Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 11, 2024 CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000758

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

Appellant: Acorn NE Stouffville Inc. Appellant: Northcape Investments Inc. Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 155 (Old Elm Major Transit Station Area) Municipality: Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000758 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000758 OLT Case Name: Acorn NE Stouffville Inc. v. Whitchurch-Stouffville (Town)

Heard: January 12, 2024 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Acorn NE Stouffville Inc. (Appellant) Ian Andres

Northcape Investments Inc. (Appellant) Raj Kehar

Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Christina Kapelos Andrew Biggart (in absentia)

Region of York Samantha Whalen Bola Ogunmefun (in absentia)

Ambria (Lincolnville) Limited Aaron Platt Bianca Zuzu

Andrin Investments Limited Aaron Platt Bianca Zuzu

2434981 Ontario Inc. Andy Margaritis Narmada Gunawardana

2605552 Ontario Inc. Raivo Uukkivi

York Catholic School Board Buck Sully

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY G.A. CROSER ON JANUARY 12, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This was the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) to be heard on appeals of Official Plan Amendment 155 (“OPA 155”) made pursuant to s.17(36) of the Planning Act by the Appellants Acorn NE Stouffville Inc. (“Acorn NE”) and Northcape Investments Inc. (“Northcape”).

2The purpose of OPA 155 is to delineate the boundary for the Major Transit Station Area (“MTSA”) around the Old Elm GO Station, redesignate lands within the Old Elm Land Use Study Area and incorporate land use permission policies to guide and support transit-supportive development in this area.

3Ms. Kapelos, counsel for the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville (“Town”) provided an agenda in advance of the CMC and during the CMC gave an overview of the status of the Appeal between the Town and the Appellants. It was also explained that counsel for York Region would be attending this CMC, after not appearing at the initial CMC.

ISSUES LIST

4The Tribunal was provided with a draft Procedural Order (“DPO”) and Issues List (“IL”) in advance of the CMC. Ms. Kapelos drew the Tribunal’s attention to the fact that certain parts of the IL were highlighted. Ms. Kapelos explained that the highlighting represented components of the issues that relate to land use designations. It was the Town’s position that s.17(36.1.4) of the Planning Act prohibited appeals of such matters within a MTSA.

5Mr. Andres, Counsel for Acorn NE, stated that his client was not challenging land uses within the MTSA per se, rather a point of contention related to the collector road system proposed for the area and mandatory land uses. This is a technical issue as repositioning the north – south would alter how that road connects with the east – west road, which may require amendments to the land use area designations surrounding the proposed road system. Mr. Kehar, Counsel for Northcape, submitted that his client’s appeal was narrower than that of Acorn NE and was with respect to Schedule F5 which is a map of the OPA 155 land use plan and its annotation with respect to the Appeal.

6The Town and the Appellants acknowledged that they have been communicating with respect to the IL and are working together to narrow the scope of the Appeals. They have set a self-imposed deadline date of January 24, 2024 to provide the Tribunal with a finalized IL for the purpose of confirming what is and what is not subject to the appeal of OPA 155. If the Parties are unable to reach a consensus with respect to the IL and other potential matters spawning from s.17(36.1.4), then a motion date in late February was requested by the Town to address this matter.

7A finalized Issues List and Procedural Order was not forwarded to the Tribunal by January 24, 2024.

POSITION OF THE NON-APPELLANT PARTIES

8During the CMC, it became evident that the non-Appellant Parties, who were provided Party Status at the first CMC on November 29, 2023, were not fully apprised of the ongoing dialogue between the Town and the Appellants. Mr. Uukkivi, Counsel for 2605552 Ontario Inc., stated that his client has serviced land that could start development and as such he had a strong interest with respect to the scope of the Appeals and certainty with respect to Schedule F5.

9Mr. Platt, Counsel for Ambria (Lincolnville) Limited (“Ambria”) stated that his client needed to understand whether it can move forward with its own development proposal once OPA 155 comes into force or if changes would be required. On behalf of Andrin Investments Limited (“Andrin”), Mr. Platt explained that a change in the road network and land use designations may impact how his client can utilize its landholding.

10Mr. Margaritas, Counsel for 2434981 Ontario Inc., echoed the need for certainty with respect to the IL and Schedule F5 and submitted that a Motion was inevitable. All Counsel who spoke at the CMC confirmed their willingness to continue to their discussion offline with the goal of establishing clarity with respect to the scope of the Appeals and the annotated Schedule F5 Map.

MEDIATION

11Ms. Kapelos confirmed that the Town was amenable to mediation if an agreement on the IL was untenable. The majority of Counsel shared this sentiment. However, the consensus was that mediation would only become a serious consideration after January 24, 2024 and after the scheduled date for the Motion – if the latter was still necessary. The Tribunal reminded the Parties that if they chose to pursue mediation, then they should contact the Case Coordinator to make the arrangements.

MOTION

12The Tribunal scheduled a motion date aligned with the initial ask of the Town. This Motion will act as a placeholder and may be utilized if the Parties are unable to agree on the finalized Issues List, the annotation of Schedule F5, or matters arising from s.17(36.1.4) of the Planning Act. Given the Parties willingness to continue discussions offline, the Tribunal held that there would be sufficient runway for the Parties to discuss matters before the Motion date.

13After the CMC, the Parties continued to work together to produce a finalized IL. As Andrin withdrew as a non-appellant Party after the CMC, it does not appear in the IL. As the Parties reached a consensus on the IL, it was communicated to the Tribunal, with the consent of all Parties that the Motion date in late February was no longer required.

HEARING

14The Tribunal scheduled dates for the hearing on the merits of the matter beginning on Monday November 25, 2024, and ending on December 13, 2024 for a total of 15 days. It was the position of the Parties that three weeks would be sufficient for a hearing.

15Parties 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://meet.goto.com/278736685

Access Code: 278-736-685

16Parties 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

17Persons 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: (Toll Free) 1-888-455-1389 or +1 (647) 497-9391. The access code is same as mentioned above.

18Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the hearing by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

ORDER

19THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that a Hearing of Merits will commence by Video Hearing on Monday, November 25, 2024 at 10 a.m, as set out above. Fifteen days have been set aside for the Hearing.

20THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that the Procedural Order and Issues List set out in Schedule 1 to this Order has been approved and shall govern the proceedings.

21The Member is not seized and no further notice will be given.

“G.A. Croser”

G.A. CROSER

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

SCHEDULE 1

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000758

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

Appellant: Acorn NE Stouffville Inc. Appellant: Northcape Investments Inc. Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 155 (Old Elm Major Transit Station Area) Municipality: Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000758 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000758 OLT Case Name: Acorn NE Stouffville Inc. v. Whitchurch-Stouffville (Town)

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 hearing will begin on Monday, November 25, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. as directed in the Tribunal’s Decision and Order.

3. The length of the hearing is 15 days, from Monday, November 25, 2024 through to Friday, December 13, 2024. 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.

4. The Parties and Participants are set out in Attachment 2 to this Order.

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3 to this Order. With the exception of the resolution of issues, there will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a Party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 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. 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/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Video-Hearing-Guide.html).

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, the expert witness(es)’ curriculum vitae and Acknowledgment of Expert’s Duty, and the order in which the witnesses will be called. This list must be delivered on or before July 12, 2024. For expert witnesses, the 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 July 26, 2024.

10. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before August 9, 2024 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting, the experts must prepare and the Parties shall file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT Case Co-ordinator on or before August 16, 2024.

11. 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.

12. 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 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 13 below.

13. On or before September 20, 2024, the Parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other Parties and to the OLT case co‑ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

14. On or before September 20, 2024, a Participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A Participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

15. Parties may provide to all other Parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before October 11, 2024 in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

16. On or before October 22, 2024, the Parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required. If the Parties agree that no hearing dates are intended to be released from the Tribunal’s calendar, no Party is required to advise the Tribunal of anything further in this regard.

17. On or before November 12, 2024, the Parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other Parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. If a model will be used, all Parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

18. The Parties shall prepare and provide to the Tribunal a Joint Document Book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before November 15, 2024.

19. The Parties shall prepare and file a detailed Hearing Plan with the Tribunal on or before November 15, 2024 with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the Parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The Parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the Hearing Plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

20. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

21. A Party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other Parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the Party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

22. 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.

23. 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 PROCEDURAL DATES

Date	Hearing Event
July 12, 2024	Exchange of List of Witnesses
July 26, 2024	Last date to challenge expert
August 9, 2024	Expert Witness Meeting(s)
August 16, 2024	Experts’ Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues to be filed with the Tribunal
September 20, 2024	Exchange of Witness and Expert Witness Statements
September 20, 2024	Exchange Participant Statement
October 11, 2024	Exchange of Reply (Expert) Witness Statements
October 22, 2024	Confirm with Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.
November 12, 2024	Exchange of Visual Evidence
November 15, 2024	Joint Document Book to be filed with Tribunal
November 15, 2024	Hearing Plan to be filed with the Tribunal
November 25, 2024	Hearing begins

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

PARTIES

1. REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK Samantha Whalen T: 1-877-464-9675 E: Samantha.Whalen@york.ca Bola Ogunmefun T: 1-877-464-9675, ext. 71459 E: Bola.Ogunmefun@york.ca The Regional Municipality of York 17250 Yonge Street Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 6Z1

2. TOWN OF WHITCHURCH STOUFFVILLE Christina Kapelos T: 416-622-6601, ext. 1001 E: tkapelos@ritchieketcheson.com Andrew Biggart T: 416-622-6601, ext. 1003 E: abiggart@ritchieketcheson.com Ritchie Ketcheson Hart & Biggart LLP 1 Eva Road, Suite 206 Etobicoke, ON M9C 4Z5

3. ACORN NE STOUFFVILLE INC. Ian Andres T: 416-597-5160 E: iandres@goodmans.ca Goodmans LLP Bay Adelaide Centre 333 Bay Street, Suite 3400 Toronto, ON M5H 2S7

4. NORTHCAPE INVESTMENTS INC. Raj Kehar T: 416-947-5051 E: rkehar@weirfoulds.com WeirFoulds LLP 1525 Cornwall Road, Suite 10 Oakville, ON L6J 0B2

5. 2605552 ONTARIO INC. (NEWSTONE) Raivo Uukkivi T: 416-860-6613 E: ruukkivi@cassels.com Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP Bay Adelaide Centre 40 Temperance Street, Suite 3200 Toronto, ON M5H 0B4

6. 2434981 ONTARIO INC. Andy Margaritis T: 416-263-4520 E: andym@davieshowe.com Narmada Gunawardana T: 416-263-4500 E: narmadag@davieshowe.com Davies Howe LLP 425 Adelaide Street West, 10th Floor Toronto, ON M5V 3C1

7. AMBRIA (LINCOLNVILLE) LIMITED Aaron I. Platt T: 289-904-2370 E: aplatt@LN.Law Loopstra Nixon LLP 130 Adelaide Street West Suite 2800 Toronto, ON M5H 3P5

8. YORK CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Buck Sully T.: 416-367-7680 E: bsully@keelcottrelle.ca Michael Tersigni T: 416-367-7680 E: mtersigni@keelcottrelle.ca Keel Cottrelle LLP 36 Toronto Street Toronto, ON M5C 2C5

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUES LIST

Note: The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgment 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.

ACORN NE STOUFFVILLE INC.

1. Is it premature to determine the preferred alignment of the north-south Conceptual Collector Road in advance of the comprehensive, coordinated servicing and environmental strategy required pursuant to policy 12.6.5(i) and/or the more detailed review to occur through the development application process?

2. Should policy 12.6.5(vi) be modified to provide for the acceptance of combined park and stormwater management facilities as parkland dedications in all instances and locations, in accordance with recent legislative amendments?

3. Is it appropriate for policy 12.7.23.2(v)(e) to require any proposed phasing strategy to prioritize high-density development framing Tenth Line and any collector roads concurrent with or in advance of the lower-density rear portions of lots, or should the lower-density portions be permitted to proceed first, in accordance with market conditions/demand?

4. Is there sufficient justification, including a demonstrated need, to establish a conceptual elementary school location within Acorn’s south lands (12749 Tenth Line) pursuant to policy 12.7.23.4?

5. Is there a more appropriate location for the conceptual park pursuant to policy 12.7.23.5 than the location currently shown within Acorn’s north lands (12875 Tenth Line)?

6. Should policies 12.7.23.1, 12.7.23.4, 12.7.23.5, 12.8.5.2 and/or 12.11.13(i) be revised to permit more significant changes to road alignments, land use designation boundaries, conceptual school and/or park locations without requiring an amendment to OPA 155?

7. Is it appropriate for policy 12.7.24.2 to require ground floor commercial and/or office uses within all mixed-use buildings fronting onto Tenth Line or its intersection with the new east-west collector road within the Old Elm High-Density Mixed-Use designation?

8. Is it appropriate for policy 12.7.24.2 to require a minimum ground floor height of 4.5 metres for buildings within the Old Elm High-Density Mixed-Use designation that are located outside of the Required Mixed-Use Frontage Area identified on Schedule F5?

9. Does policy 12.7.27.3 provide for appropriate land use policies and development standards for the Old Elm Residential designation?

10. Should Schedule F5 be modified to remove or alter: a. the Required Mixed-Use Frontage Area notation; b. the alignment of the north-south Conceptual Collector Road east of Tenth Line; c. the Proposed Neighbourhood Park east of Tenth Line; and/or d. the Proposed School Location?

11. Does OPA 155 conform with and appropriately implement the Planning Act, and does it have regard to subsection 2 including 2(a), (e), (f), (h), (i), (j), (l), (n), (p), (q) and (r)?

12. Does OPA 155 achieve consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 including policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 2.1 and 4.0?

13. Does OPA 155 conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 including policies 1.2.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.4, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.7, 3.2.8, 4.2 and 5.2?

14. Does OPA 155 conform with the Region of York Official Plan, 2022 including policies 1.4, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.4?

15. Does OPA 155 represent good land use, transportation and infrastructure planning?

NORTHCAPE INVESTMENTS INC.

16. Is it premature to determine the preferred alignment of the north-south Conceptual Collector Road in advance of the comprehensive, coordinated servicing and environmental strategy required pursuant to policy 12.6.5(i) and/or the more detailed review to occur through the development application process?

17. Should policy 12.6.5(vi) be modified to provide for the acceptance of combined park and stormwater management facilities as parkland dedications in all instances and locations, in accordance with recent legislative amendments?

18. Should policies 12.7.23.1, 12.8.5.2, 12.11.13(i) and/or any other related policies be revised to permit more significant changes to road alignments and land use designation boundaries, without requiring an amendment to OPA 155?

19. Should Schedule F5 be modified to remove or alter: a. the alignment of the north-south Conceptual Collector Road east of Tenth Line.

20. Does OPA 155 comply with and appropriately implement the Planning Act and does it have regard to subsection 2 of the Planning Act including 2(a), (e), (f), (h), (i), (j), (l), (n), (p), (q) and (r)?

21. Does OPA 155 achieve consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement including policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 2.1 and 4.0?

22. Does OPA 155 conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe including policies 1.21, 2.2.1, 2.2.4, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.7, 3.2.8, 4.2, 5.2?

23. Does OPA 155 conform with the Region of York Official Plan including policies 1.3, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.4?

24. Does OPA 155 represent good land use, transportation and infrastructure planning?

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.

1. Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville
2. Regional Municipality of York
3. 2605552 Ontario Inc. (Newstone)
4. Ambria (Lincolnville) Limited
5. 2434981 Ontario Inc. (Trudel)
6. York Catholic District School Board
7. Acorn NE Stouffville Inc.
8. Northcape Investments Inc.
9. Town of Whitchurch Stouffville (if any reply)

ATTACHMENT 5

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.