Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
July 26, 2024
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-23-001017
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
Glen-Huntley Holdings Limited and APS Holdings Limited
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description:
To permit a 45-storey building including 335 residential units
Reference Number:
21 235167 STE 13 OZ
Property Address:
10 Huntley Street
Municipality/UT:
Toronto / Toronto
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-0001017
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-0001017
OLT Case Name:
Glen-Huntley Holdings Limited and APS Holdings Limited v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
Glen-Huntley Holdings Limited and APS Holdings Limited
Subject:
Zoning By-law Amendment
Description:
To permit a 45-storey building including 335 residential units
Reference Number:
21 235167 STE 13 OZ
Property Address:
10 Huntley Street
Municipality/UT:
Toronto / Toronto
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-0001018
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-0001017
OLT Case Name:
Glen-Huntley Holdings Limited and APS Holdings Limited v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A
Appellant:
Glen-Huntley Holdings Limited and APS Holdings Limited
Subject:
Site Plan
Description:
To permit a 45-storey building including 335 residential units
Reference Number:
22 192523 STE 13 SA
Property Address:
10 Huntley Street
Municipality/UT:
Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-001019
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-001017
Heard:
April 30, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Glen Huntley Holdings Limited and APS Holdings Limited
J. Hoffman D. Bronskill (in absentia)
City of Toronto
S. O’Connor U. Gautam
Casey House
K. Dias P. Gross
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY a. sauve ON April 30, 2024, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This was the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held for the purpose of organizing Appeals by Glen Huntley Holdings Limited and APS Holdings Limited (“Appellant”) of the failure of the City of Toronto to make decisions on Applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval in relation to the property located at 10 Huntley Street. The Appellant proposes to redevelop the property with a 45-storey residential building containing 335 units.
2At the previous CMC, held on February 14, 2024, the City of Toronto (“City”) informed the Tribunal that they had not received instructions from council regarding this Appeal as of yet. Since then, the City has received instructions, the Parties have had discussions, and the Parties have submitted a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) to the Tribunal.
3The Parties asked the Tribunal to schedule an eight-day Merit Hearing.
4The Tribunal scheduled an eight-day Merit Hearing to commence on Wednesday, October 16, 2024, at 10 a.m. and end on Friday, October 25, 2024, by Video Hearing.
5The Parties were instructed to submit a revised draft PO. The PO has since been submitted and reviewed. It is attached to this decision as Schedule A and shall govern the Merit Hearing.
6Parties and Participants are asked to log into the Video Hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:
GoToMeeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/979388733
Access Code: 979-388-733
7Parties and Participants 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.
8Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: (Toll Free) 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The access code is same as mentioned above.
9Individuals 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 CMC 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.
ORDER
10THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Merit Hearing directives set out above are so ordered.
11There will be no further notice and the Member is not seized, but, if necessary, may be available for further case management subject to the Tribunal’s calendar.
“A. Sauve”
A. SAUVE
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.: OLT-23-001017
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
Glen-Huntley Holdings Limited and APS Holdings Limited
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description:
To permit a 45-storey building including 335 residential units
Reference Number:
21 235167 STE 13 OZ
Property Address:
10 Huntley Street
Municipality/UT:
Toronto / Toronto
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-0001017
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-0001017
OLT Case Name:
Glen-Huntley Holdings Limited and APS Holdings Limited v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
Glen-Huntley Holdings Limited and APS Holdings Limited
Subject:
Zoning By-law Amendment
Description:
To permit a 45-storey building including 335 residential units
Reference Number:
21 235167 STE 13 OZ
Property Address:
10 Huntley Street
Municipality/UT:
Toronto / Toronto
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-0001018
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-0001017
OLT Case Name:
Glen-Huntley Holdings Limited and APS Holdings Limited v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A
Appellant:
Glen-Huntley Holdings Limited and APS Holdings Limited
Subject:
Site Plan
Description:
To permit a 45-storey building including 335 residential units
Reference Number:
22 192523 STE 13 SA
Property Address:
10 Huntley Street
Municipality/UT:
Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-001019
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-001017
PROCEDURAL ORDER
- 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
The hearing will begin on Wednesday October 16, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. as directed in the Tribunal's Decision and Order.
The length of the hearing will be about 8 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 found in Attachment 1.
The Parties and Participants identified at the Case Management Conference are listed in Attachment 2 to this Order.
The Issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3 to this Order. The Parts will attempt to resolve the issues prior to the hearing on the merits of the appeal. There will be no changes to the Issues List unless the Tribunal permits, and a Party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.
The order of evidence is set out in Attachment 4 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.
Any person intending to participate in the hearing shall provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal. Any such person who retains a representative must advise the other Parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number.
If the hearing is to proceed electronically, 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 (https://olt.gov.on.ca/guides/).
Requirements Before the Hearing
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, the expert witness(es)' curriculum vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert Duty form(s), and the order in which the witnesses will be called. This list must be delivered at least one hundred and twenty (120) calendar days before the hearing (on or before June 18, 2024). For expert witnesses, a Party is to identify the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed 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 July 8, 2024) (100 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence).
Expert witnesses in the same discipline(s) shall have at least one meeting before the hearing to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. The experts shall prepare a list of any agreed facts and the remaining issues to be addressed at the hearing, and provide this list to all of the Parties and the Tribunal at least fifteen days (15) days prior to date for Expert Witness Statements as stated in Section 14 (on or before July 26, 2024), if agreement is reached.
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 as in Section 9. Copies must be provided as in Section 14. 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 Section 14.
A witness or participant must provide to the Tribunal and the Parties a witness statement or participant statement, respectively, on or before August 12, 2024 (sixty-five (65) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing) or the witness may not give oral evidence at the hearing. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.
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 Section 14.
On or before August 12, 2024 (sixty-five (65) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing), the Parties shall provide copies of their expert witness statements (full disclosure including reports) to the other Parties.
On or before August 30, 2024 (forty-five (45) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing) the Parties may provide to all other Parties a written reply to any written evidence.
On or before September 6, 2024 (forty (40) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing), the Parties shall advise the Tribunal of whether any hearings dates scheduled for this matter may be released from the Tribunal's calendar. This request may only be made on consent of all of the Parties. If no hearing dates are intended to be released from the Tribunal's calendar, no Party is required to advise the Tribunal anything further in that regard.
On or before September 16, 2024 (thirty (30) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing), the Parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other Parties. The Tribunal and all Parties shall be notified if a model will be used, all Parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the scheduled commencement of the hearing.
A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. Such a motion shall be in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rule 10, which requires that the moving Party provide copies of the motion to all other Parties at least 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.
A Party who provides a witness’ written evidence 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.
On or before September 16, 2024 (thirty (30) days before the commencement of the hearing), the Parties shall prepare and file a detailed Work Plan that identifies the following, at a minimum: the identified Parties participating in the Hearing Event, preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the date a witness is intended to attend the Tribunal, the identified witness name/expertise, and the approximate time allotted for Examination in Chief, Cross Examination and any re-examination (if any) (the “Work Plan”). The Work Plan should be adhered to guide the Hearing Event to the best ability of all the Parties, and any and all witnesses shall be available on the identified date(s), unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the Work Plan throughout the Hearing Event.
The Parties shall prepare a Joint Document Book on or before September 26, 2024 (20 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), and which one (1) hard copy will be filed with the Tribunal as soon as practicable in advance of the Hearing. All Parties must be served with the Joint Document Book in paper or an accessible electronic format in accordance with Section 23.
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 May 14, 2024 (ninety (90) days before Expert Witness Statements as in Section 14). 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.
All filing of documents and materials shall be electronic to the Tribunal, the Parties and Participants (if any). The Tribunal will be provided a hard copy of documents and materials in advance of the hearing event as soon as practicable. 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. All documents to be filed with the Tribunal shall be organized, tabbed and digitally searchable and such materials will be filed in accordance with directions contained in the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, dated July 2, 2020, or as may be amended. Section 23 applies regardless if the hearing event is in-person or electronic.
No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness or as permitted by Section 22. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.
The Tribunal may conduct mediation on consent of all Parties, on consent of those Parties who wish to participate in mediation, or if the Tribunal sees fit.
The purpose of this Procedural Order and the meaning of the terms used in this Procedural Order are set out in Attachment 5.
This Member is [not] seized.
So orders the Tribunal.
ATTACHMENT 1
SUMMARY OF DATES
DATE
EVENT
May 14, 2024
Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any)
June 18, 2024
Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
July 8, 2024
Last date to challenge identification of expert witness
July 26, 2024
Experts meeting prior to this date
July 26, 2024
Agreed Statement of Facts
August 12, 2024
Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
August 30, 2024
Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
September 6, 2024
Parties to Advise Tribunal if any hearing dates are to be released from the hearing calendar (if any)
September 16, 2024
Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
September 16, 2024
Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal
September 26, 2024
Finalize Joint Document Book
October 16, 2024
Hearing commences
ATTACHMENT 2
List of Parties and Participants
A. PARTIES
Counsel/*Agent
Glen-Huntley Holdings Limited APS Holdings Limited
David Bronskill Goodmans LLP Bay Adelaide Centre - West Tower 333 Bay Street, Suite 3400 Toronto, ON M5H 2S7 Email: dbronskill@goodmans.ca
Tel: 416.597.4299
City of Toronto
Sarah O’Connor/Uttra Gautam City of Toronto, Legal Services Metro Hall, 26th Floor 55 John Street Toronto, Ontario M5V 3C6 E-mail: Sarah.OConnor@toronto.ca Uttra.Gautam@toronto.ca Tel: 416. 397.5378/416.396.7986
Casey House
Peter Gross/Kevin Dias Gowling WLG First Canadian Place 100 King Street West, Suite 1600 Toronto, ON M5X 1G5 Email: peter.gross@gowlingwlg.com kevin.dias@gowlingwlg.com Tel: 416.862.4459/519.575.7527
Participants
Jarvis & Earl Inc./Jarvis & Earl 2 Inc. Kagan Shastri DeMelo Winer Park LLP Sarah Kagan/Jason Park Email: skagan@ksllp.ca jpark@ksllp.ca
ATTACHMENT 3
ISSUES LIST
NOTE: The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the Tribunal or any Party that the issue is either relevant or appropriate. The identification of an issue on this list by a Party indicates that Party’s intent to lead evidence or argue that the issue is relevant to the proceeding, for the purpose of fairly identifying to the other Parties the case they need to meet and shall not be construed as the Tribunal have jurisdiction over such matters in each circumstance. Accordingly, no Party shall advance an issue not identified on the Issues List without leave of the Tribunal.
A. City of Toronto
Site Specific Issues
Built Form
Are the building height, tower setbacks, tower separation, 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, 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?
Heritage
- Does the proposed development mitigate impacts on the cultural heritage values, attributes, and character of adjacent heritage resources?
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?
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?
Legislative & Policy Tests
- Do the proposed development and the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act?
Provincial Policy Statement
- Would a decision to refuse the proposed development and the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), as required by Section 3(5) of the Planning Act, including but not limited to Sections 1.7.1(e), 2.6.3, 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, with respect to:
a. Making Choices (Section 1)
b. Structuring Growth in the City (Section 2.2.2(l))
c. Healthy Neighbourhoods (Section 2.3.1, ss 1, 3, 4, 6,)
d. The Public Realm (Sections 3.1.1.2, 3.1.1.6, 3.1.1.13-16, 3.1.1.24)
e. Built Form (Section 3.1.3);
f. Built Form – Building Types (Section 3.1.4.7-12);
g. Heritage (3.1.6.5, 3.1.6.26)
h. Neighbourhoods (Section 4.1)
i. Apartment Neighbourhoods (4.2)
j. Implementation (5.3.2.1, Section 5.6)
- Is the proposed redesignation of the subject lands from Neighbourhoods to Apartment Neighbourhoods appropriate?
City of Toronto – 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. How to Read this Plan (1)
b. Goals (3.3)
c. Directing Growth (Section 4.2)
d. Land Use and Economy (Sections 6.19, 6.20, 6.22, 6.25, 6.26)
e. Parks and Public Realm (Section 7.18,7.19, 7.34, 7.36)
f. Parking and Curbside Management (8.27)
g. 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)
Downtown Tall Buildings Site and Area Specific Policy (SASP 517)
- Do the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment conform to the in-force City of Toronto Official Plan Amendment 352 (SASP 517), and implementing zoning provisions?
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)?
Implementation/Conditions of Approval
- 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 registered on title a Limiting Distance Agreement, or similar legal instrument, over 119 Isabella Street, including the City as a party, or made other satisfactory arrangements to ensure that the tower portion of the proposed residential building at 10 Huntley Street can achieve an appropriate tower setback and separation distance to the north, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor.
B. Casey House
Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest as set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including (d), (h), (i), (n) and (o)?
Is the proposed development, OPA and ZBA consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, specifically sections 1.1.1(g), 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, 1.7.1(e) and 4.6?
Is the proposed development, OPA and ZBA consistent with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, specifically sections 2.2.1.4(b) and 4.2.7.1?
Does the proposed development, OPA and ZBA conform with the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, including but not limited to:
i. Healthy Neighbourhoods (Section 2.3.1, ss 1, 2, 3, 4)
ii. Built Form (Section 3.1.3, ss 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9)
iii. Built Form-Building Types (Section 3.1.4, ss 1, 10, 11)
iv. Heritage Conservation (Section 3.1.6, ss 5, 6, 22, 26, 29)
v. Community Services and Facilities (Section 3.2.2, ss 1)
vi. Neighbourhoods (Section 4.1, ss 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
vii. Apartment Neighbourhoods (Section 4.2, ss 1, 2, 3)
viii. The Official Plan Guides City Action (Section 5.3.1.3)
In particular, does the proposed development conform with the Heritage Conservation Policies in Section 3.1.6 of the City of Toronto Official Plan in relation to the impacts of the development on the existing heritage building 571 Jarvis Street?
Is the proposed redesignation of the subject lands from Neighbourhoods to Apartment Neighbourhoods appropriate?
Do the proposed development and ZBA conform to the in-force Downtown Plan – City of Toronto OPA 406, including but not limited to:
i. Goals (Sections 3.1, 3.3, 3.18)
ii. Directing Growth (Sections 4.1, 4.2)
iii. Built Form (Sections 9.1, 9.3, 9.9-9.15, 9.22-9.25, 9.27)
Do the proposed development and ZBA conform to the City of Toronto OPA 352, including Site and Area Specific Policy No. 517, as adopted by By-law 1105-2016?
Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for and maintain the intent and purpose of the Tall Building Guidelines (2013), including but not limited to:
i. Base Building (Section 3.1)
ii. Middle (Tower) (Section 3.2)
iii. Heritage Properties and Heritage Conservation Districts (Section
1.6)
Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for and maintain the intent and purpose of the Downtown Tall Buildings: Vision and Supplementary Design Guidelines (2013)?
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 development, OPA and ZBA provide adequate transition in scale to lower-scaled buildings, parks and open space?
Would the proposed development, OPA and ZBA result in adverse impacts on adjacent lands with respect to shadow and overlook?
Would the proposed development, OPA and ZBA result in adverse impacts on adjacent lands with respect to future development potential?
Does the proposed development allow for a distribution of massing that does not preclude compatible redevelopment of 571 Jarvis and 119 Isabella St.?
If reduced setbacks are proposed, should the location of primary facades, including primary windows, be restricted?
Is the location of the proposed development a tall building site? If not, should proposed intensification in this location occur in a mid-rise form?
In light of the foregoing issues, does the proposed development, OPA and ZBA represent good planning, and is approval of the proposal in the public interest?
ATTACHMENT 4
Order of Evidence
Glen Huntley Holdings Limited & APS Holdings Limited
City of Toronto
Casey House
Glen Huntley Holdings Limited & APS Holdings Limited (reply if any)
ATTACHMENT 5
Purpose of the Procedural Order and Meaning of Terms
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. If an unincorporated group wishes to become a Party, 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, must ask the Tribunal to permit this.
Participant is an individual, group or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may attend only part of the proceeding but who makes a written statement to the Tribunal on all or some of the issues in the hearing in accordance with Rule 7.7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
NOTE that such persons will likely not receive notice of a mediation or conference calls on procedural issues. They also cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision as Parties can.
Written and Visual Evidence:
Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a Party 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 intends to present as evidence at the hearing.
Witness Statements:
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 the witness will discuss and the witness’ opinions on those issues; and a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing.
An expert witness statement should include the expert’s (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 for the opinions and (5) a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing.
A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which the participant will address and a short outline of the evidence on those issues; and a list of reports, relied upon, if any, which the participant will provide to the Tribunal for consideration of the written statement at the hearing.
Additional Information:
Summons: A Party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons. This request must be made before the time that the list of witnesses is provided to the Tribunal and the Parties (see Rule 13 on the summons procedure). If the Tribunal requests it, an affidavit must be provided indicating how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the affidavit, it will require that a motion be heard to decide whether the witness should be summoned.
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.
1398-9852-5708