Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

CORRECTION NOTICE

OLT CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001250

DECISION ISSUE DATE(S): May 17, 2024

CORRECTION NOTICE ISSUE DATE: May 31, 2024

RE: 1094950 Ontario Limited v. Toronto (City)

Correction to: In paragraph [14], the event information about the upcoming hearing on Tuesday, August 6, 2024, the phone call should be (Toll-Free) or 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373, instead of (Toll-Free) or 1-888-199-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373.

Originally:

14Audio-only line: (Toll-Free) or 1-888-199-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373

Corrected to:

14Audio-only line: (Toll-Free) or 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373

“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.

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: May 17, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001250

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

Applicant and Appellant: 1094950 Ontario Limited

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

Description: To permit the redevelopment of the site with a twenty-three-storey mixed-use building

Reference Number: 22 179828 STE 10 OZ

Property Address: 467-479 Wellington Street West and 33 Draper Street

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001250

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001250

OLT Case Name: 1094950 Ontario Limited v. Toronto (City)

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

Appellant: 1094950 Ontario Limited

Subject: Site Plan

Description: To permit the redevelopment of the site with a twenty-three-storey mixed-use building

Reference Number: 22 179827 STE 10 SA

Property Address: 467-479 Wellington Street West and 33 Draper Street

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001251

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001250

Heard: April 25, 2024 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
1094950 Ontario Limited	Rodney Gill David Bronskill (in absentia)
City of Toronto	Sarah O'Connor Uttra Gautam
Wellington Place Neighbourhood Association (“WPNA”)	Andrew King*
Draper Street Residents Association Inc. (“DSRA”)	Florence S. Narine*

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN T. MASTORAS ON APRIL 25, 2024, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal is the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) relating to appeals pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) and s. 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act from the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to make decisions within the statutory timeframes with respect to a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and a Site Plan Application (“SPA”) (“Appeals”).

2The Appeals were filed by 1094950 Ontario Limited (“Applicant” / “Appellant”) to facilitate the development of a twenty-three-storey mixed-use building for the properties municipally known as 467-479 Wellington Street West and 33 Draper Street (“Subject Site”).

STATUS REQUEST UPDATES

3At the first CMC in this proceeding, the Tribunal granted Party status to the WPNA. Requests for Party status made by the Draper Street Residents Association Inc. (“DSRA”) and Roberta Jong were deferred to the present CMC.

4On April 24, 2024, the DSRA provided the Tribunal with its Articles of Incorporation and submitted a revised Party Status request with the requisite letter of authorization from the President of the DSRA, Kamran Khan, dated April 25, 2024, confirming that Ms. Narine (Board Member) is authorized to act on its behalf. There were some concerns from Counsel for the Appellant about duplication of process and the need to ensure that the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) should be followed very carefully. The Tribunal concurred with this observation and canvassed both the DSRA and WPNA, respectively, in an effort to clarify how they may plan to cooperate in the matter, avoid duplication, and mitigate costs. The DSRA was provided an opportunity to clearly understand the Rules as they apply to Parties and its obligation to avoid unnecessarily duplicitous participation or to create undue delays.

5The Tribunal was satisfied that both the DSRA and WPNA were actively communicating with regard to seeking Counsel and the necessary expertise needed to act accordingly as Parties to the matter. The Tribunal was also satisfied that all Parties showed a willingness to continue constructive dialogue throughout the process.

6The DSRA submitted that it has a genuine interest in the matter, would be impacted by the Tribunal’s decision arising from these proceedings, and would assist the Tribunal in its decision-making on the appeal. None of the Parties objected to the DSRA’s request for Party status and the Tribunal granted it status as requested.

7The Tribunal was also anticipating an update on a previous Party Status request from Roberta Jong, as represented by her spouse, Nelson Wong, who was considering advancing their concerns as a part of submissions expected from the Draper Street Steering Committee (“DSSC”), now identified as the DSRA above. Neither Ms. Jong nor Mr. Wong appeared at this CMC, and when canvassed by the Tribunal, all Parties were unaware of any reason for their absence. Furthermore, the information received from the DSRA representative was that these individuals were apparently content to be represented by the DSRA, once confirmed with its own Party status. In the absence of both Ms. Jong and Mr. Wong, the Tribunal withheld any decision to proceed with either Party or Participant status.

8An additional written Participant Status Request dated April 15, 2024, from Maxine Isaac, owner of 20 Draper Street, was also received, expressing concerns about building height, parking and transportation, landscaping/tree preservation, and the future impact of construction at the Subject Site among other issues. There were no concerns or objections from any of the Parties to this request, and the Tribunal conferred Participant status on Ms. Isaac. The Tribunal reaffirmed that it had also previously conferred Participant status on Benjamin Elkin, Craig Kirkham, and Sanjay Pathak.

PROCEDURAL ORDER, ISSUES LIST (“PO/IL”), AND REQUEST FOR HEARING

9The Tribunal was in receipt of an updated draft PO/IL, dated April 23, 2024, and ensured that the added Parties were circulated with the draft after some mistaken emails to different counsel/consultants had been identified and the Parties consented to have these names removed from any future circulation of documents.

10The Tribunal was also in receipt of an email dated April 22, 2024, outlining the Issues List of the WPNA, which was reconfirmed on May 14, 2024, including the following:

• Height of the proposed development, regarding both its conformance with the King Spadina Secondary Plan and with respect to its neighbouring buildings;
• Building Massing;
• Heritage considerations, and in particular the transition to the immediately adjoining Draper Street Heritage Conservation District; and,
• Vehicle access being from Draper Street instead of Wellington Street West (as had been agreed with the developer of the building proposed immediately to the west at 485 Wellington Street West).

11Ms. Narine submitted a letter to the Tribunal stating that the DSRA was generally in agreement with the identical Issues noted in the email from the WPNA and further emphasized that the Vehicle Access Issue is of primary importance to the DSRA.

12Furthermore, the Tribunal identified some duplication between the Parties’ respective lists, and all Parties consented to a third CMC which could be scheduled for early August 2024, along with the scheduling of a Merit Hearing for March of 2025. This would allow for some additional time for the Parties to further scope the issues, likely resulting in a final PO/IL submission to follow.

13After careful consideration of the respective calendars of Parties, the Tribunal scheduled a further CMC for Tuesday August 6, 2024, at 10 a.m. by Video Conference and a Merit Hearing was scheduled to commence on Tuesday, March 4, 2025, to Friday March 14, 2025, at 10 a.m. by Video Conference for a total of nine (9) days.

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:

https://meet.goto.com/558205565

Access code: 558-205-565

15Persons 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 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The access code is as indicated above.

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

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 Parties also agreed and were directed to provide the Case Coordinator with an updated draft PO/IL on or before May 10, 2024, which would assist the Tribunal in guiding the proceedings to follow in the matter. The updated draft PO/IL was received on May 16, 2024, on consent of the Appellant, the City, and the WPNA. Consent from the DSRA was subsequently received on May 17, 2024

19Finally, the Parties are reminded that Tribunal-led mediation is available if mutually agreed upon, and if requested through the Case Coordinator.

ORDER

20THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:

a) The date and particulars of the further Case Management Conference and Merit Hearing are set out above; and,

b) The updated draft Procedural Order and Issues List on consent, is attached below as Schedule A to this Order;

c) The directions in this Decision above are so ordered.

21There will be no further notice.

22The Member is not seized on this matter.

“Steven T. Mastoras”

STEVEN T. MASTORAS

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 “A”

ISSUE DATE: May 17, 2024 CASE NO.: OLT-23-001250

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

Applicant and Appellant: 1094950 Ontario Limited

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

Purpose: To permit the redevelopment of the site with a 23-storey mixed-use building

Reference Number: 22 179828 STE 10 OZ

Property Address: 467-479 Wellington Street West and 33 Draper Street

Municipality: City of Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001250

OLT File No.: OLT-23-001250

OLT Case Name: 1094950 Ontario Limited v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: 1094950 Ontario Limited

Subject: Site Plan – To permit the redevelopment of the site with a 23-storey mixed-use building

Reference Number: 22 179827 STE 10 SA

Property Address: 467-479 Wellington Street West and 33 Draper Street

Municipality: City of Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001251

OLT File No.: OLT-23-001250

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 March 4, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. as directed in the Tribunal's Decision and Order.

3. The length of the hearing will be nine (9) days. The Parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues, where possible. The procedural order deadlines are generally found in Attachment 1.

4. The Parties and Participants identified at the Case Management Conference are listed in Attachment 2 to this Order.

5. The Issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3 to this Order. The Parts will attempt to resolve the issues prior to the hearing on the merits of the appeal. There will be no changes to the Issues List unless the Tribunal permits, and a Party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6. The order of evidence is set out in Attachment 4 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the Parties' consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

7. Any person intending to participate in the hearing shall provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal. Any such person who retains a representative must advise the other Parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number.

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/guides/).

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 Acknowledgement of Expert Duty form(s), and the order in which the witnesses will be called. This list must be delivered at least on or before November 8, 2024. For expert witnesses, a Party is to identify the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified. Any challenges to the witness, including qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence in the area of expertise proposed shall be made by motion in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules and notice of same must be served on the other Parties on or before November 22, 2024.

10. Expert witnesses in the same discipline(s) shall have at least one meeting before the hearing to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. The experts shall prepare a list of any agreed facts and the remaining issues to be addressed at the hearing, and provide this list to all of the Parties and the Tribunal on or before December 13, 2024, if agreement is reached.

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, and the curriculum vitae and Acknowledgment of Expert Duty Form previously provided as in Section 9. Copies must be provided as in Section 13. 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 other Parties at the same as the delivery of expert witness statements, as in Section 13.

12. A witness or participant must provide to the Tribunal and the Parties a witness statement or participant statement, respectively, on or before January 17, 2025, or the witness may not give oral evidence at the hearing. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

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 Section 13.

14. On or before January 17, 2025, the Parties shall provide copies of their expert witness statements (full disclosure including reports) to the other Parties.

15. On or before January 31, 2025, the Parties may provide to all other Parties a written response to any written evidence.

16. On or before February 7, 2025, the Parties shall advise the Tribunal of whether any hearings dates scheduled for this matter may be released from the Tribunal's calendar. This request may only be made on consent of all of the Parties. If no hearing dates are intended to be released from the Tribunal's calendar, no Party is required to advise the Tribunal anything further in that regard.

17. On or before February 7, 2025, the Parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other Parties. The Tribunal and all Parties shall be notified if a model will be used, all Parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the scheduled commencement of the hearing.

18. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. Such a motion shall be in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rule 10, which requires that the moving Party provide copies of the motion to all other Parties at least 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

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

20. On or before February 7, 2025, the Parties shall prepare and file a detailed Work Plan that identifies the following, at a minimum: the identified Parties participating in the Hearing Event, preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the date a witness is intended to attend the Tribunal, the identified witness name/expertise, and the approximate time allotted for Examination in Chief, Cross Examination and any re-examination (if any) (the “Work Plan”). The Work Plan should be adhered to guide the Hearing Event to the best ability of all the Parties, and any and all witnesses shall be available on the identified date(s), unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the Work Plan throughout the Hearing Event.

21. The Parties shall prepare a Joint Document Book on or before February 14, 2025, and which one (1) hard copy will be filed with the Tribunal as soon as practicable in advance of the Hearing. All Parties must be served with the Joint Document Book in paper or an accessible electronic format in accordance with Section 22.

22. 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 October 17, 2024. The applicant acknowledges that any revisions to the proposal after that date without the consent of the Parties may be grounds for a request to adjourn the hearing.

23. All filing of documents and materials shall be electronic to the Tribunal, the Parties and Participants (if any). The Tribunal will be provided a hard copy of documents and materials in advance of the hearing event as soon as practicable. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Rule 7. All documents to be filed with the Tribunal shall be organized, tabbed and digitally searchable and such materials will be filed in accordance with directions contained in the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, dated July 2, 2020, or as may be amended. Section 22 applies regardless if the hearing event is in-person or electronic.

24. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness or as permitted by Section 21. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

25. The Tribunal may conduct mediation on consent of all Parties, on consent of those Parties who wish to participate in mediation, or if the Tribunal sees fit.

26. The purpose of this Procedural Order and the meaning of the terms used in this Procedural Order are set out in Attachment 5.

This Member is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
October 17, 2024	Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any)
November 8, 2024	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
November 22, 2024	Last date to challenge identification of expert witness
December 13, 2024	Experts meeting prior to this date
December 13, 2024	Agreed Statement of Facts
January 17, 2025	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
January 31, 2025	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
February 7, 2025	Parties to Advise Tribunal if any hearing dates are to be released from the hearing calendar (if any)
February 7, 2025	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
February 7, 2025	Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal
February 14, 2025	Finalize Joint Document Book
March 4, 2025	Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

A. PARTIES

Counsel/*Agent

1. 1094950 Ontario Limited David Bronskill Goodmans LLP Bay Adelaide Centre - West Tower 333 Bay Street, Suite 3400 Toronto, ON M5H 2S7 David Bronskill Email: dbronskill@goodmans.ca Tel: 416.597.4299

2. City of Toronto Sarah O’Connor/Uttra Gautam City of Toronto, Legal Services Metro Hall, 26th Floor 55 John Street Toronto, Ontario M5V 3C6 E-mail: Sarah.OConnor@toronto.ca Uttra.Gautam@toronto.ca Tel: 416. 397.5378/416.396.7986

3. Wellington Place Neighbourhood Association Andrew King 416.919.1785 andrewkingto@gmail.com

4. Draper Street Residents Association Florence Narine (416) 801-0640 fsnarine@yahoo.ca

B. PARTICIPANTS

Elkin, Benjamin 416.316.0879 benelkin@gmail.com Maxine Isaac 416.347.5684 maxineisaac@aol.com Kirkham, Craig 416.997.2472 oranjeparc@gmail.com Pathak, Sanjay 647.262.9034 sanjay.pathak@gmail.com

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUES LIST

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

A. City of Toronto

Legislative and Policy Tests

Planning Act

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

Provincial Policy Statement (2020)

2. Is the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), including 1.1.3.3, 1.7.1, 2.6 and 4.6, pursuant to Section 3 of the Planning Act?

Growth Plan

3. Does the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment conform with and not conflict with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019), including 1.2.1, 2.2.1.4, 2.2.2.3, 2.2.3.1, 4.2.7 and 5.2.5.6?

City of Toronto Official Plan

4. Does the proposed development conform to the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, including sections: 2.2.1 (Heart of Toronto: Downtown); 3.1.3 (Built Form), 3.1.4 (Built Form – Building Types), 3.1.6 (Heritage Conservation), 5.3.2 and 5.6 (Implementation)?

5. Does the proposed development conform to the King-Spadina Secondary Plan (1996), including policies 2.3, 2.5, 3.3, 3.6 and 4?

6. Does the proposed development conform to the King-Spadina Secondary Plan (Official Plan Amendment 486 as approved by the Tribunal on August 14, 2023), including policies 2.2, 2.3, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 6.1, 6.3, 6.10, 6.11, 6.12, 6.13, 6.14, 7.1, 7.7, and 7.8?

7. Does the proposed development conform to the Downtown Secondary Plan (Official Plan Amendment 406), including policies 3.3, 6.9, 6.10, 6.26, 9.1, 9.8, 9.9, and 9.10

Design Guidelines

8. Does the development have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto Mid-rise Building Performance Standards?

9. Does the development have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines?

10. Does the development have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto King-Spadina Urban Design Guidelines?

Site-Specific Issues

Land Use

11. Does the proposed development support the enhancement of non-residential uses to strengthen economic activity?

Built Form

12. Is the built form of the proposed development appropriate, including: a. Are the proposed building heights and stepbacks appropriate? b. Does the proposal fit within the existing and planned context in terms of built form? c. Are the shadow impacts from the proposed development onto the future park at 456 Wellington Street West adequately limited?

Heritage

13. Is the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment contrary to the objectives of the King-Spadina Heritage Conservation District Plan?

14. Is the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment in conflict with the King-Spadina Heritage Conservation District Plan?

15. Does the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment conserve the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the King-Spadina Heritage Conservation District?

16. Does the proposed development maintain the intent and purpose of the principles set out in the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada?

17. Has the proposed development been designed to conserve the cultural heritage values and attributes of the property at 33 Draper Street and mitigate visual and physical impacts on it?

18. Has the proposed development been designed to ensure that the integrity of the adjacent Draper Street Heritage Conservation District values, attributes and character are conserved and to mitigate visual and physical impacts on it's integrity?

Transportation and Servicing

19. Does the proposed development provide an adequate supply of accessible vehicular parking spaces?

20. Has the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment demonstrated that there is sufficient water, wastewater and sanitary services available to service the proposed development, taking into account existing, planned and proposed development within the applicable water, wastewater or sanitary servicing distribution network?

21. If not, should a holding (“H”) symbol be imposed on any Zoning By-law Amendment for the lands until such time as sufficient water, wastewater and/or sanitary services can be made available to service the proposed development, including any required improvements and/or upgrades to municipal infrastructure?

Good Planning and Public Interest

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

Implementation

23. In the event that the Ontario Land Tribunal allows the appeals in whole or in part, should the Tribunal withhold its Order(s) on the Zoning By-law Amendment until City Solicitor has confirmed that the following conditions have been satisfied: a. the final form and content of the draft Zoning By-law is to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning; b. a revised Functional Servicing Report, Stormwater Management Report, and Hydrogeological Review, including the Foundation Drainage Report or addendums ("Engineering Reports"), to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, in consultation with the General Manager, Toronto Water; c. 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 should it be determined that improvements or upgrades are required to support the development; and d. the implementation of the accepted Engineering Reports does not require changes to the proposed amending By-laws or any such required changes have been made to the proposed amending By-laws, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the City Solicitor, including the use of a Holding ("H") By-law symbol regarding any new infrastructure or upgrades to existing municipal servicing infrastructure as may be required.

B. Wellington Place Neighbourhood Association

1. Is the height and building massing of the proposal appropriate, having regard both to its conformity with the King-Spadina Secondary Plan and with respect to its neighbouring buildings?

2. Has appropriate consideration been given to cultural heritage matters and, in particular, transition to the adjacent Draper Street Heritage Conservation District?

3. Should vehicle access be moved from Draper Street to Wellington Street West (as had been agreed to with the developer of the building immediately to the west at 485 Wellington Street West)?

C. Draper Street Residents Association

1. Is the height of the proposal appropriate, having regard to the existing and planned context of the area?

2. Should vehicle access be moved from Draper Street to Wellington Street West?

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. 1094950 Ontario Limited
2. City of Toronto
3. Wellington Place Neighbourhood Association
4. 1094950 Ontario Limited (reply if any)

ATTACHMENT 5

Purpose of the Procedural Order and Meaning of Terms

Party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other Parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. If an unincorporated group wishes to become a Party, it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a Party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer, and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorization from the Party.

NOTE that a person who wishes to become a Party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the Case Management Conference, must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

Participant is an individual, group or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may attend only part of the proceeding but who makes a written statement to the Tribunal on all or some of the issues in the hearing in accordance with Rule 7.7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

NOTE that such persons will likely not receive notice of a mediation or conference calls on procedural issues. They also cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision as Parties can.

Written and Visual Evidence:

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a Party intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.

Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a Party intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

Witness Statements:

A witness statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which the witness will discuss and the witness’ opinions on those issues; and a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include the expert’s (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons for the opinions and (5) a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which the participant will address and a short outline of the evidence on those issues; and a list of reports, relied upon, if any, which the participant will provide to the Tribunal for consideration of the written statement at the hearing.

Additional Information:

Summons: A Party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons. This request must be made before the time that the list of witnesses is provided to the Tribunal and the Parties (see Rule 13 on the summons procedure). If the Tribunal requests it, an affidavit must be provided indicating how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the affidavit, it will require that a motion be heard to decide whether the witness should be summoned.

The order of examination of witnesses: is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:

• direct examination by the Party presenting the witness;
• direct examination by any Party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;
• cross-examination by Parties of opposite interest;
• re-examination by the Party presenting the witness; or
• another order of examination mutually agreed among the Parties or directed by the Tribunal.

1. 1390-5523-6361