Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 27, 2024 CASE NO.: OLT-22-001939

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: 1734141 Ontario Limited Appellant: Aragon (Wellesley) Developments (Ontario) Corp. Appellant: Building and Land Development Association Appellant: Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto; and others Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 183 Municipality: City of Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-22-001939 Legacy Case No: PL131355 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-001939 Legacy Lead Case No: PL131355 OLT Case Name: Lee v. Toronto

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(4) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. O. 18, as amended

Appellants: Multiple Appellants Subject: By-law No. 235-2-16 – To designate Historic Yonge Street Heritage Conservation District and Historic Yonge Street Heritage Conservation District Plan Municipality: City of Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-22-001941 Legacy Case No: MM160035 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-001939 Legacy Lead Case No: PL131355 OLT Case Name: 2019284 Ontario Inc. v. Toronto (City)

BEFORE: M. A. SILLS VICE-CHAIR

Tuesday day, the 27th day of February, 2024

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS the Procedural Order, as agreed to between the Parties and attached hereto as Schedule “A”, shall be in force and effect for the purpose of governing the required procedures leading up to and including the hearing, which is scheduled to commence on June 3, 2024. The Tribunal has set aside 21 days for the hearing.

“Euken Lui” EUKEN LUI ACTING REGISTRAR

Ontario Land Tribunal Website: 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.

CASE NOS.: OLT-22-001939

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(4) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. O. 18, as amended

Procedural Order

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

The video hearing will begin on June 3, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. https://meet.goto.com/996288525
The length of the hearing will be about 21 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. The procedural order deadlines are generally found in Attachment 1.
The Parties and Participants identified at the Case Management Conference are listed in Attachment 2 to this Order.
The Issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3 to this Order. 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.
The order of evidence is set out in Attachment 4 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 consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.
Any person intending to participate in the hearing shall provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal. Any such person who retains a representative must advise the other Parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number.
If the hearing is to proceed electronically, 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 (https://olt.gov.on.ca/tribunals/lpat/).

Requirements Before the Hearing

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 January 19, 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 and notice of same must be served on the other Parties on or before on or before February 5, 2024.
Expert witnesses in the same discipline(s) shall have at least one meeting to try to resolve or reduce the 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 March 20, 2024.
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, the acknowledgement of expert's duty and curriculum vitae. Copies of this must be provided as in Section 14. 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 he/she intends 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 other Parties at the same time as the delivery of expert witness statements, as in Section 14.
A witness or Participant must provide to the Tribunal and the Parties a witness statement or Participant statement, respectively, on or before April 17, 2024 or the witness or Participant may not give oral evidence at the hearing. Participants are only permitted to provide written evidence to the Tribunal, unless otherwise permitted by the Tribunal.
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 Section 14.
On or before April 17, 2024, the Parties shall provide copies of their witness statements and expert witness statements (full disclosure including reports) to the other Parties.
At least on or before May 1, 2024, the Parties may provide to all other Parties a written response to any written evidence.
On or before April 8, 2024, the Parties shall advise the Tribunal of whether any hearings dates scheduled for this matter may be released from the Tribunal's calendar. This request may only be made on consent of all of the Parties. If no hearing dates are intended to be released from the Tribunal's calendar, no Party is required to advise the Tribunal anything further in that regard.
On or before May 15, 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, all Parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the scheduled commencement of the hearing.
A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. Such a motion shall be in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rule 10, which requires that the moving Party provide copies of the motion to all other Parties at least 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.
A Party who provides a witness’ written evidence 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.
On or before May 15, 2024, the Parties shall prepare and file a detailed Work 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 “Work Plan”). The Work 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 Work Plan throughout the Hearing Event. In the event of a disagreement between the Parties about the Work Plan, the Tribunal may be spoken to.
The Parties shall prepare a Joint Document Book on or before May 15, 2024, and which 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 Section 21.
If one or more Appellants wish to propose any modification(s) to the Historic Yonge Street Heritage Conservation District or Historic Yonge Street Heritage Conservation District Plan, any such modification(s) shall be delivered to all Parties and the City on or before February 28, 2024. Should an Appellant attempt to advance any modification(s) after this date without the consent of the City the Tribunal may limit or exclude such modification(s) from being considered at the hearing of the merits.
All filing of documents and materials shall be electronic to the Tribunal, the Parties and Participants (if any). The Tribunal will be provided a hard copy of documents and materials in advance of the hearing event as soon as practicable. 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 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, dated June 29, 2021, or as may be amended. Section 21 applies regardless if the hearing event is in-person or electronic.
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.
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.
The purpose of this Procedural Order and the meaning of the terms used in this Procedural Order are set out in Attachment 5.

This Member is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE: Name of Member ) Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
January 19, 2024	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
February 5, 2024	Last date to challenge identification of expert witness
February 28, 2024	Final date to propose modifications
March 20, 2024	Agreed Statement of Facts
April 17, 2024	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
May 1, 2024	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
May 15, 2024	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
May 15, 2024	Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal
May 15, 2024	Finalize Joint Document Book
June 3, 2024	Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

Historic Yonge Street Heritage Conservation District Appeals

Appellant	Address	Representative
A1	Cresford (Rosedale) Developments Inc.	587-599 Yonge, 2-4 Dundonald, 7-9 Gloucester
A2	Lanterra 501 Yonge Developments Ltd.	501-521 Yonge, 6-8 Alexander, 23 Maitland
A3	Lanterra Developments (Bay Wellesley) Ltd.	5-25 Wellesley West, 14-26
A4	KingSett Capital Inc. CCD 543 Yonge LP	Various
A5	Jing Mei Liu	6 Wellesley West
A6	David Feinman	516 Yonge
A7	The Governing Council of the University of Toronto	730 Yonge
A8	Weiner Associates	619-623 Yonge
A9	Mayling Holdings Inc.	586 Yonge, 6-16 Wellesley West, 5-7 St. Nicholas
A10	Lifetime St. Mary Street Inc. (assumed by JV Heritage Ltd.)	10 St. Mary
A11	Mizrahi Development Group	Various
A12	Owner of 675 Yonge Street	675 Yonge
A13	BILD	N/A
A15	Oberon Development Corporation	615-617 Yonge
A16	Prattas, G.H.A.K.S. & A.	566, 574, 576, 578, 624 Yonge
A17	Church Wellesley Neighbourhood Association	N/A
A18	Bay Cloverhill Community Association	N/A
A19	2019284 Ontario Inc.	10-16 Wellesley West
PRT1	1209623 Ontario Limited/The Brass Rail Tavern (Toronto) Limited (Granted February 11, 2022)	701 Yonge Street and adjacent parking lot
PTP1	The Estate of Robert Meixner (Granted February 11, 2022)	588 and 590 Yonge Street
PTP2	1734141 Ontario Limited (Granted February 11, 2022)	579 Yonge Street

Official Plan Amendment Number 183 Appeals (Phase 2)

Appellant	Address	Representative
A2	1734141 Ontario Limited	579 Yonge St
A3	KingSett Capital Inc. CCD 543 Yonge LP	Various sites including: 663 Yonge Street 639-651 Yonge Street 14 Isabella Street 668 Yonge Street & 2-4 Irwin Avenue 646-664 Yonge Street 577 Yonge Street 568 Yonge Street & 1-3 Wellesley Street West 564 Yonge Street 556 Yonge Street 544-550 Yonge Street 538 Yonge Street 530 Yonge Street & 6-8 Breadalbane Street 145 St. Luke Lane 502-528 Yonge Street & 7 Breadalbane Street 496 Yonge Street & 2 Grosvenor Street 475 Yonge Street
A7	RML 9 Isabella Street Limited and RML 625 Yonge Street (assumed by RML 619 Yonge Street Limited, RML 9 Isabella Street Limited and RML 625 Yonge Street)	625-637 Yonge 1-9 Isabella St
A12	BILD	Entire OPA area Phase II
PRT1	Bay Cloverhill Community Association Inc. (Granted June 18, 2021)	N/A
PRT2	Church Wellesley Neighbourhood Association Inc. (Granted June 18, 2021)	N/A
PRT3	Mizrahi Development Group (The One ) Inc. (Granted February 11, 2022)	1 Yonge Street

ATTACHMENT 3

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 either relevant or appropriate. The identification of an issue on this list by a Party indicates that Party’s intent to lead evidence or argue that the issue is relevant to the proceeding, for the purpose of fairly identifying to the other Parties the case they need to meet and shall not be construed as the Tribunal have jurisdiction over such matters in each circumstance. Accordingly, no Party shall advance an issue not identified on the Issues List without leave of the Tribunal.

KingSett, BILD, CCD 543 Yonge LP and JV Heritage Properties Limited¹

HCD ISSUES

Interpretation/Scope

Should the Plan be modified to remove any provisions, such as the definition of adjacent, which could be understood to have effect beyond the boundaries of the Plan?
Should the Plan be modified to remove directions/requirements for matters insufficiently related to heritage conservation under the Ontario Heritage Act or the heritage attributes of the resources within the District, such as but not limited to the provision and maintenance of “POPS”, “laneways”, “gateways”, sustainability and street trees.
Should the Plan include a “deeming” provision providing that any heritage permit granted by Council is deemed to be in accordance with the Plan?
Are defined terms within the Plan adequate and are they consistent and in conformity with in-force policy and legislation?
Do the terms that have been italicized in the body of the Plan appropriately correspond to the defined terms in Appendix A?

Boundary

Has a reasonable rationale been provided for the proposed Plan boundary?
Does the Plan provide a sufficient rationale for the proposed character sub-areas?
Should the Plan boundary be modified such that the Plan only encompasses lands and properties which reflect and/or relate to identified heritage attributes that collectively merit designation as a HCD? If so, what are appropriate modifications?
What modifications to the Plan would be appropriate in respect of the Plan boundary or the boundaries of the character sub-areas, or both?
Should the boundaries of the Plan be modified to be consistent with the boundaries established by the designating by-law (By-law 235-2016) i.e. by removing 8 Charles Street East and the easterly portion of 475 Yonge Street?
Should the boundaries of the Plan be modified to be consistent with the boundaries established in SASP 382 (OPA 183) i.e. by removing the lands north of Charles Street East and West?

Periods of Significance/Standards of Attributes

Does the Plan adequately recognize the later periods of significance (“Subway Construction and Modern Redevelopment” and “1970s to Present Day”, as identified in the HCD Study) such that the cultural heritage value of the proposed District has been appropriately identified and described?
Should the Plan be modified to clarify how the District Heritage Attributes should be applied in the context of an approval under the Plan, given:

(a) the inconsistency between some attributes identified on a District-wide basis and attributes identified for the different character sub-areas in other parts of the Plan;

(b) differing “periods of significance”; and

Objectives

Are the Plan’s Objectives sufficiently clear, precise and accurate so as to provide certainty with respect to the application of Section 41.2?
Are the Plan’s Objectives compatible with the existing and planned context of this area of Yonge Street, given that the lands contained in the Plan boundary include lands which are located in the Downtown, are designated as Mixed Use Areas 1 by the Downtown Plan, and are therefore designated for growth?

Policies and Guidelines

Are the Plan’s policies, guidelines and objectives internally consistent?
Are there inconsistencies/internal contradictions between the characterization of the HCD (as reflected in the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value and the characterization of the character sub-areas) and the policies, guidelines and objectives?
Are mandatory policies or guidelines which provide direction on development anticipated in the area in accordance with the in-force Official Plan appropriate for inclusion in an HCD Plan?
Are quantified urban design policies including stepbacks and angular planes appropriate for inclusion in an HCD Plan?²
Are the stepbacks in policies 5.8.1 and 5.8.4 and the guidelines to policies 5.8.1 and 6.4.3 clear and are they appropriate?

20A: Are the mandatory stepbacks in policies 5.8.1 and 5.8.4 and the guidelines to policies 5.8.1 and 6.4.3 appropriate?³

Is the inclusion of a maximum streetwall height in policy 6.4.3 appropriate? If a height is to be specified, should it be revised from 12 metres to 18 metres in order to be consistent with SASP 382?
Is reference to the requirement to “maintain” in policies 5.4.1, 5.11.5, 5.14.2 and 5.16.3, and in the associated guidelines, appropriate given the definition of “maintained” in the Plan?
Is the mandatory requirement in policies 5.5.1, 5.11.5, 5.13.4 and 5.14.2, and in the guidelines to policies 5.6.1, 5.19.2 and 5.19.3, to replace “in-kind” appropriate?
If provisions respecting views are to be retained, should the identified views and associated policy language be modified to be consistent with SASP 382?
Is it appropriate to include a policy (6.9.1) related to the redevelopment of non-contributing properties identified as view termini (Map on page 75) when those sites are either non-contributing or of an undetermined status (i.e. overclad buildings)?
Should the Plan, including policies 5.3.2 and 5.8.3, be modified to permit a contributing property to be relocated provided that appropriate consideration is given to the provisions of the Official Plan and the other provisions of the Plan?
Should the Plan be modified to acknowledge that any negative impact on the cultural heritage values of a heritage resource should not automatically justify preventing works intended to address health, safety, security, accessibility or sustainability?

Economic Analysis

Are policies 5.9 and 5.15 appropriate given the economic consequences and their impact on sustainable business practices?

Mandatory Review Period

Should the Plan require a mandatory review after a certain period of time?
Is the failure to include a mandatory review contrary to Official Plan Policy 3.1.5(31)(b), which directs that HCD studies and plans will “include protocols for amendment and periodic review”?

Inadequate Consideration of the Policy Landscape

Should the Plan be modified to provide an appropriate framework to integrate land use planning considerations, including but not limited to conformity with provincial plans and consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 into the decision making thereunder?
Does the failure to do so render it non-conforming with the Official Plan, inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conflict with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019? If so, what are appropriate modifications?
Is the failure to consider complementary changes to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law contrary to Official Plan Policy 3.1.5(31)(c), which directs that HCD studies and plans will “include provisions addressing the relationship between the Heritage Conservation District Plan and the Official Plan and provincial policy within the context of the Heritage Conservation District Plan’s directions for conserving the cultural heritage values and character of the Heritage Conservation District, its attributes, and the properties within it, including but not limited to identifying any required changes to the Official Plan and zoning by-law”?
Does the Plan conflict with the existing and planned built form context as reflected in OPA 406 (Downtown Plan) as approved by the Minister?
Does the Plan conflict with OPA 524 in respect of minimum densities for the proposed Protected Major Transit Station Areas for Bay Station, Bloor-Yonge Station, Wellesley Station and College Station?

The Study

Does the Study, appended to the Plan, adequately address the requirements in section 40 of the Ontario Heritage Act? If not, what additional information is required?
Is the Plan consistent with the Study? If not, what are the areas of inconsistency and what modifications should be made to the Plan as a result?

Statements of Contribution

Are the descriptions of identified contributing properties contained in Appendix B of the Plan sufficiently detailed to permit proper interpretation and application of the Plan’s objectives, policies and guidelines?

OPA 183 Issues

General

Should existing planning approvals be recognized in OPA 183 through a list of prevailing by-laws?
Are the un-numbered paragraphs contained in OPA 183 preamble only or are they operative policy?

Section 2 – Objectives

Recognizing the location of the Yonge subway system and the identification of the area as a Growth Centre in the Growth Plan, and the delineation of PMTSAs by the City in OPA 524, should one of the objectives be to encourage growth and redevelopment where appropriate?
Is it appropriate to reference “the strong heritage fabric” of the area in the absence of a Heritage Conservation District (“HCD”) study and/or HCD plan identifying those elements?
Should the reference to “heritage properties” and the “historic streetwall scale” of Yonge Street be explicitly stated to refer to designated and/or listed buildings?

Section 5 – Character Area Policies

Yonge Street Character Area

Preamble – Is it appropriate to state that tall buildings are “generally not appropriate” based, in part, on the “prevalence of heritage properties”? Would the assessment of the appropriateness of new built form in the context of heritage resources be better achieved through a Heritage Impact Assessment? If so, does this policy preclude that assessment or unfairly restrict it?
Policy 5.3.1. – Is there planning justification for an 18 metre or 4 storey height maximum on Yonge Street when no maximum height is found in the base Official Plan?
Policy 5.3.2 – Is it appropriate to require store frontage widths at grade along Yonge Street to be consistent with the average width of at grade retail that is currently found within 2 blocks to the north and south of a given site along either side of Yonge Street?
Policy 5.3.3 – Is it appropriate to require development to provide building setbacks to secure a minimum sidewalk zone of 6 metres in all cases?
Policy 5.3.5 – Is it appropriate to require that development must demonstrate as part of the development application review process that best efforts have been made to not cast any new net shadow on linear parks east of Yonge Street during the day for all seasons of the year?
Policy 5.3.6. – Is it appropriate to require a 10 metre tower setback from the street frontage property line for “heritage properties” without those properties being designated individually or identified within an HCD? Is it appropriate to predetermine a setback from all “heritage buildings” in the areas in the absence of development applications and Heritage Impact Assessment for such applications?
Is it appropriate to require a 10 metre tower setback for sites without “heritage properties” as an Official Plan policy without consideration for site specific conditions or the nature of the development proposed?
Policy 5.3.7 – Is it appropriate to require the tower portion of a tall building to be set back a minimum of 20 metres, excluding balconies, from any abutting property line in the St. Nicholas Character Area or the Gloucester/Dundonald Character Area?
Policy 5.3.8 – Is it appropriate to limit the maximum height within the "Height Transition Area" to “in the range of 45 storeys or 170 metres”? Furthermore, is it appropriate to specify that the reference to “in the range of” is limited to 3 additional storeys or 10 metres (including rooftop mechanicals)?”
Policy 5.3.9 – Is it appropriate to limit development within the "Height Core Area" by way of an angular plane drawn from the Yonge Street lot line, commencing at a height of 18 metres above the street level, and then angling upwards at an angle of 75 degrees away from Yonge Street over the site?
Policy 5.3.9 - Is it appropriate to limit development on a heritage property within the "Height Core Area" by way of a 75-degree angular plane measured from the street line on Irwin Street or on the north side of St. Joseph Street commencing at a height of 18 metres above street level?

College/Carlton Street Character Area

Policy 5.8.1 – Is it appropriate to limit the maximum height within the "Height Peak Area" to “in the range of 55 storeys or 190 metres”? Furthermore, is it appropriate to specify that the reference to “in the range of” is limited to 3 additional storeys or 10 metres (including rooftop mechanicals)?”
Policy 5.8.4 – Is it appropriate to require a 20 metre tower setback from the Yonge Street frontage property line for “heritage properties” without those properties being designated individually or identified within an HCD? Is it appropriate to predetermine a setback from all “heritage buildings” in the areas in the absence of development applications and Heritage Impact Assessment for such applications?
Policy 5.8.4 – Is it appropriate to require a 10 metre tower setback for sites without “heritage properties” as an Official Plan policy without consideration for site specific conditions or the nature of the development proposed?
Policy 5.8.7 – Is it appropriate to require store frontage widths at grade along Yonge Street to be consistent with the average width of at grade retail that is currently found within 2 blocks to the north and south of a given site along either side of Yonge Street?

Section 6.1 – Heritage

Are these policies necessary in the context of OPA 199 which was approved and is now incorporated into the Official Plan? Do these policies, including but not limited to policies on views, conflict with the policy language in OPA 199 as approved?
What is meant by properties which are “identified as potential heritage properties to be protected under the Ontario Heritage Act” (“OHA”)? Is it reasonable and appropriate to equate such properties for the purposes of the OPA with those that are designated or listed under the OHA?

RML 619 Yonge Street Limited, RML 625 Yonge Street Limited, and RML 9 Isabella Street Limited

Did the methodology for the underlying analysis of the Historic Yonge HCD (i.e. the determination of contributing and non-contributing buildings) result in a sufficient analysis of cultural heritage resources within the study area?
Does the consultation process, as documented in the HCD Plan, represent a full, clear and transparent process, producing an accurate and verifiable result?
From a cultural heritage perspective, do the physical, associative or contextual characteristics of the Subject Properties (individually or collectively) justify their inclusion as “contributing” properties in the HCD Plan? If not, should the HCD Plan be modified to remove references to the Subject Properties as “contributing” to the HCD?
Do the HCD Study Process and the HCD Plan accurately and sufficiently recognize the existing site-specific zoning of the Subject Properties, considering in particular Sections 5.3.1, 9.3.1 and By-law 888-2016?
Do the designating by-law and the proposed HCD Plan appropriately and sufficiently balance various policy objectives, as required by Provincial and municipal policies and legislation? In particular:

a) PPS (e.g. Policy 1.2.1, 1.7.1, Section 2)

b) Growth Plan (e.g. Policy 1.1, 1.2, 1.2.1, 4.1, 4.2)

c) Official Plan (e.g. Policy 5.6(1.1); OPA 406, Policy 9.10)

Does the requirement for a consistent streetwall in the HCD Plan (referenced at Sections 3.2, 3.3(9), 4.4, 6.3.1, 6.4.3, 6.5.1, 6.5.3, 7.5.3) conflict with the City’s Official Plan (including Section 3.1.2(5) and (9)) and Urban Design Guidelines which require contextually-appropriate design and balancing of various design objectives? If so, what are appropriate modifications to the HCD Plan?
Is it appropriate for the HCD Plan to institute a prohibition of demolition for contributing properties without regard for site-specific conditions or circumstances (at Section 5.3.1), in contrast to the Official Plan (e.g. Policy 5.6(1.1), Downtown Plan (OPA 406) Policy 9.10), which allows development on properties on the Heritage Register?
Are the mandatory requirements in the HCD Plan respecting additions and alterations to contributing properties (e.g. HCD Plan s. 5.6 and 5.7) appropriate, given the Official Plan requirements and related guidelines respecting urban design, which require contextually-appropriate design and balancing of various design objectives?
Are the mandatory requirements in the HCD Plan respecting redevelopment of non-contributing properties (e.g. HCD Plan s. 6.3 to 6.8) appropriate, given the Official Plan requirements and related guidelines respecting urban design, which require contextually-appropriate design and balancing of various design objectives?

Oberon Development Corporation (615-617 Yonge Street)

Does the Historic Yonge Street Heritage Conservation District (the “HCD Plan”) represent good heritage conservation planning and is it in the public interest?
Do the HCD Plan, policies and guidelines reflect best practices in heritage conservation?
Is the HCD Plan consistent with the requirements mandated in Provincial planning policies, including the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and in the Toronto Official Plan, including, without limitation, growth objectives and intensification policies?
Are the HCD Plan’s Objectives compatible with the existing and planned context of the area surrounding the HCD Plan?
Are quantified urban design policies and guidelines, including without limitation, setbacks, stepbacks, angular planes and other measures to regulate transition appropriate in the context of an HCD Plan?
Is it appropriate to have mandatory and/or prescriptive policies within the HCD Plan?
Do the HCD Plan Policies recognize the evolving nature of the Yonge Street Character Area, including recent development applications approved by the City of Toronto?

1734141 Ontario Limited

OPA 183 Issues

Is the sidewalk width in Policy 5.3.3 too wide at 6 metres?
Is the requirement in Policy 5.3.6 a) for a 20 metre minimum setback from Yonge Street to the tower portion of any tall building on a site where a heritage building is present inappropriate?
Is the 45 storey height limit in Policy 5.3.8 appropriate or should there be no height limits?
Is the 75 degree angular plane requirement in 5.3.9 a) appropriate?
Is the requirement in 5.3.9 b) that a heritage property can be retained in its entirety appropriate or would partial retention of a heritage building be adequate?

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

NOTE: Where Parties of like interest have issues in common, they shall make reasonable efforts to coordinate their examinations-in-chief and cross-examinations so as to minimize any duplication or overlap of evidence.

City of Toronto

Appellants and Parties aligned in interest with the City of Toronto

Appellants and Parties opposed to the City of Toronto

Reply Evidence

City of Toronto

ATTACHMENT 5

Purpose of the Procedural Order and 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 authorization 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, must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

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 and Visual Evidence:

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a Party 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 intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

Witness Statements:

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 the witness 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 the expert’s (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, 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.

Footnotes

JV has not raised issues 6-11, 24, or 26 and has worded issues 19 and 20 differently, as shown.
JV Heritage’s issue does not refer to angular planes
Issue 20A is as worded by JV Heritage

Lee v. Toronto, 2024 CanLII 16966

Case Summary