SLH Lakeshore Inc. v. Toronto (City), 2024 CanLII 53867

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: June 3, 2024 CASE NO.: OLT-23-000697

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

Applicant/Appellant: SLH Lakeshore Inc.

Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application – failure to make a decision

Description: To permit a mixed-use development of two residential towers of 38 and 43 storeys containing 899 dwelling units above a 4-storey mixed-use podium

Reference Number: 22 204512 STE 14 OZ

Municipality: City of Toronto

Property Address: 685 Lake Shore Boulevard East

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000697

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000697

OLT Case Name: SLH Lakeshore Inc. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant(s)/Appellant(s): SLH Lakeshore Inc.

Subject: Site Plan Control Application – failure to approve

Description: To permit a mixed-use development of two residential towers of 38 and 43 storeys containing 899 dwelling units above a 4-storey mixed-use podium

Reference Number: 22 204511 STE 14 SA

Municipality: City of Toronto

Property Address: 685 Lake Shore Boulevard East

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000698

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000697

OLT Case Name: SLH Lakeshore Inc. v. Toronto (City)

BEFORE:

D. CHIPMAN ) Thursday, the 30^th day of MEMBER ) ) May, 2024 JACKIE DENYES ) MEMBER )

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Procedural Order, as agreed to between the Parties and attached hereto as Schedule “A”, shall be in force and effect for the purpose of governing the required procedures leading up to and including the hearing, which is scheduled to commence on February 10, 2025.

“Euken Lui”

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.

Schedule “A”

Procedural Order

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

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will begin on Monday, February 10, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. at the following link: https://meet.goto.com/677087597 (Access Code: 677-087-597)

3. The length of the hearing is 15 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. The meaning of the terms used in this Procedural Order are identified in Attachment 4.

8. 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.

9. 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

10. If the Applicant/Appellant intends to seek approval of a revised version of its proposal at the hearing, the Applicant/Appellant shall provide details of the revised proposal, including revised plans and drawings, proposed instruments, updated supporting documents and reports to the other parties on or before Tuesday, September 10, 2024, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. If the Applicant/Appellant provides a revised proposal, the parties shall have the right to reasonably revise the issues list to address the revision(s). If the Applicant/Appellant provides a revised proposal after the last date for revised plans above without the consent of the parties, it may be grounds for a request to adjourn the hearing.

11. 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, October 4, 2024 and in accordance with paragraph 24 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified. Any challenges to the witness, including qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence in the area of expertise proposed shall be made by motion in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules and notice of same must be served on the other parties on or before Friday, October 18, 2024.

12. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Friday, November 1, 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, November 15, 2024.

13. 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 15 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.

14. 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 15 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 15 below.

15. On or before Friday, December 6, 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 24 below.

16. On or before Friday, December 6, 2024, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator in accordance with paragraph 24 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

17. On or before Wednesday, December 18, 2024, the parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence in accordance with paragraph 24 below.

18. On or before Monday, January 6, 2025, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

19. On or before Monday, January 27, 2025, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 24 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

20. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Monday, January 27, 2025.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Friday, January 31, 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.

24. 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.

25. 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.

These Members are not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE

EVENT

Tuesday, September 10, 2024

Deadline for Applicant/Appellant to provide Revised Proposal

Friday, October 4, 2024

Exchange List of Proposed Witnesses

Friday, October 18, 2024

Deadline to file Motion to Challenge Witness Qualification

Friday, November 1, 2024

Deadline for Expert Witness Meeting

Friday, November 15, 2024

Deadline for Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues

Friday, December 6, 2024

Deadline for Witness Statements, Expert Witness Statements and Participant Statements

Wednesday, December 18, 2024

Deadline for Reply Witness Statements (if any), Reply Expert Witness Statements (if any), and Reply Visual Evidence (if any)

Monday, January 6, 2025

Deadline for advising the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are required

Monday, January 27, 2025

Deadline for Visual Evidence

Monday, January 27, 2025

Deadline for Joint Document Book

Friday, January 31, 2025

Deadline for Preliminary Hearing Plan

Monday, February 10, 2025

Commencement of Hearing

ATTACHMENT 1

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

Parties

Counsel/Representative

SLH Lakeshore Inc.

Aird & Berlis LLP Brookfield Place 181 Bay Street, Suite 1800 Toronto, ON M5J 2T9 Eileen Costello Email: ecostello@airdberlis.com Tel: 416.865.4740 Jasmine C.M. Fraser Email: jcmfraser@airdberlis.com Tel: 647.426.2316

City of Toronto

City of Toronto Metro Hall 55 John Street, 26th Floor Toronto, ON M5V 3C6 Sarah O’Connor Email: Sarah.OConnor@toronto.ca Tel: 416.397.5378 Lauren Pinder Email: lauren.pinder@toronto.ca Tel: 416.392.0797

115 Saulter South LP

Goodmans LLP Bay Adelaide Centre 333 Bay Street, Suite 3400 Toronto, ON M5H 2S7 Anne Benedetti Email: abenedetti@goodmans.ca Tel: 416.597.5929 Max Laskin Email: mlaskin@goodmans.ca Tel: 416.849.6938

1956565 Ontario Inc.

Goodmans LLP Bay Adelaide Centre 333 Bay Street, Suite 3400 Toronto, ON M5H 2S7 David Bronskill Email: dbronskill@goodmans.ca Tel: 416.597.4299 Joe Hoffman Email: jhoffman@goodmans.ca Tel: 416.597.5168

Participants

Hydro One Networks Inc. (Email: raman.dhillon@hydroone.com)

Tepfam Holdings Inc. (Email: jordanteperman@rogers.com)

ATTACHMENT 2

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 having jurisdiction over such matters in each circumstance. Accordingly, no Party shall advance an issue not identified on the Issues List without leave of the Tribunal.

A. ISSUES OF THE CITY OF TORONTO

Planning Act

1. Does the proposed development have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including (f), (h), (j) and (r)?

Provincial Policy Statement 2020

2. Is the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement as required by Section 3(5) of the Planning Act, including policy 1.1.1 (b), (c), (e) and (g) and 1.4.3?

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

3. Does the proposed development conform to and not conflict with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe as required by Section 3(5) of the Planning Act, including policies 1.2.1, 2.2.1.4, 2.2.4.9 (a), 2.2.6.1 and 2.2.6.3?

City of Toronto Official Plan

4. Would the proposed development conform with the City of Toronto Official, Plan including sections 2.2 (Structuring Growth in the City), 3.1 (The Built Environment), 3.1.1 (Public Realm), 3.2.1 (Housing), 4.7 (Regeneration Areas), 5.1.2 (Holding By-laws) and 5.3 (Moving Together Beyond the Plan)?

5. Does the proposed development conform with the following policies from the Central Waterfront Secondary Plan:

• 2.1. Planning at a Precinct Level

• 4.2.3. McCleary District (PIC Mixed-Use District)

• 4.7. Land Use Compatibility

• 8. Inclusive Communities
• 9. Movement and Access
• 10. Built Form
• 12. Innovation and Sustainability
• 15. Implementation

6. Does the proposal have appropriate regard for the Port Lands Planning Framework (2017)?

Guidelines

7. Does the proposed development meet the intent and purpose of the Tall Building Design Guidelines (2013)?

8. Does the proposed development meet the intent and purpose of the Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities, Urban Design Guidelines (2020)?

9. Does the proposed development meet the intent and purpose of the Pet Friendly Design Guidelines and Best Practices for New Multi-Unit Buildings (2019)?

Land Use & Precinct Planning

10. Would approval of the proposed development be premature until the McCleary District Precinct Plan is further advanced in addressing, among other matters:

a) the distribution and proportion of PIC Core uses;

b) layout of streets (public and/or private);

c) compatibility;

d) flood protection;

e) servicing;

f) affordable housing; and.

g) coordination with area infrastructure projects, including the extension of Broadview Avenue?

11. Does the proposed development appropriately address the matters set out in Issue 10 a) to g) above?

Built Form/Urban Design

12. Do built form characteristics of the proposed development including the height, density, massing, setbacks, separation distance and scale represent good land use planning and good urban design? Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, does the proposed development address the following:

a) provide appropriate base and tower building heights and floorplates consistent with precinct planning for McCleary District;

b) provide street level retail and other animation to frame and activate a high quality public realm;

c) mitigate wind and shadow impacts on public realm, parkland and neighbouring properties;

d) provide building setbacks and step-backs and an overall built form which has regard to existing and potential future development within the block and broader precinct;

e) preserve views to area heritage features consistent with the planned vision for the District; and

f) provide an architectural response to net-zero sustainability objectives and passive design consistent with the CWSP?

Housing and Unit Mix

13. Does the development contribute to the creation of a range and mix of housing options in the community consistent with City and provincial objectives for development in the vicinity of transit infrastructure?

14. Does the development provide appropriate numbers and sizes of dwelling units?

15. Does the proposal provide an adequate supply of affordable housing consistent with the targets established through the CWSP and precinct planning?

Infrastructure

16. Are there adequate municipal services in place to support the development, including the availability of adequate sanitary, storm and water capacity, including water pressure, and the implementation of appropriate stormwater management measures and groundwater management measures?

Public Interest and Good Planning

17. Is the proposed zoning by-law amendment good planning and in the public interest?

Implementation

18. If the requested Zoning By-law Amendment is approved by the Tribunal, in whole or in part, should the Tribunal's final order be withheld until it has been advised by the City Solicitor that:

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) the owner has addressed outstanding issues in relation to site servicing and has submitted revised Functional Servicing, Stormwater Management and Hydrogeological Reports providing confirmation of water, sanitary and stormwater capacity, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, and entered into and registered a financially secured agreement satisfactory to the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services to construct, provide, make operational, and warrant any necessary upgrades to existing services and facilities or new services and facilities;

c) the final draft Zoning By-law includes appropriate holding provisions addressing matters related to flood protection, compatibility, transportation infrastructure, servicing, solid waste management, affordable housing and matters relevant to precinct planning to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning; and

d) the necessary studies, including those related to pedestrian level wind impacts, sun and shadow, and noise and air quality compatibility have been completed and their recommendations addressed to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning?

B. ISSUES OF 115 SAULTER SOUTH LP

19. Does the application have appropriate regard to matters of Provincial interest in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections (f), (h), (k), (m), (n) and (r)?

20. Is the application consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), including sections 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.2.1, 1.3.1, 1.5.1(a) and 1.6.7.1?

21. Does the application conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, including sections 1.2.1, 2.2.1.4, 3.2.2.1 and 3.2.2.2?

22. Does the application conform with the City of Toronto Official Plan, including policies 2.2.4, 2.2.5, and sections 2.2.1 (Downtown: The Heart of Toronto), 3.1.1 (Public Realm), 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 (Built Form), 3.5.1 (Creating a Strong and Diverse Civic Economy) and 4.7 (Regeneration Areas)?

23. Does the application conform with the Central Waterfront Secondary Plan, including the Port Lands Area Specific Policy?

24. Does the application have appropriate regard for, and appropriately implement, the Port Lands Planning Framework?

25. Does the application have appropriate regard for, and appropriately implement, the Tall Building Design Guidelines?

26. Is approval of the proposed zoning amendments premature prior to the completion of a Precinct Plan, Precinct Implementation Strategy or other precinct planning exercise for the McCleary District?

27. Does the proposed development appropriately take into account the planned context and potential development of the McCleary District?

28. Does the location and massing of the proposed built form provide for an appropriate relationship to the lands located immediately to the south?

29. Is the proposed east-west private street appropriate and does it represent good planning?

30. Does the proposed development inappropriately limit the potential future redevelopment of the lands located immediately to the south?

31. If approved by the Tribunal, what are appropriate pre-conditions to the issuance of a final order? Is the form and content of the proposed zoning by-law amendment appropriate?

C. ISSUES OF 1956565 ONTARIO INC.

32. Does the application have appropriate regard to matters of Provincial interest in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections (f), (h), (j), (k), (m), (n), (p) and (r)?

33. Is the application consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), including sections 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.2.1, 1.3.1, 1.4.1, 1.5.1(a) 1.6.7.1 and 4.6?

34. Does the application conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, including sections 1.2.1, 2.2.1.4, 2.2.4.3, 2.2.6.1(a), 2.2.6.2, 3.2.2.1 and 3.2.2.2?

35. Does the application conform with the City of Toronto Official Plan, including policies 2.2.4 and 2.2.5,1 (Structuring Growth In the City: Integrating Land Use and Transportation), 3.1.1 (Public Realm), 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 (Built Form), and 4.7 (Regeneration Areas)?

36. Does the application conform with the Central Waterfront Secondary Plan, including the Port Lands Area Specific Policy and policies relevant to the McCleary District?

37. Does the application have appropriate regard for the Port Lands Planning Framework?

38. Does the application have appropriate regard for the Tall Building Design Guidelines?

39. Should the proposed podium and tower siting and setbacks be evaluated on a comprehensive basis taking into account the precinct planning exercise being undertaken for the McCleary District and the location and width of the Future Broadview Avenue Extension and any related impacts on 120 Bouchette Street?

40. Does the proposed development provide for an appropriate relationship to the lands immediately east of the subject site at 120 Bouchette Street?

41. Does the proposed development inappropriately limit the future redevelopment potential of the lands immediately east of the subject site at 120 Bouchette Street and has phasing, including with respect to road access, been appropriately considered?

42. Is the proposed location and width of the Future Broadview Avenue Extension appropriate and does it represent good planning and, if not, how does the relocation and width of the Future Broadview Avenue Extension impact the development proposal?

43. Is the proposed interim and ultimate access condition appropriate and does it represent good planning?

44. Is the servicing solution for the proposed development appropriate, does it appropriately accommodate servicing requirement for the future redevelopment of 120 Bouchette Street and is there sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed development and the future development of nearby lands?

45. Is the proposed east-west private street appropriate and does it represent good planning?

46. What is the justification for providing less than 25% PIC Core land uses and is this appropriate?

47. Is the form and content of the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment appropriate?

48. In the event the Tribunal allows the appeal, should the Order be withheld and, if so, what are appropriate pre-conditions for the issuance of a final Order?

ATTACHMENT 3

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. SLH Lakeshore Inc.

2. City of Toronto

3. 115 Saulter South LP

4. 1956565 Ontario Inc.

5. Reply by SLH Lakeshore Inc. (if any)

ATTACHMENT 4

PURPOSE OF THE PROCEDURAL ORDER

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

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

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

Meaning of terms used in the Procedural Order:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Information

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

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

• direct examination by the party presenting the witness;

• direct examination by any party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;

• cross-examination by parties of opposite interest;

• re-examination by the party presenting the witness; or

• another order of examination mutually agreed among the parties or directed by the Tribunal.