Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 13, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000564

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Glen Nyhus

Applicant/Appellant: Haastown Holdings Preston Inc.

Subject: By-law No. ZBL 24-034

Description: To permit the construction of 3 residential towers

Reference Number: OR09/23

Property Address: 102 Fountain Street South, 199 Abraham Street, 134 Fountain Street North and 144 Fountain Street North

Municipality/UT: Cambridge/Waterloo

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000564

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000564

OLT Case Name: Nyhus v. Cambridge (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Haastown Holdings Preston Inc.

Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment

Description: To permit the construction of 3 residential towers

Reference Number: OPA 77

Property Address: 102 Fountain Street South, 199 Abraham Street, 134 Fountain Street North and 144 Fountain Street North

Municipality/UT: Cambridge/Waterloo

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000989

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000564

OLT Case Name: Haastown Holdings Preston Inc. v. Waterloo (Region)

Heard: October 28, 2024 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Haastown Holdings Preston Inc.

Aaron Platt

Glen Nyhus

Jim Karahalios

City of Cambridge

Brian Duxbury Nicole Auty

Region of Waterloo

Fiona McCrea

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY GREGORY J. INGRAM ON OCTOBER 28, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This was the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) regarding the respective appeals filed by Haastown Holdings Preston Inc. (“Applicant/Appellant”) and Glen Nyhus (“Third-Party Appellant”) against the passing of Zoning By-Law Amendment No. 24-034 (“ZBA 24-034”) by the City of Cambridge (“City”) under s.34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), in a modified form as it relates to a revised proposal by the Applicant/Appellant for a mixed-use development comprised of three residential towers consisting between 18, 20 and 22 stories and totalling between approximately 620-640 residential units as well as commercial uses within the podium levels (“Revised Proposal”). The redevelopment comprises the lots municipally known as 102 Fountain Street South, 199 Abraham Street, 134 Fountain Street North and 144 Fountain Street North in the City (collectively the “Subject Lands”).

2The September 2024 CMC resulted in the Affidavit of Service being entered as an exhibit, the Region of Waterloo being granted Party status, and the Tribunal scheduling a second CMC as the Applicant/Appellant indicated that it intends to file a formal appeal of Official Plan Amendment 77 (“OPA 77”) with the Tribunal. A second CMC also provided the Parties time to contemplate the impact of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”) and its impact on the comprehensive issues list for the Procedural Order (“PO”).

OPA 77 APPEAL

3These proceedings are also the first CMC regarding the appeal filed by the Applicant/Appellant against the passing of OPA 77 by the Region of Waterloo under subsection 17(36) of the Act as it pertains to the Revised Proposal and on the Subject Lands described in paragraph [1].

4The Applicant/Appellant, on the consent of the Parties, requested that the OPA 77 appeal be heard with the Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) 24-034 Appeal. The Tribunal granted this request as the appeal relates to the same Subject Lands and Revised Proposal as the ZBA 24-034 Appeal and provides for a more efficiently organized process.

5The Tribunal entered into evidence the Affidavit of Service of Tim Brubacher sworn on October 27, 2024, and marked as Exhibit 1, and was satisfied that same demonstrates proper Notice of this CMC.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR SETTLEMENT

6The Parties are open to Tribunal-led mediation and indicated that the municipalities require direction from their respective Councils before being able to confirm their interest in participating in this process.

PROCEDURAL ORDER

7A draft PO was reviewed with the Tribunal during these proceedings. While the PO is near completion, the Parties indicated that further refinement is required on the issues and requested additional time to submit a final draft.

8The Tribunal heard submissions regarding the addition of the following to paragraph 10 of the PO template:

In the event a Party files a list of witnesses that does not include a witness with the technical expertise required to address one or more of such Party’s corresponding technically-related Issues set out in Attachment 2, such Issue(s) shall be struck from said Issues List at the written request of any Party.

9Briefly summarized, Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant submitted that technical issues submitted by Parties that are not supported by a qualified witness should be struck as it results in an unjust and inefficient hearing and places added costs on Parties who are required to respond to these issues with an expert witness.

10Briefly summarized, Counsel for the Third-Party Appellant submitted that the Parties have not discussed the suggested addition at length and contended that the addition of this language is against the “natural rules of evidence” and goes against the Tribunal’s more inclusive approach to accepting evidence. Counsel submitted that the Tribunal should be the final arbitrator on the value of the evidence, and Parties could request costs based on the type of evidence coming forward if it is not supported by an expert.

11The Tribunal, having considered the submissions from the Parties, directed the Parties to continue their deliberations on this matter as they proceed toward a final draft of the PO. Should it not be resolved, the Parties may seek further assistance through the Tribunal Rules.

12The Tribunal directed that an updated draft PO be circulated among the Parties by Monday, November 11, 2024 and that a final draft be submitted on the consent of the Parties to the Tribunal by Monday, November 18, 2024.

13The Tribunal granted additional time following the CMC for the submission of the final draft PO, which was received on Wednesday, December 4, 2024, reviewed, approved, and attached to this decision in Schedule 1 below.

HEARING PLANNING

14The Tribunal scheduled an 18-day Hearing to commence on Monday, October 6, 2025, at 10 a.m. by Video Hearing and ending on Friday, October 31, 2025. The Tribunal will not be sitting on Monday, October 13, 2025, and Tuesday, October 14, 2025. The Hearing is scheduled to proceed as follows:

15Parties 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://meet.goto.com/348282861

Access Code: 348-282-861

16Parties 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

17Persons 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.

18Individuals 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 Hearing 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

19THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeals in Tribunal File No. OLT-24-000564 and in Tribunal File No. OLT-24-000989 shall be heard together in accordance with Rule 16.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure;

2. The Procedural Order attached as Schedule 1 shall govern the future course of this proceeding.

“Gregory J. Ingram”

GREGORY J. INGRAM

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-24-000564

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Glen Nyhus

Applicant/Appellant: Haastown Holdings Preston Inc.

Subject: By-law No. ZBL 24-034

Description: To permit the construction of 3 residential towers

Reference Number: OR09/23

Property Address: 102 Fountain Street South, 199 Abraham Street, 134 Fountain Street North and 144 Fountain Street North

Municipality/UT: Cambridge/Waterloo

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000564

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000564

OLT Case Name: Nyhus v. Cambridge (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Haastown Holdings Preston Inc.

Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment

Description: To permit the construction of 3 residential towers

Reference Number: OPA 77

Property Address: 102 Fountain Street South, 199 Abraham Street, 134 Fountain Street North and 144 Fountain Street North

Municipality/UT: Cambridge/Waterloo

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000989

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000564

OLT Case Name: Haastown Holdings Preston Inc. v. Waterloo (Region)

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 Monday, October 6, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. through a video-conferencing platform.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 18 days. For clarity, the Tribunal will not sit on Monday, October 13, 2025 and on Tuesday, October 14, 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.

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. Upon issuance of the transition rules and regulations related to the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (the “PPS 2024”) certain Issues identified on the Issues List applicable to conformity and/or consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, the A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019, as amended in 2020, and the PPS 2024, as the case may be, shall be struck in accordance with the governing language of such transition rules and regulation. In the event of any dispute as to the applicability of such rules and regulations, the Tribunal may be spoken to.

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. The meaning of the terms used in this Order are set out in Attachment 4.

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

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

Requirements Before the Hearing

10. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before Monday, April 14, 2025 and in accordance with paragraph 26 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae, signed Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty Form, and the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified.

11. Any challenges to the qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence in the area of expertise proposed should be made by motion in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules and notice of same must be served on the other Parties on or before Wednesday, June 11, 2025.

12. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Monday, June 9, 2025, and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. All documents exchanged and discussions held between expert witnesses are on a without prejudice basis, with the exception of the Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues which becomes part of the record once signed by the experts. 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 23, 2025.

13. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 15 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.

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 15 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 15 below.

15. On or before Tuesday, July 8, 2025, the parties shall provide copies of their witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 26 below.

16. On or before Monday, June 9, 2025, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 26 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

17. On or before Monday, August 11, 2025, the parties shall provide copies of their responding witness statements to the other parties and to the Tribunal case co-ordinator.

18. Within 15 days of the exchange of Responding Witness Statements, each Appellant will prepare a draft Index of the Joint Document Book (based on the Witness Statements filed) and will share it with the other parties for comment. Following the exchange of Reply Witness Statements, the parties will cooperate to finalize the Index. On or before Friday, August 29, 2025, or such other date permitted by the Tribunal that is at least one month prior to the commencement of the hearing, a party which seeks to limit or exclude any portion of the opposing party’s witness statement must commence a written motion pursuant to Rule 10 to seek that relief.

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

20. On or before Monday, September 22, 2025, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 26 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

21. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book, which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Friday, September 26, 2025. Within 30 days of the exchange of Responding Witness Statements the Applicant/Appellant will prepare a draft Index of the Joint Document Book (based on the Witness Statements filed) and will share it with the other parties for comment. Following the exchange of Reply Witness Statements, the parties will work together to finalize the Index.

22. Any documents which may be used by a party in cross-examination of an opposing party’s witness shall be provided to the Tribunal and all other parties in advance of their intended use; provided that any documents to be so used may be password encrypted with the password being provided to the Tribunal and opposing counsel immediately prior to introduction of the document at the hearing.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Monday, September 29, 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.

26. 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 Rule 7. A hard copy shall be provided to the Tribunal upon request.

27. 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.

28. A summary of various important dates is contained in Attachment 5.

ATTACHMENT 1

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

PARTIES:

Haastown Holdings Preston Inc.

LOOPSTRA NIXON LLP

130 Adelaide Street West, Suite 2800

Toronto, ON

m5H 3P5

Aaron Platt

aplatt@LN.law

Tel: (289) 904-2370

Katryna Vergis-Mayo

kvergismayo@LN.law

Tel: (416) 769-1264

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE

50 Dickson St.

PO Box 669

Cambridge, ON

N1R 8S1

Nicole Auty

autyn@cambridge.ca

Tel : (519) 740-4683 ext. 4210

AND

DUXBURY LAW

1 King Street West

Suite 500

Hamilton, ON

L8P 1A4

Brian Duxbury

brian@duxburylaw.ca

Tel: (905) 570-1242

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO

150 Frederick St.

Kitchener, ON

N2G 4J3

Fiona McCrea

Fmccrea@regionofwaterloo.ca

Tel : (519) 575-4518

Glen Nyhus

JIM KARAHALIOS PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

PO Box 28009

Cambridge RPO, Preston, ON

N3H 5N4

Jim Karahalios

jim@karahalios.law

Tel: 416.409.6387

PARTICIPANTS:

~ None ~

ATTACHMENT 2

ISSUES LIST

NOTE: The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the Tribunal or any Party that the issue is relevant or appropriate, or that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over it. The identification of an issue by a Party indicates that the Party’s intent to tender evidence and/or make submissions on it, for the purpose of fairly identifying to the other Parties the case they need to meet.

ISSUES OF HAASTOWN HOLDINGS PRESTON INC.

Planning Instruments

1. Is City Council’s revised two tower proposal, with each tower consisting of 15 storeys) that was approved at the March 19, 2024 Council meeting (the “City’s Modified Proposal”) consistent with the PPS 2024 specifically, but not limited to, Policies:
   1. 2.1.6 (a);
   2. 2.2.1 (b)(c)(d);
   3. 2.3.1.2 (a)(b)(c)(d), 2.3.1.3; and,
   4. 2.4.2.1, 2.4.2.2 (b), 2.4.2.3 (a), 2.4.2.6(a).

Conversely, is the version of the proposal identified in the City’s Staff report recommending approval of the subject application (the “Haastown Proposal”) consistent with the PPS 2024.

2. Does the City’s Modified Proposal conform with the policies of the Region of Waterloo’s Official Plan (the “Region’s Official Plan”), specifically, but not limited to, Policies:
   1. 2.C.2;
   2. 2.D.1;
   3. 2.D.2;
   4. 2.D.6; and
   5. 3.A.2.

Conversely, does the Haastown Proposal conform to the Region’s Official Plan?

3. Does the City’s Modified Proposal conform to Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 6, specifically, but not limited to Policies, 2.B.1.1, 2.C.2.2 (a)(c)(e)(i)(j), 2.D.2.1, 2.D.2.2 (a)(b)(c)(e), 2.D.2.4, and 2.D.6?

4. Does the City’s Modified Proposal conform with the policies of the City of Cambridge’s Official Plan (the “City’s Official Plan”), specifically, but not limited to, Policies:

   1. 2.6.1.1;
   2. 2.6.1.2;
   3. 2.6.1.6;
   4. 2.6.1.7 a);
   5. 2.6.3.5;
   6. 2.6.6.4 c);
   7. 2.6.6.5;
   8. 2.6.6.6;
   9. 2.8.2.4;
   10. 2.8.3.1;
   11. 5.1 c), d), e), g), j);
   12. 5.3.1 a), b), c) and d);
   13. 5.4.2
   14. 5.6.1
   15. 5.6.2
   16. 5.7.1 a), b);
   17. 8.4.2.1 a), d), e) and i);
   18. 8.4.3 d); and
   19. 8.4.6.8.

Conversely, does the Haastown Proposal conform to the City’s Official Plan?

Land Use

5. Does the City’s modifications to the Haastown Proposal frustrate opportunities for intensification and re-development as contemplated in Major Transit Station Areas?

Built Form/Urban Design

6. Has the City’s Modified Proposal been appropriately and technically justified?

7. Does the City’s Modified Proposal have any adverse impacts on the surrounding existing development with respect to shadows? If so, have these impacts been appropriately mitigated?

8. Does the design and massing of the City’s Modified Proposal result in any undue impacts to the public realm? Does the City’s Modified Proposal result in a negative gateway to the City of Cambridge that is improved by the Haastown Proposal?

9. Does the City’s Modified Proposal’s parking ratio provide an appropriate implementation of the need for transit supportive development in a Major Transit Station Area?

10. Does the City’s Modified Proposal’s maximum building height of 15 storeys provide for appropriate intensification of the area, and would the building height reflected in the Haastown Proposal be more appropriate in the context?

11. Does the City’s Modified Proposal represent and adhere to principles of good urban design as compared to the Haastown Proposal?

Holding Provision

12. Are all of the Holding Provision’s criteria appropriate and necessary, specifically:
    1. Is criteria z.ii.1 of the Holding Provision (included below) appropriate or necessary?

“z.ii.1 Completion of a detailed transportation and stationary noise study and implementation measures addressed to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The detailed stationary noise study shall review the potential impacts of noise (e.g. HVAC systems) on the sensitive points of the development on adjacent noise sensitive uses. “

2. Is criteria z.ii.2 of the Holding Provision (included below) appropriate and necessary?

z.ii.2 Completion of an updated Transportation Impact Study (TIS) for the full permitted build out of the Lands, which demonstrates the following to the satisfaction of the City of Cambridge and the Region of Waterloo:

a. That all access configuration options are compared and evaluated in order to confirm the most feasible access configuration.

Prior to commencing the updated TIS, the City of Cambridge and the Region of Waterloo shall approve terms of reference.

3. Is criteria z.ii.3 of the Holding Provision (included below) appropriate and necessary?

z.ii.3 Completion of an Updated Archaeological Assessment and corresponding Ministry Acknowledgement letter for the following properties is submitted to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo:

• 102 Fountain Street South;

• 134 Fountain Street North; and,

• 144 Fountain Street North

  4. Is criteria z.ii.4 of the Holding Provision (included below) appropriate?

z.ii.4 Completion of an updated Heritage Impact Assessment in compliance with the City’s Terms of Reference for Heritage Impact Assessments, to the satisfaction of the City. The Assessment shall address adjacency to the designated property at 138 Fountain Street South, the integration of salvaged features, building exterior design, building massing, building placement and site layout.

5. Is criteria z.ii.4 of the Holding Provision (included below) appropriate, or is greater detail required to scope the content of the report to reflect the needs of a zoning by-law amendment rather than a site plan approval?

z.ii.5 Completion of a Detailed Servicing and Drainage Report to the satisfaction of the City of Cambridge and Region of Waterloo.

6. Would criteria z.ii.6 of the Holding Provision (included below) be more appropriately addressed at the Site Plan stage?

z.ii.6. Completion of a Detailed Geotechnical Report to the satisfaction of the City of Cambridge.

7. Would criteria z.ii.7 of the Holding Provision (included below) be more appropriately addressed at the Site Plan stage?

z.ii.7 Completion of a Detailed Excavation, Trenching and Shoring Plan to the satisfaction of the City of Cambridge.

8. Is criteria z.ii.8 of the Holding Provision in (included below) appropriate?

z.ii.8 Completion of a Detailed Updated Shadow Study to the satisfaction of the City of Cambridge.

9. Would criteria z.ii.9 of the Holding Provision (included below) be more appropriately addressed at the Site Plan stage?

z.ii.9 The lands have been confirmed to be one (s) consolidated parcel to the satisfaction of the City of Cambridge.

Heritage

13. Should the design of the ultimate proposal recognize any previous use of the property? If so, does the City’s Modified Proposal appropriately implement the City’s attempt to recognize the previous use of the property or does the three-tower proposal, as recommended by the City’s staff, more appropriately accomplish that objective?
14. Does the City’s Modified Proposal have appropriate regard for the adjacent heritage properties, including sight lines of the heritage properties and the enjoyment of same?
15. Is the inclusion of the following policy appropriate and does it provide sufficient clarity as to what type of design will deliver the stated need for architectural sympathy given the building envelope the City approved:

n. The building design shall be architecturally sympathetic to the original building and Part IV designated building located at 138 Fountain Street South.

16. Does the aforementioned policy attempt to regulate architectural aspects of the proposed development despite the removal of jurisdiction of the Tribunal under section 41 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 (the “Planning Act”)to regulate such matters together with the City’s election to repeal the designation by-law as applicable to the subject lands?

Public Interest and Good Planning

17. Is the City’s Modified Proposal likely to frustrate the objectives of the intention of applicable PPS 2024 as compared to the Haastown Proposal?
18. Is it good planning for a municipal council to materially revise a proposal without review and disclosure of studies, drawings and other materials that Council’s technical and substantive revisions to the proposal which were conducted entirely through in-camera meetings and discussions?
19. Does the two-tower approach reduce the amount of density that is achievable at the subject site as opposed to what is designed?
20. Does the City’s Modified Proposal represent good land use planning and is it in the public interest?
21. Does the Haastown Proposal represent good land use planning and is it in the public interest?

ISSUES OF GLEN NYHUS

22. Does the Haastown Proposal or the City’s Modified Proposal have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest as enumerated in section 2 of the Planning Act, including but not limited to (h), (m), (n), (o), (p), and (r)?
23. Is the Haastown Proposal or the City’s Modified Proposal consistent with the PPS 2024, including but not limited to:
    1. Section 2.3.1.2 (e), 2.3.1.4, and 2.3.1.6;
    2. Section 2.4.1.3 (b);
    3. Section 2.4.2.2 (b)
    4. Section 2.4.2.3 (a)
    5. Section 2.4.2.6 (a) and (b);
    6. Section 3.2.1-3.2.3;
    7. Section 3.3.1-3.3.3; and
    8. Section 6.1.5-6.1.7; 6.1.11-6.1.12?
24. Does the Haastown or the City’s Modified Proposal conform to the policies of the Region’s Official Plan, including but not limited to:
    1. Section 2.D.1 (c), (d) and (f)?
25. Does the Haastown Proposal or the City’s Modified Proposal conform to the policies, purpose, and intent of the City’s Official Plan, including but not limited to:
    1. Section 2.8 (c), (d), and (e);
    2. Section 2.8.3.1, 2.8.3.3, 2.8.3.5 and 2.8.3.6;
    3. Section 5.1 (a), (b), (c), (e), (i), (j) and (k);
    4. Section 5.7.1 (a) and (b);
    5. Section 8.4.2.1;
    6. Section 8.4.2.2;
    7. Section 8.4.2.3;
    8. Section 8.4.3 (a) and (d);
    9. Section 8.4.6.3; and
    10. Section 8.4.6.5?

Density

26. Is the proposed density in either the City’s Modified Proposal or the Haastown Proposal appropriate?
27. Does the proposed density in either the City’s Modified Proposal or the Haastown Proposal significantly change the established intensification targets for the delineated built-up area with no control on the residential density that will ultimately be achieved?
28. Is it good planning that clear targets for residential density (including minimum density targets and/or maximum density limits) are not established, nor reflected in the Region’s Official Plan, the City’s Official Plan, official plan amendments, and/or zoning by-law amendments?
29. Does the City’s Modified Proposal or the Haastown Proposal frustrate other opportunities for intensification and re-development as contemplated in the PPS, 2024, considering as well the proposed development at 255 King Street?

Height and Transition to Existing Neighbourhood

30. Does the City’s Modified Proposal or the Haastown Proposal provide for adequate transition?
31. Does the City’s Modified Proposal or the Haastown Proposal facilitate transit-supportive development and intensification that appropriately take into account the type, scale, density of the existing building track stock in the immediately surrounding areas?
32. Is it good planning to qualify the subject property as a strategic growth area where intensification and higher densities should be prioritized despite its location immediately adjacent to existing and planned low/medium density residential uses and at a significant distance from the Urban Growth Centre?

Transportation Issues

33. Will the proposed ingress and egress to and from the adjacent neighborhood, as part of the City’s Modified Proposal or the Haastown Proposal, be sufficient including but not limited to: from an emergency services perspective and from the perspective of long-term infrastructure replacement/maintenance?
34. Does the proposed ingress and egress to the site, as part of the City’s Modified Proposal or the Haastown Proposal, conform to the principles of good transportation planning, creating acceptable traffic impacts on adjacent streets, and does it provide safe access?
35. Are the proposed parking standards functional - with regards to its inventory, size, and/or operation - in the City’s Modified Proposal or the Haastown Proposal?
36. Does the City’s Modified Proposal or the Haastown Proposal change the character of an established and thriving neighbourhood?

Heritage Issues

37. Does the City’s Modified Proposal or the Haastown Proposal have appropriate regard for the adjacent heritage property, including sight lines of the heritage property and the enjoyment of same?

Overall

38. Is the City’s Modified Proposal or the Haastown Proposal likely to frustrate the objectives of the intention of the PPS, 2024?
39. Would the approval of the City’s Modified Proposal or the Haastown Proposal constitute good planning and is it in the greater public interest?

ATTACHMENT 3

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Haastown Holdings Preston Inc.

2. The Corporation of the City of Cambridge (if participating/required)

3. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo (if participating/required)

4. Glen Hyhus

5. Haastown Holdings Preston Inc. (Reply)

ATTACHMENT 4

MEANING OF TERMS

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. If an unincorporated group wishes to become a party, 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, group 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). Subsection 33.2 of the Local Planning Appeal 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 the witness’ opinions on those issues; and a list of reports 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 for the opinions and (5) a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

A Participant Statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submission of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.

Additional Information

Summons: A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons. This request must be made before the time that the list of witnesses is provided to the Tribunal and the parties. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) If the Tribunal requests it, an affidavit must be provided indicating how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the affidavit, it will require that a motion be heard to decide whether the witness should be summoned.

The order of examination of witnesses: is usually:

• 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-direct examination by the Party presenting the witness; or

• another order of examination mutually agreed among the Parties or directed by the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 5

SUMMARY OF PROCEDURAL DATES

DATE

EVENT

Monday, April 14, 2025

Exchange of list of witnesses and the order in which they will be called

Wednesday, June 11, 2025.

Motions to challenge expertise of expert witnesses

Monday, June 9, 2025

Meetings of expert witnesses to be completed

Monday, June 9, 2025

Exchange of Participant Statements¹

Monday, June 23, 2025

Filing of agreed statement of facts from meetings of expert witnesses

Tuesday, July 8, 2025

Exchange of expert reports/expert witness statements/witness statements, evidence outlines for witnesses under summons.

Monday, August 11, 2025

Exchange of Responding Witness Statements

Tuesday, August 26, 2025

Circulation of draft Document Book Index

Tuesday, September 2, 2025

Confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required

Monday, September 22, 2025

Exchange of visual evidence

Friday, September 26, 2025

Completion of joint document book

Monday, September 29, 2025

Parties to prepare and file hearing plan

Monday, October 6, 2025

Hearing commences

Footnotes

1. 1Note: As of the issuance of this Procedural Order, no requests for Participant Status were made by any persons.