv) 4.2.5.1 [City]

(xx5) 4.2.5.2 [City]

(xxvi) 4.2.7 – all [the Loretto]

(xxvii) 4.2.7.1 [City]

(xxviii) 4.2.7.2 [City]

(xxix) 5.2.5.6 [38 Walmer Applicants]

(xxx) All Growth Plan policies "concerning the appropriate type and scale of development" [Annex Residents' Corporation]

(d) Would approval of the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment represent good planning and good urban design in the public interest? [City; the Loretto; 38 Walmer Applicants]

4. Is 40 Walmer Road (the "Site") appropriate for a Tall Building? [the Loretto; Annex Residents' Corporation]

5. Has the applicant demonstrated that adequate municipal services are in place to support the development, including but not limited to the availability of adequate sanitary sewage

capacity and the implementation of appropriate stormwater management measures and groundwater management measures? [City; 38 Walmer Applicants]

City Site-Specific Issues – Official Plan and Municipal Guidelines

6. Is the development's proposed height appropriate, and does it represent good planning? In particular:

(a) Does the proposed height conform to Official Plan policies: 2.3.1 (Healthy Neighbourhoods), 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 (Built Form), 3.1.6 (Heritage Conservation),

4.2 (Apartment Neighbourhoods), and 5.3.1 (The Official Plan Guides City Actions)?

(b) Does the proposed height conform to the Downtown Plan (OPA 406)?

(c) Does the proposed height have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines & Downtown Tall Buildings: Vision and Supplementary Design Guideline?

(d) Does the proposed development represent over-development of the site?

7. Is the development's proposed massing, including setbacks, stepbacks, scale, tower separation distances, streetwall height, density, and design appropriate, and does it represent good planning and urban design? In particular:

(a) Does the proposed massing conform to Official Plan policies: 2.3.1 (Healthy Neighbourhoods), 3.1.1 (Public Realm), 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 (Built Form), 3.1.6 (Heritage Conservation), 4.2 (Apartment Neighbourhoods), and 5.3.1 (The Official Plan Guides City Actions)?

(b) Does the proposed massing conform to the Downtown Plan (OPA 406)?

(c) Does the massing of the development have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines & Downtown Tall Buildings: Vision and Supplementary Design Guideline?

(d) Does the proposed development represent over-development of the site?

8. Is the proposed development's relationship with the public realm, including the setback from Walmer Road and resulting streetscape appropriate, and does it represent good planning? In particular:

(a) Does the proposed development's relationship with the public realm conform to Official Plan policies 2.3.1 (Healthy Neighbourhoods), 2.4.15 (Transportation),

3.1.1 (Public Realm), 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 (Built Form), 3.1.6 (Heritage Conservation),

3.2.3 (Parks and Open Spaces), 4.2 (Apartment Neighbourhoods), and 5.3.1 (The Official Plan Guides City Actions)?

(b) Does the proposed development's relationship with the public realm conform to the Downtown Plan (OPA 406)?

(c) Does the proposed development's relationship with the public realm have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines & Downtown Tall Buildings: Vision and Supplementary Design Guideline?

(d) Does the proposed development's relationship with the public realm meet the requirements of the Toronto Green Standard?

(e) Is an on-site parkland dedication appropriate?

9. Does the proposed development's shadow impact, including impacts on shadow sensitive areas such as parks, surrounding residential areas and surrounding schools represent good planning? In particular:

(a) Does it conform to Official Plan policies: 2.3.1 (Healthy Neighbourhoods), 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 (Built Form), 3.1.6 (Heritage Conservation), 3.2.3 (Parks and Open Spaces), 4.2 (Apartment Neighbourhoods), and 5.3.1 (The Official Plan Guides City Actions)?

(b) Does it conform to the Downtown Plan (OPA 406)?

(c) Does the development have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines & Downtown Tall Buildings: Vision and Supplementary Design Guideline?

10. Does the development conform to Official Plan Policies 3.1.6 (Heritage Conservation), in particular in relation to the impacts of the development on the designated heritage building at 38 Walmer Road and the listed building at 44 Walmer Road?

11. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard to the applicable City Design Guidelines? In particular:

(a) Tall Building Design Guidelines and the Downtown Tall Buildings Vision and Supplementary Design Guidelines;

(b) Growing Up Guidelines Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities; and

(c) Pet Friendly Design Guidelines.

12. Are the proposed access/egress route, proposed driveway width, and proposed loading in an appropriate location and do they represent good planning?

13. Has the applicant demonstrated that adequate municipal services are in place to support the development, including but not limited to the availability of adequate sanitary sewage capacity and the implementation of appropriate stormwater management measures and groundwater management measures?

14. Does the proposed development's wind impact represent good planning? In particular:

(a) Does it conform to Official Plan policies: 2.3.1 (Healthy Neighbourhoods), 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 (Built Form), 3.1.6 (Heritage Conservation), 3.2.3 (Parks and Open

Spaces), 4.2 (Apartment Neighbourhoods), and 5.3.1 (The Official Plan Guides City Actions)?

(b) Does it conform to the Downtown Plan (OPA 406)?

(c) Does the development have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines & Downtown Tall Buildings: Vision and Supplementary Design Guideline?

15. Does the proposed development provide the required rental housing replacement in accordance with Chapter 667 of the Toronto Municipal Code pursuant to Section 111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 and the Official Plan?

16. In the event the proposed development is approved in whole or in part, should the Tribunal Order be withheld until the City Solicitor has indicated that the following conditions have been satisfied:

(a) The proposed Zoning By-law Amendments are in a form and content satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and City Solicitor, including any appropriate holding (H) provisions;

(b) City Council has approved Rental Housing Demolition Application 23 221261 STE 11 RH under Chapter 667 of the Toronto Municipal Code pursuant to Section 111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, to permit the demolition of the existing rental dwelling units and the owner has entered into, and registered on title to the lands, one or more agreements with the City, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor, securing all rental housing-related matters necessary to implement City Council's decision including:

(i) replacement of the existing 33 rental housing units, including the same number of units, bedroom type and size and with similar rents; and

(ii) acceptable Tenant Relocation and Assistance Plan addressing the right for existing tenants to return to a replacement rental unit on the lands at similar rents, the provision of rent gap assistance, and other assistance to lessen hardship, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

(c) the applicant has submitted a revised Heritage Impact Assessment that demonstrates how the proposed development fits into its context and protects the heritage attributes of the adjacent designated property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act at 38 Walmer Road and adjacent properties included on the City's Heritage Register at 35 and 44 Walmer Road, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

(d) the applicant has provided revised plans and revised sun shadow and pedestrian level wind studies with recommendations implemented as part of Zoning By-law Amendment and the City has advised that any building envelope changes to

address the findings of the studies have been made, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

(e) the applicant has provided confirmation of water, sanitary and stormwater capacity to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, or the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services has determined that holding provisions are required in the Zoning By-law amendment;

(f) the applicant has addressed all outstanding issues raised by Urban Forestry, Tree Protection and Plan Review as they relate to the Zoning By-law Amendment application, to the satisfaction of the Supervisor, Tree Protection and Plan Review;

(g) the applicant has addressed all outstanding issues raised by Transportation Services, as they relate to the Zoning By-law Amendment application, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services; and

(h) in the event that a parkland dedication is required by Parks Development, further direction from City Council will be required to approve and secure all necessary conditions of parkland conveyance by the owner to the City.

TSCC 1896 (the "Loretto") Site Specific Issues

Built Form

17. Is the Zoning By-law Amendment for the Site (the "Proposal") consistent with good planning and urban design in terms of the relationship of the proposed built form to existing and proposed structures on the subject city block and on neighbouring blocks?

18. Are the built form type, height, density, massing, location, placement and scale of the Proposal appropriate, given principles of good planning and urban design, including the relationship of the Proposal in terms of transition to adjacent and nearby Neighbourhoods, shadow impacts, and the public realm?

19. Is the Proposal out of scale with other existing, proposed and/or approved developments in the Apartment Neighbourhoods area within which it is located?

20. Does the proposed building design reflect the transition and massing exhibited in recent development approvals on other sites located nearby?

21. Do the proposed tower setbacks and step-backs support a consistent and appropriate relationship with adjacent existing residential buildings?

22. Does the Proposal establish appropriate relationships at grade, including setbacks, streetwalls, and the provision of an appropriate pedestrian realm including contributions to streetscaping, public spaces, and private open spaces?

23. Does the Proposal represent good planning and urban design in regard to:

(a) the height, mass, setbacks, scale and density of the Proposal, including the impacts on surrounding areas on privacy, overlook, sky-view, sunlight penetration, streetscape; and

(b) whether the proposed height, massing and scale fit with the existing and/or planned built form context and make appropriate built form transitions in relation to the scale and character of the surrounding area, particularly the Neighbourhoods to the south, west and north?

Community Services

24. Given other planned and under-construction developments nearby, do local Community Services and Facilities – including parks and green space – have the capacity to accommodate the increased density that would result from the Proposal?

25. Does access to the Site by personal vehicles, delivery vehicles, and garbage trucks compromise the safety of pedestrians and bicyclist on Lowther Avenue, Walmer Road, Dalton Road and Brunswick Avenue?

Heritage

26. Does the Proposal provide appropriate context for the heritage attributes of the adjacent designated property at 38 Walmer Road? In particular:

(a) Has the Proposal been satisfactorily evaluated against the heritage values and attributes of the heritage property at 38 Walmer Road?

(b) Does the Proposal provide for a design that will conserve the cultural heritage values, attributes, and character of the heritage property at 38 Walmer Road, and mitigate visual and physical impact on the heritage property?

(c) Has the Proposal been designed to ensure that the integrity of the heritage property's cultural heritage values and attributes will be retained?

(d) Does the development conform to Official Plan Policies 3.1.6 (Heritage Conservation) in particular in relation to the impacts of the development on the existing heritage building at 38 Walmer Road.

27. Does the Proposal conform to the principles set out in the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada?

City of Toronto Official Plan

28. Does the Proposal conform with the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan (the "Official Plan") with respect to Structuring Growth in the City (2.2), Downtown: the Heart of Toronto (2.2.1.4 & 2.2.1.5), Healthy Neighbourhoods (2.3.1), the Public Realm (3.1.1), Built Form (3.1.3), Built Form – Building Types (3.1.4), Heritage Conservation (3.1.6), (Community Services and Facilities (3.2.2), Apartment Neighbourhoods (4.2), and Implementation (5)?

The Downtown Plan

29. Does the Proposal conform with the Downtown Plan (OPA No. 406), specifically: Goals: Complete Communities (3), Directing Growth (4), Parking and Curbside Management (8.27,8.29), Built Form (9), Improving the Public Realm (9.2, 9.3), Base Buildings (9.8, 9.10, 9.11), Physical Determinants of Intensity and Scale (9.12-9.17), Creating a Comfortable Microclimate (9.18-9.22), Transition (9.23-9.29), Amenity Space (9.33-

9.38), and Culture (12)?

Guidelines

30. Does the Proposal have appropriate regard for and meet the intent and purpose of the Tall Building Design Guidelines and the Downtown Tall Buildings Vision and Supplementary Design Guidelines?

31. Does the Proposal appropriately respond to and meet the intent and purpose of the Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities (2020)?

Annex Residents' Corporation Site Specific Issues

32. Does the proposed development conform to the City of Toronto Official Plan, including:

(a) Downtown: The Heart of Toronto;

(b) Healthy Neighbourhoods;

(c) The Public Realm;

(d) Built Form;

(e) Built Form – Tall Building;

(f) Built Form – Building Types;

33. Has the proposed development been satisfactorily evaluated against the heritage values and attributes of the heritage properties at 38 Walmer Road (designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act) and 35 and 44 Walmer Road (included in the City's Heritage Register) and does the proposed design mitigate visual and physical impacts on these heritage properties?

34. Does the proposed development represent an overdevelopment of the site, including setbacks, stepbacks, and separation distances from the adjacent existing housing?

35. Does the proposal represent good land use planning and urban design, having regard to:

(a) The provincial and municipal policy framework identified in this issues list?

(b) The overall height, base building height, mass, building setbacks, stepbacks, scale, and density of the Proposal, including the impact of height and setbacks on the following matters:

(i) Privacy and overlook concerns into the abutting properties;

(ii) Fit with the existing and planned built form context;

(iii) Gradual transition in relation to the scale and character of the surrounding area, including the Neighbourhood to the south?

(iv) shadows

(v) sky view

(vi) wind

36. Is the proposed amount of outdoor amenity space adequate?

37. Does this proposal establish precedent in the Apartment Neighbourhoods land use designation?

38. Does the block plan analysis provided adequately address the impact of known developments in the immediate area and the precinct?

38 R LP and the Trustees of the Walmer Road Baptist Church Site Specific Issues

39. Is the massing and siting contemplated by the By-law and proposed by the site plan for the development of 40 Walmer Road, including setbacks, stepbacks, scale, height and separation distances to existing and proposed buildings appropriate, and does it represent good planning, including but not limited to, in respect of its relationship to the proposed development located at 38 Walmer Road:

40. Does the contemplated/ proposed siting and design of the proposed building at 40 Walmer Road allow for the appropriate redevelopment of 38 Walmer Road as a tall building site, including but not limited to protecting for daylight, sky views, and privacy on adjacent properties and with reference to City Official Plan section 3.1.3? If not, should it? Does the contemplated/ proposed massing and siting conform with the City of Toronto (the "City") Official Plan, including but not limited to sections: 3.1.1 (Public Realm), 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 (Built Form), 4.2. (Apartment Neighbourhoods), Policy 6.26 and Section 9 of the Downtown Plan (Official Plan Amendment ("OPA") No. 406) and the policies of Site and Area Specific Policy ("SASP") 517 (OPA No. 352)?

41. Does contemplated/ proposed massing and siting of the development have appropriate regard to the City Tall Building Design Guidelines, including but not limited to Section 3.2.3?

42. Does the contemplated/ proposed siting and design of the proposed building at 40 Walmer Road allow for the appropriate redevelopment of 38 Walmer Road as a tall building site, including but not limited to protecting for daylight, sky views, and privacy on adjacent properties and with reference to City Official Plan section 3.1.3? If not, should it?

43. Do the proposed by-law and development fit appropriately with the physical and policy context, both existing and planned, including but not limited to the proposed identification of surrounding lands as being in two Protected Major Transit Station Areas ("PMTSAs")?

44. Has the appellant justified the proposed height as a matter of good planning and urban design including as per City policy and guideline documents, including but not limited to those referenced in Issue 39 above in relation to the proposed development at 38 Walmer Road?

45. Is the form and content of the draft zoning by-law amendment appropriate?

46. Does a finding by the Tribunal that the applications under appeal represent good planning in all the circumstances of the case at hand, and thus the decision on whether the appeals should be allowed (in whole or in part), require a comprehensive analysis of proposed building location and massing on each of 38 Walmer Road and 40 Walmer Road which acknowledges, among other things the interaction/interdependency between these two sites in relation to these matters? Does a good planning result also require a sufficiently comprehensive planning determination which is missing absent a determination on both 38 and 40 Walmer Road?

47. Would the approval of any building on 40 Walmer Road with setbacks materially less than those contemplated by City zoning or guidelines for the building form proposed, without sufficient justification therefor, serve to inappropriately, and unfairly, effectively pre-determine aspects of the development potential on 38 Walmer Road? Does constraining the development potential of 38 Walmer Road via such a predetermination represent good planning and is it in the public interest?

48. Is the proposed development compatible with the Walmer Road Baptist Church located at 38 Walmer Road and has the proposed development been designed to mitigate visual and physical impacts to heritage attributes of the Walmer Road Baptist Church, such that its protected heritage attributes will be conserved?

ATTACHMENT 3 ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. 2114778 Ontario Inc.

2. City of Toronto

3. TSCC 1896 (the "Loretto")

4. Annex Residents' Corporation

5. 38 WR LP and the Trustees of the Walmer Road Baptist Church (the "38 Walmer Applicants")

6. 2114778 Ontario Inc., in reply (if any)

Attachment 4

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.