Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: May 30, 2024 CASE NO.: OLT-23-000785

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

Applicant/Appellant: 5047178 Ontario Inc. and Rosart Bucci Group Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit a townhouse development consisting of 141 units Reference Number: PZ-18-22 Property Address: 58 Morrell Street Municipality/UT: Brantford/Brant OLT Case No: OLT-23-000785 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000785 OLT Case Name: Rosart Bucci Group v. Brantford (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Applicant/Appellant: 5047178 Ontario Inc. and Rosart Bucci Group Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision Description: To permit a townhouse development consisting of 141 units Reference Number: 29CD-22504 Property Address: 58 Morrell Street Municipality/UT: Brantford/Brant OLT Case No: OLT-23-000786 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000785

BEFORE: CARMINE TUCCI MEMBER Thursday, the 30th day of May, 2024

THIS MATTER having come before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal in its decision issued on September 5, 2023, having scheduled a twenty-day hearing commencing on October 21, 2024, and the Tribunal having been provided with a finalized draft procedural order and issues list;

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Procedural Order set out as Attachment “A” to this Order shall be in full force and effect for the purposes of governing the required procedure leading up to and including the hearing scheduled to commence on October 21, 2024.

“Euken Lui” ACTING 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

ATTACHMENT “A”

ISSUE DATE: May 30, 2024 CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000785 and OLT-23-000786

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

Applicant and Appellant: 5047178 Ontario Inc. and Rosart Bucci Group Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit a townhouse development consisting of 141 units Reference Number: PZ-18-22 Property Address: 58 Morrell Street Municipality/UT: Brantford/Brant OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000785 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000785 OLT Case Name: Rosart Bucci Group v. Brantford (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: 5047178 Ontario Inc. and Rosart Bucci Group Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision Description: To permit a townhouse development consisting of 141 units Reference Number: 29CD-22504 Property Address: 58 Morrell Street Municipality/UT: Brantford/Brant OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000786 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000785

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 take place from October 21, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. to November 15, 2024 (inclusive) at the following link: https://meet.goto.com/680885805.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 20 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 Friday, July 19, 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, July 26, 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 Friday, August 30, 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 Friday, August 30, 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. On or before Tuesday, September 3, 2024, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

16. On or before Monday, September 30, 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.

17. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence within thirty (30) days after the evidence is received and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

18. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Monday, October 7, 2024.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Monday, October 14, 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.

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

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.

The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.

This Member is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE: Name of Member: Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

ATTACHMENT 1 Parties

PARTIES

5047178 Ontario Inc. and Rosart Bucci Group WeirFoulds LLP 66 Wellington St W Suite 4100 Toronto, ON M5K 1B7 Raj Kehar rkehar@weirfoulds.com

City of Brantford Aird & Berlis LLP 181 Bay Street, Suite 1800 Toronto, ON M5J 2T9 Eileen Costello & Laura Dean ecostello@airdberlis.com ldean@airdberlis.com

S.C. Johnson & Son Inc. Papazian Heisey Myers 121 King Street West, P.O. Box 105, Suite 510 Toronto, Ontario M5H 3T9 Alan Heisey heisey@phmlaw.com

Hartmann Canada Inc. Ian Flett Professional Corporation 99 Yorkville Avenue, Suite 200 Toronto, Ontario M5R 1C1 Ian Flett ian@flettlaw.ca

ATTACHMENT 2- ISSUES LISTS

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

Land Use Policies

1. Do any of the industrial facilities in the vicinity of the Bucci Lands fit the definition of Major facilities as set out in the Provincial Policy Statement 2020?

2. Do/are the proposed zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision applications (the “Applications”) for the Bucci Lands:

(a) consistent with the purposes of the Planning Act, as indicated in Section 1.1, subsections (a) to (f)?

(b) give sufficient regard to matters of provincial interest as outlined in sections 2 (e), (f), (g), (h), (h.1), (j) (k), (l), (m), (n), (o), (p), (q), (r)and (s) of the Planning Act?

(c) have sufficient regard to the criteria for draft plans of subdivision as set out in subsection 51 (24) of the Planning Act, specifically clauses (a) to (d) and (g)?

(d) in conformity with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 having regard to sections: 1.2; 1.2.1 3rd bullet; 1.2.3; 2.1; 2.2.1.2; 2.2.1.4 (a), (b); 2.2.5.1; 2.2.5.5; 2.2.5.6; 2.2.5.7; 2.2.5.8; 2.2.5.9; 2.2.5.14; 3.2.4.2 (a), (b), and (c); 5.2.1.2; 5.2.4; 5.2.5; and associated schedules and definitions, including sub-policies and associated schedules? i. Is the approval of the Applications required for the relevant targets to be met under the Growth Plan, in the City of Brantford?

(e) internally consistent or in conformity with the City of Brantford Official Plan (July 2023 Consolidation) referencing sections: 1.1; 1.2; 2.2; Principles 5, 7 and 10; 3.2 (a) (i), (ii) and (c); 3.3 (b); 3.5 (a), (b); 4.2 (a) (iii), (a)(iv), (a)(vi), (a)(viii); 4.3 (a) – (c) and (h); 5.1(a) – (e), (k); 5.2; 5.2.1 (a), (b), (t), (u); 5.2.4; 5.4; 5.4.2; 6.3; 6.8; 7.1(v), (w), (x); 9.1 (c); 9.2 (a), (b), (c) and (e); 9.3 (e), (f) and associated schedules and definitions, including sub-policies and associated schedules?

(f) consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) specifically: Page 1, Paragraphs 1-3 and 5-7; Page 2, Paragraphs 5-9; Page 3, Paragraph 1; Page 3, Paragraph 2; Page 3, Paragraphs 5-6; and 8; Page 4 Paragraphs 1-5; Page 5 Paragraphs 1-2 and 5-6; Page 6, Paragraph 4; 1.1.1; 1.1.2; 1.1.3.2; 1.1.3.3; 1.1.3.4; 1.2.1; 1.2.6.1; 1.2.6.2; 1.3.1; 1.3.2.1; 1.3.2.2; 1.3.2.3; 1.3.2.4; 1.3.2.5; 1.4.1; 1.4.3 (f); 1.6.10; 1.7.1, 1.8.1 (c); 3.0, 4.1; 4.2; 4.5; 4.6; including definitions and sub-policies where applicable?

(g) Would approving the Applications as proposed be consistent with the Provincial interests enumerated at section 2 of the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016 (“RRCEA”)?

(h) Did the MCR comply with section 14 of the RRCEA in converting the subject site from employment designation to neighbourhood designation? Would implementing the Applications as proposed be consistent with that section of the RRCEA?

(i) Consistent with the Food and Organic Waste Policy Statement, namely policies 6.1, 6.3 and 6.4?

3. Is a detailed site plan, building envelopes, and development phasing plan necessary to properly evaluate any potential adverse effects (e.g., odour, noise, vibration) from the proposed development on the Bucci Lands?

4. Did the Official Plan Review/Municipal Comprehensive Review adopted on March 23, 2021 and approved by MMAH on August 4, 2021, fail to adequately demonstrate: (a) the need for the conversion; (b) whether the Bucci Lands were required for the employment purposes for which they were designated; (c) the municipality will maintain sufficient employment lands to accommodate forecasted employment growth to the horizon of the Growth Plan (d) that the proposed residential use would not adversely affect the overall viability of the Holmedale Employment Area or the City’s ability to achieve the minimum intensification and density targets in the Growth Plan?

5. Should the residential designation of the Bucci Lands be implemented through the proposed zoning by-law amendment to permit sensitive land uses, if at the time the Bucci Lands were converted from Employment Areas to Neighbourhood Areas, the rationale for the conversion failed to consider the following amongst other matters: (a) Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks D-Series Land Use Compatibility Guidelines; (b) the existing land uses within the Holmedale Employment Area; and (c) the potential expansion of existing industrial facilities within the Holmedale Employment Area?

6. Does the proposed development on the Bucci Lands promote economic competitiveness, long-term economic prosperity and does it optimize the long-term availability and use of land?

7. What is the contribution of the Holmedale Employment Area, including SC Johnson & Son Inc. (“SC Johnson”) and Hartmann Canada Inc. (“Hartmann”), to the financial and economic well-being of the Province and the City of Brantford and its agencies in comparison to the development of the Proposal?

8. What would be the consequence to the financial and economic well-being of the Province and the City of Brantford if the Proposal is approved and the SC Johnson 1 Webster Street facility closes with the loss of future SC Johnson investments in the City of Brantford and the Province?

9. What effects, if any, has the proposed development on the Bucci Lands had on planned expansion of businesses within the Holmedale Employment Area?

10. Would the proposed development on the Bucci Lands impact the ability of the City of Brantford to achieve the minimum 2051 employment forecasts contained in Schedule 3 of the Growth Plan?

11. Must the Tribunal have regard for municipal decision-making as it concerns maintaining the current industrial zone category (GE – General Employment) for 58 Morrell Street in the Draft Zoning By-Law, as shown Schedule A, Map D3?

12. Do the set-back for yards and buffering between industrial and residential uses as set out in the City of Brantford Draft New Zoning By-law in Section 3.4, subsections (a) and (b) and in Table 41 (Page 165) further inhibit the use of the lands in the remaining Holmedale Employment Area?

Guidelines

13. Is the SC Johnson facility a Class 3 industrial facility under the D1 and D6 Guidelines of the Ministry of the Environment Conservation and Parks (“MECP”)?

14. How should the D1, D2 and D6 Guidelines of the MECP be applied in assessing the appropriate zoning and subdivision approval of the Bucci Lands in the context of the City of Brantford Official Plan, the Growth Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement? What is the appropriate standard against which the D Series Guidelines should be applied (i.e. regard to, consistency, conformity, etc.)? Does the proposed development meet the requirements of the D-Series Guidelines?

15. Has the Applicant appropriately identified and assessed the cumulative impacts of existing industrial operations nearby to the Bucci Lands, including the SC Johnson and Hartmann facilities and industrially zoned lands to assess the compatibility of the proposed sensitive land uses on the Bucci Lands with those operations and zoned lands?

16. Do the requirements of the PPS require a planning authority in assessing a new sensitive land use in the vicinity of a major facility to protect for the ultimate capacity of that facility in an ultimate configuration, including future uses and changes in the configuration of the major facility?

17. Should the assessment of the environmental impacts of major facility such as the SC Johnson and Hartmann facilities on a proposed sensitive land use be based on an assessment of the complete utilization of the facilities’ capacity “predictable worst case noise impact” including but not limited to planned expansions to ensure changes in land use will not constrain industrial operations or their expansion?

18. Did the Applicant consider the planned installation of an onsite waste water treatment facility on Hartmann’s lands as required through an agreement with the City of Brantford?

19. Have the predictable worst-case assumptions and full utilization for the SC Johnson and Hartmann facilities and other nearby industrial operations been considered or assessed by the Applicant in its reports filed in support of the Applications?

20. What are the appropriate minimum setback distances from the SC Johnson and Hartmann facilities, as the facilities exist and assuming the future full-utilization of the SC Johnson and Hartmann properties to accommodate changes from time to time at the facilities to accommodate business needs, for residential and other sensitive land uses on the Bucci Lands considering: (a) The MECP D series guidelines including the D1, D2 and D6 Guidelines; (b) Environmental impacts from the SC Johnson and Hartmann facilities including outdoor maintenance operations, noise warning devices (i.e. back up beepers), emergency generator, HVAC and mechanical equipment noise, truck noise and diesel fumes, odour and air emissions; (c) Complete utilization of the SC Johnson and Hartmann facilities lands (d) future predictable worst case assumptions; (e) the current in-force Official Plan for the City of Brantford (f) the City of Brantford noise bylaw (g) the risk of lawsuits for nuisance

21. Has the Applicant assessed what is the appropriate minimum setback distance for residential and other sensitive land uses on the Bucci Lands from other nearby industrial facilities considering amongst other matters: (a) The MECP D series guidelines including the D1, D2 and D6 Guidelines; (b) Environmental impacts from those industrial operations including vibration, noise, odour and air emissions; (c) complete utilization of nearby facilities’ lands, including future expansions; (d) future predictable worst-case assumptions; (e) the current in-force Official Plan for the City of Brantford; (f) the City of Brantford noise bylaw; and (g) the risk of lawsuits for nuisance.

22. Should the uses in an implementing zoning by-law for the Bucci Lands be limited to non-sensitive land uses permitted under the existing land use designation?

23. Is it appropriate that the Bucci Lands be classified as Class 4 Area under MECP Guideline NPC 300, considering amongst other matters: (a) The provisions of NPC 300; (b) the City of Brantford Noise By-law; (c) SC Johnson and Hartmann have not consented to the Class 4 classification; (d) The low-rise grade related character of the residential development proposed on the Bucci Lands; (e) The interior noise levels that would be experienced inside the proposed residential units on the Bucci Lands; (f) Existing residential in the vicinity of the SC Johson and Hartmann facilities are located within a Class 1 Area; and (g) The City of Brantford does not support a Class 4 Area classification for the Bucci Lands?

24. If the answer to Issue 23 is no, should the Bucci Lands instead be assessed as Class I under NPC 300?

25. Has it been demonstrated that the proposed residential development on the Bucci Lands and the Applications are acoustically feasible based on a Class 1 Area classification utilizing the mitigation permitted under the NPC 300 Guideline?

26. If development of sensitive land uses is feasible and good planning, should any agreements under NPC 300, environmental easements and agreements under the Industrial Mining and Lands Compensation Act be required for the residential development of the Bucci Lands? If so, can the conditions of a plan of subdivision approval provide for such agreements? What is the legal mechanism for registering such agreements under NPC 300 against title to the Bucci Lands, do they create an interest in land and are they legally/practically enforceable?

27. Should the Applications be approved if the necessary agreements by MECP Publication NPC-300, including with SC Johnson and Hartmann have not been executed?

General

28. Is residential development or other sensitive uses on the Bucci Lands compatible with the existing and future operation of the SC Johnson and Hartmann facilities and good planning?

29. If residential development is feasible on all or a portion of the Bucci Lands, what provisions should be contained in the implementing zoning by-law and or draft plan of subdivision conditions to ensure the implementation and maintenance of any necessary on-site receptor mitigation and phasing to address any environmental and land use impacts?

30. If compatibility between residential uses on the Bucci Lands and the SC Johnson and Hartmann facilities cannot be achieved can a residential designation for the Bucci Lands be implemented?

31. What is the appropriate zoning for the Bucci Lands in consideration of the PPS, Growth Plan and City of Brantford City Official Plan?

Air Quality

32. Should the assessment of the impact of air emissions from the SC Johnson facility on residential development of the Bucci Lands be based on both current air emissions levels and future levels contemplating future expansion of the SC Johnson facility and or new product lines and processes?

33. In assessing air emissions, should consideration be given to potential adverse effects due to odour emissions from upset conditions and fugitive sources?

34. Should receptors such as backyards, decks, front yards, entryways, doors, and operable windows be assessed?

35. Does compliance with an Environmental Compliance Approval issued by MECP ensure no complaints from neighbouring residential development?

36. Does compliance with an Environmental Compliance Approval issued by MECP insulate SC Johnson or Hartmann from charges under the Environmental Protection Act and in particular section 14 of the Act.

Noise

37. Should the assessment of the impact of noise emissions from the SC Johnson and Hartmann facilities on residential development of the Bucci Lands be based on both current noise levels and future levels contemplating future expansion of the SC Johnson and Hartmann facilities and or new product lines and processes?

38. In assessing noise, should consideration be given to potential adverse effects due to noise emissions from upset conditions and fugitive sources?

39. Should receptors such as backyards, decks, front yards, entryways, doors, and windows be assessed? Does compliance with an Environmental Compliance Approval issued by MECP ensure no complaints from adjoining residential development?

40. Does compliance with an Environmental Compliance Approval issued by MECP insulate SC Johnson and Hartmann from charges under the Environmental Protection Act and in particular section 14 of the Act?

41. Will noise from the SC Johnson and Hartmann facilities be clearly audible to future residents of the proposed development on the Bucci Lands and what would the consequences be to SC Johnson and Hartmann in that event?

42. Should any acoustical assessment of the proposed development on the Bucci Lands consider the frequency content/character of the noise sources including possible tonality penalties and not just overall sound levels?

ATTACHMENT 3 – ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. 5047178 Ontario Inc. and Rosart Bucci Group
2. City of Brantford
3. S.C. Johnson & Son Inc.
4. Hartmann Canada Inc.
5. 5047178 Ontario Inc. and Rosart Bucci Group, Reply

Attachment to Sample Procedural Order

Meaning of terms used in the Procedural Order:

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

NOTE that a person who wishes to become a party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

A participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.

A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.

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

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

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

An expert witness statement should include his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons supporting their opinions and conclusions and (5) a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the participant’s position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submissions of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports or materials, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.

Additional Information

A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.

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

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