ISSUE DATE: June 06, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001322

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

Applicant and Appellant: First Capital Holdings (Ontario) Corporation

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

Description: To permit two mixed-use buildings at 12 and 14-storeys in height with a total of 665 residential units

Reference Number: 20 153975 NNY 08 OZ

Property Address: 272-290 Lawrence Avenue West and 1507-1549 Avenue Road

Municipality/UT: Toronto / Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001322

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001322

OLT Case Name: First Capital Holdings (Ontario) Corporation v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: First Capital Holdings (Ontario) Corporation

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

Description: To permit two mixed-use buildings at 12 and 14-storeys in height with a total of 665 residential units

Reference Number: 20 153975 NNY 08 OZ

Property Address: 272-290 Lawrence Avenue West and 1507-1549 Avenue Road

Municipality/UT: Toronto / Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001323

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001322

Heard: March 27, 2024 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
First Capital Holdings (Ontario) Corporation	A. Benedetti
City of Toronto	M. Hardiejowski
Lytton Park Residents’ Organization and Bedford Park Residents’ Organization	M. Kapral* N. Faulkner*

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S.L. DIONNE ON JUNE 4, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This hearing was the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held for the purpose of organizing appeals by First Capital Holdings (Ontario) Corporation (“Appellant”) against the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment in relation to the property located at 272-290 Lawrence Avenue West and 1507-1549 Avenue Road.

2As set out in the April 17, 2024 Order of the Tribunal, a second CMC was required to deal with Status Requests and to finalize a Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List.

STATUS REQUESTS

3At the time of the first CMC, the Tribunal granted Party status to Lytton Park Residents Organization (LPRO). Provisional Party status was granted to Bedford Park Residents Organization (BPRO), subject to confirmation at this second CMC that the two Residents’ Organizations are working together, sharing resources, and will present a single case. Based on submissions of Ms. Kapral and Ms. Faulkner in this CMC, the Tribunal is satisfied that this is the case. LPRO and BPRO are jointly granted Party Status.

4Additionally, at the first CMC, Provisional Participant status was granted to TSCC 2942, conditional on the Tribunal receiving a written request, identifying their issues and/or concerns. A written Participant Statement has been filed setting out TSCC 2942’s concerns in respect of building heights, number of units, traffic, and street level setbacks to make provision for enhanced pedestrian sidewalks. The Tribunal upgraded TSCC 2942’s status to that of Participant status on consent.

5The Tribunal confirmed that no further requests for status have been filed since the time of the first CMC. It is noted that the individual identifying themselves only as “D” at the first CMC has had an opportunity to do so and has chosen not to. No further requests for status will be considered in respect of the matters before the Tribunal.

PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST

6The Tribunal received the updated PO which had been circulated to the Parties. Having reviewed the PO and having canvassed the Parties as to any questions or concerns and hearing none, the Tribunal noted that the issues set out therein are broad enough in scope to include the issues and concerns raised by the Participants in this matter.

7The Tribunal finds the PO appended hereto as Schedule A to be satisfactory. The Parties and Participants are as set out in Attachment 1, and the Issues List is set out in Attachment 2, of the PO.

8The Tribunal directs that the PO appended hereto as Schedule A shall govern the next steps, and the Hearing on the Merits which is scheduled for a nine-day Video Hearing commencing at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, April 22, 2025. The Video Hearing details are set out in the April 17, 2024 Order of the Tribunal.

9No other matters were raised by the Parties.

10There will be no further notice and this Member is not seized.

ORDER

11THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the directions in this Decision are so ordered.

“S.L. Dionne”

S.L. DIONNE MEMBER

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

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001322

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

Applicant and Appellant: First Capital Holdings (Ontario) Corporation

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

Description: To permit two mixed-uses buildings at 12 and 14-storeys in height with a total of 665 residential units

Reference Number: 20 153975 NNY 08 OZ

Property Address: 272-290 Lawrence Avenue West and 1507-1549 Avenue Road

Municipality/UT: Toronto / Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001322

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001322

OLT Case Name: First Capital Holdings (Ontario) Corporation v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: First Capital Holdings (Ontario) Corporation

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

Description: To permit two mixed-uses buildings at 12 and 14-storeys in height with a total of 665 residential units

Reference Number: 20 153975 NNY 08 OZ

Property Address: 272-290 Lawrence Avenue West and 1507-1549 Avenue Road

Municipality/UT: Toronto / Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001323

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001322

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 April 22, 2025 at 10:00 a.m.

3. The length of the hearing is 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.

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. 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 November 28, 2024 (date – at least 90 days prior to the submission of expert witness statements). The applicant acknowledges that any revisions to the proposal after that date without the consent of the parties may be grounds for the Tribunal to adjourn the hearing.

10. 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 December 23, 2024 (date – at least 120 days prior to the start of the hearing) and in accordance with paragraph 23 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.

11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before January 15, 2025 (date at least 97 days prior to the start of the hearing) 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 January 22, 2025 (date – at least 90 days prior to the start of the hearing).

12. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 14 below. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.

13. Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence as in paragraph 14 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 14 below.

14. On or before February 6, 2025 (date – at least 75 days prior to the start of the hearing), the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

15. On or before February 6, 2025 (date – at least 75 days prior to the start of the hearing), a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

16. On or before March 13, 2025 (date – at least 40 days prior to the start of the hearing) the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

17. On or before March 21, 2025 (date - at least 30 days prior to the start of the hearing), the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

18. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before March 7, 2025 (date – at least 45 days prior to the start of the hearing) and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

19. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before April 2, 2025 (date – at least 20 days prior to the start of the hearing).

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

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

22. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before April 11, 2025 (date – at least 10 days prior to the start of the hearing) with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

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

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

This Member is [not] seized. So orders the Tribunal.

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
November 28, 2024	Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any)
December 23, 2024	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
January 15, 2025 and January 22, 2025	Experts Meeting and Agreed Statement of Facts
February 6, 2025	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
March 7, 2025	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
March 21, 2025	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
April 2, 2025	Preparation of Joint Document Book
April 11, 2025	Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal
April 22, 2025	Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 1 PARTIES/PARTICIPANTS

Parties

1. First Capital Holdings (Ontario) Corporation Anne Benedetti (416) 597-5929 abenedetti@goodmans.ca

2. City of Toronto Marc Hardiejowski (416) 392-4960 marc.hardiejowski@toronto.ca

Sara Amini (416) 392-2723 sara.amini@toronto.ca

3. Lytton Park Residents’ Organization Inc. (“LPRO”) and Bedford Park Resident’s Association (“BPRO”) LPRO Maureen Kapral (416) 602-3142 maurkapral@gmail.com

Eli Aaron (416) 670-7022 esaaron123@gmail.com

BPRO John Miles john.miles@bell.net

Naomi Faulkner (416) 985 4511 naomi.faulkner@falconex.com

Participants:

1. YCC 494 and YCC 503 David Riotman david.roitman@gmail.com

2. TSCC 2942 Ian Wollach iwollach@gmail.com

ATTACHMENT 2 ISSUES LIST

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 or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing.

Issues List for the City of Toronto

Issue 1 – Policies and Guidelines. Does the proposed development conform to, is consistent with, or have regard for applicable policies and guidelines? Specifically:

a. Does the proposed development have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in Subsections 2 (h), (i), (j), (p), and (r) of the Planning Act?

b. Is the proposed development consistent with sections 1.1.1, 2.1, 3.1, and 4.6 of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020?

c. Does the proposed development conform to and not conflict with section 1.2.1 of A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020)?

d. Does the proposed development conform with the following policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan: a. 2.2.3 – Avenues: Reurbanizing Arterial Corridors (2.2.3.1); b. 2.3.2 – Toronto’s Green Space System and Waterfront (2.3.2.1 – 2.3.2.3); c. 3.1.1 – The Public Realm (3.1.1.1 - 3.1.1.3, 3.1.1.6, 3.1.1.8, 3.1.1.9, 3.1.1.12 - 3.1.1.16, and 3.1.1.18 - 3.1.1.20); d. 3.1.3 – Built Form (3.1.3.1 – 3.1.3.13 and 3.1.4.4 - 3.1.4.6); e. 3.2.1 – Housing (3.2.1.1-3.2.1.4 and 3.2.1.6); f. 3.2.3 – Parks and Open Spaces (3.2.3.1 – 3.2.3.6 and 3.2.3.8); g. 3.4 – The Natural Environment (3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, 3.4.8, 3.4.9, 3.4.11, 3.4.12, and 3.4.13); and h. 4.5 – Mixed Use Areas (4.5.2)?

e. Does the proposed development meet the intent of City of Toronto Urban Design Guidelines and studies including but not limited to the Mid-Rise Performance Standards and Addendum, and the Avenue Road Avenue Study?

Issue 2 – Site Organization Is the proposed site organization appropriate?

Issue 3 – Parkland a. Has a parkland dedication of an appropriate size, location and configuration been proposed under Section 42 of the Planning Act? b. Does the proposed development and proposed parkland dedication conform to Chapter 415 Article III of the Toronto Municipal Code, with Policy 3.2.3 of the City of Toronto Official Plan, and with the City of Toronto Parkland Strategy?

Issue 4 – Transition in Scale Does the proposed building height and massing provide appropriate transition in scale to the proposed park to the north and the existing open space to the west?

Issue 5 – Built Form Do the proposed building heights and massing fit with the existing and planned context?

Issue 6 – Building Placement, Stepback and Separation Distances Are the proposed development’s building setbacks, stepbacks, and separation distances appropriate?

Issue 7 – Amenity Space Is the proposed size, location, and configuration of indoor and outdoor amenity space appropriate?

Issue 8 – Wind Impacts Does the massing of the proposed buildings provide appropriate wind conditions in the public realm?

Issue 9 – Transportation a. Does the proposed public street appropriately align with the existing intersection of Lawrence Avenue West and Rosewell Avenue? b. Are the vehicle access points, parking, and loading spaces appropriate?

Issue 10 – Good Planning and Urban Design Does the proposed development represent good planning and good urban design? Would it be in the public interest?

Issue 11 – Hazard Lands Does the proposed development provide for an appropriate setback from the Long-Term Stable Top of Slope?

Issue 12 – Natural Heritage System Does the proposed development provide for an appropriate ecological buffer from features of the natural heritage system to address potential impacts associated with the proposed development and is appropriate treatment of an ecological buffer proposed (e.g., naturalization)?

Issue 13 – Tree Planting and Protection a. Can the proposed development support appropriate soil volumes? b. Is the removal of private tree 177 appropriate?

Issue 14 – Servicing and Stormwater Management Is there sufficient servicing capacity to support the proposed development?

Issue 15 – Housing Have satisfactory arrangements been made to comply with Section 3.2.1 of the Official Plan with respect to Rental Housing Demolition and Replacement?

Issue 16 – Implementation

1. In the event the proposed development is approved in whole or in part, should the Tribunal Order be withheld until the City Solicitor has indicated that the following conditions have been satisfied: i. the final form and content of the draft Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law amendments are to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning; ii. City Council has approved the Rental Housing Demolition Application No. 20 153985 NNY 08 RH in accordance with Chapter 667 of the Toronto Municipal Code pursuant to Section 111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 to permit the demolition of the fifteen (15) existing rental dwelling units at 284 Lawrence Avenue West, and the owner has entered into, and registered on title to the lands, one or more agreements with the City, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor, securing all rental housing-related matters necessary to implement City Council's decision including: iii. replacement of the existing 15 rental housing units, including the same number of units, bedroom type and size and with similar rents; and iv. the Ontario Land Tribunal has been advised by the City Solicitor that City Council has approved the Rental Housing Demolition Application No. 20 153985 NNY 08 RH under Chapter 667 of the Toronto Municipal Code pursuant to Section 111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 and, should City Council authorize the demolition, that the applicant has entered into, and registered on title to the lands, an agreement pursuant to Section 111 of the City of Toronto Act securing the replacement of the existing rental dwelling units, including unit mix, size and rents, tenant assistance to lessen hardship, and other rental related matters, all to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning v. the owner has submitted updated sun/shadow and pedestrian level wind studies, including the identification of any required mitigation measures to be secured in the zoning by-law amendment and through the site plan process to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning; vi. the owner has satisfactorily addressed the Transportation Services matters in the Engineering and Construction Services Memorandum dated February 8, 2024, any outstanding issues raised by Transportation Services, arising from the ongoing technical review (including provision of acceptable reports and studies), as they relate to the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services; vii. the owner has satisfactorily addressed matters from Engineering and Construction Services as contained in the Engineering and Construction Services Memorandum dated February 8, 2024, or any outstanding issues raised by Engineering and Construction Services, arising from the ongoing technical review (including provision of acceptable reports and studies), as they relate to the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment application, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services; viii. the owner has satisfactorily addressed matters from Parks, Forestry & Recreation as contained in the Parks, Forestry & Recreation Memorandum dated January 23, 2024, or any outstanding issues raised by Parks, Forestry & Recreation arising from the ongoing technical review (including provision of acceptable reports and studies), as they relate to the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment application, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Parks, Forestry & Recreation; ix. the owner has satisfactorily addressed matters from Tree Protection and Plan Review, Urban Forestry Memorandum dated January 23, 2024, or any outstanding issues raised by Urban Forestry, arising from the ongoing technical review (including provision of acceptable reports and studies), as they relate to the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment application, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Parks, Forestry & Recreation; x. the owner has submitted to the Chief Engineer and Executive Director of Engineering and Construction Services for review and acceptance, a Functional Servicing Report to determine the storm water runoff, sanitary flow and water supply demand resulting from this development and whether there is adequate capacity in the existing municipal infrastructure to accommodate the proposed development; and xi. the owner has made satisfactory arrangements with Engineering and Construction Services and enter into a financially secured agreement with the City for the design and construction of any improvements to the municipal infrastructure, should it be determined that upgrades are required to the infrastructure to support this development, according to the accepted Functional Servicing Report accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director of Engineering and Construction Services; and xii. The owner has satisfactorily addressed matters regarding the Natural Heritage Impact Statement (NHIS) or any outstanding issues raised by Environmental Planning, arising from the ongoing technical review (including provision of acceptable reports and studies), as they relate to the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment application, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

2. Should it be determined that upgrades are required to the infrastructure to support the development according to the accepted Functional Servicing Report and/or the Transportation Impact Study, City Council direct the City Solicitor and appropriate City staff to request that a Holding Provision be included in the final form of the site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment and the Holding Provision not to be lifted until such a time as the owner has made satisfactory arrangements, including entering into appropriate agreement(s) with the City for the design and construction of any improvements to the municipal infrastructure and the provision of financial securities to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director of Engineering and Construction Services and General Manager, Transportation Services.

Issues List for the Lytton Park Residents Organization and the Bedford Park Residents Organization

CONTEXTUAL MATTERS

1. Is the proposed development consistent with the Avenue Road Avenue Study? Avenue Study 3.6.1(bul-2, C, G & H); 3.6.4(para-1) and Zoning By-law Exceptions 1543: B, C & M

2. Is the proposed development consistent with the Midrise Guidelines' Performance Standards? Midrise Guidelines: 3.2.1; 3.2.4(A & B); 3.2.6; 3.2.7(A & B); 3.2.8B; 3.2.9; 3.2.10; 3.2.13; 3.2.16(A & B); 3.2.17; 3.2.19(C & D)

3. Does development treat the Douglas Greenbelt – a Natural Heritage area – appropriately? Official Plan: 3.1.3.10(A, B, C, D, E & F); 3.1.4.6; 4.5.2.(C, E, F & M) and Midrise Guidelines: 11 & 19C

4. Is the new road intended to serve general traffic circulation or to serve the development? Zoning By-law Exceptions 1543: C and Zoning By-law 569-20123:40.10.40.70(2G)

5. Is the proposed mid-block vehicular egress onto Avenue Road safe and desirable? Avenue Road Avenue Study: 3.74; Midrise Guidelines: 16(A & B) and Zoning By-law 569-21013 Definitions: (400 & 825)

URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS SURROUNDING THE BUILDING(S)

6. Does the proposal provide appropriate and desirable green infrastructure? Official Plan: 3.1.3.10(A, B, D & F); 4.5.2M and Midrise Guidelines:19C

7. Does the proposed development appropriately transition to the proposed park? Official Plan: 3.1.3.10(A, B, C, D, & F) and Midrise Guidelines: 10 & 11

8. Is the sidewalk zone adequate and appropriate for both commercial and residential purposes? Official Plan: 3.1.3.4(F); 3.1.3.8; 4.5.2(E & F) and Midrise Guidelines: 7A, 17 & 19D

9. Is the retail configuration appropriately scaled for the Avenue Road sidewalk zone? Official Plan: 3.1.3.9B; 4.5.2(E, F, J & M); Avenue Road Avenue Study 3.7.1(para-1) and Midrise Guidelines: 15 & 19D

10. Parking is consolidated into one access; should the loading areas likewise be consolidated? Official Plan: 3.1.4.3(A, B & F); Avenue Road Avenue Study: 3.7.4 (bul-3) and Zoning By-law 569-2013:40.10.100.10(1C)

BUILT FORM

11. Are the two building masses above grade to be considered as one building? Avenue Road Avenue Study: 3.6.1(bul 1) and Zoning By-law 569-2013:40.10.70.(1)

12. Is the height, scale and massing contextually appropriate? Official Plan: 3.1.3.5(A & B); 3.1.3.6; 3.1.3.7; 3.1.3.8; 3.1.4.4(A, B & C); 3.1.4.5; Midrise Guidelines: 1, 4B, 6, 9 & 13 and Zoning By-law 569-2013: 40.10.40.10.(2A)

13. Does the development appropriately address shadow and skylight considerations? Official Plan:3.1.3.5; 3.1.4.6; 4.5.2(D & E); Midrise Guidelines: 4A; and Zoning By-law 569-2013:40.10.40.70.(2G)

14. Have the angular planes been appropriately observed? Zoning By-law Exceptions 1543: (C & D); Midrise Guidelines: 4A, 6 & 13 and Zoning By-law 569-2013 :40.10.40.70(2G)

15. Should angular planes apply on the east side of the development facing the new road? AND Zoning By-law 569-2013: 40.10.40.70(2G); Zoning By-law Exceptions 1543: C; and Zoning By-law 569-2013 Definitions: 625

16. Would approving this proposed development represent good planning? Official Plan: 5.6.13

1398-3624-9100

ATTACHMENT 3 ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. First Capital Holdings (Ontario) Corporation
2. City of Toronto
3. Lytton Park Residents’ Organization Inc. and Bedford Park Residents’ Organization
4. Reply of First Capital Holdings (Ontario) Corporation, if any.

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.

1398-3624-9100

CORRECTION NOTICE

OLT CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001322

DECISION ISSUE DATE(S): June 06, 2024

CORRECTION NOTICE ISSUE DATE: June 20, 2024

RE: First Capital Holdings (Ontario) Corporation v. Toronto (City)

Correction to: the Memorandum

Originally: Heard: March 27, 2024 by Video Hearing

Corrected to: Heard: June 4, 2024 by Video Hearing

“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.