Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: January 24, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000278

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

Applicant/Appellant: Jarvis & Earl Inc. and Jarvis & Earl 2 Inc.

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

Description: To permit a 58-storey residential building with a 4- to 9-storey podium base and at grade retail

Reference Number: 22 185925 STE 13 OZ

Property Address: 561 Jarvis Street, 102-120 Earl Place and 6-8 Huntley Street

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-23-000278

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000278

OLT Case Name: Jarvis Earl Inc. and Jarvis Earl 2 Inc. v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Jarvis & Earl Inc. and Jarvis & Earl 2 Inc.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application

Description: To permit a 58-storey residential building with a 4- to 9-storey podium base and at grade retail

Reference Number: 22 185925 STE 13 OZ

Property Address: 561 Jarvis Street, 102-120 Earl Place and 6-8 Huntley Street

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-23-000279

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000278

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

Applicant/Appellant: Jarvis & Earl Inc. and Jarvis & Earl 2 Inc.

Subject: City of Toronto Site Plan Approval

Description: To permit a 58-storey residential building with a 4- to 9-storey podium base and at grade retail

Reference Number: 22 185924 STE 13 SA

Property Address: 561 Jarvis Street, 102-120 Earl Place and 6-8 Huntley Street

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-23-000280

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000278

Heard: January 11, 2024 by telephone conference call (“TCC”)

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Jarvis & Earl Inc. and Jarvis & Earl 2 Inc.

Jason Park Sarah Kagan

Glen-Huntley Holdings Limited and APS Holdings Limited Casey House Inc.

David Bronskill Peter Gross Kevin Dias Shuang Ren

City of Toronto

Ray Kallio

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY A. Mason and S. Tousaw ON january 11, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This is a memorandum of oral decision from a telephone conference call (“TCC”) in connection with three appeals made by Jarvis & Earl Inc. and Jarvis & Earl 2 Inc. (“Appellant”) with respect to the properties known municipally as 561 Jarvis Street, 102-120 Earl Place and 6-8 Huntley Street in the City of Toronto (“Subject Site”).

2The purpose of the TCC was to address the December 6, 2023 request by Casey House Inc. (“Casey House”), being the registered owner of the property municipally known as 571 Jarvis and 119 Isabelle Street, to remove its Participant status and grant it Party status. Counsel for Casey House makes such request of the Tribunal under s. 9 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act and Rule 8.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Further, Casey House points to Attachment “5” in the governing Procedural Order (“PO”) which sets out that a motion is not required for the Tribunal to grant the requested status.

3Upon a full hearing of the submissions of the Parties and reviewing the materials provided before the TCC, the Panel of the Tribunal finds in favour of Casey House, removes its Participant status and grants it Party status for the reasons set out below.

PARTY STATUS REQUEST

4An agent representative for Casey House provided a written request for Participant status, and the Tribunal granted such status, at the September 6, 2023 case management conference (“CMC”). At the same CMC, Glen-Huntley Holdings Limited and APS Holdings Limited (together “Glen-Huntley”), the owner of the property municipally known as 10 Huntley Street (“10 Huntley”), was granted Party status. Glen-Huntley has a development application before the City of Toronto (“City”) for a 45-storey infill residential development at 10 Huntley along with the existing 20-storey residential apartment building. At the TCC, counsel for Glen-Huntley advised that their client has now appealed its applications with respect to 10 Huntley to the Tribunal and will be attending a first CMC in February 2024.

5Casey House requests Party status on the understanding that the Appellant and Glen-Huntley, as adjacent developers both with development applications for tall buildings before the City and now appealed to the Tribunal, have come to a private agreement which materially affects the Casey House lands in a manner different than their original applications proposed individually. Counsel for Casey House submits that the developers have agreed to, or will agree to, setbacks between their two tall building proposals that will necessitate pushing the proposed 45-storey infill residential tower on 10 Huntley to a one-metre setback from the Casey House property line. The result of such agreement would be that 10 Huntley would be effectively utilizing the development rights of the Casey House lands and thereby sterilize any future redevelopment potential. Counsel for Casey House is of the opinion that settlement discussions ongoing between the Appellant and the City, as well as Glen-Huntley and the City, would crystalize such reduced setback between Casey House and 10 Huntley as a path to providing endorsement of the applications for tall buildings on both properties.

6Counsel for Casey House further takes the position that although 571 Jarvis Street is a designated historic building, that fact is not determinative that it does not also have development potential as is evidenced by other redevelopment projects in the City with heritage designation. As such, counsel for Casey House asserts that the iterative and interconnected modifications to the Appellant’s applications and those of Glen-Huntley that rely on a reduced setback to Casey House presuppose that their property has no redevelopment potential. Without Party status, counsel for Casey House argues that it would unfairly prevent evidence and arguments to adequately address the planning merits of the Appellant’s application as it now stands and its impacts on the Casey House property and its future redevelopment potential.

7The Panel reviewed the cases presented by the Parties in advance of the TCC. Casey House relies on the “obvious factors” test set out by what was then the Ontario Municipal Board in Oakville (Town), Re, 2010 CarswellOnt 7078, 66 O.M.B.R 366 (“Oakville”) for assessing reasonable grounds for the Tribunal to grant Party status. Specifically, they argue their request meets the Oakville test as follows:

a. Prior appeal – no new appeal is being initiated;

b. Public interest – the Appellant’s development applications are necessarily in the public interest, including that of Casey House being located within the same block as the Subject Site

c. Prejudice – no new issues are proposed to be added to the Issue List and the Hearing will not be prolonged nor costs increased unduly;

d. Direct interest –setbacks required to facilitate a tall building on the Subject Site and on 10 Huntley directly affect the development potential of Casey House;

e. Multiplicity of proceedings – while Casey House may choose to seek Party status for the 10 Huntley hearing, its concerns arise from the proposed development at the Subject Site and the result here may obviate the need for an additional hearing regarding Glen-Huntley’s applications; and

f. Historical background – Casey House was engaged in the public process for the Appellant’s applications, made submissions and sought Participant status such that its concerns and specific grounds of opposition are known to the Appellant.

8The Appellant and Glen-Huntley both opposed the request for Party status based on: (1) the proximity to the impending contested 10-day Hearing set to commence on March 11, 2024; (2) the approved document exchange dates set out in the PO; and (3) the fact that Casey House had the opportunity to seek Party status at two prior CMC events. Both Parties argued they would face prejudice in modifying their witness lists, statements and materials to respond to Casey House as a Party in the Hearing at this late time, as well as the additional time and associated costs at the Hearing itself.

9Counsel for Glen-Huntley also took the position that the property line setback concern raised by counsel for Casey House is an issue rightly disputed between its client and Casey House and not an issue for adjudication at the Appellant’s Hearing. Furthermore, counsel for Glen-Huntley argued that, should Casey House be granted Party status, its client would be prejudiced by having to defend the case for its applications at the Appellant’s Hearing as well as through its own process before the Tribunal.

FINDINGS

10The Parties provided valid and convincing arguments on all sides. Having considered the positions of the Parties as articulated at the TCC and the materials submitted in advance, the Panel finds in favour of granting the relief requested by Casey House, removing its Participant status and granting it Party status. The Panel finds that the issues between the Parties warrant a full hearing on the merits.

11The Panel is satisfied that Casey House has raised genuine land use planning concerns for which Party status is warranted. The interconnected nature of the Appellant’s development plans and those of Glen-Huntley, the significant co-evolution of those plans over time and since the earlier CMCs, as well as their potential cumulative effect on the Casey House lands are valid issues to be heard by the Tribunal at the Merit Hearing.

12Although the request by Casey House for Party status is late in the proceedings, the Panel is satisfied that it is not raising new issues outside the scope of the approved Issues List. Furthermore, Casey House participated throughout the City’s planning process, and was granted Participant status at the earlier CMC for this matter, demonstrating that it is a serious and engaged landowner.

13Granting Casey House Party status due to the changing and interconnected nature of the development plans for the block as a whole, ensures the fair treatment of and contributions from affected landowners for the upcoming hearing de novo of the Appellant’s substantial applications.

14The Tribunal finds the inclusion of Casey House as a Party is “necessary to enable the Tribunal to adjudicate effectively and completely on the issues in the proceeding” as per Rule 8.2 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure and that there is no substantial prejudice to the other Parties.

15The Panel directed the Parties to amend the PO to reflect the Party status of Casey House and submit to the Tribunal, by January 19, 2024, a revised PO to govern the 10-day Merit Hearing. The updated PO was received and is approved below.

ORDER

16The Tribunal Orders that the request from Casey House Inc. to remove its Participant status and to grant it Party status is approved.

17The revised Procedural Order is approved as contained in Schedule 1.

“A. Mason”

A. Mason

MEMBER

“S. Tousaw”

S. TOUSAW VICE-CHAIR

Ontario Land Tribunal

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

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

SCHEDULE 1

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000278

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

Applicant/Appellant: Jarvis & Earl Inc. and Jarvis & Earl 2 Inc.

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

Description: To permit a 58-storey residential building with a 4- to 9-storey podium base and at grade retail

Reference Number: 22 185925 STE 13 OZ

Property Address: 561 Jarvis Street, 102-120 Earl Place and 6-8 Huntley Street

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-23-000278

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000278

OLT Case Name: Jarvis Earl Inc. and Jarvis Earl 2 Inc. v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Jarvis & Earl Inc. and Jarvis & Earl 2 Inc.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application

Description: To permit a 58-storey residential building with a 4- to 9-storey podium base and at grade retail

Reference Number: 22 185925 STE 13 OZ

Property Address: 561 Jarvis Street, 102-120 Earl Place and 6-8 Huntley Street

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-23-000279

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000278

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

Applicant/Appellant: Jarvis & Earl Inc. and Jarvis & Earl 2 Inc.

Subject: City of Toronto Site Plan Approval

Description: To permit a 58-storey residential building with a 4- to 9-storey podium base and at grade retail

Reference Number: 22 185924 STE 13 SA

Property Address: 561 Jarvis Street, 102-120 Earl Place and 6-8 Huntley Street

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-23-000280

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000278

PROCEDURAL ORDER

The Tribunal orders that:

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. A hearing respecting matters under the Planning Act and City of Toronto Act, 2006 is scheduled to proceed by video as follows:

Date: Monday, March 11–Friday, March 22, 2024 at 10 a.m. GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/638422541 Access Code: 638-422-541

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

Audio-only access code: 638-422-541

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 10 days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible. The procedural order deadlines are generally summarized in Attachment “1” to this Order.

4. The parties and participants in the hearing as identified at the Case Management Conference are listed in Attachment “2” to this Order.

5. The Issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment “3” to this Order. 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 “4” hereto. 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 Friday, December 1, 2023, and in accordance with paragraph 23 below. The applicant acknowledges that any revisions to the proposal after that date without the consent of the parties shall be grounds for a request to adjourn the hearing but nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as the applicant consenting to or agreeing to such adjournment request.

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 Friday, January 19, 2024, 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. 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 Friday, January 26, 2024.

11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Friday, February 2, 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 coordinator on or before Friday, February 9, 2024.

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 Tuesday, February 20, 2024, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case coordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below or the witness or participant may not give oral evidence at the hearing. Participants are only permitted to provide written evidence to the Tribunal, unless otherwise permitted by the Tribunal.

15. On or before Tuesday, February 20, 2024, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

16. On or before Monday, March 4, 2024, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

17. On or before Monday, March 4, 2024, the parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case coordinator a written response to any written evidence in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

18. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case coordinator on or before Monday, March 4, 2024.

19. On or before Monday, March 4, 2024, 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.

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 Monday, March 4, 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.

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

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

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

ATTACHMENT “1” SUMMARY OF KEY DATES

Date

Hearing Event

Friday, December 1, 2023

Provision of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any) – para. 9

Friday, January 19, 2024

Exchange of List of Witnesses and the order in which they will be called – para. 10

Friday, January 26, 2024

Notice of Motion (if required) to challenge witness(es) – para. 10

Friday, February 2, 2024

Expert Witness Meeting – para. 11

Friday, February 9, 2024

Filing of Statement(s) of Agreed Facts and Issues – para. 11

Tuesday, February 20, 2024

Exchange of Witness & Participant Statements – paras. 14 & 15

Monday, March 4, 2024

Confirmation to Tribunal if all reserved hearing dates are still required – para. 16

Exchange of Reply Evidence/Statements – para. 17

Monday, March 4, 2024

Filing of Joint Document Book – para. 18

Exchange of Visual Evidence – para. 19

Monday, March 4, 2024

Notification to Tribunal and Parties if witness not to provide oral evidence – para. 21

Filing of Hearing Plan – para. 22

Monday, March 11, 2024

Contested Hearing (if required) – para. 2

ATTACHMENT “2” PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

PARTIES

JARVIS & EARL INC. AND JARVIS & EARL 2 INC. Jason Park / Sarah Kagan Kagan Shastri DeMelo Winer Park LLP 250 Yonge Street, Suite 2300 Toronto, ON M5B 2L7 T: 416.645.4572 / 416.368.2100 x243 E: jpark@ksllp.ca / skagan@ksllp.ca

CITY OF TORONTO Ray Kallio Planning & Administrative Tribunal Law 26th fl., 55 John Street Toronto, ON M5V 3C6 T: 416.397.4063 E: ray.kallio@toronto.ca

GLEN-HUNTLEY HOLDINGS LIMITED AND APS HOLDINGS LIMITED David Bronskill Goodmans LLP 333 Bay Street, Suite 3400 Toronto, ON M5H 2S7 T: 416.597.4299 E: dbronskill@goodmans.ca

CASEY HOUSE Peter Gross Gowling WLG 1 First Canadian Place, Suite 1600 100 King Street West T: 416.862.4459 E: peter.gross@gowlingwlg.com

PARTICIPANTS

Jennifer Bates T: 416.807.1714 E: Jennifer.l.bates@gmail.com

Rocky Sharma T: 416.964.2223 E: rockyandsteve@icloud.com

ATTACHMENT “3” CITY OF TORONTO ISSUES LIST

Provincial Statutory & Policy Requirements

Planning Act

Do the proposed development and the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in Subsections 2, (p) and

(r) of the Planning Act?

Provincial Policy Statement

Are the proposed development and the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), as required by Section 3(5)(a) of the Planning Act, including, but not limited to, Sections 1.7.1(e), and 4.6?

City of Toronto Official Plan

Are the proposed development and the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments appropriate and does the proposed development conform with the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, including, but not limited to:

Structuring Growth in the City (Section 2.2.2(i)) Healthy Neighbourhoods (Section 2.3.1, ss 1, 3, 4, 6,)

The Public Realm (Sections 3.1.1.2, 3.1.1.6, 3.1.1.13-16, 3.1.1.18, 3.1.1.19)

Built Form (Section 3.1.3);

Built Form – Building Types (Section 3.1.4.7-12); Housing (Section 3.2.1);

Parks and Open Spaces (Section 3.2.3.1-8); Neighbourhoods (Section 4.1)

Mixed Use Areas (4.5) Implementation (5.3.2.1, Section 5.6)

Is the proposed redesignation of the subject lands from Neighbourhoods to Mixed Use Areas appropriate?

City of Toronto Official Plan Amendment 406 – Downtown Plan

Do the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment conform to the in force City of Toronto Official Plan Amendment 406, including but not limited to sections:

a. Goals (3.3, 3.5)

b. Directing Growth (Section 4.2)

c. Land Use and Economy (Sections 6.19, 6.20, 6.22, 6.25, 6.26, 6.27)

d. Parks and Public Realm (Section 7.3, 7.4, 7.18,7.19, 7.34-37, 7.40)

f. Built form (Sections 9.1, 9.3, 9.4, 9.8, 9.9, 9.10, 9.11, 9.12, 9.13, 9.14, 9.15, 9.17,

9.22, 9.23, 9.24, 9.25, 9.26, 9.27)

g. Community Services (10.3)

h. Housing (Sections 11.4, 11.5)

Guidelines

Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for and maintain the intent and purpose of the Tall Building Design Guidelines (2013) and Downtown Tall Buildings: Vision and Supplementary Design Guidelines (2013)?

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

Site Specific Issues

Built Form

Are building heights, base building heights, setbacks, step backs, tower separation, tower floorplate, and density appropriate?

Is the proposed development compatible with its physical context? Does the proposed development fit appropriately within the existing and planned context and area character?

Does the proposed tower provide adequate transition in scale to lower-scaled buildings, parks and open space?

Have the shadow impacts of the proposed building been adequately limited in consideration of the cumulative net new shadow impacts on Neighbourhoods?

Does the proposed development ensure adequate access to, or, as the case may be, limit and minimize the impact on, considerations such as overlook and privacy and loss of skyview and sunlight?

Does the proposed development establish appropriate relationships at grade, including provision of adequate setbacks to accommodate an appropriate pedestrian realm, streetscaping, sufficient soil volume/depth to support large canopy trees, and contributions to public space?

Housing

Should the proposal provide for larger 2- and 3-bedroom units, in order to meet the unit size objectives of the Growing Up Guidelines?

Does the proposal appropriately address the replacement of rental housing on site?

Does the proposal conform with the City of Toronto Official Plan, in particular policy 3.2.1. (replacement of rental housing), including the full replacement of existing rental housing units and the provision of an acceptable Tenant Relocation and Assistance Plan addressing the right to return to occupy one of the replacement units at similar rents?

Parks and Open Space

Has a parkland dedication of an appropriate size, location and configuration been proposed under Section 42 of the Planning Act?

Do the proposed development and proposed parkland dedication conform to Policy

3.2.3 of the City of Toronto Official Plan?

Has a parkland dedication been provided which conforms to Chapter 415 Article III of the Toronto Municipal Code?

Streetscape

Does the proposed site plan present an acceptable streetscape and pedestrian realm, including adequate provision of new tree planting?

Does the proposed development comply with the City of Toronto's Private Tree By- law and City Street Tree By-law, and does the proposed development provide sufficient soil volumes to support the proposed trees?

Servicing

Is there sufficient municipal infrastructure capacity to service the proposed development with water, sewer and stormwater management facilities? If not, should a Holding (H) symbol pursuant to Section 36 of the Planning Act be included in the amending by-law until such time as the proposed development can be serviced?

Public Interest and Good Planning

Does the proposed development, Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment represent good planning and urban design, and is approval of the proposal in the public interest?

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

Conditions

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

a) the final form and content of the draft Official Plan and Zoning By-laws are to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

b) the owner has provided confirmation of water, sanitary and stormwater, and traffic capacity to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, or the determination of whether holding provisions are required in the Zoning By-law amendment;

c) the owner has secured replacement of the existing rental housing, including the same number of units, bedroom type and size and with similar rents;

d) the owner has secured an acceptable Tenant Relocation and Assistance Plan addressing the right for existing and former tenants to return to a replacement rental unit on the lands at similar rents, the provision of alternative accommodation at similar rents, and other assistance to mitigate hardship, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning; and

e) City Council has approved the Rental Housing Demolition application 22 199096 STE 13 RH under Chapter 667 of the Toronto Municipal Code pursuant to Section 111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 to permit the demolition of the existing rental dwelling units 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.

In the event an on-site parkland dedication is approved as part of the development, the owner shall convey the parkland to the City prior to the issuance of the first above grade building permit, subject to the owner transferring the parkland to the City free and clear, above and below grade, of all easements, encumbrances, and encroachments, in an acceptable environmental condition, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreations and the City Solicitor.

GLEN-HUNTLEY HOLDINGS LIMITED/APS HOLDINGS ISSUES LIST

1. Does the proposed development provide sufficient base building and tower setbacks with respect to 10 Huntley Street to allow for appropriate resulting base building and tower separation distances?

2. Does the proposed development allow for a distribution of massing that does not preclude compatible redevelopment of 10 Huntley Street?

3. If reduced setbacks are proposed, should the location and placement of windows and/or balconies be restricted by the proposed zoning bylaw?

4. Does the proposed development provide an appropriate base building height to achieve a compatible relationship with the proposed redevelopment of 10 Huntley Street?

ATTACHMENT “4” ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Jarvis & Earl Inc. and Jarvis & Earl 2 Inc.

2. City of Toronto

3. Glen-Huntley Holdings Limited and APS Holdings Limited

4. Casey House

5. Reply by Jarvis & Earl Inc. and Jarvis & Earl 2 Inc. (if any)

ATTACHMENT “5” DEFINITIONS

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 authorization from the party.

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