Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 14, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000686

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

Applicant and Appellant: 2350 Yonge Street Inc.

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

Description: To permit a 50-storey residential building with a 9-storey base and a 41-storey tower including 323 residential units

Reference Number: 22 176294 NNY 08 OZ

Property Address: 2350 – 2352 Yonge Street

Municipality/UT: Toronto / Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000686

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000686

OLT Case Name: 2350 Yonge Street Inc. v. Toronto (City)

Heard: January 22, 2024 by Telephone Conference Call

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
2350 Yonge Street Inc.	Rodney Gill Matthew Lakatos-Hayward (in absentia)
City of Toronto	Gabe Szobel
297506 Ontario Ltd	Mark Flowers Andrew Valela (in absentia)
Phoenix 2323 Yonge Street Inc. Phoenix 2329 Yonge Street Inc. Phoenix 2345 Yonge Street Inc.	Anne Benedetti
2354 Yonge Street Inc.	Brian Noy (in absentia) Josh Epstein (in absentia)
EPRA-LPRO-SKC 500 Duplex Coalition	Thomas Cohen*

MEMORANDUM OF oral decision DELIVERED BY G.A. CROSER ON JANUARY 22, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This matter is an appeal of the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to make a decision within the statutory timeframe for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) for the property located at 2350 – 2352 Yonge Street (“Subject Property”).

2A second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was heard on this matter on Tuesday, December 5, 2023. At that event, Party Status was granted to EPRA-LPRO-SKC 500 Duplex Coalition (“Coalition”), an incorporation of four community groups residing near the Subject Property. Thomas Cohen, the Coalition’s representative, stated that a planner had been retained by the Coalition, that his group was familiar with the Tribunal procedures, that it would not delay matters, and that it would fully participate in the process.

ISSUES LIST

3The Tribunal received the Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List (“IL”) from the Parties after the CMC. However, upon review, the Tribunal noted that the IL provided by the Coalition was unsatisfactory. Direction was provided to the Coalition to revise its IL in a more appropriate manner. It was suggested that the Coalition review the IL of the other Parties in order to formulate its Issues in a more appropriate manner.

4The Coalition provided the Tribunal with a revised IL which still did not meet the expected standard. As a result, a Telephone Conference Call (“TCC”) was scheduled by the Tribunal to address matters relating to the Coalition’s IL with all the Parties.

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL

5At the TCC, the Tribunal explained to the Coalition that its IL must be framed in neutral language and could not include suggestive or inflammatory language. Further, its issues must fit within the confines of a ZBA. In other words, issues more suited to a site plan application, for example, would not be appropriate.

6Counsel for the other Parties were gracious in suggesting possible alternative wording for some of the Issues. However, the shared sentiment was that it was not the place for the other Parties to draft alternative language or to phrase the issues in a more appropriate manner on behalf of the Coalition.

7Mr. Cohen and the Coalition’s planner, Terry Mills, who was also present at the TCC, stated that they understood the Tribunal’s position and that they would work on framing the Coalition’s issues in a more appropriate manner.

8The Tribunal directed that the Coalition’s latest revised IL should be circulated to the other Parties for their comment on or before January 26, 2024. The other Parties may provide any commentary or concerns on the issues before a finalized IL is provided to the Tribunal by Friday, February 2, 2024. If the concerns with the Coalition’s IL are not resolved by Friday, February 2, 2024, then the Tribunal will require the Parties to attend a subsequent TCC or CMC, that will be used by the Tribunal to finalize the IL.

9The Coalition produced its revised IL in accordance with the deadline set above. Based on comments then received by the required date, the Coalition accepted some minor edits to its IL. As such, a further TCC or CMC is not required, and the Procedural Order and Issues List is attached to this Decision.

ORDER

10The Tribunal orders that the Procedural Order and Issues List attached as Schedule 1 is approved and shall govern the proceedings.

G.A. Croser

G.A. CROSER

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 NO(S).: OLT-23-000686

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

Applicant and Appellant: 2350 Yonge Street Inc.

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

Description: To permit a 50-storey residential building with a 9-storey base and a 41-storey tower including 323 residential units

Reference Number: 22 176294 NNY 08 OZ

Property Address: 2350 – 2352 Yonge Street

Municipality/UT: Toronto / Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000686

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000686

OLT Case Name: 2350 Yonge Street Inc. v. Toronto (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.

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will begin on September 10, 2024 at 10:00 a.m.

3. The length of the hearing is nine (9) days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1 (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 on or before February 13, 2024. 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 13, 2024 and in accordance with paragraph 23 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 5, 2024 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 12, 2024.

12. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 14 below. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.

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

14. On or before June 27, 2024, the parties shall provide copies of their [witness and] expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

15. On or before June 27, 2024, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

16. On or before August 1, 2024 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

17. On or before August 26, 2024 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. 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, 2024 and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

19. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before August 21, 2024.

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 August 30, 2024 with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

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.

This Member is [not] seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
FEBRUARY 13, 2024	Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any)
MAY 13, 2024	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
JUNE 5, 2024	EXPERT MEETING
JUNE 12, 2024	FILING THE Agreed Statement of Facts
JUNE 27, 2024	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
AUGUST 1, 2024	PARTIES SHALL CONFIRM WITH TRIBUNAL IF ALL RESERVED HEARING DATES ARE STILL REQUIRED
AUGUST 1, 2024	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
AUGUST 21, 2024	Preparation AND FILING OF Joint Document Book
AUGUST 26, 2024	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
AUGUST 30, 2024	HEARING Plan filed with the Tribunal
SEPTEMBER 10, 2024	Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 1 PARTIES/PARTICIPANTS

Parties

1. 2350 Yonge Street Inc. Rodney Gill / Matthew Lakatos-Hayward (416) 597-4136 / (416) 849-6906 rgill@goodmans.ca / mlakatoshayward@goodmans.ca

2. City of Toronto Gabe Szobel (416) 338-1889 gabe.szobel@toronto.ca

3. 297506 Ontario Ltd. Mark Flowers / Andrew Valela (416) 263-4516 / (416) 263-4513 markf@davieshowe.com / andrewv@davieshowe.com

4. Phoenix 2323 Yonge Street Inc., Phoenix 2329 Yonge Street Inc., and Phoenix 2345 Yonge Street Inc. Anne Benedetti (416) 597-5929 abenedetti@goodmans.ca

5. 2354 Yonge Street Inc. Jonathan Cheng / Calvin Lantz (416) 869-6807 / (416) 869-5669 jcheng@stikeman.com / clantz@stikeman.com

6. EPRA-LPRO-SKC-500 Duplex Coalition Tom Cohen tcohen@yorku.ca

ATTACHMENT 2 ISSUES LIST

City of Toronto

Planning Act

1. Do the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment have appropriate regard for the following matters of provincial interest set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act: Sections 2 (f), (h), (i), (j), (k), (n), (p), (q), and (r)?

Provincial Policy Statement (2020)

2. Are the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with the following policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020): policies 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.4.3, 1.6, 1.7.1 and 4.6?

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

3. Do the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment conform to, and not conflict with, the following policies of A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020): policies 2.2.1.4, 2.2.2.3, 2.2.6.3, and 5.2.5.6?

City of Toronto Official Plan

4. Do the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment conform with the following sections and policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan:

(a) Healthy Neighbourhoods (2.3.1.3)

(b) Transportation Change (2.4.7, 2.4.22)

(c) The Public Realm (3.1.1.2, 3.1.1.3, 3.1.1.6, 3.1.1.12, 3.1.1.13, 3.1.1.15, 3.1.1.16);

(d) Built Form (3.1.3.1, 3.1.3.3, 3.1.3.4, 3.1.3.5, 3.1.3.6, 3.1.3.7, 3.1.3.9, 3.1.3.10, 3.1.3.11, 3.1.3.13);

(e) Built Form – Building Types (3.1.4.8, 3.1.4.9; 3.1.4.10; 3.1.4.11);

(f) Housing (3.2.1): 3.2.1.12;

(g) Future of Retailing (3.5.3.3); and

(h) Mixed Use Areas (4.5.2); and

Yonge Eglinton Secondary Plan

5. Do the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment conform with the following sections and policies of the Yonge Eglinton Secondary Plan (OPA 405): 1.3.1, 1.3.6, 2.1.1, 2.2.1, 2.4, 2.6.1, 3.1.7, 3.1.9, 3.2.3, 4.34, 5.1.1(d), (h) and (i), 5.3.5,5.3.31, 5.3.33, 5.3.34, 5.3.35, 5.3.36, and 5.4.3, 5.6.5, 5.6.6, and 5.7.5?

City of Toronto Guidelines

6. Does the proposal adequately support the size objectives of the Growing Up Guidelines?

7. Does the proposed development meet the intent and purpose of the City of Toronto Tall Building Guidelines?

8. Does the proposal meet the requirements of the Toronto Green Standard particularly as it relates to transportation demand management, electric vehicle infrastructure, tree planting, soil volume, stormwater management and tree planting requirements?

Site Specific Issues

9. Does the proposed development conform individually and collectively with the vision for Midtown, and specifically, the Montgomery Square Character Area, the Area Structure of the Midtown, the Midtown Transit Station Areas (Secondary Zone), the Built Form Principles, and the anticipated height range for the Montgomery Square Character Area?

10. Is the site large enough to accommodate the proposed development and conform to the Official Plan and Yonge Eglinton Secondary Plan policies and urban design and built form standards noted above?

11. Does the proposed development site preclude the orderly development of adjacent properties on the block?

12. Has the proposal demonstrated how the orderly development of adjacent properties can develop independently of this development site?

13. Has the proposal demonstrated that the site has appropriate access to service the proposed development?

14. Is the proposed height and density appropriate for the site?

15. Is the proposed built form, height, transition and massing and the resulting sun, shadow and wind impacts appropriate for the site, and does it represent good planning?

16. Does the proposal provide for a public realm that includes an appropriate retail street environment?

17. Are the site organization and built form of the proposed development appropriate in terms of its proposed massing, including setbacks, step backs, scale, separation distances, streetwall heights, design, and transition to neighbouring properties? Are the resulting impacts appropriate? In particular:

(a) Does the development have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities Guidelines, in particular, as it relates to the sizes of the units and type of amenity spaces?

(b) Does the proposed massing of the base building provide appropriate grading relationships and transition to and interface with the neighbouring properties to the north, west and south?

(c) Is the proposed tower transitioned appropriately to the surrounding land uses?

(d) Is the massing of the proposed development appropriate in terms of its impact on access to sunlight, overlook, and privacy?

18. Does the proposal provide sufficient accessible parking spaces?

19. Is there sufficient infrastructure capacity to accommodate the proposed development (including water, sanitary and stormwater)?

20. Has a parkland dedication requirement of an appropriate size, location and configuration been proposed as per Section 42 of the Planning Act, Policy 3.2.3 of the City of Toronto Official Plan and Chapter 415 Article III of the Toronto Municipal Code?

General

21. Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment represent good planning, good urban design, and is it in the public interest?

Implementation

22. If the Tribunal approves the proposal in whole, or in part, should the Tribunal’s Order be withheld until the following conditions are satisfied?

(a) the final form and content of the draft Zoning By-laws are to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

(i) if required, provisions for a holding by-law pursuant to Section 36 of the Planning Act regarding the provision of an acceptable sanitary system solution constructed and operational as determined by the Chief Engineer & Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services which may include the applicant obtaining MECP Environmental Compliance Approval and upgrading the existing municipal infrastructure off site;

(b) the owner has satisfactorily addressed the Transportation Services and Engineering and Construction Services matters in the Engineering and Construction Services Memorandum dated September 16, 2022, and any outstanding issues arising from the ongoing technical review (including provision of acceptable reports and studies), as they relate to the Zoning By-law Amendment application to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services and Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;

(c) Submit to the Chief Engineer and Executive Director of Engineering and Construction Services for review and acceptance, prior to approval of the rezoning application, a Functional Servicing Report to determine the storm water runoff, sanitary flow and water supply demand resulting from this development and whether there is adequate capacity in the existing municipal infrastructure to accommodate the proposed development;

(d) Make satisfactory arrangements with Engineering and Construction Services and enter into the appropriate agreement with the City for the design and construction of any improvements to the municipal infrastructure, should it be determined that upgrades are required to the infrastructure to support this development, according to the accepted Functional Servicing Report accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director of Engineering and Construction Services;

(e) Provide space within the development for installation of maintenance access holes and sampling ports on the private side, as close to the property line as possible, for both the storm and sanitary service connections, in accordance with the Sewers By-law Chapter 681.10 and to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;

(f) the owner has provided financial securities for any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure identified in the acceptable Functional Servicing Report and Stormwater Management Report, to support the development, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, and General Manager, Toronto Water, where it has been determined that improvements or upgrades are required to support the development. In requiring any off site municipal infrastructure upgrades, the owner is to make satisfactory arrangements with Engineering & Construction Services for Work on the City's Right-of-Way;

(g) the owner has submitted a revised Travel Demand Management Plan acceptable to, and to the satisfaction of, the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the General Manager, Transportation Services;

(h) the owner has submitted architectural plans reflecting the proposal as approved in whole or in part, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

(i) that the owner has submitted a tenant relocation and assistance plan to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor in accordance with Official Plan Policy 3.2.1.12; and,

(j) the owner has submitted an updated complete Toronto Green Standards (TGS) Checklist and Statistics Template, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.

297506 Ontario Ltd.

1. Will the proposed development and/or zoning by-law amendment for the subject lands adversely affect the adjacent lands at 2346 Yonge Street and 28 Orchard View Boulevard (collectively “2346 Yonge”) either in their current condition or with potential redevelopment based on as-of-right zoning permissions? If so, should the proposed development and/or zoning by-law amendment be revised and, if so, in what manner?

2. Will the proposed development and/or zoning by-law amendment adversely affect the potential for 2346 Yonge to redevelop for a high-rise mixed-use building? If so, should the proposed development and/or zoning by-law amendment be revised and, if so, in what manner?

3. Should the zoning by-law amendment for the subject lands prohibit windows on the southern façade and on portions of the western façade?

Phoenix 2323 Yonge Street Inc., Phoenix 2329 Yonge Street Inc., and Phoenix 2345 Yonge Street Inc.

1. Does the application have appropriate regard to matters of Provincial interest in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections (f), (h), (m), (n) and (r)?

2. Is the application consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), including sections 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.2.1, 1.5.1(a) and 1.6.7.1?

3. Does the application conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, including sections 1.2.1, 2.2.1.4, 3.2.2.1 and 3.2.2.2?

4. Does the application conform with the City of Toronto Official Plan, including policies 2.2.4, 2.2.5, and sections 2.2.1 (Downtown: The Heart of Toronto), 3.1.1 (Public Realm), 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 (Built Form)?

5. Does the application have appropriate regard for, and appropriately implement, the Tall Building Design Guidelines?

6. Does the proposed development inappropriately limit the potential future redevelopment of the lands located known municipally as 2323 – 2329 Yonge Street and 2345 Yonge Street?

7. If approved by the Tribunal, what are appropriate pre-conditions to the issuance of a final order? Is the form and content of the proposed zoning by-law amendment appropriate?

Issues List of 2354 Yonge Street Inc.

1. Are the proposed building setbacks and tower stepbacks appropriate?

2. Do the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment facilitate the appropriate development of the block bounded by Yonge Street, Orchard View Boulevard, Helendale Avenue, and Duplex Avenue?

3. Do the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment inappropriately limit the potential future redevelopment of the lands municipally known as 2354 Yonge Street? If so, should the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment be revised, and if so, in what manner?

4. Do the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment constitute good planning and are they in the public interest?

5. Have the impacts of the proposed development upon the neighbouring property at 2354 Yonge Street, including as it relates to access, stormwater management, snow load, and other matters, been adequately studied and addressed to ensure that the proposed development will not result in any unacceptable impacts upon the neighbouring property? If so, should the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment be revised, and if so, in what manner?

6. What measures should the applicant take to mitigate potential adverse construction impacts to existing buildings and structures on the neighbouring property at 2354 Yonge Street?

7. If the appeal is allowed by the Tribunal, what are the appropriate conditions of approval?

Issues List of EPRA-LPRO-SKC-500 Duplex Coalition

1. Is the proposed development appropriate for placement in the Montgomery Square Character Area?

2. Is the proposed development an appropriate building form in this general context?

3. Is the proposed development of an appropriate height, scale, and massing?

4. Is the proposed development’s exclusively residential purpose appropriate for this location?

5. Is the proposal’s lack of retail/service uses at grade appropriate for this Priority Retail Street?

6. Will the proposed development contribute to the Montgomery Square’s planned environment?

7. Will the proposed development be compatible with the area’s urban design standards?

8. Is the proposed building height appropriate for this location?

9. Does the proposed development provide an adequate and appropriate range of housing options?

10. Has the proposed development provided a comprehensive context assessment?

ATTACHMENT 3 ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. 2350 Yonge Street Inc.

2. City of Toronto

3. 297506 Ontario Ltd.

4. Phoenix 2323 Yonge Street Inc., Phoenix 2329 Yonge Street Inc., and Phoenix 2345 Yonge Street Inc.

5. 2354 Yonge Street Inc.

6. EPRA-LPRO-SKC-500 Duplex Coalition

7. Reply of 2350 Yonge Street Inc., 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.

Click or tap here to enter text.