CBM Aggregates, a division of St. Marys Cement (Canada) Inc. v. North Dumfries (Township), 2024 CanLII 72554

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 23, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000588

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

Applicant and Appellant: CBM Aggregates, a division of St. Marys Cement (Canada) Inc.

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

Description: To permit an expansion of an existing sand and gravel pit

Reference Number: ZC-06/21

Property Address: 1107 Cedar Creek Road

Municipality/UT: North Dumfries/Waterloo

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000588

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000588

OLT Case Name: CBM Aggregates, a division of St. Marys Cement (Canada) Inc. v. North Dumfries (Township)

Heard: June 18, 2024, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

CBM Aggregates, a division of St. Marys Cement (Canada) Inc.

Kim Mullin

Township of North Dumfries

Michael Van Bodegom

City of Cambridge

Peter Pickfield

Regional Municipality of Waterloo

Fiona McCrea

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY N. Allam and T.F. NG ON June 18, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This is the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) for the above-noted matter. CBM Aggregates, a division of St. Marys Cement (Canada) Inc. (“Applicant”) has filed an appeal against the Township of North Dumfries’ (“Township”) failure to make a decision pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act. The subject land is known municipally as 1107 Cedar Creek Road, in the Township.

2The application under appeal is to permit the extension of an existing sand and gravel pit.

DRAFT PROCEDURAL ORDER

3The Applicant’s Counsel, Kim Mullin informed the Tribunal that Parties have not scoped the issues yet and renewed her request for a three-week Hearing to be scheduled despite the Aggregate Resources Act (“ARA”) matter’s referral being delayed resulting in inability to consolidate that matter with the Planning appeal. Respective Parties’ Counsel had a back and forth on scheduling of the Hearing for the planning matter, with the Applicant arguing that the s. 34(11) matter should be scheduled without having to wait for the ARA matter which delay is indeterminate. Counsel argued that it is the right of the Applicant to have a Hearing of this matter.

4The Township, City and Region disagreed and contended that it is usual to consolidate the ARA and Planning Act matters going forward.

5The Tribunal determined that, since it is unknown when the ARA matter will find its way to the Tribunal, it is appropriate to schedule a Hearing of the s. 34(11) matter which is an appeal properly before the Tribunal.

MEDIATION

6Parties are continuing private discussions currently and may seek instructions from clients on mediation.

DISPOSITION

7The Tribunal will schedule the Hearing of the s. 34(11) Planning Act matter and another CMC for a status update.

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND HEARING

8The CMC is scheduled to proceed by video on Friday, October 25, 2024, at 10 a.m.

9The Hearing is scheduled for 15 days from Monday, August 11 to Friday, August 29, 2025, by Video Hearing starting at 10 a.m.

10The Hearings are scheduled to proceed by video as follows:

October 25, 2024 at 10 a.m. (one-day CMC) GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/709076365

Access code: 709-076-365 Audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or Toll-Free 1-888-299-1889 Audio-only access code: 709-076-365 August 11, 2025 at 10 a.m. (15-day Hearing) GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/927921077 Access code: 927-921-077 Audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9391 or Toll-Free 1-888-299-1889 Audio-only access code: 927-921-077

11Parties 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.

12Parties 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

13Persons 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.

14Individuals 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 Hearing by video 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

15The Tribunal Orders that:

1. The Case Management Conference is fixed on Friday, October 25, 2024, by video.

2. The Procedural Order and Issues List is to be submitted by Tuesday, July 2, 2024.

3. The Procedural Order attached as Schedule 1 to govern the proceedings.

4. The Hearing is scheduled for 15 days from Monday, August 11 to Friday, August 29, 2025, by video.

16The Panel Members are not seized and there will be no further notice.

“Nehad Allam”

NEHAD ALLAM

MEMBER

“T.F. Ng”

T.F. NG

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 1

CASE NO: OLT-23-000588

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

Applicant and Appellant: CBM Aggregates, a division of St. Marys Cement (Canada) Inc.

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

Description: To permit an expansion of an existing sand and gravel pit

Reference Number: ZC-06/21

Property Address: 1107 Cedar Creek Road

Municipality/UT: North Dumfries/Waterloo

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000588

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000588

OLT Case Name: CBM Aggregates, a division of St. Marys Cement (Canada) Inc. v. North Dumfries (Township)

PROCEDURAL ORDER

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

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will begin on August 11, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. at

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/927921077.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 15 days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1 (see the Attachment 4 for the meaning of these terms).

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 2. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

7. Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.

8. Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. 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 May 12, 2025 and in accordance with paragraph 22 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.

10. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before May 30, 2025 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before June 27, 2025.

11. 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 13 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.

12. 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 13 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 13 below.

13. On or before June 13, 2025, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

14. On or before June 13, 2025, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

15. On or before July 7, 2025, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

16. On or before July 28, 2025 the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

17. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before July 14, 2025 and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

18. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before August 1, 2025.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before August 1, 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.

22. 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.

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

This Member is [not] seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

Summary of Key Dates

Date

Hearing Event

May 12, 2025

Exchange expert witness lists

May 30, 2025

Meeting of like experts

June 13, 2025

Exchange of expert reports/expert witness statements/written evidence, evidence outlines for witnesses under summons

June 13, 2025

Exchange of Participant Statements

June 27, 2025

File Agreed Statement of Facts

July 7, 2025

Confirm with Tribunal if all hearing dates required

July 14, 2025

Exchange of Reply Witness Statements

July 28, 2025

Exchange of Visual Evidence

August 1, 2025

Provide joint document book to case coordinator

August 1, 2025

File Hearing Plan

August 11, 2025

Hearing start date

ATTACHMENT 1: PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

Party

Representative/Contact Information

CBM Aggregates, a division of St Marys Cement (Canada) Inc.

Wood Bull LLP 65 Queen Street West, Suite 1400 Toronto, ON M5H 2M5 Kim Mullin T: 416-203-5633 E: kmullin@woodbull.ca

Township of North Dumfries

Duncan Linton LLP 45 Erb Street East Waterloo, Ontario CANADA, N2J 1L7 Michael van Bodegom T. (519) 886-3340 E. mvb@kwlaw.net

The Regional Municipality of Waterloo

150 Frederick Street, 2nd Floor, Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4J3 Fiona McCrea T. 519-575-4518/519-502-0925 E. fmccrea@regionofwaterloo.ca

The City of Cambridge

Garrod Pickfield LLP 50 Dickson Street Cambridge, ON N1R 8S1 Peter Pickfield T. 519-837-0500 E. pickfield@garrodpickfield.ca

Participant

Contact Information

Carol Walthers

127 Inverness Dr, Cambridge ON T. 647-223-2236 E. cwalthers@bell.net

Marta and Jacek Nawrot

74 Delavan Dr, Cambridge, ON, N1S 4S3 T. 519-896-8979 E. nawrotjp@gmail.com

Octavio Melo

145 Harwood Rd, Cambridge, ON N1S 4R9 T. 519-620-2032 E. o.t.melo@gmail.com

North Dumfries Conservation Alliance

David Pyper T. 519-651-9861 E. dspyper@live.com Karen Scott Booth T. 519-620-3546 E. karenscottbooth5225@gmail.com

ATTACHMENT 2: ISSUES LIST

Note: The identification of an issue does not mean that all parties agree that such issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing.

Land Use Planning

1. Would approval of the proposed amendment to the Township of North Dumfries Zoning By-law (the “zoning by-law amendment”) have appropriate regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in section 2 of the Planning Act, in particular sub-sections 2 (a) and (o). (Township and City)

2. Is the proposed zoning by-law amendment consistent with Provincial Policy Statement 2020, in particular policies 1.1.1(c), 1.1.4.1 (h), 1.2.6.1, 1.6.7.1, 1.7.1 a), 2.1.2, 2.2.1 d), e) and f), 2.2.2, 2.5.2.2, 2.5.3 and 2.5.4.1? (Township and City)

3. Is the Zoning By-law Amendment in conformity with the Places to Grow Act, 2005, and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Office Consolidation, August 2020), and specifically Sections 4.2.4, 4.2.6, and 4.2.8? (Township and City)

4. Does the proposed zoning by-law amendment conform with the Region of Waterloo Official Plan, and in particular Sections 8.A.4, 9.B.2, 9.C.3 and 9.C.4 and 9.F.2? (Region and City)

5. Does the proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment adequately address the technical requirements outlined in Regional Official Plan (ROP) Policy 9.C.3 including the completion of noise, dust and vibration studies; a hydrogeological study in accordance with the provisions of the Regional Implementation Guideline for Source Water Protection Studies; a Transportation Impact Study; an Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with the policies in Section 7.G; an archaeological assessment; information on the lifespan of the mineral aggregate operation and final rehabilitation plans; and any other identified study to meet the requirements under the provisions of the Planning Act; to the satisfaction of the Region or agency with jurisdiction over the issues addressed by the study? (Region)

6. Does the proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment adequately address land use compatibility by designating the identified buffer zone as a separate land use designation from the proposed licensed area? (Region)

7. Does the proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment appropriately address the requirements under ROP Policy 9.C.4 with regards to the potential cumulative impacts that may result from a proposed new mineral aggregate operation when added to other past, present and proposed future mineral aggregate operations in the vicinity of the proposed new operation (Region and City)

8. Does the proposed zoning by-law amendment conform with the Township of North Dumfries Official Plan, and in particular sections 3.1.1.1, 3.1.1.2, 5.2.3.4, 5.2.1.4, 5.2.4.3, 5.2.4.1 a) to g), 5.2.5.2, 5.2.5.3, 5.2.5.7, 5.2.5.8 , 5.2.8.3, 6.1.7.1, 6.1.7.2, 6.1.7.5, 6.1.7.6, 6.3.1.1, and 6.3.1.4. (Township and City)

9. Are the mitigation measures proposed by the Appellant in the proposed Aggregate Resources Act licence conditions, Site Plan Drawing and Site Plan notes submitted by the Appellant with its ARA Licence Application sufficient to address potential land-use conflicts with, and impacts, including dust and noise impacts, on adjacent residential uses in proximity land to be rezoned for aggregate extraction uses? (Township and City)

10. Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment facilitate and promote the integration, where applicable, with the existing Dance Pit facility to the immediate west (Pit License #17348) that are under the control of CBM Aggregates, including:

i) environmental features, including habitat corridors & linkages, and development setbacks / buffers;

ii) extraction along the common property lot lines;

iii) progressive rehabilitation practices; and,

iii) permitted uses, including elements such as the operational yard for processing, aggregate storage piles, loading and hauling, ancillary uses, etc.?

(Township)

11. If the Tribunal allows the appeal in whole or in part, what is the appropriate form of the zoning by-law amendment, and in particular should specific zoning permissions be established to implement appropriate setbacks and other requirements to address potential land use conflicts and impacts on adjacent and nearby residential uses? Related to this:

12. Does the Zoning By-law Amendment establish the appropriate regulatory uses (primary and ancillary) and provisions for the proposed aggregate operation in conformity with Township Official Plan Policies 5.2.1.4, 5.2.5.7 and 5.2.8.3 and in consideration of the interface with the adjacent parcel owned or controlled by CBM Aggregate (existing Dance Pit – License #17348) ?

13. Does the Zoning By-law Amendment establish the appropriate regulatory uses and provisions for the proposed aggregate operation in conformity with the Township Official Plan Policies 5.2.1.4, 5.2.3.4, 5.2.4.3, 5.2.4 a) to g), 5.2.5.2, 5.2.5.3, 5.2.5.7, 5.2.5.8 and 5.2.8.3 ?

(Township and City)

Noise

12. Have the potential noise impacts of the aggregate operation, including cumulative noise impacts of the proposed the proposed aggregate operation together with other existing aggregate operations, been adequately modelled and assessed? (Township and City)

13. Has the applicant demonstrated that adequate measures will be implemented to mitigate the noise impacts and meet MECP standards for noise impacts at noise sensitive receptors? (Township and City)

Air Quality/Dust

14. Have the potential air quality/dust impacts of the proposed aggregate operation, including the cumulative impacts of the proposed aggregate operation together with all other existing aggregate operations in the area, been adequately modelled and assessed? Related to this, has the air quality report prepared by the Appellant established the appropriate baseline air quality in the vicinity of the proposed extraction operation? (Township and City)

15. Are the recommendations to control air quality/dust impact appropriate and sufficient? Related to this, are Best Management Practices Plan measures proposed to mitigate potential air quality/dust impacts of the existing and proposed extraction operation adequate and sufficiently detailed to prevent off-site impacts? (Township and City)

16. Is an Environmental Compliance Approval required for the processing and related equipment on the subject property in order to ensure that adequate mitigation is in place and enforceable to prevent off-site air quality/dust impacts? (Township and City)

Natural Heritage

17. Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment appropriately reflect the influences of the adjacent Environmentally Sensitive Landscape and Core Environmental Feature (and the associated buffer) associated with the Gilholm-Salisbury Provincially Significant Wetland complex as illustrated on Map 5A and in conformity with Township Official Plan Policies 6.1.7.1, 6.1.7.2, 6.1.7.5, 6.1.7.6, 6.3.1.1 and 6.3.1.4 ? (Township and City)

18. Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment appropriately implement the Township’s Official Plan pertaining to Environmentally Sensitive Landscapes as illustrated on Map 5A and Policies 6.1.3.2, 6.1.3.7, and 6.1.3.9 ? (Township)

19. Has the potential for impacts to Species at Risk bat habitat as a result of the proposed expanded aggregate extraction operation been assessed and adequately addressed? (City)

20. Has the potential impact, on wetlands on the wetland features and functions in the Devils Creek watershed, of the identified “small and local effect on runoff and infiltration sourced flows in Devil’s creek” been adequately addressed and assessed? (Township and City)

Source Water Protection

21. Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment implement the Township’s Official Plan pertaining to Source Water Protection Areas as illustrated on Map 4 and Policies 5.3.1.1, 5.3.1.2, 5.3.1.4 and 5.3.1.9 ? (Township)

Rehabilitation

22. Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment establish and facilitate the progressive and comprehensive rehabilitation of the proposed aggregate pit as an interim use in conformity with Township Official Plan Policies 5.2.3.4, 5.2.4.4, 5.2.5.8 b), 5.2.5.9, 5.2.8.2 and 5.2.8.3 a) to e) inclusive ? (Township)

ATTACHMENT 3: ORDER OF EVIDENCE[1]

1. CBM Aggregates
2. Township of North Dumfries
3. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo
4. The City of Cambridge
5. Reply by CBM Aggregates

ATTACHMENT 4: MEANING OF TERMS USED IN THE PROCEDURAL ORDER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Information

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

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

• direct examination by the party presenting the witness;
• direct examination by any party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;
• cross-examination by parties of opposite interest;
• re-examination by the party presenting the witness; or
• another order of examination mutually agreed among the parties or directed by the Tribunal.

1With advance notice, the municipal parties may modify the order of evidence, and order of witnesses, as between themselves to ensure that the best evidence is provided in an efficient and coordinated manner.