295 Jarvis LP v. Toronto (City), 2024 CanLII 11565

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 14, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000471

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

Applicant/Appellant: 295 Jarvis LP

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

Description: To permit the development of a 60-storey mixed-use building containing 618 residential units

Reference Number: 22 229720 STE 13 OZ

Property Address: 295 Jarvis Street

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-23-000471

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000471

OLT Case Name: 295 Jarvis LP v. Toronto (City)

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

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

Description: To permit the development of a 60-storey mixed-use building containing 618 residential units

Reference Number: 22 229720 STE 13 OZ

Property Address: 295 Jarvis Street

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-23-000472

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000471

Heard: February 7, 2024 by Teleconference Call

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

295 Jarvis LP

David Bronskill Joe Hoffman (in absentia)

City of Toronto

Sarah O’Connor Jason Davidson

Infrastructure Ontario

Isaiah Banach Katarzyna Sliwa (in absentia)

The Hospital for Sick Children

Brett Davis Isaac Tang (in absentia)

Toronto Community Housing Corporation

Signe Leisk Jennifer Evola (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. DIXON ON FEBRUARY 7, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision and Order arises from a Status Update convened via Teleconference Call (“TCC”) regarding appeals filed by 295 Jarvis LP (“Appellant”) pursuant to sections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), concerning Zoning By-law Amendment and Official Plan Amendment applications (together, “Applications”) in the City of Toronto (“City”) for lands municipally known as 295 Jarvis Street (“Subject Lands”).

2The Applications seek to facilitate the redevelopment of the Subject Lands with a 60-storey mixed-use building. The City did not make a decision on the Applications within the statutory timeframe prescribed by the Act and the appeals were filed on that basis.

3The TCC was convened for the purposes of: (1) addressing an additional Party Status request; and (2) finalising a Procedural Order and Issues List for the forthcoming Hearing scheduled to commence on May 27, 2024.

PARTY STATUS REQUEST

4At a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held on September 12, 2023, Infrastructure Ontario and The Hospital for Sick Children were each granted Party Status to these proceedings. Adam Wynne was granted Participant Status. Following the CMC, a third Party Status request dated December 20, 2023 was received from Toronto Community Housing Corporation (“TCHC”).

5TCHC is the owner of lands known municipally as 257-291 Jarvis Street and 286-320 George Street (“TCHC Lands”), which are immediately south of and adjacent to the Subject Lands. TCHC is concerned that the Appellant’s current development proposal does not provide adequate setbacks and tower separation from the TCHC Lands and will therefore adversely impact the future development of same.

6On consent of all Parties, the Tribunal granted the request and conferred Party Status to TCHC for these proceedings.

PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST

7Prior to the TCC, the Tribunal was in receipt of an updated Draft Procedural Order (“DPO”) and Draft Issues List (“DIL”). The DIL contained the issues of all Parties, including TCHC.

8At the TCC, the Tribunal directed that a number of minor edits be made to the DPO and DIL.

9David Bronskill, counsel for the Appellant, confirmed that he would make the Tribunal’s changes and proposed that the DPO be further modified to change the date in Paragraph 10 (being the date by which the Appellant shall provide copies of any revised development proposal to the other Parties) from February 2, 2024, to February 23, 2024. He proffered that the new date will provide the Appellant with time to respond to a recent Ministerial Zoning Order affecting maximum building heights in relation to hospital helicopter flight paths, while also allowing the City to report to City Council on any resulting revisions to the development proposal in advance of the Hearing. Mr. Bronskill further noted that the newly proposed date would necessitate changes to subsequent procedural dates, which he provided to the Tribunal after the TCC.

10On consent of all Parties, the Tribunal hereby approves the Procedural Order and Issues List attached hereto as Schedule 1.

ORDER

11THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Procedural Order and Issues List attached as Schedule 1 to this Order are approved and in-effect and shall govern the proceedings for this matter.

12There will be no further notice.

13This Member is not seized.

“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

PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000471

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

Applicant/Appellant: 295 Jarvis LP

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

Description: To permit development of 60-storey mixed-use building containing 618 residential units

Reference Number: 22 229720 STE 13 OZ

Property Address: 295 Jarvis Street

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000471

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000471

OLT Case Name: 295 Jarvis LP v. Toronto (City)

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

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

Description: To permit development of 60-storey mixed-use building containing 618 residential units

Reference Number: 22 229720 STE 13 OZ

Property Address: 295 Jarvis Street

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000472

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000471

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 May 27, 2024 at 10:00 a.m.

3. The length of the hearing is twelve (12) days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible.

4. The parties and participants 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. 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 shall provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible. Any person who retains 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, the expert witness(es)' curriculum vitae and Acknowledgment of Expert Duty form(s), and the order in which the witnesses will be called. This list must be delivered on or before March 22, 2024. For expert witnesses, a party is to identify the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified. Any challenges to the witness, including qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence in the area of expertise proposed shall be made by motion in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure and notice of same must be served on the parties on or before April 2, 2024.

10. 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, and updated supporting documents and reports to the other parties on or before February 23, 2024. The applicant acknowledges that any revisions to the proposal after that date without the consent of the parties may be grounds for a request to adjourn the hearing.

11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have at least one meeting before the hearing to try to resolve or reduce issues for the hearing. The experts shall prepare a list of any agreed facts and the remaining issues to be addressed at the hearing and provide this list to all of the parties and the Tribunal on or before April 5, 2024, 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 13. 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 12.

13. A witness (including any expert witness) or participant must provide to the Tribunal and the parties a witness statement (full disclosure including reports) or participant statement, respectively, on or before April 19, 2024, 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.

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

15. On or before May 3, 2024, the parties may provide to all other parties a written response to any written evidence.

16. On or before April 22, 2024, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

17. On or before May 6, 2024, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties. The Tribunal and all parties shall be notified if a model will be used, and all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the scheduled commencement of the hearing.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. On or before May 13, 2024, the parties shall prepare and file a detailed Hearing Plan that identifies the following, at a minimum: the identified parties participating in the Hearing Event, preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the date a witness is intended to attend the Tribunal, the identified witness name/expertise, and the approximate time allotted for Examination in Chief, Cross Examination and any re-examination (if any) (the “Hearing Plan”). The Hearing Plan should be adhered 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 Hearing Plan throughout the Hearing Event.

21. The parties shall prepare a Joint Document Book on or before May 13, 2024, 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 paper or an accessible electronic format in accordance with paragraph 23.

22. All filing of documents and materials shall be electronic to the Tribunal, the parties and participants. 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 or as permitted in paragraph 10. 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.

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE

EVENT

February 23, 2024

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

March 22, 2024

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

April 2, 2024

Last date to challenge identification of expert witness

April 5, 2024

Experts meeting prior to this date

April 5, 2024

Agreed Statement of Facts

April 19, 2024

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

April 22, 2024

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

May 3, 2024

Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)

May 6, 2024

Exchange of visual evidence (if any)

May 13, 2024

Final Hearing Plan filed with the Tribunal

May 13, 2024

Finalize Joint Document Book

May 27, 2024

Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 1 PARTIES/PARTICIPANTS

Parties

1. 295 Jarvis LP David Bronskill/Joe Hoffman (416) 597-4299/(416) 597-5168 dbronskill@goodmans.ca/jhoffman@goodmans.ca

2. City of Toronto Sarah O’Connor/Jason Davidson (416) 397-3578/(416) 392-4835 sarah.oconnor@toronto.ca/jason.davidson@toronto.ca

3. Infrastructure Ontario Katarzyna Sliwa/Isaiah Banach/Michael James (416) 863-4628/(416) 863-4501/(416) 4597 katarzyna.sliwa@dentons.com/Isaiah.banach@dentons.com/ michael.james@dentons.com

4. The Hospital for Sick Children Isaac Tang/Brett Davis (416) 367-6143/(416) 367-6632 itang@blg.com/bdavis@blg.com

5. Toronto Community Housing Corporation Signe Leisk/Jennifer Evola (416) 869-5411/(416) 860-6753 sleisk@cassels.com/jevola@cassels.com

Participants

1. Adam Wynne (416) 676-2441 adam.g.wynne@gmail.com

ATTACHMENT 2 ISSUES LIST

City of Toronto

Planning Act

1. Are the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with the purposes of the Planning Act as set out in Section 1.1, in particular paragraph (f)?

2. Do the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-Law Amendment have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including (d), (j), and (r)?

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

Provincial Policy Statement

4. Are the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement as required by Section 3(5) of the Planning Act, including policies 1.4.3, 2.6.3 and 4.6?

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

5. Do the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-Law Amendment conform with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe as required by Section 3(5) of the Planning Act, including policies 2.2.1.4, 2.2.6.1, 4.2.7.1, 2.2.2.3 and 5.2.5.6?

City of Toronto Official Plan

6. Do the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-Law Amendment conform with the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, including policies related to:

• Built Form and Public Realm (3.1.1, 3.1.3, 3.1.4)
• Heritage Conservation (3.1.6)
• Housing (Section 3.2.1)
• Parks (Section 3.2.3)
• Mixed Use Areas (4.5)
• Implementation (5.2, 5.6)

7. Do the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-Law Amendment conform with Chapter 6, Section 41 of the Official Plan being the Downtown Plan, including policies related to:

• Interpretation (Section 1)
• Complete Communities (Section 3)
• Mixed Uses Areas (Section 6)
• Parks and Public Realm (Section 7)
• Built Form (Section 9)
• Housing (Section 11)

8. Do the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-Law Amendment conform to Official Plan Amendment 82 (Garden District Site and Area Specific Policy), including policies related to:

• Section 2 (Objectives)
• Section 3 (Development Performance Standards)
• Section 4 (Character Area Policies)

9. Do the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendment conform to Site and Area Specific Policy (SASP) 517 (Downtown Tall Buildings Setback Area Specific Policy)?

10. Do the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-Law Amendment conform to Official Plan Amendment 453 – Policies to Address the Loss of Dwelling Rooms?

Urban Design

11. Does the proposed development meet the intent and purpose of the Tall Building Design Guidelines (2013) and the Downtown Tall Building Vision and Supplementary Design Guidelines (2012)?

12. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment result in appropriate tower locations for the Hazelburn Character Area and North George Street Character Area in the Garden District Site and Area Specific Policy?

13. Does the proposed development represent an appropriate development for Jarvis Street as a Great Street and for Block 2 of the Hazelburn Character Area in the Garden District Site and Area Specific Policy?

14. Does the proposed development fit appropriately within the existing and planned built form context, with regard to setbacks, step backs, scale, floor plate size, separation distances, street wall heights, and building base height?

15. Does the proposed development provide for an appropriate transition to adjacent properties?

16. Does the proposed development appropriately mitigate wind impacts on the public realm and adjacent properties?

17. Does the proposed development appropriately mitigate shadow impacts on the public realm, and provide for no net new shadows on Allan Gardens and the conservatory buildings in Allan Gardens at the times specified in the Garden District Site and Area Specific Policy?

Heritage Conservation

18. Does the proposed development conserve the heritage attributes and character of adjacent properties and mitigate visual and physical impact on them?

Housing

19. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard to the policies of Official Plan Section 3.2.1 (Housing) with respect to form, tenure, affordability, dwelling rooms, tenant assistance and preservation of affordable rental units?

20. Do the proposed development and Zoning By-Law Amendment provide an appropriate, mix, size and number of dwelling units?

21. Does the proposal include an acceptable tenant relocation and assistance plan to lessen hardship for existing tenants?

22. Does the proposed development meet the intent and purpose of the Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities, Urban Design Guidelines (2020)?

Amenity Space

23. Do the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment provide for sufficient indoor and outdoor amenity space?

Public Interest and Good Planning

24. Are the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment good planning and in the public interest?

Implementation

25. If the requested Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment is approved by the Tribunal, in whole or in part, should the Tribunal's final order be withheld until it has been advised by the City Solicitor that:

a. the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment are in a form and content satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the City Solicitor; and

b. the Owner has:

i. submitted a revised Pedestrian Level Wind Study, acceptable and satisfactory to the Director, Community Planning, Toronto and East York District; and

ii. provided to the City a withdrawal letter respecting the site-specific appeal of OPA 453 to be held in escrow until the ZBA is in force and effect.

Infrastructure Ontario

City of Toronto Official Plan:

26. Do the proposed OPA and ZBA conform to the Official Plan, including but not limited to the following policies?

a. 2.1(1)a), b) and g);

b. 2.2(2)a), b), c), and d);

c. 2.2.1(1);

d. 3.1.3(7)-(12) – for (10-12) through a lens of precedent set by City requirements;

e. 3.1.4(10 & 11); and

f. 4.5(2)c) through a lens of precedent set by City requirements.

Site-Specific Issues:

27. Does the Proposed Development unduly restrict the existing use of the Provincial Lands?

28. Does the Proposed Development limit potential redevelopment of the Provincial Lands, beyond limits previously agreed to by Infrastructure Ontario?

29. Do any revisions to the Proposed Development seek to rely upon tower and building setback assumptions, beyond those currently agreed to by Infrastructure Ontario, that may limit or impact the future development of the Provincial Lands?

30. Are the proposed/revised tower placements, tower height, tower setbacks, and angular plane assumptions appropriate, representing good planning?

31. Do the proposed edge interface and facade conditions provide appropriate transition to the Provincial Lands?

32. Does the Proposed Development provide appropriate pedestrian, vehicular and loading connections to, and generate no inappropriate transportation impact on, the Provincial Lands?

33. Does the Proposed Development provide appropriate park, easement, right-of-way or other public requirements, and does not rely upon adjacent sites such as the Provincial Lands to support such provision?

The Hospital for Sick Children

34. Do the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment (collectively the “Proposed Amendments”) have regard for matters of provincial interest identified in section 2 of the Planning Act, including, without limitation, the protection of public health and safety (subsection (o)), as it relates to air ambulance service by helicopters serving the SickKids heliport?

35. Are the Proposed Amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, including, without limitation, Policies 1.1.1(c), 1.1.1(g), 1.1.3.4, 1.6.4 and 1.6.9?

36. Do the Proposed Amendments conform with the Downtown Secondary Plan (OPA 406), including, without limitation, policy 9.29, requiring that new buildings and structures will be sited and massed to protect the flight paths to hospital heliports?

37. Where potential conflicts with air ambulance service by helicopters serving the SickKids heliport are identified, should the location/placement of structural features or components of the proposed development be restricted in the Proposed Amendments?

38. Should the Proposed Amendments be revised, including the provision of a holding symbol, to ensure that no part of any structure used in conjunction with the construction of the development will interfere with the flight paths to the SickKids heliport?

39. Should the Proposed Amendments be revised, including the provision of a holding symbol, to accommodate any impacts arising from rotor downwash and other expected noise, vibration and/or wind impacts on the proposed development associated with air ambulance service by helicopters serving the SickKids heliport?

40. Are the Proposed Amendments in the public interest and do the Proposed Amendments represent good planning?

Toronto Community Housing Corporation

41. Does the proposed development, proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest as set out in section 2 of the Planning Act, including but not limited to sections 2(h), 2(n), 2(p), and 2(r)?

42. Is the proposed development, proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, including but not limited to policies 1.1.1 and 1.1.3?

43. Does the proposed development, proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment conform with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019, as amended, including but not limited to policies 1.2, 1.2.1, 2.1, 2.2.1.4, 2.2.6?

44. Does the proposed development, proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment conform with the City of Toronto Official Plan, including but not limited to policies 2.2.1.2, 2.2.1.4, 3.1.3.3, 3.1.3.5, 3.1.3.6, 3.1.3.7, 3.1.4.10, 3.1.4.11, 3.1.6.5, 3.1.6.23, 3.1.6.24, 3.1.6.26, and 4.5.2(a)?

45. Does the proposed development, proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment conform with the Downtown Secondary Plan (Official Plan Amendment 406), including but not limited to policies 3.3, 3.5, 6.22, 6.28, 6.29, 6.30 9.1.2,9.1.3, 9.1.4, 9.8, 9.9, 9.10, 9.24, 9.25, and 15.1?

46. Does the proposed development, proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment conform with Site and Area Specific Policy 517 respecting Downtown Tall Buildings, including but not limited to policies B)i) - iv)?

47. Does the proposed development, proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment conform to Official Plan Amendment No. 82 (Garden District Site and Area Specific Policy), including policies related to:

48. Section 2 (Objectives);

49. Section 3 (Development Performance Standards);

50. Section 4 (Character Area Policies)?

51. Does the proposed development, proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment provide appropriate setbacks and tower separation to neighbouring properties, including meeting the general intent of the City’s Tall Building Design Guidelines?

52. Is the subject site of an appropriate size to be a tall building site; do the proposed tower setbacks export on-site setback requirements onto adjacent lands?

53. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment negatively impact the appropriate development of adjacent and neighbouring properties?

54. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment conserve the cultural heritage values, attributes and character of the adjacent Part IV designated property at 285-291 Jarvis Street?

55. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment negatively impact the adjacent Part IV designated property at 285-291 Jarvis Street?

56. Does the proposed development represent overdevelopment of the site?

57. Does the proposed development, proposed Official Plan Amendment and proposed Zoning By-law Amendment represent good planning?

ATTACHMENT 3 ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. 295 Jarvis LP

2. City of Toronto

3. Infrastructure Ontario

4. The Hospital for Sick Children

5. Toronto Community Housing Corporation

6. 295 Jarvis LP 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.