Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 29, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003924

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

Applicant/Appellant: Fieldgate Urban

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description: To permit a four block, 3034-unit mixed use development

Reference Number: 17 277456 ESC 38 OZ

Property Address: 670, 680 and 690 Progress Avenue

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-22-003924

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-003924

OLT Case Name: Fieldgate Urban v. Toronto (City.)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Fieldgate Urban

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

Description: To permit a four block, 3034-unit mixed use development

Reference Number: 17 277456 ESC 38 OZ

Property Address: 670, 680 and 690 Progress Avenue

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-22-003925

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-003924

Heard: October 17, 2024 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Fieldgate Urban ("Applicant/Appellant")	David Bronskil (in absentia) Max Laskin
City of Toronto ("City")	Derin Abimbola Mark Piel (in absentia)
New-Can Realty Ltd.	Justine Reyes Christopher Tanzola (in absentia)
8104476 Canada Inc.	Meaghan McDermid

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY GREGORY J. INGRAM AND Nehad Allam ON OCTOBER 17, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This event is the fourth Case Management Conference ("CMC") regarding the property municipally known as 670, 680 and 690 Progress Avenue in the City ("Subject Property") regarding a development proposal to construct a four-block, 3034-unit mixed-use development. The Applicant/Appellant applied to amend the City’s Official Plan ("OPA") and Zoning By-law ("ZBA") to facilitate the development. The Appeals are brought pursuant to sections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended ("Act"), due to the City’s refusal of the OPA and ZBA Applications.

2The previous CMCs were held in September 2022, February 2023, and June 2024. Outcomes from these proceedings confirm that no further notice is required, status requests have been reviewed and granted, and that the Parties are aware of Tribunal led mediation. It was determined at the last CMC that the City required additional time to receive direction from Council before being able to either work toward a settlement or identify issues with the development proposal and submit a draft Procedural Order ("DPO") on consent with the other Parties.

UPDATE

3The Applicant/Appellant submitted a DPO and requested that a hearing date be set in late summer 2025. The City indicated a preference for late 2025. The added Parties indicated that they could accommodate any scheduled date. The City and Applicant/Appellant indicated that deliberations will be ongoing until the hearing date.

4The Parties provided a final DPO following these proceedings which as been reviewed and approved by the Tribunal and is included with this Decision as Schedule 1.

5The Parties, anticipate calling 10-15 witnesses for the hearing and as a result, requested that 15 days be set aside.

STATUS REQUEST

6No further requests were received for Party or Participant status at this CMC.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR SETTLEMENT

7Counsel for the Parties indicated that deliberations have taken place and expect them to continue during the period between this CMC and a Hearing.

HEARING DETAILS

8The Tribunal scheduled a 14-day Hearing to commence on Monday, September 15, 2025, at 10 a.m. by Video Hearing, excluding Tuesday, September 30, 2025, as the Tribunal will not be sitting on this date, and ending on Friday, October 3, 2025. The Hearing is scheduled to proceed as follows:

9Parties 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://global.gotomeeting.com/join/914098901

Access Code: 914-098-901

10Parties 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 GoTo Meeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

11Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: (Toll-Free) 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The access code is as indicated above.

12Individuals 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.

ORDER

13THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that a Hearing is scheduled as per the details set out beginning with Paragraph [8] above.

14THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Procedural Order attached as Schedule 1 is in full force and effect.

"Gregory J. Ingram"

GREGORY J. INGRAM MEMBER

"N. Allam"

N. ALLAM 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

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

Applicant/Appellant: Fieldgate Urban

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description: To permit a four block, 3034-unit mixed use development

Reference Number: 17 277456 ESC 38 OZ

Property Address: 670, 680 and 690 Progress Avenue

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003924

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003924

OLT Case Name: Fieldgate Urban v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Fieldgate Urban

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

Description: To permit a four block, 3034-unit mixed use development

Reference Number: 17 277456 ESC 38 OZ

Property Address: 670, 680 and 690 Progress Avenue

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003925

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003924

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

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will begin on September 15, 2025 at 10:00 a.m.

3. The length of the hearing is fourteen (14) days, ending on October 3, 2025. The Tribunal will not sit on September 30, 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 the sample procedural order for the meaning of these terms).

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

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

7. Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.

8. Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. 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 before April 18, 2025. 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.

10. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before May 20, 2025 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.

11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before June 27, 2025 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 June 27, 2025.

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 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.

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 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 14 below.

14. On or before July 17, 2025, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and/or expert witness statements to the other parties and Participant statements to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

15. On or before July 17, 2025, 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.

16. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before August 1, 2025, and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

17. On or before August 15, 2025, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

18. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before September 2, 2025.

19. On or before September 2, 2025, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

20. 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.

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

22. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before September 2, 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.

23. All filings shall be submitted electronically and in hard copy. 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.

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.

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
April 18, 2025	Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any)
May 20, 2025	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
June 27, 2025	Experts Meeting and Agreed Statement of Facts
July 17, 2025	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
August 1, 2025	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
August 15, 2025	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
September 2, 2025	Preparation of Joint Document Book
September 2, 2025	Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal
September 15, 2025	Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 1 PARTICIPANTS/PARTIES

Parties

1. Fieldgate Urban David Bronskill (416) 597-4299 dbronskill@goodmans.ca

2. City of Toronto Mark Piel/Derin Abimbola (416) 392-2124/(416) 338-1376 mark.piel@toronto.ca/derin.abimbola@toronto.ca

3. New-Can Realty Ltd. Chris Tanzola/Justine Reyes (416) 730-0645/(416) 730-8377 ctanzola@overlandllp.ca/jreyes@overlandllp.ca

4. 8104476 Ontario Canada Inc. Meaghan McDermid (416) 263-4514 meaghanm@davieshowe.com

Participants

1. N/A

ATTACHMENT 2

ISSUES LIST

Issues List of City of Toronto

Provincial Statutory & Policy Requirements

1. Does the proposed development and the Zoning By-law Amendment have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, particularly paragraphs (f), (h), (i), (j), (k), (n), and (r)?

2. Would the approval of the proposed development have regard for any information and material received by City Council, as required by Section 2.1(2) of the Planning Act?

Note: Since the filing of the City’s Issues List, the Province has issued a new policy statement under Section 3 of the Planning Act which applies to all decisions in respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter made on or after October 20, 2024. It is possible that a decision on the subject appeals will be made after October 20, 2024. Accordingly, the City has provided issues in section 3(a) section 3(b) in this revised issues list, the latter of which will be the City’s issues under section 3 of this revised issues list in the event a decision on the subject appeals is made on or after October 20, 2024.

3.(a) Are the proposed development, the Zoning By-law Amendments, and the Official Plan Amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) as required by Section 3 of the Planning Act, in particular Sections 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.6, 1.1.3.7, 1.2.1, 1.2.6.1, 1.3.1, 1.4.3, 1.5, 1.6.1, 1.6.6, 1.6.7, 1.8, 2.2, 4.0, 4.6, and 4.7?

3.(b) Are the proposed development, the Zoning By-law Amendments, and the Official Plan Amendments consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024) as required by Section 3 of the Planning Act, in particular Chapter 1 and Sections 2.3.1.2, 2.3.1.6, 2.2.1, 2.8.1.1, 2.9, 3.1.1, 3.2, 3.5.1, 3.6, 3.9.1, 4.2, 6.1, and 6.2.1?

4. Does the proposed development, the Zoning By-law Amendment, and the Official Plan Amendment conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019) as amended as required by Section 3 of the Planning Act, in particular Sections 1.2.1, 2.2.1.4, 2.2.2.3, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 3.2.1.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.6, 3.2.7, 3.2.8, 4.2.5, 5.2.4 and 5.2.5?

City of Toronto Official Plan

5. Does the proposed development and the Zoning By-law Amendment conform with the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan with respect to Section 2.2 (Structuring Growth in the City), Section 2.2.2 (Centres), Section 2.4 (Bringing the City Together), Section 3.1.1 (The Public Realm), Section 3.1.2 (Built Form), Section 3.1.3 (Built Form – Tall Buildings), Section 3.1.4 (Public Art), Section 3.2.1 (Housing), Section 3.2.2 (Community Services and Facilities), Section 3.2.3 (Parks and Open Spaces), Section 3.3 (Building New Neighbourhoods), Section 4.5 (Mixed Use Areas), Section 5.1.2 (Holding By-laws), Section 5.2.1 (Secondary Plans), Section 5.3.2 (Implementation Plans and Strategies for City- Building), and Section 5.6 (Interpretation)?

6. Does the proposed development and the Zoning By-law Amendment conform with the policies of the Scarborough Centre Secondary Plan, being Chapter 6 of the City's Official Plan?

Official Plan Amendment 409

7. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for the Toronto Official Plan, Scarborough Centre Secondary Plan sections 5 b) and c), 1.12, 1.13, 1.11a), 1.12, 1.13, 3.1.1f), 3.1.3a), 3.1.3c), 3.1.3d), 4.8c), 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.21, 5.22, 5.23, 5.26, 5.33, Site and Area Specific Policy 9, Maps 5-3 and 5.4, as well as the City of Toronto Official Plan Schedule 1, Existing Minor Streets With Right-Of-Way Widths Greater Than 20 Metres, as amended by Official Plan Amendment 409?

Official Plan Amendment 479

8. Does the proposed development and the Zoning By-law Amendment have appropriate regard to the City of Toronto Official Plan, section 3.1.1 – Public Realm, as amended by OPA 479, including the following amended policies: 6 and 20?

Official Plan Amendment 480

9. Does the proposed development and the Zoning By-law Amendment have appropriate regard to the City of Toronto Official Plan, section 3.1.2 – Built Form, as amended by OPA 480, including the following amended policies: 4 and 10?

10. Does the proposed development and the Zoning By-law Amendment have appropriate regard to the City of Toronto Official Plan, section 3.1.3 – Built Form Tall Buildings, as amended by OPA 480, including the following amended policies: 9, 10, 11, and12?

Our Scarborough Centre (Scarborough Centre Review)

11. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for the policy direction of the Our Scarborough Centre Secondary Plan Study as it relates to Street Network, Street Design, Active Transportation, Built Form (heights, shadow impacts, tower separation, setbacks, tower floor plates size, building variation); Housing (mix of units, size of units, housing diversity), and Sustainability (green infrastructure, complete streets, green streets, and soil volume)?

Guidelines and Implementation Documents

12. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for and meet the intent and purpose of the Tall Building Guidelines, particularly guidelines 2.4, 3.1.1, 3.3 3.2.1, 3.2.4 and 4.3?

13. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for and meet the intent and purpose of the Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities, 2020, particularly guidelines: 2.1 a, 3.0 a, b and c?

14. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for and meet the intent and purpose of the Scarborough Centre Public Art Master Plan, 2018 and the Percent for Public Art Guidelines, 2010?

15. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for and meet the intent and purpose of Toronto Green Standards, Version 3.0?

16. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for and meet the intent and purpose of the Complete Streets Guidelines?

Zoning By-law Amendment

17. Are the proposed building setbacks and stepbacks appropriate?

18. Is the provision of indoor and outdoor amenity space appropriate?

19. Is it appropriate to amend the applicable zoning to remove the holding (H) symbol, having regard to transportation, infrastructure/municipal servicing, and environmental considerations as may be set out below and as described the conditions for the removal of the holding (H) symbol in By-law 24982?

Land Use Planning

20. Is the proposed development supported by an acceptable community services and facilities assessment regarding the existing capacity of community services and facilities and whether they can support the anticipated population growth associated with the proposed development?

21. Does the proposed development provide an appropriate mix of uses, including the advancement and enhancement of employment opportunities?

22. Is the proposed residential unit mix appropriate, having regard to considerations such as affordability and tenure?

23. Does the proposed development represent an overdevelopment of the site?

24. Does proposed development conform to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks guidelines, specifically Guideline NPC-300 as it relates to mitigating potential conflicts between the proposal, and

a. impacts of the surrounding environment on the proposed development; b. impacts of the development on the surrounding environment; and c. impacts of the development on itself?

Built Form & Public Realm

25. Are the built form type, height, density, massing, location, placement and scale of the proposed development appropriate, given principles of good planning and good urban design; its relationship to the surrounding context; shadow impacts; wind impacts; the public realm; the relevant policy documents; and the further issues more particularly set out below?

26. Does the proposed development and comprehensive block masterplan provide a suitable public realm and open space network that promotes connectivity between parks, privately owned publicly accessible space(s), and midblock connections both on and off-site?

27. Does the proposed development provide appropriate amounts of soil volume in accordance with the Toronto Green Standard on site and to accommodate tree planting and landscaping necessary to enhance the public realm?

28. Does the proposed development represent good urban design?

Transportation

29. Is the proposed development supported by an acceptable transportation impact study, which

a. demonstrates sufficient transportation infrastructure capacity to accommodate the travel demands associated with the development and planned growth under the Scarborough Centre Secondary Plan; and b. provides for an acceptable multi-modal transportation analysis?

30. Can the proposed site access and circulation for the proposed development accommodate the traffic demands associated with the proposed development?

31. Is the proposed development's street network appropriate and is it supported by adequate information pertaining to its implementation, including interim and ultimate conditions, existing easements and obligations related to adjacent property owners?

32. Does the zoning by-law amendment appropriately establish grade for the development having regard for transportation-related matters including the future lowering of Progress Avenue and the creation of an at-grade intersection with McCowan Road?

Infrastructure and Municipal Servicing

33. Does the proposed development adequately comply with the City of Toronto's requirements for solid waste management services including clearance requirements for waste collection vehicles?

34. Is the proposed development supported by a satisfactory Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report that demonstrates that any capacity with respect to allocated sewers and servicing concerns respecting the proposed development are addressed in a manner consistent with the procedures set out by the Province and the City such as:

a. Design Criteria for Sewers and Water Mains (2021) prepared by the City of Toronto; b. Water Supply for Public Fire Protection (1999) prepared by Fire Underwriters Survey; c. Wet Weather Flow Management Guidelines (2006) prepared by the City of Toronto; d. Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 681, Sewers, and Chapter 851, Water Supply; and e. Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.17?

35. Is the proposed development supported by a satisfactory Hydrogeological Report that demonstrates the potential groundwater issues, such as, but not limited to, dewatering, long-term discharge, water levels, storm water and ground water infiltration impacts, wet weather conditions have been considered and addressed in accordance with applicable guidelines, the Toronto Municipal Code and applicable provincial regulations or statutes?

36. Is the proposed development supported by a satisfactory Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report that demonstrates that the subject site can be adequately serviced by existing City municipal infrastructure?

37. If "no" in answer to the immediately preceding issue, has the appellant demonstrated what upgrades and/or improvements are required to the City’s municipal infrastructure to accommodate the proposed development and addressed payment for, design and construction of, such upgrades and improvements, including providing financial securities, entering into and registering an agreement with the City?

Public Interest and Good Land Use Planning

38. Does the proposed development represent good planning and is it in the public interest?

39. Is the proposed Official Plan Amendment good planning and in the public interest?

40. Is the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment good planning and in the public interest?

Conditions

41. If the proposed development is approved in whole or in part, should the Tribunal Order on the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment be withheld until the Tribunal has received confirmation from the City Solicitor that:

a. the Official Plan Amendment and the Zoning By-law Amendment are in a form and content acceptable to the City Solicitor and Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and implement the proposed development?

Issues List of New-Can Realty Ltd.

1. New Public Road B

i) Does the proposed configuration of New Public Road B have appropriate regard for existing property boundaries and encumbrances? ii) Does the proposed configuration of New Public Road B address existing grading conditions, and will it adequately allow for continued truck access to neighbouring lands?

2. Is the location and configuration of the on-site parkland feature appropriate? How will its orientation affect the future redevelopment and parkland considerations on neighbouring lands?

3. Is the proposed height and density of the Subject Site generally appropriate?

4. Is the proposed mix of uses (non-residential and residential) contained in the proposal appropriate for this location?

5. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for the existing and permitted uses on neighbouring lands with respect to issues of land use compatibility, noise and odour?

6. Is a phasing plan needed for the Subject Site? How will phasing impact the design and configuration of Public Road B?

7. Does the proposed development conform with the transportation policies contained in the Scarborough Centre Secondary Plan ("SCSP")? Specifically, does the proposed development conform with the planned Street Network as shown on Map 5-3 and the Active Transportation Network shown on Map 5-4 of the SCSP for the McCowan Precinct?

8. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for the ongoing Scarborough Centre Secondary Plan Review process, including structural elements of the plan such as new public streets and connections, and public realm elements?

Issues List of 8104476 Canada Inc.

N/A

ATTACHMENT 3

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Fieldgate Urban
2. City of Toronto
3. New-Can Realty Ltd.
4. 8104476 Canada Inc.
5. Fieldgate Urban, in reply (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.

1388-3235-8917