Tricar Properties Ltd v. Guelph (City), 2024 CanLII 106149

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

October 23, 2024

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-24-000004

OLT-24-000788

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

Applicant/Appellant: Tricar Properties Limited Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit the development of two, 10-storey apartment buildings Reference Number: OZS20-004 Property Address: 1242-1270 Gordon St and 9 Valley Rd Municipality/UT: Guelph/Wellington OLT Case No: OLT-24-000004 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000004 OLT Case Name: Tricar Properties Ltd v. Guelph (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Applicant/Appellant:

Tricar Properties Limited

Subject:

Site Plan Approval

Description:

To permit the development of two, 10-storey apartment buildings

Reference Number:

SP23-020

Property Address:

1242-1270 Gordon St and 9 Valley Rd

Municipality/UT:

Guelph/Wellington

OLT Case No:

OLT-24-000788

OLT Lead Case No:

OLT-24-000004

OLT Case Name:

Tricar Properties Ltd v. Guelph (City)

Heard:

October 2, 2024 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Tricar Properties Limited

Andrew Baker Lee English

City of Guelph

Peter Gross Shuang Ren

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. DIXON ON OCTOBER 2, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1This Decision and Order arises from:

a) The second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held regarding an appeal by Tricar Properties Limited (“Appellant”) pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), concerning a zoning by-law amendment application (“ZBA”); and

b) A concurrently held first CMC for an appeal filed by the Appellant pursuant to s. 41(12) of the Act concerning a site plan approval application (“SPA”).

2The ZBA and SPA (together, “Applications”) were filed in the City of Guelph (“City”) for lands municipally known as 1242-1270 Gordon Street and 9 Valley Road (“Subject Lands”).

3The City did not make a decision on the Applications within the respective statutory timeframes prescribed by the Act and the appeals were filed on that basis.

STATUS REQUESTS

4At the first CMC for the ZBA appeal, the Tribunal conferred participant status to seven individuals:

1. Tony Campagnolo;

2. Mark DeNardis;

3. Claudia Espindola;

4. Richard Martin;

5. Neil Parker;

6. Wendy Priestman; and

7. Bruce Wilson.

5Prior to the second CMC, the Tribunal was in receipt of an additional participant status request from Chris Doyle pertaining to the ZBA appeal. There were no objections to the request, which was granted by the Tribunal.

CONSOLIDATION OF MATTERS

6Counsel for the Appellant advised the Tribunal in advance of the CMC that they would be seeking a consolidation of the ZBA and SPA appeals.

7Having considered the issues in both matters and having heard submissions from the Parties (including the submissions made at the first CMC), the Tribunal is satisfied that consolidating the appeals is warranted and will provide for a more expedient and efficient hearing on the merits.

8Accordingly, Case Nos. OLT-24-000004 (ZBA appeal) and OLT-24-000788 (SPA appeal) are hereby consolidated.

DRAFT PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST

9The Tribunal was in receipt of a Draft Procedural Order (“DPO”) and Issues List (“IL”) in advance of the CMC, which were submitted on consent of the Parties, and which were generally acceptable to the Tribunal. However, the Parties advised the Tribunal that certain administrative updates were required prior to the approval of either document.

10The Parties submitted a revised DPO and IL to the Tribunal on October 18, 2024, which the Tribunal has reviewed and hereby approves in the form attached to this Decision and Order as Schedule 1.

ADDITIONAL HEARING DATES

Motion for Discovery

11Counsel for the Appellant advised the Tribunal that they had yet to receive comments from City staff regarding the SPA, and that they may request that the Tribunal schedule a motion hearing for the production of same.

12Following the CMC, the Appellant confirmed their desire to have the motion hearing scheduled. The request was granted by the Tribunal and one day was set aside for a motion hearing on Wednesday, November 20, 2024:

Wednesday, November 20, 2024 at 10 a.m. (one-day Motion Hearing)

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/660145013

Access code: 660-145-013

Audio-only telephone line: (Toll Free) 1-888-299-1889 or 1-647-497-9373

Hearing on the Merits

13At the first CMC, the Tribunal scheduled a 10-day hearing on the merits commencing Monday, March 10, 2025. While it was anticipated by the Tribunal and the Parties that the Hearing would address the merits of both the ZBA and the SPA appeals, the City raised a concern at the second CMC that the 10 days currently scheduled may not be sufficient.

14While the Appellant proffered that additional time beyond 10 days is not necessary, the Tribunal – having considered the lack of SPA comments to date and the potential for additional issues to arise related thereto – hereby directs that, out of an abundance of caution, an additional five days is to be added to the current hearing schedule, such that 15 days are now set aside for a hearing on the merits of the Applications, commencing Monday, March 10, 2025 at 10 a.m.

15The hearing details provided in the Tribunal’s Decision and Order arising from the first CMC (issued on April 11, 2024) are no longer valid and are replaced with the following:

Monday, March 10, 2025 at 10 a.m. (15-day Merit Hearing)

GoTo Meeting: https://meet.goto.com/357283957

Access code: 357-283-957

Audio-only telephone line: (Toll Free) 1-888-455-1389 or 1-647-497-9391

16Parties and Participants are asked to log in to the Video Hearing events at least 15 minutes before the start of each event to test their video and audio connections.

17Parties 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 downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html.

18Persons 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 the audio-only telephone lines as indicated above.

19Individuals 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 Video Hearing to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

ORDER

20THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that Chris Doyle is conferred Participant Status and is henceforth a Participant to these proceedings.

21THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Procedural Order attached hereto as Schedule 1 is approved and shall govern the remainder of these proceedings.

“S. Dixon”

s. dixon

membeR

Ontario Land Tribunal

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

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

SCHEDULE 1

CASE NOS.: OLT-24-000004 and OLT-24-000788

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

Applicant/Appellant:

Tricar Properties Limited

Subject:

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

Description:

To permit the development of two, 10-storey apartment buildings.

Municipality File No.:

OZS20-004

Property Address:

1242-1270 Gordon St and 9 Valley Rd

Municipality/UT:

Guelph/Wellington

OLT Case No.:

OLT-24-000004

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-24-000004

OLT Case Name:

Tricar Properties Ltd. v. Guelph (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant:

Tricar Properties Limited

Subject:

Site Plan

Description:

To permit the development of two, 10-storey apartment buildings.

Municipality File No.:

SP23-020

Property Address:

1242-1270 Gordon St and 9 Valley Rd

Municipality/UT:

Guelph/Wellington

OLT Case No.:

OLT-24-000788

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-24-000004

OLT Case Name:

Tricar Properties Ltd. v. Guelph (City)

PROCEDURAL ORDER

1. The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own motion.

Organisation of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will begin on March 10, 2025 at 10 a.m. The video conference access information is:

GoTo Meeting: https://meet.goto.com/357283957

Access code: 357-283-957

Audio-only telephone line: (Toll Free) 1-888-455-1389 or 1-647-497-9391

3. The Tribunal has scheduled 15 days for the hearing. 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. The parties will attempt to resolve the issues prior to the hearing on the merits of the appeal. 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. 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. The purpose of this Procedural Order and the meaning of the terms used in this Procedural Order are set out in Attachment 5.

8. 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.

9. 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

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 the witnesses will be called on or before November 8, 2024 in accordance with paragraph 24 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae, a copy of their Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty form and a description of the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified. Any challenges regarding a 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 on or before December 6, 2024.

11. 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 November 29, 2024. If the applicant submits a revised proposal, the City can revise its Witness List by providing a revised list of witnesses to the Tribunal and other parties on or before December 6, 2024.

12. Expert witnesses in the same discipline(s) shall have a meeting on or before December 20, 2024 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 with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before January 10, 2025.

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. 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.

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 an outline of the expert’s evidence on or before January 29, 2025. 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 January 29, 2025, 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 24 below. Each expert witness statement must comply with the minimum content requirements specified in Rule 7 of the Ontario Land Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

16. On or before January 29, 2025, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 24 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 February 3, 2025, 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.

18. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before February 12, 2025 and in accordance with paragraph 24 below.

19. On or before February 19, 2025 the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 24 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

20. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before February 21, 2025.

21. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules.

22. 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 14 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

23. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before February 19, 2025 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.

24. All filings shall be submitted electronically. 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 Tribunal’s Rule 7.

25. 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.

Attachment 1

Summary of Key Dates

DATE

EVENT

November 8, 2024

Exchange of Witness Lists

November 29, 2024

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

December 6, 2024

Last date to challenge a witness

December 20, 2024

Experts to meet on or before this date

January 10, 2025

File Agreed Statement of Facts

January 29, 2025

Exchange Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Experts Reports and Participant Statements

February 3, 2025

Last day to advise Tribunal if any hearing dates no longer required.

February 12, 2025

Exchange Reply Witness Statements

February 19, 2025

Exchange Visual Evidence

February 19, 2025

File Hearing Plan

February 21, 2025

File Joint Document Book

March 10, 2025

Hearing Commences

Attachment 2

Parties and Participants

Parties

Name

Counsel / Representative

Tricar Properties Limited

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Andrew Baker abaker@blg.com 416-367-6250 Lee English lenglish@blg.com 416-367-6169

City of Guelph

Gowling WLG Peter Gross peter.gross@gowling.com 416-862-4459

Participants

Name

Counsel/Contact

Wendy Priestman

Stephanie Fleming - Municipal Law Chambers sfleming@mlawc.com 416-955-9533 ext. 106

Bruce Wilson

brucedwilson@gmail.com

Tony Campagnolo

tntcampagnolo@gmail.com

Mark DeNardis

mark@denardisindustrial.com

Claudia Espindola

claudia.sofia1234@gmail.com

Richard Martin

rich.martin1018@gmail.com

Neil Parker

whitecedarestatesguelph@gmail.com

Chris Doyle

doyle715130@gmail.com

Attachment 3

Issues List

NOTES:

1. The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the Tribunal or any Party that the issue is either relevant or appropriate. The identification of an issue on this list by a Party indicates that Party’s intent to lead evidence or argue that the issue is relevant to the proceeding, for the purpose of fairly identifying to the other Parties the case they need to meet and shall not be construed as the Tribunal have jurisdiction over such matters in each circumstance. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing.
2. The Provincial Planning Statement 2024 came into effect on October 20, 2024. The Province is undertaking a public consultation to determine what, if any, transition provisions will apply to previously submitted planning applications and/or existing appeals before the Ontario Land Tribunal. In the event that a Regulation prescribes that the matters under appeal in this proceeding are to be decided in accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 or A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Golden Horseshoe, 2019, notwithstanding paragraph 5 of this Procedural Order, the parties shall be permitted to revise their respective issues set out below regarding consistency with the applicable PPS and/or Growth Plan.

Issues List of Tricar Properties Limited

Matters of Provincial Interest

1. Do the applications for zoning by-law amendment and site plan approval to permit two, ten-story apartment buildings on the lands municipally known as 1242-1270 Gordon Street and 9 Valley Road, City of Guelph (“Proposed Development”), have regard for matters of provincial interest, including subsections 2(a), (f), (h), (j), (p), (q), and (r)?

Provincial Planning Statement

2. Is the Proposed Development consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, including policies 2.1.6 a), 2.2.1 b) 2, c) and d), 2.3.1.1, 2.3.1.2 a) - d), 2.3.1.3, 2.4.1.1, 2.4.1.2, 2.4.1.3 a) - c), 2.4.3, 2.9.1 a) - e), 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.2, 3.6.1, 3.6.8, 3.9.1 a) and b), 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.4, 4.1.5, 4.1.6, 4.1.7, 4.1.8, 4.2.1, 5.1.1, 5.2.2 ?

City of Guelph Official Plan

3. Does the Proposed Development conform with the City of Guelph Official Plan, including policies 2.3.1 c), d) and g), 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.4 a), b) and c), 2.3.5 a), 2.3.6, 3 a), b), c), f), g), i), j) and l), 3.1.1 ii), iv) and vi), 3.1, 3.2.4, 3.3.1, 3.4, 3.6.1, 3.6.2, 3.6.3, 3.6.4, 3.6.5, 3.9 vi), 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3.1, 4.1.3.3, 4.1.3.4, 4.1.3.6, 4.1.3.9, 4.1.3.10, 4.1.4.2, 4.1.4.4, 4.1.5, 4.6.1 (11-15), 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3, 4.3.4, 4.7.4, 4.8.6.4, 5.1, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5.2, 5.7.2, 5.7.3, 5.7.4, 5.11, 5.12.2, 5.13, 6.1.3, 6.4, 7.3 a) and b), 7.3.1, 7.3.5, 8.1, 8.2.11, 8.6, 8.9, 8.12, 8.13, 8.17, 8.18.2, 9.3.1.1 and 9.3.4.?

Site Plan Conditions

4. What conditions are appropriate to impose upon the approval of the plans and drawings for the Proposed Development?

Issues List of City of Guelph

Land Use Planning

5. Can the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan for the development of two ten-storey apartment buildings with 325 units be supported without a public road as a matter of:

   1. conformity with the City of Guelph Official Plan, February 2024 Consolidation (“OP”), including policies 3.6.1, 3.6.2, 3.6.3, 3.6.4, 3.6.5, 3.6.9, 3.6.10, 3.6.11, 9.3.1.1 (3), (4), (5), (8), (10);
   2. consistency with the PPS 2024, including policy 3.2.2; and
   3. principles of good planning.

6. Can the Zoning By-law Amendment be supported without the dedication of a public park block, or payment in lieu, in accordance with the policies of the OP, including policy 7.3.5 and the powers of a municipality under the Planning Act to require dedication of parkland or payment in lieu in connection with development and redevelopment?

Urban Design

7. Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment conform with the Urban Design policies of the OP, including 8.1, 8.2.1, 8.2.2, 8.2.3, 8.2.11, 8.6, 8.9, 8.11, 8.12, 8.13, 8.17, and 8.18?

8. Should the Zoning By-law Amendment be required to reasonably conform to the Urban Design Concept Plans for the Gordon Street Intensification Corridor approved by City of Guelph Council on April 9, 2018, and in particular to address:

   1. pedestrian connections through the site, including direct access to a public park and the Natural Heritage System (“NHS”) from Gordon Street;
   2. a logical network of new streets connecting to the existing street network;
   3. neighbourhood public park in proximity to the NHS;
   4. potential future street connection south from Landsdown Drive; and
   5. a new municipal road that connects to the existing Edinburgh Road.

Environmental Planning

9. Does the Zoning By-law Amendment application demonstrate conformity with the NHS policies and Water Resource System policies of the OP, including policies 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3.1, 4.1.3.3, 4.1.3.4, 4.1.3.6, 4.1.3.9, 4.1.3.10, 4.1.4.2, 4.1.4.4, 4.1.5, 4.1.6.1, 4.2.1, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3, 4.3.4, 6.4, and consistency with PPS 2024 policies 3.5.1, 3.6.1, 3.6.8, 3.7.1, 3.9.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.4, 4.1.5, 4.1.6, 4.1.7, 4.1.8, and 4.2.1?

10. Does the Zoning By-law Amendment application demonstrate that there will be no negative impact on the NHS, and in particular on the Hanlon Creek Provincially Significant Wetland (the “PSW”), with particular regard to:

    1. the need to properly calculate the volumetric increase in run-off to the PSW; and
    2. the need to demonstrate that maximum infiltration is achieved, and meets the minimum requirement of achieving the infiltration targets specified in the Torrance Creek Sub-watershed Study and the Hanlon Creek Sub-watershed Study.

11. Do the studies submitted in support of the Zoning By-law Amendment adequately and appropriately assess the environmental impact of the Proposed Development on the PSW by:

    1. adequately accounting for all contributing catchment areas and their infiltration of stormwater flows;
    2. properly calculating the pre- and post-development water balance;
    3. avoidance of permanent dewatering as part of the stormwater design;
    4. accounting for cumulative impacts of any hydrologic inputs to the receiving PSW;
    5. consistency in calculation of engineered stormwater management infrastructure on the post-development inputs to the PSW;
    6. assessing the condition, capacity and drawdown time of associated engineered stormwater infrastructure; and
    7. identification of all stormwater outlet points.

12. Does the Zoning By-law Amendment application submitted in support of the Zoning By-law Amendment conform with the policies of the OP, including 4.1.1.6, 4.1.1.7, 4.1.1.8, 4.1.1.9, 4.1.1.12, and 4.1.3.6, as they pertain to Significant Woodlands, including respecting the minimum 10 metre buffer?

13. If no negative impact is demonstrated at a conceptual level, should approval of the Zoning By-law Amendment remain conditional on the submission of revised Functional Servicing Report, Stormwater Management Report, Environmental Impact Study Addendum, Hydrological Assessment Report and Environmental Implementation Report Addendum?

Traffic and Transportation Engineering

14. Does the proposed access to Gordon Street by a private drive as opposed to the construction of a public road achieve safe traffic operations and efficient utilization and mobility of Gordon Street?

15. Does the Traffic Impact Study submitted by the applicant/appellant adequately account for all applicable variables, including but not limited to the contribution of existing approved developments, speed limits, gap analysis, truck turning impacts, existing and projected upgrades Gordon Street associated with the City’s Transportation Master Plan?

16. Should approval the Zoning By-law Amendment be contingent on a redesign which incorporates a public road and alignment of the Zoning By-law Amendment with an associated draft plan of subdivision submission?

Parks Planning

17. Should the Zoning By-law Amendment be revised to incorporate a neighbourhood park in accordance with the Parks policies of the OP, including 7.3.5, and the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan?

Site Plan Considerations

18. Should the Site Plan be approved without providing for a public road and public park on the subject property?

19. Are the plans and reports submitted in support of the site plan application adequate to inform the creation of conditions of site plan approval, including with respect to the following matters:

    1. Stormwater Design;
    2. Grading;
    3. Landscape Design;
    4. Snow Storage;
    5. Invasive Species Management;
    6. Tree Removals and Compensation;
    7. Hydrogeological Assessment;
    8. Linear Infrastructure;
    9. Erosion and Sediment Control;
    10. Removal and Proper Capping of Existing Services Connections;
    11. Costing;
    12. Detailed Design of Noise Mitigation Measures;
    13. Construction Management Plans;
    14. Servicing Detail;
    15. Compliance with Record of Site Condition;
    16. Traffic Design, including but not limited to sight line triangles, right of way improvements, turn radius, signalization, lane width and configuration, street lighting; driveway slopes and geometric plans;
    17. Internal building layout detail, including in respect of access and loading, parking ramps, bicycle parking; and
    18. Design integral to the inclusion of an appropriately located neighbourhood park block in accordance with the OP and Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

Attachment 4

Order of Evidence

1. Tricar Properties Limited

2. City of Guelph

3. Tricar Properties Limited (in Reply)

Attachment 5

Meaning of Terms in Procedural Order

Purpose of the Procedural Order

Case management conferences are scheduled by the Tribunal to organize the hearing. This sample procedural order is provided to identify who may participate in the hearing, the issues in dispute, and the matters that are required to be carried out before the hearing. The attachment to this sample procedural order explains the meaning of a number of terms in the sample procedural order, such as a party or a participant.

The Tribunal recommends that the appellant, municipality, the applicant (if applicable), or those who wish to seek party status in this proceeding, meet, remotely if necessary, to discuss this sample procedural order before the date of the case management conference and try to identify the issues and process they want the Tribunal to order following the conference. The Tribunal will hear submissions on the content of this sample procedural order at the case management conference and issue a procedural order at a later date.

If you are not represented by a lawyer, you should prepare by reviewing the Tribunal’s Video Hearings Guide, and the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), particularly Rule 20, which are available on the Tribunal’s website.

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.