Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: June 20, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004800

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

Applicant and Appellant: The Canada Life Assurance Company Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit Application to Amend the Official Plan to allow for the construction of a mixed-use building with the retention of the existing building Reference Number: 22 166819 STE OZ and 22 200875 STE 10 SA Property Address: 200 University Avenue Municipality: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004800 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004800 OLT Case Name: The Canada Life Assurance Company 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: The Canada Life Assurance Company Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit the construction of a mixed-use building with the retention of the existing building Reference Number: 22 166819 STE OZ and 22 200875 STE 10 SA Property Address: 200 University Avenue Municipality: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004801 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004800 OLT Case Name: The Canada Life Assurance Company v. Toronto (City)

Applicant and Appellant: The Canada Life Assurance Company Subject: Site plan Description: To facilitate the construction of a mixed-use building with the retention of the existing building (16-storey) containing office uses and retail at street level and a 35-storey addition above Reference Number: 22 166819 STE OZ and 22 200875 STE 10 SA Property Address: 200 University Avenue Municipality: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004802 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004800 OLT Case Name: The Canada Life Assurance Company v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 33(9) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18.

Applicant/Appellant: The Canada Life Assurance Company Subject: Refusal of Heritage Alteration Description: To permit development of a 35-storey addition the existing 16-storey mixed-use building containing office uses and retail at street level. Reference Number: 22 166819 STE 10 OZ and 22 200875 STE 10 SA Property Address: 200 University Avenue Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-23-001329 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004800 OLT Case Name: The Canada Life Assurance Company v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34.1(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18.

Applicant/Appellant: The Canada Life Assurance Company Subject: Refusal of Demolition Permit Description: To permit development of a 35-storey addition the existing 16-storey mixed-use building containing office uses and retail at street level. Reference Number: 22 166819 STE 10 OZ and 22 200875 STE 10 SA Property Address: 200 University Avenue Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-23-001330 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004800

Heard: June 5, 2024, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
The Canada Life Assurance Company and GWL Realty Advisors Inc.	Adrian Frank Jason Park (in absentia)
City of Toronto	Matthew Longo Uttra Gautam
St. Michael’s Hospital	Daniel Angelucci Michael Foderick (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN T. MASTORAS ON June 5, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal is a third Case Management Conference (“CMC”) in respect of appeals filed by The Canada Life Assurance Company and GWL Realty Advisors Inc. (together the “Appellants”) pursuant to s. 22(7), and s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) and s.114(15) of the City of Toronto Act against the City of Toronto (the “City”) for failure to make a decision on Applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment, an Official Plan Amendment and a Site Plan Application respectively, (previously together as the “Applications”).

2The property subject to these Appeals is 200 University Avenue (“Subject Property”). The Appellants are seeking approvals to allow for the construction of a mixed-use building with the retention of the existing building (16-stories) containing office uses and retail at street level, which also includes the addition of a 35-storey building above, containing a total of 478 residential units.

3In addition to these Applications, the Appellants have more recently submitted two additional appeals pursuant to s. 33(9) of the Ontario Heritage Act (“OHA”) for the City’s refusal of an Application for alteration and pursuant to s. 34.1(1) of the OHA for the City’s refusal of a demolition permit (all together the “Appeals”).

4The Tribunal determined that in accordance with Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, it would be appropriate to consolidate the Appeals for administrative purposes, and subject to any applicable statutory or regulatory restrictions, at a Hearing on their Merits.

MEDIATION, HEARING, PROCEDURAL ORDER, AND ISSUES LIST

5The Parties have benefited from some limited Tribunal-led mediation and remain hopeful that there may be some additional opportunities for scoping of issues and possible settlement of the Appeals at some future date.

6A previously scheduled Merit Hearing for July 8, 2024, was rescheduled by the Tribunal, on consent of the Parties for Monday, November 4, 2024 at 10 a.m., to allow for additional opportunity for the Parties to scope issues in pursuit of a possible settlement, if achievable. The Merit Hearing will commence for ten (10)-days and for ease of reference, scheduling details are included below:

7The Merit Hearing has been set for Monday, November 4, 2024, at 10 a.m. by Video Hearing.

8Parties are asked to log in to the Video Hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:

GoToMeeting: https://meet.goto.com/370987861

Access Code: 370-987-861

9Parties are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

10Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: Toll-Free 1-888-455-1389 or +1 (647) 497- 9391. The Access Code is as indicated above.

11Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the Video Hearing to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

12Also, important to note, is that a recent Ministerial Zoning Order related to Hospital helicopter flight paths was implemented, which may be of relevance to this proceeding as the Hearing date approaches and has been circulated to all Parties.

13The Parties have submitted an updated final draft Procedural Order / Issues List on consent, attached below as Schedule “A” to this Decision, which will guide the proceedings at the Hearing as scheduled to proceed at this time.

ORDER

14The Tribunal Orders that the directions given by the Tribunal at the Case Management Conference referenced above, are hereby confirmed.

15No further notice of future proceedings will be provided.

16The Member is not seized on this matter.

“Steven T. Mastoras”

STEVEN T. MASTORAS

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

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

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

SCHEDULE A

CASE NO(S) OLT-22-004800

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

Applicant and Appellant: The Canada Life Assurance Company Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit Application to Amend the Official Plan to allow for the construction of a mixed-use building with the retention of the existing building Reference Number: 22 166819 STE OZ and 22 200875 STE 10 SA Property Address: 200 University Avenue Municipality: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004800 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004800 OLT Case Name: The Canada Life Assurance Company 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: The Canada Life Assurance Company Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit the construction of a mixed-use building with the retention of the existing building Reference Number: 22 166819 STE OZ and 22 200875 STE 10 SA Property Address: 200 University Avenue Municipality: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004801 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004800 OLT Case Name: The Canada Life Assurance Company v. Toronto (City)

Applicant and Appellant: The Canada Life Assurance Company Subject: Site plan Description: To facilitate the construction of a mixed-use building with the retention of the existing building (16-storey) containing office uses and retail at street level and a 35-storey addition above Reference Number: 22 166819 STE OZ and 22 200875 STE 10 SA Property Address: 200 University Avenue Municipality: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004802 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004800 OLT Case Name: The Canada Life Assurance Company v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 33(9) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18.

Applicant/Appellant: The Canada Life Assurance Company Subject: Refusal of Heritage Alteration Description: To permit development of a 35-storey addition the existing 16-storey mixed-use building containing office uses and retail at street level. Reference Number: 22 166819 STE 10 OZ and 22 200875 STE 10 SA Property Address: 200 University Avenue Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-23-001329 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004800 OLT Case Name: The Canada Life Assurance Company v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34.1(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18.

Applicant/Appellant: The Canada Life Assurance Company Subject: Refusal of Demolition Permit Description: To permit development of a 35-storey addition the existing 16-storey mixed-use building containing office uses and retail at street level. Reference Number: 22 166819 STE 10 OZ and 22 200875 STE 10 SA Property Address: 200 University Avenue Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-23-001330 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004800

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: November 4 to 15, 2024

GoTo Meeting: https://meet.goto.com/370987861

Access Code: Access Code: 370-987-861

Audio only telephone line: 1 888 455 1389 or (647) 497-9391

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 June 14, 2024, 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 may be grounds for a request 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 July 31, 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, the Acknowledgment of Expert’s Duty form, 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 August 7, 2024.

11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before August 20, 2024, and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the parties may prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case coordinator on or before August 30, 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 and the curriculum vitae and Acknowledgment of Expert Duty form previously provided in paragraph 10. 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. For greater certainty, each expert witness statement must comply with the minimum content requirements specified in Rule 7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. If the expert witness has prepared any report(s) that they intend to rely on at the hearing, and which did not form part of the submissions made to the City, such report(s) shall be provided to the other parties at the same as the delivery of expert witness statements, as in paragraph 14.

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 September 16, 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 24 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 September 16, 2024, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties 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.

16. On or before October 2, 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.

17. On or before October 9, 2024, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

18. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case coordinator on or before October 23, 2024.

19. On or before October 16, 2024, 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. 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 October 28, 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 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.

ATTACHMENT “1”

SUMMARY OF KEY DATES

Date	Hearing Event
June 14, 2024	Provision of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any) – para. 9
July 31, 2024	Exchange of List of Witnesses and the order in which they will be called – para. 10
August 7, 2024	Notice of Motion (if required) to challenge witness(es) – para. 10
August 20, 2024	Expert Witness Meeting – para. 11
August 30, 2024	Filing of Statement(s) of Agreed Facts and Issues – para. 11
September 16, 2024	Exchange of Witness & Participant Statements – paras. 14 & 15
October 2, 2024	Exchange of Reply Evidence/Statements – para. 16
October 9, 2024	Confirmation to Tribunal if all reserved hearing dates are still required – para. 17
October 23, 2024	Filing of Joint Document Book – para. 18
October 16, 2024	Exchange of Visual Evidence – para. 19
October 28, 2024	Notification to Tribunal and Parties if witness not to provide oral evidence – para. 21
October 28, 2024	Filing of Hearing Plan – para. 22
November 4 to 15, 2024	Contested Hearing (if required) – para. 2

ATTACHMENT “2”

PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

PARTIES

THE CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY and GWL REALTY ADVISORS INC. Jason Park / Adrian Frank Kagan Shastri DeMelo Winer Park LLP 250 Yonge Street, Suite 2300 Toronto, ON M5B 2L7 T: 416.645.4572 / 416.645.4532 E: jpark@ksllp.ca / afrank@ksllp.ca

CITY OF TORONTO Matthew Longo / Uttra Gautam Planning & Administrative Tribunal Law 26th fl., 55 John Street Toronto, ON M5V 3C6 T: 416.392.8109 / 416.396.7986 E: Matthew.Longo@toronto.ca / Uttra.Gautam@toronto.ca

ST. MICHAEL’S HOSPITAL Michael Foderick / Daniel Angelucci McCarthy Tétrault 66 Wellington St W Suite 5300 Toronto, ON M5K 1E6 T: 416.601.7783 / 416.601.7569 E: mfoderick@mccarthy.ca / dangelucci@mccarthy.ca

PARTICIPANTS

Gary Lee T: 416.879.5175 E: gelee@bell.net

ATTACHMENT “3”

ISSUES LIST

City of Toronto

Issue 1: Heritage Conservation

a. Does the development conform to Official Plan policies 3.1.6 (Heritage Conservation) in relation to the impacts of the development on the existing heritage building?

b. Does the proposed development adequately conserve the Part IV designated heritage property, municipally known as 200 University Avenue?

c. Does the proposed development adequately conserve the adjacent Part IV and Part V designated heritage property municipally known as 250 University Avenue?

Issue 2: Tower Massing - Is the development's proposed tower massing, including setbacks, stepbacks, scale, separation distances, and design appropriate and does it represent good planning? In particular:

a. Does the proposed tower massing conform with Official Plan policies: 3.1.3 (1), (2), (3) and (5) (Built Form - Site Organization and Location, Building Shape, Scale and Massing), 3.1.4 (10) and (11) (Built form - Building Types -Tall Building - Stepbacks, Floorplates, Separation Distances), and 4.5.1 (2c and e) (Development Criteria in Mixed-Use Areas)?

b. Does the proposed tower massing conform with Downtown Plan policies 6.23 (Mixed-Use Areas 1- Growth), 9.14 and 9.15 (Physical Determinants of Intensity and Scale), 9.22, 9.23 and 9.25.3 (Transitions - Tall to Tall)?

c. Does the proposed tower massing have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines?

d. Does the proposed tower massing comply with OPA 352 and associated By-law 1107-2016?

Issue 3: Streetscape and Public Realm - Is the proposed development's relationship with the public realm and resulting streetscape along University Avenue, including the retail addition, appropriate, and does it represent good planning? In particular:

a. Does it conform with Official Plan policies 3.1.1. (6), (13) and (16) (Public Realm - Streets) 3.1.3 (1), (5), and (10) (Built Form - Site Organization and Location, Building Shape, Scale and Massing, Improving the Public Realm through Building Design)?

b. Does it conform with Downtown Plan policies 7.17, 7.18 and 7.19 (Great Streets), 9.1 (Built Form), 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.7 (Improving the Public Realm), 9.22 and 9.33 (Transition)?

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

Issue 4: St. Michael's Hospital Air Ambulance Service Protection Corridor By-law 1432-2017

a. Does the proposal comply with policy 9.29 of the Downtown Plan?

b. Does the proposed development and associated Zoning By-law amendment, comply with By-law 1432-2017 that prohibits any portion of a building or structure, for any purpose, to penetrate into the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces for the St. Michael's Hospital Heliport, as shown on the St. Michael's Hospital Air Ambulance Service Protection Corridor Map?

Issue 5: Shadow Impacts - Does the proposed development's shadow impacts on the Osgoode Hall open space represent good planning? In particular:

a. Does it conform with Official Plan policies: 3.1.4 (10) and (11) (Built Form - Building Types - Tall Buildings) and 3.2.3 (3) (Parks and Open Spaces)?

b. Does it conform with Downtown Plan policies 9.17, 9.18 and 9.21(Creating a Comfortable Micro-climate)?

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

Issue 6: Non-Residential Floor Area

a. Does the development conform with Official Plan polices 3.5.1 (6), and (9), (Office Replacement Policies) with respect of the amount of proposed non-residential floor area, including office floor area?

b. Does the development conform to Downtown Plan policies 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 (Financial District) with respect to the amount of proposed non-residential gross floor area?

Issue 7: Housing

a. Does the development conform to Official Plan policy 3.2.1 (1) (Housing) with respect to providing affordable housing within the development?

b. Does the development conform to Downtown Plan policy 11.1 (Housing) with respect to the dwelling unit mix and sizes?

Issue 8: Amenity Space - Is the proposed development's provision of outdoor amenity space as proposed in the zoning by-law amendment good planning? In particular:

a. Does the development have appropriate regard to Official Plan policies 3.1.3 (11) and (13) (Amenity Space)?

b. Does the development conform to Downtown Plan Policies 9.30.4 and 9.34 (Amenity Space)?

c. Does the development have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities Guidelines?

d. Does the development have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto Pet Friendly Design Guidelines for High Density Communities?

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

Issue 9: Servicing - Has the applicant demonstrated that adequate municipal services are in place to support the development, including but not limited to the availability of adequate water, storm water and sanitary sewage capacity and the implementation of appropriate stormwater management measures and groundwater management measures?

Issue 10: PATH - Does the development conform to Official Plan policy 2.2.1 (12) and Downtown Plan policy 8.7 that development will be encouraged to connect to and expand the PATH network?

Issue 11: TTC - Subway Infrastructure - Has the applicant demonstrated that the proposed development will have no impacts on the TTC's Line 1 Yonge-University Subway?

Issue 12: Implementation - 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:

a. The proposed Official Plan amendment is in a form and content satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor;

b. The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is in a form and content satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor;

c. The owner has addressed outstanding issues in relation to site servicing and has submitted a 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;

d. The owner has addressed outstanding issues in relation the requirements of Transportation Services and Solid Waste Management as set out in the memo from Development Engineering to City Planning dated October 4, 2022, to the satisfaction of Transportation Services and Solid Waste Management; and

e. The owner has addressed outstanding issues in relation to the TTC's Line 1 Yonge-University Subway as set out in the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) Memo Dated August 4, 2022, to the satisfaction of the TTC.

f. The owner has submitted a detailed Conservation Plan prepared by a qualified heritage consultant to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning.

g. The owner and the City have entered into a Heritage Easement Agreement for the property at 200 University Avenue to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, including execution and registration of such agreement to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.

h. That the owner agree, as a condition of site plan approval, that the owner prepare and thereafter implement a Heritage Lighting Plan, a Signage Plan, and an Interpretation Plan and that the owner provide a letter of credit to secure all work included in the approved Conservation Plan, approved Interpretation Plan and approved Lighting Plan, including a provision for upwards indexing, all of the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning.

LEGISLATIVE and POLICY TESTS

Issue 13: Does the proposed development satisfy the applicable legislative and policy tests? Specifically:

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

b. Would a decision to approve the proposed development be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement as required by Section 3(5) of the Planning Act?

c. Would a decision to approve 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?

d. Does the proposed development conform with the applicable policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan and Downtown Plan?

e. Do the proposed alterations and demolition of the designated heritage attributes of the designated heritage building represent good heritage conservation practice that is consistent with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, meriting approval under sections 33 and 34.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act?

f. Would approval of the proposed development and Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments represent good planning and good urban design? Would it be in the public interest?

St. Michael’s Hospital

1. Does the proposed development conflict with any zoning order made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing pursuant to section 47 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, including Ontario Regulation No. 10/24: “Zoning Order – Protection of Public Health and Safety – Toronto Hospital Heliports”?

2. Does the proposed development have regard for matters of provincial interest identified in section 2 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, including, without limitation, the protection of public health and safety, as it relates to emergency air ambulance service for helicopters for the heliport at St. Michael's Hospital?

3. Does the proposed development comply with policy 9.29 of the City of Toronto’s “Downtown Plan” secondary plan?

4. Where potential conflicts with emergency air ambulance service for helicopters for the heliport at St. Michael's Hospital are identified, or where rotor downwash and other expected wind impacts on the proposed development associated with emergency air ambulance service for helicopters for the heliport at St. Michael's Hospital is identified, should the location/placement of structural features of the proposed development be restricted in the proposed official plan amendment and/or zoning by-law amendment?

5. Has the proposed development and required wind study adequately taken into account rotor downwash and other expected wind impacts on the proposed development associated with emergency air ambulance service for helicopters for the heliport at St. Michael's Hospital?

6. Where rotor downwash and other expected wind impacts on the proposed development associated with emergency air ambulance service for helicopters for the heliport at St. Michael's Hospital is identified, should warning clauses and/or notice provisions be included in agreements of purchase and sale for units within the proposed development?

St. Michael’s Hospital reserves the right to adopt issues advanced by other parties.

ATTACHMENT “4”

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. The Canada Life Assurance Company and GWL Realty Advisors Inc.

2. City of Toronto

3. St. Michael’s Hospital

4. Reply by The Canada Life Assurance Company and GWL Realty Advisors 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.