Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 13, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000792

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

Applicant/Appellant: Bloor Gold Residences Inc. and Bloor Gold West Residences Inc.

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

Description: To permit the redevelopment of the Subject Lands with three 13-storey residential buildings

Reference Number: 22 175298 WET 02 OZ

Property Address: 251-285 The West Mall

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-23-000792

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000792

OLT Case Name: Bloor Gold Residences Inc. v Toronto (City)

Heard: February 27, 2024, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Bloor Gold Residences Inc. (“Appellant”) Counsel Aaron Platt

Parties City of Toronto (“Toronto”) Counsel Marc Hardiejowski

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY A. SAUVE ON FEBRUARY 27, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This is the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) of this matter whereby the Applicant is appealing the non-decision of Toronto regarding their application to amend Toronto’s Comprehensive Zoning By-Law No. 569-2013. The Zoning By-Law Amendment (“ZBA”) is necessary for the redevelopment planned by the Appellant.

2The Appellant wishes to redevelop the subject lands located at 251-285 The West Mall, with three, 13-storey residential buildings with a total of approximately 610 residential units. The existing 11 two and a half story apartment buildings and ancillary buildings would subsequently be demolished.

3The Proposal includes a total gross floor area (“GFA”) of approximately 47,432.2 square meters (“m²”). The total GFA also includes 1,632.2 m² of below grade residential GFA. In addition, the Proposal includes approximately 2,269.5 m² of indoor/outdoor amenity space and a total of 248 parking spaces across two underground levels.

4The Application was complete as of July 22, 2022. Toronto had failed to make a decision regarding the Application within the statutory timeframe, and the Application was appealed.

STATUS REQUESTS

5At the previous CMC, the Tribunal had not received any Party status requests or Participant status requests although one person did express interest. The Tribunal Ordered at that CMC, that all Participant status requests be submitted to the Tribunal by December 18, 2023. Since then, the Tribunal received three Party status requests and ten Participant status requests. Two of the Party status requestors also requested Participant status and they are included in those numbers.

6The first Party status request heard was from a resident of one of the buildings directly affected by this application, Mr. Stephen Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell was in attendance; however, Party status was not granted. After a brief discussion, it was found that the issues he wanted to raise, such as renters’ compensation and tenant rights, are not the subject matter of this appeal. Also, Mr. Mitchell was unprepared to inform the tribunal how he intended to assist the Tribunal as a party to this matter. He had not turned his mind toward the planning issues he wanted to raise nor what evidence, if any, he wanted to provide the Tribunal.

7Mr. Mitchell informed the Tribunal that he had also attended the first CMC but did not file a Party status request within the proper timeframe. There was much discussion at the first CMC regarding the Order of the Tribunal regarding late filing only applying to Participant status requests and not for Party status requests. This distinction was also noted in the Decision. The Tribunal finds that Mr. Mitchell was unprepared to act as a Party in this matter. While the Tribunal does not expect perfect, or even considerable, knowledge of our Practice and Procedures, it was evident that Mr. Mitchell did not make an effort to familiarize himself of the subject matter. Mr. Mitchell indicated that he wanted his position to be heard which is why he asked for Party status. Mr. Mitchell was granted Participant status on consent.

8A second Party status request was also submitted by a resident of one of the buildings affected, Ms. Elizabeth Walker. After a brief discussion with Ms. Walker, she indicated that she would like to rescind the Party status request and, instead, ask for Participant status. Ms. Walker was granted Participant status on consent.

9A third-Party status request was submitted by Ms. Megan Lowden who is also a resident of one of the affected buildings. Ms. Lowden was not in attendance. Ms. Lowden had also submitted a Participant status request. Ms. Lowden’s Party status request was denied; however, she was granted Participant status on consent.

10Participant status was also granted on consent to:

1. Ted Wozny
2. Cynthia McDonald
3. Debbie Basciano and Peter Brading
4. Charlene McCarty
5. Jacey and Richard Lucoe
6. Chris Thompson
7. Donna McCausland
8. Antonella Ciccone
9. Cindy McDonald and Darcy Gaudier

PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST

11The Parties submitted a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List (“IL”) prior to this CMC. Attached as Schedule 1 to this Decision is the draft PO and IL which has been approved by the Tribunal and will govern the Hearing.

MEDIATION

12The Parties informed the Tribunal that they are familiar with Tribunal led mediation. They indicated that there have been some initial discussions between themselves regarding the use of mediation, but nothing has been decided yet.

NEXT STEPS

13The Parties asked to set Hearing dates for a nine-(9) day Hearing. A Merit Hearing was secured from Monday, March 31, 2025, to Friday, April 4, 2025, and will resume on Tuesday April 8, 2025, to Friday April 11, 2025, at 10 a.m. by way of Video Hearing. The Tribunal is not available on Monday, April 7, 2025, and there will be no Hearing on that day.

14Parties and Participants 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:

GoToMeeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/927921077

Access Code: 927-921-077

15Parties 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

16Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9391 or Toll Free 1-888-299-1889. The access code is as indicated above.

17Individuals 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.

18THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS its directions and rulings as set out above.

19There will be no further notice.

20This Member is not seized but remains available through the Case Coordinator should the need arise.

“A. Sauve”

A. SAUVE 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-23-000792

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

Applicant/Appellant: Bloor Gold Residences Inc. and Bloor Gold West Residences Inc.

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

Description: To permit the redevelopment of the Subject Lands with three 13-storey residential buildings

Reference Number: 22 175298 WET 02 OZ

Property Address: 251-285 The West Mall

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-23-000792

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000792

OLT Case Name: Bloor Gold Residences Inc. v Toronto (City)

PROCEDURAL ORDER

1. The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own motion.

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will begin on March 31, 2025 through a video-conferencing platform.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 9 non-consecutive days. The Tribunal will sit for the entire week of March 31,2025. The final 4 days of the hearing will be held on April 8-11, 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. The procedural order deadlines are found in Attachment 1.

4. The parties and participants (see Attachment 5 for the meaning of these terms) 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 the parties consent to the changes. 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. 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 December 1, 2024, and in accordance with paragraph 22 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. Any challenges to the witness, including qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence in the area of expertise proposed shall be made by motion in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure and notice of same must be served on the parties on or before December 20, 2024.

10. If the applicant intends to seek approval of a substantially revised proposal at the hearing, the applicant shall provide copies of such revised proposal, including all revised plans, drawings, proposed instruments, and updated supporting documents and reports to the other parties on or before December 1, 2024. The applicant acknowledges that any substantial revisions to the proposal after that date without the consent of the parties may be grounds plead by the other parties in motion to adjourn the hearing.

11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before December 20, 2024, and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before January 13, 2025.

12. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 13 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. For greater certainty, each expert witness statement must comply with the minimum content requirements specified in Rule 7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. If the expert witness has prepared any report(s) that they intend to rely on at the hearing, and which did not form part of the submissions made to the City, such report(s) shall be provided to the parties at the same time as the delivery of witness statements, as in paragraph 13.

13. On or before December 21, 2024, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 25 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

14. On or before January 24, 2025, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 26 below.

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

16. On or before February 14, 2025, the parties may provide to all other parties a written response to any written evidence.

17. On or before February 24, 2025, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

18. On or before March 11, 2025, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 25 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

19. On or before March 21, 2025, the parties shall provide copies of any responding visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 25 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

20. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before March 21, 2025.

21. Any documents which may be used by a party in cross examination of an opposing party’s witness shall be password protected and only be accessible to the Tribunal and the other parties if it is introduced as evidence at the hearing, pursuant to the directions provided by the OLT case co-ordinator, on or before the day before said document is to be put to the opposing party’s witness.

22. 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.

23. 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 on or before March 24, 2025, that the written evidence is not part of their record.

24. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before March 24, 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.

25. All filings shall be submitted electronically. 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.

26. 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
December 1, 2024	Deadline to circulate substantially revised proposal.
December 1, 2024	Exchange of Witness Lists (names, disciplines, and order to be called)
December 20, 2024	Deadline to provide notice of intention to challenge expertise or qualification of expert witness(es).
December 20, 2024	Exchange of Participant Statements
December 20, 2024	Experts Meeting prior to this Date
January 15, 2025	Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues of Expert Witnesses
January 24, 2025	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, and Expert Reports
February 14, 2025	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements
February 24, 2025	Confirmation to Tribunal that all dates required for the hearing.
March 11, 2025	Exchange of Visual Evidence
March 21, 2025	Responding Visual Evidence Joint Document Book
March 24, 2025	Preliminary Hearing Plan to Tribunal
March 31, 2025	Hearing Commences

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

PARTIES:

1. Bloor Gold Residences Inc. & Bloor Gold West Residences Inc.

Loopstra Nixon LLP Suite 2800 130 Adelaide Street West Toronto, ON M5H 3P5 Attention: Aaron I. Platt Email: aplatt@LN.Law Tel: 289-904-2370

2. City of Toronto

Metro Hall 26^th Floor 55 John Street Toronto, ON M5V 3C6 Attention: Marc Hardiejowski Email: marc.hardiejowski@toronto.ca Tel: 416-392-4960

PARTICIPANTS:

1. Elizabeth Walker 257 The West Mall, Unit 3 Email: bethsworld@rogers.com Tel: 416-695-1776

2. Stephen Mitchell Refused to provide address Email: stvn.mitchell@gmail.com Tel: 416-434-3474

3. Megan Lowden 255 The West Mall, Unit 5 Email: m.lowden13@gmail.com Tel: 416-919-1523

4. Cindy MacDonald and Darcy Gaudier 257 The West Mall, Unit 5 Email: Snowpea647@gmail.com Tel: 647-926-9301

5. Ted Wozny Address not provided Email: tedwozny@protonmail.com Tel: 416-371-8726

6. Debbie Basciano & Peter Brading 277 The West Mall, Unit 6 Email: basciano.debbie@gmail.com Tel: Not provided

7. Charlene McCarty 269 The West Mall, Unit 1 Email: feelfantasticforlife@gmail.com Tel: 416-624-3995

8. Jacey Lucoe & Richard Lucoe 257 The West Mall, Unit 6 Email: jclucoe@gmail.com Tel: 416-580-0053

9. Chris Thompson 273 The West Mall, Unit 6 Email: chrisjc77@rogers.com Tel: 647-867-3511

10. Donna McCausland 269 The West Mall, Unit 3 Email: donnamccausland@yahoo.com Tel : 416-455-1040

11. Antonella Ciccone Address not provided Email: tonic0963@yahoo.ca Tel : 416-897-8814

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUES LIST

Note: The identification of an issue does not mean that all parties agree that such issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing.

Issues List for the City of Toronto

Issue 1 – Policies and Guidelines. Does the proposed development conform to, is consistent with or have regard for applicable policies and guidelines? Specifically:

a. Does the proposed development have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in Subsections 2 (h), (i), (j), (p), and (r) of the Planning Act?

b. Is the proposed development consistent with, sections 1.1.1, and 4.6 of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020?

c. Does the proposed development conform to and not conflict with section 1.2.1 of A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020)?

d. Does the proposed development conform with the following policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan:

a. 2.2 - Structuring Growth in the City: Integrating Land use and Transportation (2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.5, 2.2.7, and 2.2.8);

b. 2.3.1 - Healthy Neighbourhoods (2.3.1.2 – 2.3.1.7 and 2.3.1.9 – 2.3.1.12);

c. 3.1.1 - The Public Realm (3.1.1.1 - 3.1.1.3, 3.1.1.6, 3.1.1.13, 3.1.1.14, 3.1.1.15, 3.1.1.16, 3.1.1.18, 3.1.1.19 and 3.1.1.20);

d. 3.1.3 - Built Form (3.1.3.1 – 3.1.3.11, 3.1.3.13, 3.1.4.1, 3.1.4.4, 3.1.4.5, 3.1.4.6);

e. 3.2.1 - Housing (3.2.1.1 – 3.2.1.6, 3.2.1.8, and 3.2.1.12);

f. 3.2.3 - Parks and Open Spaces (3.2.3.1 – 3.2.3.8); and

g. 4.2- Apartment Neighbourhoods (4.2.2 – 4.2.6)?

e. Does the proposed development meet the intent of City of Toronto Urban Design Guidelines including but not limited to the Mid-Rise Performance Standards and Addendum?

Issue 2 –Site Organization

Is the proposed site organization appropriate?

Issue 3 – Parkland

a. Has a parkland dedication of an appropriate size, location and configuration been proposed under Section 42 of the Planning Act?

b. Does the proposed development and proposed parkland dedication conform to Policy 3.2.3 of the City of Toronto Official Plan?

Issue 4– Transition in Scale

Does the proposed building height and massing provide appropriate transition in scale to the adjacent neighbourhood to the west and low-rise apartment to the south?

Issue 5–Built Form

Do the proposed building heights and massing fit with the existing and planned context?

Issue 6 – Building Placement, Stepback and Separation Distances

Are the proposed development’s building setbacks, stepbacks and separation distances appropriate?

Issue 7 – Amenity Space.

Is the proposed size and location of indoor and outdoor amenity space appropriate?

Issue 8 – Transportation

1. Does the proposal access through Leavenworth Crescent meets City of Toronto’s DIPS-5 design standard?
2. Is the access, parking and loading appropriate?
3. Has the road widening requirement for The West Mall Road frontage been provided?

Issue 9 – Good Planning and Urban Design

Does the proposed development represent good planning and good urban design? Would it be in the public interest?

Issue 10 - Implementation.

1. In the event the proposed development is approved in whole or in part, should the Tribunal Order be withheld until the City Solicitor has indicated that the following conditions have been satisfied:

a. The form and content of the Zoning By-law Amendment is satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor;

b. The owner has addressed all outstanding issues identified within the Engineering and Construction Services correspondence, dated September 21, 2022, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;

c. The owner has submitted a revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, and such report shall determine the stormwater run-off, sanitary flow and water supply demand resulting from the development and whether there is adequate capacity in the existing municipal infrastructure to accommodate the proposed development and/or any upgrades that may be required;

d. The owner has provided a revised Pedestrian Wind Study, such report to be reviewed with recommendations implemented as part of the Zoning By-law and/or secured in a development agreement, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

e. The owner has submitted a Noise and Vibration Study, has been peer reviewed by a third-party consultant retained by the City at the owner's expense and the owner agrees to implement the noise and vibration control measures and recommendations identified through the peer review, with the control measures to be secured through the Site Plan Control process, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

f. The owner has submitted a revised Transportation Impact Study including all requested revisions to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services;

g. The owner has addressed and accommodated the required road widening and turn basin, noted in correspondence, dated December 8, 2023, to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Transportation Services;

h. In accordance with Section 42 of the Planning Act, prior to the issuance of the first above-grade permit, the owner dedicates to the City a minimum of 953.39 square metres of unencumbered on-site parkland, with the exact size, location and configuration of the on-site parkland dedication to be to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, and such on-site parkland dedication to be transferred to the City, free and clear, above and below-grade, of all easements, encumbrances and encroachments, in an acceptable environmental condition;

i. City Council approve the acceptance of a development charge credit against the Parks and Recreation component of the Development Charges for the design and construction by the Applicant of the above base park improvements to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation; the development charge credit shall be in an amount that is the lesser of the cost to the Applicant of designing and constructing the above base park improvements, as approved by the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation and the Parks and Recreation component of the development charges payable for the development in accordance with the City's Development Charges By-law, as may be amended from time to time;

j. The owner has addressed all outstanding issues raised by Urban Forestry noted in correspondence, dated September 22, 2022, including the need for an updated Arborist Report, Landscape Plan, Planting Plan and Soil Volume Plan, to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Parks, Forestry and Recreation;

k. The owner has submitted a revised Illumination Plan, as noted in correspondence, dated September 20, 2023, the satisfaction of the Ministry of Transportation and to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

l. The owner has made revisions to meet the Toronto Green Standard requirements to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

m. The owner has submitted and updated Energy Strategy Report to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Environment and Climate;

n. City Council has approved the Rental Housing Demolition Application (Application No. 22 195513 WET 02 RH) under Chapter 667 of the Toronto Municipal Code pursuant to Section 111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 and, should City Council authorize the demolition, that the applicant has entered into, and registered on title to the lands, an agreement pursuant to Section 111 of the City of Toronto Act securing the replacement of the existing rental dwelling units, including unit mix, size and rents, tenant assistance to mitigate hardship, and other rental related matters, all to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.

2. Should it be determined that upgrades are required to the infrastructure to support the development according to the accepted Functional Servicing Report and/or the Transportation Impact Study, City Council direct the City Solicitor and appropriate City staff to request that a Holding Provision be included in the final form of the site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment and the Holding Provision not to be lifted until such a time as the owner has made satisfactory arrangements, including entering into appropriate agreement(s) with the City for the design and construction of any improvements to the municipal infrastructure and the provision of financial securities to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director of Engineering and Construction Services and General Manager, Transportation Services.

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Bloor Gold Residences Inc. & Bloor Gold West Residences Inc.
2. The City of Toronto
3. Bloor Gold Residences Inc. & Bloor Gold West Residences Inc., in reply

ATTACHMENT 5

PURPOSE OF PROCEDURAL ORDER

Case management conferences are scheduled by the Tribunal to organize the hearing. This sample procedural order is provided to identify who may participate in the hearing, the issues in dispute, and the matters that are required to be carried out before the hearing. The attachment to this sample procedural order explains the meaning of a number of terms in the sample procedural order, such as a party or a participant.

The Tribunal recommends that the appellant, municipality, the applicant (if applicable), or those who wish to seek party status in this proceeding, meet, remotely if necessary, to discuss this sample procedural order before the date of the case management conference and try to identify the issues and process they want the Tribunal to order following the conference. The Tribunal will hear submissions on the content of this sample procedural order at the case management conference and issue a procedural order at a later date.

If you are not represented by a lawyer, you should prepare by reviewing the Tribunal’s Video Hearings Guide, and the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), particularly Rule 20, which are available on the Tribunal’s website.

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.