Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 11, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001063

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

Applicant/Appellant: Jacob's Tent Inc.

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

Description: To permit the additional development of 5 new mixed-use buildings to the subject property

Reference Number: 22 196279 STE 19 OZ

Property Address: 2575 & 2625 Danforth Avenue

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-23-001063

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-001063

OLT Case Name: Jacob's Tent Inc. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S. O. 2006, c. 11 Sched A.

Applicant/Appellant: Jacob's Tent Inc.

Subject: City of Toronto Site Plan Approval

Description: To permit the additional development of 5 new mixed-use buildings to the subject property

Reference Number: 22 195995 STE 19 SA

Property Address: 2575 & 2625 Danforth Avenue

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-23-001064

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-001063

Heard: February 16, 2024 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties City of Toronto Jacob’s Tent Inc. Metrolinx Canadian Tire Real Estate Ltd. Tri-Metro Investments Inc. Minto Communities on behalf of Minto (Dawes) GP Inc. Dandaw Developments Ltd.

Counsel Laura Bisset Jason Davidson Daniel Artenosi Michael Cara Andrew Baker Callum Hutchinson Jennifer Evola Signe Leisk (in absentia) Andy Margaritis Liam Valgardson Mark Flowers (in absentia) Belinda Schubert Cynthia MacDougall (in absentia) Daniel Angelucci Michael Foderick (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY W. DANIEL BEST ON FEBRUARY 16, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1The Tribunal convened a first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) for the above noted matter. Jacob’s Tent Inc. (“Appellant”) has an appeal against the City of Toronto (“City”) for failing to make a decision within statutory timeframes for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (“Act”) and for approving plans or drawings for a site plan control area under s. 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S. O. 2006, c. 11 Sched A (“COTA”).

2The Subject Property is approximately 3.18 hectares (“ha”) in size and has dual frontage onto Danforth Avenue and Main Street in the City. The Subject Property is currently occupied by four residential apartment buildings that range from nine to 29 storeys in height, and a community centre that is currently being leased to the City of Toronto.The proposed development and ZBA would permit additional development on the underutilized portions of the Subject Property comprised of five new mixed-use buildings with heights of 15, 29, 33 and 55 storeys, creating 1543 new residential units, while retaining the existing 1123 residential rental units and a proposed 6073 square metres (“m²”) of non-residential gross floor area to facilitate a new daycare and expanded retail units. The existing daycare would be demolished, and 19 existing residential rental units would be either converted or demolished to facilitate the new mixed-use development.

3Although the ZBA and COTA applications were appealed together, the Applicant is not looking to consolidate or hear the appeals together. The Applicant wishes to proceed with the COTA appeal separately and is not looking to schedule a hearing for the COTA appeal at this time.

4On consent of the Applicant and the City, the COTA appeal will remain in abeyance.

5The Affidavit of Service sworn on January 30, 2024 meets the requirements of the Tribunal and is marked as Exhibit 1. No further notice will be required for the ZBA appeal, but notice will be required for the COTA appeal should it come to pass.

6There were Party Status requests from Metrolinx, Canadian Tire Real Estate Ltd., Tri-Metro Investments Inc., Minto Communities on behalf of Minto (Dawes) GP Inc. and Dandaw Developments Ltd. The Applicant and the City consented to the requests.

7The Tribunal finds that the requests satisfy the necessary applicable Legislative tests, and the presence of the prospective Parties above is necessary to enable the Tribunal to adjudicate effectively and completely on the issues in the proceeding (Rule 8.2 – Ontario Land Tribunal – Rules of Practice and Procedure) and that there is no prejudice to any other Party. Therefore, the Tribunal grants Party status to Metrolinx, Canadian Tire Real Estate Ltd., Tri-Metro Investments Inc., Minto Communities on behalf of Minto (Dawes) GP Inc. and Dandaw Developments Ltd. for the ZBA appeal.

8One request for Participant status was received by June Hall, Director of the Main Square Day Care Centre (“Centre”) and is marked as Exhibit 2 to this CMC. There were no objections from the Parties to the request for Participant status. The Tribunal finds that the request is reasonable and appropriate given the Centre’s location on the Subject Property since 1973 and the existence of a Section 37 Agreement under the Act dated January 27, 2006 tied to the Centre. Accordingly, Participant status is granted to June Hall for the ZBA appeal.

9The Appellant circulated a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) which was presented to the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed a revised draft PO be submitted, on consent, to ensure that the Issues of all Parties are included and that the appropriate dates for exchange of documents and meetings of expert witness are reflected. The Appellant’s Counsel was directed to submit the draft PO before Friday, March 01, 2024, to the Case Coordinator.

10The Parties are aware of the availability of Tribunal-led mediation. All Parties are of the opinion it is premature to request such mediation but that this may be a possible path for this matter and understand that they may request this mediation at their convenience.

11Having received the revised draft PO from the Appellant, prior to the issuance of this Decision and having examined the Issues List attached to the PO, the Tribunal approves of its contents and deems the PO to be in force and effect to govern the proceedings up to and including the hearing of the merits as scheduled below. Any changes to the Procedural Order will require the approval of the Tribunal.

12A second CMC to be held prior to the hearing of the merits which would allow the Parties to update the Tribunal on progress in reducing, scoping or narrowing the issues and any other matters was requested by the Appellant. The Tribunal was in agreement.

13Based on the discussions during the CMC regarding the number of Parties, issues and the expected number of witnesses each Party will rely on, a hearing of the merits of 10 days was deemed reasonable.

14A full-day Case Management Conference has been scheduled to commence at 10 a.m. on Monday, November 25, 2024.

15A 10-day Merit Hearing has been scheduled to commence at 10 a.m. on Monday, February 03, 2025.

16The Hearings are scheduled to proceed by video as follows: Case Management Conference: Monday, November 25, 2024 at 10 a.m. GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/687587165 Access code: 687-587-165 Audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or Toll-Free 1-888-299-1889 Audio-only access code: 687-587-165 Merit Hearing: Monday, February 03, 2024 – Friday, February 14, 2025 (10 days) starting at 10 a.m. each day GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/927921077 Access code: 927-921-077 Audio-only line: +1 (647) 497-9391 or Toll-Free 1-888-299-1889 Audio-only access code: 927-921-077

17Parties and Participants are asked to log in to the Video Hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections.

18Parties and Participants 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 GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

19Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling in to an audio-only telephone line.

20Individuals 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 may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

ORDER

21THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS the directions contained in this Decision.

22The Procedural Order, appended to this Decision as Schedule 1, is approved and is in force and effect.

23There will be no further notice for the appeal under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

24The appeal under s. 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S. O. 2006, c. 11 Sched A. is to be held in abeyance and should the Parties require the Tribunal to adjudicate, notice will be required.

25The Member is not seized but may be contacted through the Case Coordinator should procedural issues arise.

“W. Daniel Best”

W. DANIEL BEST

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-23-001063

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

Applicant/Appellant: Jacob's Tent Inc.

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

Description: To permit the additional development of 5 new mixed-use buildings to the subject property

Reference Number: 22 196279 STE 19 OZ

Property Address: 2575 & 2625 Danforth Avenue

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-23-001063

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-001063

OLT Case Name: Jacob's Tent Inc. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S. O. 2006, c. 11 Sched A.

Applicant/Appellant: Jacob's Tent Inc.

Subject: City of Toronto Site Plan Approval

Description: To permit the additional development of 5 new mixed-use buildings to the subject property

Reference Number: 22 195995 STE 19 SA

Property Address: 2575 & 2625 Danforth Avenue

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-23-001064

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-001063

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 February 03, 2025 at 10:00 a.m.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 10 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 2.

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. With the exception of removal or narrowing of the issues, there will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits and/or all of the parties consent to the changes, 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 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 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, which shall include revised architectural plans and drawings, to the other Parties on or before November 5, 2024. The applicant acknowledges that any revisions to the proposal after that date without the consent of the Parties may be grounds for a request to adjourn the hearing.

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 October 16, 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 November 5, 2024 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the parties shall prepare and file any Statement(s) of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case coordinator on or before November 20, 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 December 5, 2024, the parties shall provide copies of any witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case coordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

15. On or before December 5, 2024, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement(s) 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 December 30, 2024, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

17. On or before January 6, 2025, the parties shall provide copies of their written response(s) to any written evidence to the other parties and to the Tribunal in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

18. On or before January 14, 2025, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

19. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before January 27, 2025.

20. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

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 January 27, 2025 with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

23. All filings shall be submitted electronically and in hard copy. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Rule 7.

24. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

This Member is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE

EVENT

October 16, 2024 (110 days prior to hearing)

Exchange of Witness Lists

November 5, 2024 (30 days prior to Expert Witness Statements)

Deadline for Revisions to Proposed Development

November 5, 2024 (90 days prior to hearing)

Experts meeting(s) prior to this date

November 20, 2024 (75 days prior to hearing)

Deadline to File Any Agreed Statement(s) of Facts

December 5, 2024 (60 days prior to hearing)

Exchange of Witness Statements and Experts Reports, Participant Statements (if any), and summoned witness outlines (if any)

December 30, 2024 (35 days prior to hearing)

Parties to Advise If Any Hearing Dates Can Be Released

January 6, 2025 (28 days prior to hearing)

Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)

January 14, 2025 (20 days prior to hearing)

Exchange of Visual Evidence (if any)

January 27, 2025 (7 days prior to hearing)

Filing of Work Plan and Joint Document Book

February 3, 2025 – February 14, 2025

Hearing

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

A. PARTIES

*Counsel/Agent

Jacob’s Tent Inc. (Applicant/Appellant)

Daniel Artenosi / Michael Cara Overland LLP Yonge Norton Centre 5255 Yonge Street, Suite 1101 Toronto, ON M2N 6P4 Email: dartenosi@overlandllp.ca / mcara@overlandllp.ca Tel: 416.730.0320 / 416.730.8844

City of Toronto

Jason Davidson / Nathan Muscat / Michelle LaFortune The City of Toronto, Legal Services Metro Hall, 55 John Street 26th Floor Toronto, ON M5V 3C6 Email: jason.davidson@toronto.ca / nathan.muscat@toronto.ca / michelle.lafortune@toronto.ca Tel: 416.392.8782 / 416.392.4835 / 416.338.0642

Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited

Signe Leisk / Jennifer Evola Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP Suite 2100, Scotia Plaza 40 King Street West Toronto, ON M5H 3C2 Email: sleisk@cassels.com / jevola@cassels.com Tel: 416.869.5411 / 416.860.6753

Minto Communities Canada Inc. on behalf of Minto (Dawes) GP Inc.

Cynthia MacDougall / Belinda Schubert McCarthy Tétrault LLP Toronto-Dominion Bank Tower, Suite 5300 Toronto, ON M5K 1E6 Email: cmacdoug@mccarthy.ca / bschubert@mccarthy.ca Tel: 416.601.7634 / 416.601.8212

Dandaw Developments Limited

Michael Foderick / Daniel Angelucci McCarthy Tétrault LLP PO Box 48, Suite 5300 Toronto-Dominion Bank Tower Toronto, ON M5K 1E6 Email: mfoderick@mccarthy.ca / dangelucci@mccarthy.ca Tel: 416.362.1812 / 416.601.7569

Tri-Metro Investments Inc.

Mark Flowers / Andy Margaritis Davies Howe LLP 425 Adelaide Street West, 10^th Floor Toronto, ON M5V 3C1 Email: markf@davieshowe.com / andym@davieshowe.com Tel: 416.977.7088

Metrolinx

Andrew Baker / Callum Hutchinson Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Bay Adelaide Centre, East Tower, 22 Adelaide St. W, Toronto, ON M5H 4E3 Email: abaker@blg.com / chutchinson@blg.com Tel: 416.367.6250 / 416.367.6033

B. PARTICIPANTS

*Counsel/Agent

Main Square Day Care Centre

*June Hall Email: msdcjune@bellnet.ca Tel: 416.691.3909 Ext. 7

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 having 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.

Issues List of the City of Toronto

Planning Act

1. Does the proposed development, and Zoning By-law Amendment have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest as set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including (f), (i), (q) and (r)?

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

Provincial Policy Statement

3. Is the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), particularly 1.1.1, 1.1.3.2, and 4.6, pursuant to Section 3 of the Planning Act?

Growth Plan

4. Does the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment conform with and not conflict with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019), particularly 2.2.1.4, 2.2.2.3, 2.2.3.1, 2.2.4.9, and 5.2.5.6?

City Of Toronto Official Plan

5. Does the proposed development conform to the in-force policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, including sections: 3.1.1 (The Public Realm), 3.1.3 (Built Form), 3.1.4 (Built Form – Building Types), 3.2.1 (Housing), 3.2.2 (Community Services and Facilities), 3.2.3 (Parks and Open Spaces), and 4.5 (Mixed Use Areas).

6. Does the proposed development conform to the SASP 577 as approved by the Tribunal, being Chapter 7 to the City’s Official Plan (adopted through Official Plan Amendment 478 or "OPA 478"), as it relates to policies 2 (Public Realm), 3 (Community Services and Facilities), 4 (Sustainability and Resilience), 6 (Land Use), 7 (Built Form), 9 (Housing), and 11 (Servicing)?

Urban Design Guidelines

7. Does the proposed development meet the general intent and purpose of the city-wide Tall Building Design Guidelines, particularly guidelines 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4?

8. Does the proposed development meet the general intent and purpose of the Danforth Avenue Urban Design Guidelines, particularly guidelines 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4?

Site-Specific Issues

9. Is the site organization and built form of the proposed development appropriate, including:

a. Are the proposed building configurations, orientations, heights, setbacks, appropriate?

b. Does the proposal consolidate and reduce vehicular loading and driveways to provide dedicated areas for pedestrians and open spaces?

c. Does the proposal provide appropriate site permeability and provide appropriate pedestrian connection between the Main TTC Station and Danforth GO?

d. Does the proposal provide an appropriate transition to surrounding land uses and built form?

e. Are the shadow impacts from the proposed development adequately limited, on the sidewalk on the north side of Danforth Avenue and on public parks?

f. Are the wind impacts from the proposed development adequately limited, particularly on spaces where people are expected to congregate and sit, such as outdoor amenity spaces?

g. Does the proposed development represent principles of good planning and urban design?

10. Does the proposed development provide an appropriate on-site parkland dedication?

11. Has the replacement of the existing Community Recreation Centre on site been provided for in the proposed development?

12. Are improvements to the existing buildings to address the impact from additional proposed units provided in the proposal?

13. Does the proposed development resolve issues related to transportation, including the provision of road widenings?

14. Does the proposed development resolve issues related to servicing capacity and appropriate stormwater management?

15. In light of the foregoing issues, do the proposed development and proposed Zoning By-law Amendment represent good planning and good urban design, and is approval of the proposal in the public interest?

16. In the event that the Ontario Land Tribunal allows the appeals in whole or in part, should the Tribunal withhold its Order(s) on the Zoning By-law Amendment until City Solicitor has confirmed that the following conditions have been satisfied:

a. the final form and content of the draft Zoning By-law is to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.

b. the owner has secured appropriate improvements to the existing rental buildings at its sole expense and at no cost to tenants and secured the provision of a Construction Mitigation and Tenant Communication Plan;

c. the owner has secured replacement of the 19 rental housing units, including the same number of units, bedroom type and size and with similar rents and secured an acceptable Tenant Relocation and Assistance Plan addressing the right for existing and former tenants to return to a replacement rental unit on the lands at similar rents, the provision of alternative accommodation at similar rents, and other assistance to mitigate hardship, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

d. City Council has approved the Rental Housing Demolition application 22 196262 19 RH in accordance with Chapter 667 of the Toronto Municipal Code and pursuant to Section 111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 to permit the demolition of 19 existing rental dwellings at 2575 and 2625 Danforth Avenue and the owner has entered into, and registered on title to the lands, one or more agreements with the City, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor, securing all rental housing-related matters, including tenant relocation and assistance, necessary to implement City Council's decision; and

e. the owner has submitted a draft plan of subdivision application to secure, among other matters, the conveyance of land for and construction of new public roads and parkland.

Issues List of Tri-Metro Investments Inc.

17. Will the proposed development result in unacceptable adverse impacts to the existing uses at 2721 Danforth Avenue or the redevelopment of these lands as proposed by the Draft Plan of Subdivision, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-Law Amendment applications filed by Tri-Metro Investments Inc. (City File No. 21 235157 STE 19 OZ)?

18. Does the proposed development appropriately provide for or contribute to the community infrastructure planned for the area through Official Plan Amendment No. 478, including but not limited to new parks and public roads?

Issues List of Dandaw Developments Limited

19. Does the proposed redevelopment of 2575 and 2625 Danforth Avenue conform with the City of Toronto Official Plan Amendment No. 478, and in particular, the policies relating to road, sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer servicing and capacity?

20. Is there adequate road, sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer capacity to service any proposed redevelopment of 2575 and 2625 Danforth Avenue, having regard to their planned function and the surrounding lands, including 8 and 10-30 Dawes Road?

21. Are any upgrades are required for road, sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer services to service any proposed redevelopment of 2575 and 2625 Danforth Avenue?

22. If upgrades are required for road, sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer services, how such upgrades should be secured through the approvals process for the proposed redevelopment of 2575 and 2625 Danforth Avenue?

23. Will any aspect of the servicing of the proposed redevelopment of 2575 and 2625 Danforth Avenue, or the framework put in place to provide for the servicing of the proposed redevelopment of 2575 and 2625 Danforth Avenue, negatively affect the servicing of 8 and 10-30 Dawes Road?

24. Are any changes required to the proposed servicing of the proposed redevelopment of 2575 and 2625 Danforth Avenue to prevent adverse impacts on the servicing of 8 and 10-30 Dawes Road?

25. Will the road network required for the proposed redevelopment of 2575 and 2625 Danforth Avenue result in adverse impacts to access or traffic for 8 and 10-30 Dawes Road?

26. Are any changes required to the road network for the proposed redevelopment of 2575 and 2625 Danforth Avenue to prevent adverse impacts to access or traffic for 8 and 10-30 Dawes Road?

Issues List of Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited

Provincial Legislation and Policy

27. Does the proposed development have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections (f), (h), (i), (j), (m), (n), (p), (q) and (r)?

28. Is the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), including policies 1.1.1a), 1.1.1b), 1.1.1g), 1.1.3.2a), 1.1.3.2b), 1.1.3.2f), 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, 1.5.1a), 1.5.1b), 1.6.6.1, 1.6.6.7, 1.7.1(e) and 4.6?

29. Does the proposed development conform to and not conflict with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020), including policies 2.1, 2.2.1.3, 2.2.1.4, 2.2.4.8, 2.2.4.9, 4.2.5.1, and 4.2.5.2?

City Policy and Guidelines

30. Does the proposed development conform to and/or maintain the intent and purpose of the City of Toronto Official Plan, including the following policies:

a. Avenues: Reurbanizing Arterial Corridors – 2.2.3.1 and 2.2.3.2

b. Healthy Neighbourhoods –2.3.1.7

c. The Public Realm – 3.1.1.1, 3.1.1.2, 3.1.1.3, 3.1.1.12, 3.1.1.15, 3.1.1.18 and 3.1.1.19

d. Built Form – 3.1.3.1, 3.1.3.2, 3.1.3.3, 3.1.3.5, and 3.1.3.6

e. Built Form – Building Types – 3.1.4.10 and 3.1.4.11

f. Parks and Open Spaces – 3.2.3.1, 3.2.3.2, 3.2.3.4, 3.2.3.5, and 3.2.3.8

g. Mixed Use Areas – 4.5.2

1. Does the proposed development conform to and/or maintain the intent and purpose of Official Plan Amendment 420 and Site and Area Specific Policy 552, including the following policies:

a. Public Realm – 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3

b. Development Criteria – Entire Study Area – 5.1 and 5.2

c. Urban Design Guidelines – 9.1

2. Does the proposed development conform to and/or maintain the intent and purpose Official Plan Amendment 478 and Site and Area Specific Policy 577, including the following policies:

a. Objectives – 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, and 1.5 and 1.12

b. Public Realm – 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.2.3, 2.2.5, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.4, 2.3.5, 2.3.7, and 2.3.9

c. Built Form – 7.3.1, 7.3.2, and 7.3.6

d. Servicing 11.1, 11.2,11.3, 11.4, and 11.5,

e. Implementation 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, and 12.4

3. Will the proposed development result in unacceptable adverse impact to the existing uses at 2681 Danforth Avenue or the redevelopment of 2681 Danforth Avenue?
4. Does the proposed development provide an appropriate parkland dedication location in respect of the above policies and the adjacent property at 2681 Danforth Avenue?
5. Does the proposed development appropriately respond to Council-approved urban design guidelines, including the Tall Building Design Guidelines?
6. Have appropriate contributions to public realm infrastructure, inclusive of the extension of Dawes Road, been secured for the proposed development?
7. Does the proposed development adequately address servicing having regard to the planned function of the subject lands and surrounding lands?

Good Planning and Public Interest

8. Is the form and content, including regulatory standards, of the proposed Draft Zoning By-law Amendment appropriate?
9. Does the proposed development including the Draft Zoning By-law Amendment represent good planning and good urban design, and is approval in the public interest?

Issues List of Minto Communities Canada Inc. on behalf of Minto (Dawes) GP Inc.

40. Has the servicing proposal in respect of the development which would be permitted by the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment include provisions appropriate to secure that it does not unduly impact the servicing of proximate lands, including but not limited to with reference to the process/protocol set out in OPA 478 or Official Plan policy otherwise? If not, what changes to the servicing proposal or development permissions would be required to avoid such impact(s)?

41. Is the impact of the net vehicular traffic anticipated to be generated by the development which would be permitted by the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment on affected properties acceptable? If not, should such instruments be modified to provide for:

a. different development permissions; and/or

b. secured improvements to traffic infrastructure;

such that affected lands are not subject to undue impact. If such is the case, what would the necessary changes be?

42. Does the proposed development inappropriately impact the area pedestrian network, including in respect of area transit access as identified in Clauses 2.2.3 and 2.2.4 of OPA 478?

43. What is the appropriate form of the Zoning By-law Amendment having regard to the resolution of these and any other issues raised in this appeal?

Issues List of Metrolinx

Land Use Planning

44. Is the proposed development consistent with the PPS, including policies 1.2.1(d), 1.2.6.1, and 1.6.8.3?

45. Does the proposed development conform with the Growth Plan, including policies 2.2.4.11, 2.2.4.8, 3.2.1.5, and 3.2.5.1(b)?

46. Does the proposed development conform with the City of Toronto Official Plan, including policies 2.1(1)(e), 2.2(4), 2.2(7)(e), and 2.4(2)(c)?

47. Does the proposed development result in negative impacts to the Metrolinx lands located at 213 Main Street?

Road and Pedestrian Network

48. Does the proposed development result in adverse impacts to access or traffic circulation to the rail corridor and 213 Main Street?

49. Does the proposed development result in adverse impacts and/or result in safety issues respecting access, traffic, and pedestrian circulation?

Compatibility with GO Station and Rail Corridor Operations

50. Does the proposed development provide for appropriate wayfinding and access to the Danforth GO Station (including connection to Main Street Subway Station) and is the proposed height, density, and built form of the proposed development appropriate given proximity the Danforth GO Station and the Metrolinx-operated rail corridor?

51. Does the proposed development employ adequate setbacks and is the proposed development otherwise compatible with the adjacent uses, namely, the Danforth GO station and Metrolinx-operated rail corridor?

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. The Order of Evidence will be described in greater detail in the Hearing Plan that is filed with the Tribunal.

1. Jacob’s Tent Inc. (Applicant/Appellant)

2. City of Toronto

3. Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited

4. Minto Communities Canada Inc. on behalf of Minto (Dawes) GP Inc.

5. Dandaw Developments Limited

6. Tri-Metro Investments Inc.

7. Metrolinx

8. Reply by Jacob’s Tent Inc. (if necessary)

Attachment to 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.