CORRECTION NOTICE

OLT CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-001278

DECISION ISSUE DATE(S): April 03, 2024

CORRECTION NOTICE ISSUE DATE: April 05, 2024

RE: Don Valley Trail Park Holdings Inc. v. Toronto (City)

Correction to: In paragraph #19 as the Toll Free audio-only telephone number is incorrect.

Originally:

Corrected to:

19Individuals 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 1-888-455-9391 or +1 (647) 497-9391. The access code is the same as mentioned above.

19Individuals 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 the same as mentioned above.

“Euken Lui”

EUKEN LUI REGISTRAR

Ontario Land Tribunal

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

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

ISSUE DATE:

April 03, 2024

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-23-001278

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant:

Don Valley Trail Park Holdings Inc.

Subject:

Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description:

To permit construction of a 4-tower high-rise residential development and green space

Reference Number:

23 118421 NNY 16 OZ

Property Address:

155 St. Dennis Drive

Municipality/UT:

Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-23-001278

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-001278

OLT Case Name:

Don Valley Trail Park Holdings Inc. v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant:

Don Valley Trail Park Holdings Inc.

Subject:

Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or

neglect to make a decision

Description:

To permit construction of a 4-tower high-rise residential development and green space

Reference Number:

23 118421 NNY 16 OZ

Property Address:

155 St. Dennis Drive

Municipality/UT:

Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-23-001279

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-001278

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

Applicant and Appellant:

Don Valley Trail Park Holdings Inc.

Subject:

Site Plan

Description:

To permit construction of a 4-tower high-rise residential development and green space

Reference Number:

23 118484 NNY 16 SA

Property Address:

155 St. Dennis Drive

Municipality/UT:

Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-23-001280

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-001278

Heard:

March 6, 2024, by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Don Valley Trails Park Holdings Inc. (“Applicant”)

Eileen Costello David Neligan

City of Toronto (“City”)

Matthew Longo Jessica Amey

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

Tim Duncan

ABC Residents Association

Christina Kapelos

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS ON MARCH 6, 2024 AND FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The Applicant seeks to develop a site known municipally as 155 St. Dennis Drive in the City (“Subject Property”) to construct four high-rise towers with approximately 2100 residential units of various sizes and to provide a large publicly accessible parkland on the lands currently occupied in part by the Flemington Park Golf Course.

The proposed development also includes approximately 100 affordable units and an indigenous community space.

2The Applicant had filed an application for an Official Plan Amendment, an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a draft plan of subdivision. The applications were refused by the City on November 23, 2023. The appeals are brought pursuant to sections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, and section 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11.

3On March 6, 2024, the Tribunal held its first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) to organize the appeal, address status requests and establish next steps in this proceeding.

NOTICE

4There were no issues raised with service of Notice of the CMC and, as such, no further notice is required. The Tribunal was in receipt of the Affidavit of Service of Notice of the CMC sworn on February 9, 2024, which was marked as Exhibit 1 to this CMC.

STATUS REQUEST

5The Tribunal received two written requests for Party Status from: (1) the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”); and (2) the ABC Residents Association (“ABCRA”), an incorporated non-profit organization.

6Counsel for the TRCA indicated that he intends to advance evidence from expert witnesses, that such evidence will be coordinated with the evidence of the City and that this evidence will avoid duplication. Neither the Applicant nor the City objected to adding the TRCA as a Party. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed that the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be added as a Party.

7Counsel for the ABCRA indicated that, while it usually focuses on issues relating to the Yorkville area (which is not adjacent to the Subject Property), it has taken interest and participated in proceedings involving lands across the entire City if the matter might be precedent setting. The ABCRA indicated that it intends to advance expert evidence to assist the Tribunal. The Applicant, the City and the TRCA did not object to adding the ABCRA as a Party. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed that the ABC Residents Association be added as a Party.

8The Tribunal underscored to the Parties that, pursuant to the Procedural Order, they will be under the duty to reduce and even eliminate duplication of evidence.

9The Tribunal also received two requests for Participant status from: (1) Irene Miao-Glass; and (2) Corrine Evanoff. At the CMC, Ms. Evanoff clarified that she resides close to the Subject Property, a fact which was not apparent from her Participation form. The Parties indicated that they had no concerns about granting these two individuals Participant status. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed that Irene Miao-Glass and Corrine Evanoff be added as a Participants.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR SETTLEMENT

10Counsel for the Parties advised that there have been almost no settlement discussions but acknowledge that there may be narrow areas of agreement following discussions amongst experts.

11The Parties are directed to advise the Tribunal, as soon as possible, of any settlement, including agreements that would have the effect of narrowing the issues, especially following the meeting of experts.

NEXT STEPS

12A draft Procedural Order was provided to the Tribunal prior to the CMC by Counsel for the Applicant. Prior to the CMC and at the CMC, Mr. Longo, Counsel for the City, indicated that his client favoured that the matter be heard in two phases and provided his own draft Procedural Order late in the day on the eve of the CMC. The City submitted that there was a threshold issue of whether the lands are appropriate for development, given the natural heritage and environmental policies that regulate development in or near ravines. In the City’s view, proceeding in phases would be more efficient. The TRCA agreed with the City’s position. However, Counsel for the Applicant forcefully opposed the proposal for a phased hearing.

13Having heard from the Parties, the Tribunal directed that the hearing would not be phased. First, the Tribunal agreed with Counsel for the Applicant that the burden was on the City to establish that a two-phased approach was preferable, and it was not the burden of the Applicant to establish that a two-phased approach was not preferable. Second, although the City could have filed a Motion returnable at the CMC proposing a phased approach, it did not do so despite being aware for approximately four weeks (if not longer) that the Applicant would be seeking a single hearing date to be fixed at the CMC. In any event, Counsel for the City acknowledged that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide on this procedural matter at this CMC.

14Given section 12(2) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, C. 4, Schedule 6, which requires the Tribunal to adopt procedures with respect to a proceeding that are aimed at achieving a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the proceedings, the Tribunal concluded that a phased approach, on the facts of this case, is not an expeditious approach. First, the threshold question framed by the City is not a theoretical issue and will inevitably be based on scientific and policy evidence by experts. Second, the Tribunal was not persuaded that the proposed second phase would not require duplicating in some respects the presentation of evidence made in the first phase. To the contrary, the Tribunal anticipates duplication. Third, not

only would efficiencies not be gained, but additional delays would also be likely from a phased approach. This is especially so if one considers a potential appeal, by one or other Party, following a decision on the first phase. Moreover, there will be a need for a further CMC after the proposed first-phase decision is final to set the timelines for the second phase if the City is unsuccessful in the first phase. Finally, there is the added risk that the panel who heard the proposed first phase would not be available to hear the second phase despite the likely evidentiary overlap. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed that the merit of the appeals be considered in one phase.

15Given the above direction of the Tribunal, Counsel for the Applicant undertook to file a finalized draft Procedural Order within a week of the CMC. The Tribunal directed the Parties to work cooperatively to finalize the draft Procedural Order, which was to be filed with the Tribunal on consent no later than Friday, March 15, 2024. The Tribunal also indicated that it may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by Telephone Conference Call (“TCC”) to finalize the Procedural Order if the Parties were unable to achieve consensus. A TCC was not required as the Parties filed a finalized draft Procedural Order, on consent, by the date directed by the Tribunal.

16The Parties indicated that a merit hearing of four to five weeks would be required, given the number of issues as well as the potential of evidence from numerous expert witnesses. The Tribunal canvassed Counsel for all Parties concerning their availabilities. The Tribunal directed that a 22-day Merit Hearing commence at on Monday, March 31, 2025 at 10 a.m., by video hearing, until Friday, May 2, 2025. The Tribunal will not sit on April 7, 18 and 21, 2025. In the event of a narrowing of issues, the Tribunal directed that the Parties indicate to the Tribunal that hearing dates may be released. Contrary to the submitted draft, the approved Procedural Order provides that this is to be done by Thursday, January 30, 2025, i.e., 60 days before the start of the Hearing.

17Parties 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.

https://meet.goto.com/677087597

Access code: 677-087-597

18Parties 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.

19Individuals 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 1-888-455-9391 or +1 (647) 497-9391. The access code is the same as mentioned above.

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

ORDER

21THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS:

a. its directions in this Decision; and,

b. the Procedural Order, including the Issues List, attached as Attachment A to this Order, is approved.

“Jean-Pierre Blais” JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS

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.

ATTACHMENT A

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001278

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant:

Don Valley Trail Park Holdings Inc.

Subject:

Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description:

To permit construction of a 4-tower high-rise residential development and green space

Reference Number:

23 118421 NNY 16 OZ

Property Address:

155 St. Dennis Drive

Municipality/UT:

Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-23-001278

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-001278

OLT Case Name:

Don Valley Trail Park Holdings Inc. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act,

R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant:

Don Valley Trail Park Holdings Inc.

Subject:

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

Description:

To permit construction of a 4-tower high-rise residential development and green space

Reference Number:

23 118421 NNY 16 OZ

Property Address:

155 St. Dennis Drive

Municipality/UT:

Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-23-001279

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-001278

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto

Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A

Applicant and Appellant:

Don Valley Trail Park Holdings Inc.

Subject:

Site Plan

Description:

To permit construction of a 4-tower high-rise residential development and green space

Reference Number:

23 118484 NNY 16 SA

Property Address:

155 St. Dennis Drive

Municipality/UT:

Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-23-001280

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-001278

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

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will begin on Monday, March 31st, 2025 at 10:00 a.m./p.m. The hearing will run until Friday, May 2nd, 2025. The Tribunal will not sit on April 7th, 18th and 21st, 2025.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 22 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 1.

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 2. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

7. 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 Friday, June 21, 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.

10. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Wednesday, July 31, 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 Friday, August 30, 2024.

11. If the applicant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing, the applicant shall provide copies of the revised proposal, including all revised plans, drawings, proposed instruments, updated supporting documents and reports, to the other parties on or before Monday October 21, 2024, and in accordance with paragraph 23 below. 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.

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 13 below.

14. On or before Friday, December 13, 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 23 below.

15. On or before Friday, December 13, 2024, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement 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 Monday, January 27, 2025 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

17. On or before Friday, March 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.

18. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence by Friday, February 14, 2025 and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

19. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Friday, March 14, 2025.

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. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Friday, March 21, 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

List of Parties and Participants

Parties:

Don Valley Trails Park Holdings Inc.

Aird & Berlis LLP Brookfield Place 181 Bay Street

Suite 1800

Toronto ON M5J 2T9

Eileen P.K. Costello Tel: 416.865.4740

Email: ecostello@airdberlis.com

David Neligan Tel: 416.865.7751

Email: dneligan@airdberlis.com

City of Toronto

City of Toronto – Legal Services Planning and Administrative Tribunal Law 55 John Street

26th Floor, Metro Hall Toronto ON M5V 3C6

Matthew Longo Tel: 416.392.8109

Email: matthew.longo@toronto.ca

Jessica Amey Tel: 416.397.1890

Email: jessica.amey@toronto.ca

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

Fogler, Rubinoff LLP 77 King Street West Suite 3000, P.O. Box 95 TD Centre North Tower Toronto ON M5K 1G8

Tim Duncan

Tel: 416.941.8817

Email: tduncan@foglers.com

ABC Residents Association

Ritchie Ketcheson Hart & Biggart

206 - 1 Eva Road Toronto ON M9C 4Z5

R. Andrew Biggart

Tel: 416.622.6601 Ext. 1012

Email: abiggart@ritchieketcheson.com

Christina Kapelos

Tel: 416.662.6601 Ext. 1001

Email: tkapelos@ritchieketcheson.com

Participants

Irene Miao-Glass

Email: imiaoglass@gmail.com

Corrine Evanoff

Email: corrineevanoff@rogers.com

ATTACHMENT 2

Issues List

NOTE: The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the OLT or any party that such issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is either appropriate or relevant to the determination of the OLT at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the OLT at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing. 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 OLT 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 OLT.

Issues List of the City of Toronto

1. Threshold Issues of Whether the Lands Are Appropriate For Development

Planning Act

1.1 Would a decision permitting redesignation and development of the lands have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interests as set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections 2(a), (h), (m), (n), (o), (p), (q) and (r)(iii)?

1.2 Would a decision permitting redesignation and development of the lands have appropriate regard to any information and material received by City Council, in accordance with Subsection 2.1(2) of the Planning Act?

Provincial Policy Statement (2020)

1.3 Is the proposed Official Plan Amendment to permit development on the lands consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), including policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.2.1,, 1.4, 1.5.1, , 1.8, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, and 4.6?

1.4 Have the “hazardous lands” as defined in the Provincial Policy Statement been adequately identified through site evaluation and an adequate geotechnical slope stability study?

A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020)

1.5 Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment to permit development on the lands conform with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020), including policies 1.2.1, 2.1, 2.2.1.2, 2.2.1.4, 2.2.2.3., 3.2.7.2, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.5?

Greenbelt Plan

1.6 Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment conform with the Policy 3.2.6 of the Greenbelt Plan?

City of Toronto Official Plan

1.7 Is the proposed amendment to the Official Plan to permit development on the lands consistent with the general intent of the Official Plan as per Policy 5.3.1.3?

1.8 Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment to permit development on the lands conform with the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, including the policies related to:

a. Building a More Liveable Urban Region (Policy 2.1.1);

b. Structuring Growth in the City (Policy 2.2);

c. Toronto’s Green Space System and Waterfront (Section 2.3.2);

d. The Natural Environment (Section 3.4);

e. Parks and Open Space Areas (Section 4.3); and

f. Implementation (Sections 5.1.2, 5.3.1, 5.6)?

1.9 Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment to permit development on the lands provide for good planning and is in the public interest?

1.10 If the proposed Official Plan Amendment is approved in whole or in part, should the Tribunal’s Order be withheld until a determination is made with respect to the appropriate contents of the Amendment?

2. Site Specific Proposal and Zoning By-law Amendment

2.1 Would a decision approving the development and Zoning By-law Amendment have adequate regard for matters of provincial interests as set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections 2(a), (h), (h.1), (i), (j), (o), (q) and (r)?

2.2 Would a decision approving the development and Zoning By-law Amendment have regard for any information and material received by City Council, in accordance with Subsection 2.1(2) of the Planning Act?

2.3 Is the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with 1.1.1, 1.4, 1.5.1, 1.6.6, 1.6.7, 2.1, 3.1 and 4.6 of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020?

2.4 Does the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment conform with 1.2.1, 3.2.1.1, 3.2.7, 3.2.8, 4.2.2, 4.2.5 of the Growth Plan, 2020?

2.5 Is the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with the general intent, or conform to the Toronto Official Plan with respect to the relief requested in the Official Plan Amendment, including policies related to

a. Structuring Growth in the City (Section 2.2);

b. Healthy Neighbourhoods (Section 2.3.1);

c. Toronto’s Green Space System and Waterfront (Section 2.3.2)

d. Bringing the City Together, Transportation (Section 2.4);

e. Public Realm (Section 3.1.1);

f. Built Form (Sections 3.1.3, and 3.1.4);

g. Housing (Section 3.2.1);

h. Parks and Open Spaces (Section 3.2.3);

i. Natural Environment (Section 3.4);

j. Apartment Neighbourhoods (Section 4.2);

k. Parks and Open Space Areas (Section 4.3); and

l. Implementation (Sections 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3, 5.3.1, 5.6)?

Built Form, Height, Massing and Density

2.6 Is the site organization and built form of the proposed development appropriate and consistent with applicable policies and relevant guidelines, including:

a. Is all proposed development set back from the top-of-bank/toe-of slope in accordance with the Official Plan?

b. Are the proposed building configurations/orientations, heights, tower floorplates, massing, setbacks, step backs and separation distances appropriate?

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

d. Is the amount and location of amenity space appropriate for the development?

e. Are the shadow impacts from the proposed development acceptable?

f. Are the wind impacts from the proposed development acceptable?

g. Is the proposed density appropriate?

2.7 Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for, and meet the intent and purpose of, the applicable City of Toronto Guidelines, particularly:

a. Tall Building Design Guidelines;

b. Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities;

c. Pet Friendly Design Guidelines for High Density Communities; and

d. Toronto Green Standard? Proposed Parkland Conveyance

2.8 Does the proposed parkland dedication conform to Chapter 415-26(E) of the Toronto Municipal Code?

Servicing

2.9 Has it been demonstrated that there are adequate municipal services in place to support the proposed development? Is there adequate sanitary, storm and water capacity available to allow for adequate water pressure, and appropriate stormwater and groundwater management?

Site Access, Parking, Loading and Transportation Demand Management

2.10 Does the proposed development provide for safe and functional vehicular and pedestrian access, including:

a. the appropriate location for driveways;

b. the appropriate location and configuration of pedestrian access;

c. the capacity and function of local roads and intersections;

d. grade changes and limitations on access for service vehicles.

2.11 Is the proposed parking supply appropriate?

2.12 Is the proposed loading configuration appropriate?

2.13 Is the proposed Transportation Demand Management strategy adequate to support the additional growth represented by the proposal?

Public Benefit

2.14 Have appropriate mechanisms for the delivery of the proposed community benefits (community centre, conveyance of ravine lands, and affordable housing) been secured?

Holding Symbol

2.15 Is it premature to approve the Zoning By-law Amendment without the use of a Holding Symbol until it is demonstrated that the site is able to be adequately accessed and serviced?

Public Interest and Good Planning

2.16 Does the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment provide for good planning and good urban design and is it in the public interest?

Conditions

2.17 If the proposal is approved in whole or in part, should the Tribunal's Order be withheld until the following conditions are satisfied, and the Tribunal has received confirmation from the City Solicitor that:

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

b. the Owner has at its sole cost and expense:

i. provided a revised Traffic Impact Study, including acceptable Transportation Demand Measures (TDM), to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, the General Manager, Transportation Services, and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division;

ii. submitted a Functional Servicing Report and Stormwater Management Report, including the Foundation Drainage Report ("Engineering Reports") to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, in consultation with the General Manager, Toronto Water;

iii. secured the design and provision of financial securities for any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure identified in the accepted Engineering Reports, to support the development, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and the General Manager, Toronto Water, should it be

determined that improvements or upgrades are required to support the development, according to the accepted Engineering Reports;

iv. addressed all uncomfortable and unsafe wind conditions on the site and adjacent public realm; and

v. the applicant has completed all the revisions to plan and studies to the satisfaction of the City Divisions, and satisfied all pre-approval conditions contained within the Notice of Approval for the Site Plan Control application.

Issues List of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

1. Would a decision permitting redesignation and development of the lands have regard to matters of provincial interest, as set out in Section 2 of the of the Planning Act, including subsections 2 (h), (m) and (p)?

2. Have the hazardous lands, as defined in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, been adequately identified through site evaluation and an adequate geotechnical slope stability study?

3. Are the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, including policies 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.2.1, 1.5.1, 2.2.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.5 and 3.1.7?

4. Do the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment conform with the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, including policies 3.4.1, 3.4.8, 3.4.9 and 3.4.10?

5. Do the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment have appropriate regard for the policies contained in the 2014 Living City Policies for Planning and Development in the Watersheds of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, including policies 7.3.1, 7.3.2, 7.4.1, 7.4.2, 7.4.3, 7.4.4, 8.4.5 and 8.5.1?

Issues List of the ABC Residents Group

1. Does the proposed re-naturalization of a portion of the subject lands constitute good planning and is it in keeping with the City’s Ravine Strategy?

2. Is the proposed development good planning and in keeping with the Parkland Strategy by converting a private golf course to public open space?

3. Does the proposed development conform with the City’s Official Plan including but not limited to Parks and Open Spaces policies, Chapter 3.2.3, and Natural Heritage policies, Chapter 3.4?

4. In the event the proposed development is permitted, how can it best be secured to ensure that the public green space proposed by the Appellant is provided and made available for public use?

ATTACHMENT 3

Order of Evidence

1. Don Valley Trails Park Holdings Inc.

2. ABC Residents Association

3. City of Toronto

4. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

5. Don Valley Trails Park Holdings Inc., in reply, if necessary

ATTACHMENT 4

Purpose of the Procedural Order and Meaning of Terms

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.

ATTACHMENT 5 SUMMARY OF DATES