Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 28, 2024

CASE NO.: OLT-23-001206

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

Applicant and Appellant: Legion Heights Hespeler Inc.

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

Description: To permit 5 mixed-use, high-rise buildings with a maximum of 1,366 dwelling units, and approximately 9,200 sq. m of office and commercial.

Reference Number: OR06/22

Property Address: 506-510 Hespeler Road, 516 Hespeler Road and 1000 Langs Drive

Municipality/UT: Cambridge/Waterloo

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001206

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001206

OLT Case Name: Legion Heights Hespeler Inc. v. Cambridge (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Legion Heights Hespeler Inc.

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

Description: To permit 5 mixed-use, high-rise buildings with a maximum of 1,366 dwelling units, and approximately 9,200 sq. m of office and commercial.

Reference Number: OR06/22

Property Address: 506-510 Hespeler Road, 516 Hespeler Road and 1000 Langs Drive

Municipality/UT: Cambridge/Waterloo

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001207

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001206

OLT Case Name: Legion Heights Hespeler Inc. v. Cambridge (City)

BEFORE: WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON, VICE-CHAIR Wednesday, the 28th day of August, 2024

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that further to the Decision issued on May 31, 2024, the Procedural Order, as agreed to between the Parties and attached hereto as Schedule “A”, shall be in force and effect for the purpose of governing the required procedures leading up to and including the hearing, which is scheduled to commence on September 2, 2025. The Tribunal has set aside twenty (20) days for the hearing.

"Euken Lui"

EUKEN LUI

ACTING REGISTRAR

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

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

SCHEDULE “A”

ISSUE DATE: August 28, 2024 CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001206

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

Applicant and Appellant: Legion Heights Hespeler Inc.

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

Description: To permit 5 mixed-use, high-rise buildings with a maximum of 1,366 dwelling units, and approximately 9,200 sq. m of office and commercial.

Reference Number: OR06/22

Property Address: 506-510 Hespeler Road, 516 Hespeler Road and 1000 Langs Drive

Municipality/UT: Cambridge/Waterloo

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001206

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001206

OLT Case Name: Legion Heights Hespeler Inc. v. Cambridge (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Legion Heights Hespeler Inc.

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

Description: To permit 5 mixed-use, high-rise buildings with a maximum of 1,366 dwelling units, and approximately 9,200 sq. m of office and commercial.

Reference Number: OR06/22

Property Address: 506-510 Hespeler Road, 516 Hespeler Road and 1000 Langs Drive

Municipality/UT: Cambridge/Waterloo

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001207

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001206

OLT Case Name: Legion Heights Hespeler Inc. v. Cambridge (City)

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. The video hearing will begin on Tuesday, September 2, 2025 and will be conducted virtually.

3. The length of the hearing is twenty (20) 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 Attachment 3 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 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.

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 Monday, May 5th 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 Friday, June 13, 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 Monday, June 23, 2025. A Status Hearing shall be conducted by telephone conference call on Friday June 27, 2025 as ordered by the Tribunal in its Decision issued May 31, 2024.

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, in accordance with paragraph 13 below.

13. On or before Monday, July 14, 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 Monday, July 14, 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.

15. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT Case Co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before Monday, August 11, 2025 in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

16. On or before Friday, August 22, 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. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a Joint Document Book which shall be filed with the OLT Case Co-ordinator on or before Friday, August 22, 2025.

18. 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 and the OLT Case Co-ordinator on or before Monday, April 14, 2025. 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. For greater clarity, nothing in this section applies to revisions which respond to issues/concerns raised by the other parties and which revisions either resolve entirely or reduce the scope of such issues/concerns. In the event of a dispute, the Tribunal may be spoken to.

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 Monday, August 25, 2025 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. 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.

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

Summary of Key Dates

Date	Event
Thursday, March 14, 2024	First Case Management Conference
Monday, May 27, 2024	Second Case Management Conference
Monday, April 14, 2025	Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings, etc. (if any)
Monday, May 5, 2025	Exchange of list of witnesses and the order in which they will be called
Friday, June 13, 2025	Meeting of expert witnesses in the same field
Monday, June 23, 2025	Filing of agreed statement of facts
Friday, June 27, 2025	Status Hearing by TCC
Monday, July 14, 2025	Exchange of expert reports/expert witness statements/written evidence, evidence outlines for witnesses under summons, participant statements
Monday, August 11, 2025	Exchange of responding evidence
Friday, August 22, 2025	Exchange of visual evidence
Friday, August 22, 2025	Filing of Joint Document Book
Monday, August 25, 2025	Filing of Hearing Plan
Tuesday, September 2, 2025	Hearing commences

Attachment 1: Parties and Participants

Party	Representation
Legion Heights Hespeler Inc.	Ira T. Kagan/ Sarah R. Kagan / Doug Pateman Kagan Shastri DeMelo Winer Park LLP 188 Avenue Road Toronto, ON, M5R 2J1 T: 416-368-2100 ext. 226/ 243 / 261 E: ikagan@ksllp.ca / skagan@ksllp.ca / dpateman@ksllp.ca
City of Cambridge	Raj Kehar WeirFoulds LLP 4100 – 66 Wellington St. West PO Box 35, TD Bank Tower Toronto, ON M5K 1B7 T: 416-947-5051 E: rkehar@weirfoulds.com Nicole Auty Corporation of the City of Cambridge PO Box 669 50 Dickson Street Cambridge, ON N1R 5W8 T: 519-740-4683, ext. 4210 E: autyn@cambridge.ca
Region of Waterloo	Fiona McCrea 150 Frederick Street Kitchener, ON., N2G 4J3 T: 519-575-4518 E: fmccrea@regionofwaterloo.ca
Air Liquide Canada Inc.	Jonathan Cheng and Calvin Lantz Stikeman Elliott LLP 5300 Commerce Court West 199 Bay Street Toronto, ON M5L 1B9 T: 416-869-6807 / 416-869-5669 E: jcheng@stikeman.com / clantz@stikeman.com

Participant	Representation
None

Attachment 2: Issues List

City of Cambridge

1. Do the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications (the “Applications”) have regard for matters of provincial interest set out in section 2 of the Planning Act, including ss. 2(h), (n), (o), (p) and (r)?

2. Are the Applications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS, 2020) including sections 1.1.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, 1.2.1, 1.2.6.1, 1.2.6.2, 1.3.2, 1.4, 1.6, 2.2.1, 3.1.1(c), 3.1.2 (d), 3.1.3, 3.1.4(b), 3.1.6, 3.1.7 and 3.2.1?

3. Do the Applications conform with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (Growth Plan), including sections 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.4, 2.2.5, 2.2.6?

4. Do the Applications conform to the Regional Official Plan, including policies 2.A, 2.D, 2.F, 2.H, 2.L, 3.A and associated schedules and maps and any other policies that relate to major transit station areas, intensification, employment uses, land use compatibility and/or the provision of housing?

5. Do the Applications conform to the City of Cambridge Official Plan, including policies 2.1, 2.2, 2.6.6., 2.7, Chapter 5, 8.4.2, 8.4.3, 8.5, 10.2, 10.7, 10.10, 10.11 and associated schedules and maps, and any other policies that relate to major transit station areas, intensification, employment uses, land use compatibility and/or the provision of housing?

6. Is the proposed sensitive land use compatible with adjacent industrial land uses?

7. Do the Applications have regard for MECP NPC-300? Do the applications appropriately address noise impacts, for all the proposed buildings, adjacent stationary and transportation sources?

8. Do the Applications have regard to the MECP D-Series Guidelines?

9. Do the Applications have regard to the Technical Standards and Safety Authority and Major Industrial Accidents Council of Canada guidelines?

10. Do the Applications appropriately address site contamination, including but not limited to completion of a Record of Site Condition and receipt of an acknowledgment letter from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks?

11. Do the Applications adequately address floodplain policies?

12. Do the Applications represent good planning and is approval of the Applications in the public interest?

Region of Waterloo

1. Are the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application’s consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS, 2020) including Sections: 1.1.1 (c ) 1.1.1(d), 1.1.1 (i), 1.1.3.2 (d), 1.1.3.4, 1.2.1( c), 1.2.1 (e), 1.2.1 (f), 1.2.6.1, 1.2.6.2, 1.3.1 (c), 1.3.1(d), 1.3.2.2, 1.3.2.3, 1.3.2.6, 2.2.1. (f).1 3.1.1.b and 3.1.1.c, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4b, 3.1.6, 3.1.7, 3.2.2?

2. Do the Applications conform with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (Growth Plan), including Sections: 2.2.1.2(e), 2.2.1.4 ( e), 2.2.5.5, 2.2.5.6, 2.2.5.7(c), 2.2.5.8

3. Do the Proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments (Applications) conform to the Regional Official Plan, including Sections: 2.A.3 (c), 2.D.2.8, 2.H.1.1, 2.H.1.8 (d), 2H.1.10, 2.I.1.1, 2.I.1.2, 2.I.2.1, 2.I.2.2, 2.I.2.3, 2.I.2.4, 2.I.2.5, 2.I.3.1, 2.I.3.2,

4. Is the land use proposed in Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application compatible with the adjacent industrial land uses?

5. Do the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment comply with MECP NPC-300?

6. Do the applications appropriately address noise impacts, from all the proposed buildings, adjacent stationary and transportation sources?

7. Is the use of a Class 4 designation in accordance with the MECP NPC-300 guideline appropriate?

8. Are there any implementation measures relating to noise that shall be implemented within the planning instruments?

9. Do the applications appropriately address site contamination, including but not limited to completion of a Record of Site Condition and receipt of an acknowledgment letter from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks?

10. Do the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment adequately address protection of ground water resources as it relates to the use of geothermal wells?

11. Do the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications adequately address floodplain policies?

12. Do the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment require implementation of a special provision to ensure no development occurs within the floodplain?

Air Liquide Canada Inc.

Planning Act

1. Do the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications (the “Applications”) have regard for matters of provincial interest set out in section 2 of the Planning Act, including ss. 2(h), (n), (o), and (p)?

Provincial Policy Statement, 2020

2. Are the Applications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, including policies 1.1.1 c), 1.1.3.4, 1.2.6.1, 1.2.6.2, 1.3.2.3, 1.4.3 f), 1.6.8.2, 1.6.8.3, 3.0 and 3.2.1?

3. As the Applications propose a sensitive land use adjacent to a major facility and in proximity to a large employment area that has several Class III industries, has it been demonstrated:

   1. that the proposed sensitive land use has been “planned and developed to avoid, or if avoidance is not possible, mitigate any potential adverse effects from odour, noise and other contaminants, minimize risk to public health and safety, and to ensure the long-term operational and economic viability of major facilities in accordance with provincial guidelines, standards and procedures”, as required by policy 1.2.6.1?
   2. that the development proposal would protect “the long-term viability of existing or planned industrial, manufacturing or other uses that are vulnerable to encroachment”, as required by policy 1.2.6.2; and
   3. that, in accordance with provincial guidelines, standards and procedures: i. “there is an identified need for the proposed use; ii. alternative locations for the proposed use have been evaluated and there are no reasonable alternative locations; iii. adverse effects to the proposed sensitive land use are minimized and mitigated; and iv. potential impacts to industrial, manufacturing or other uses are minimized and mitigated”, all as required by policy 1.2.6.2?

A Place to Grow, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020

4. Do the Applications conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (the “Growth Plan”), and in particular, ss. 2.2.5.7.c), and 2.2.5.8?

5. Do the Applications meet the intent of the Growth Plan to avoid, or where avoidance is not possible, to minimize and mitigate adverse impacts on employment uses, all in accordance with provincial guidelines?

Region of Waterloo Official Plan

6. Do the Applications conform to the policies of the Region of Waterloo Official Plan, and in particular, those policies that, in planning for intensification, require that:
   1. lands within Major Transit Station Areas (“MTSA”) are planned and designed in a manner that protects existing significant employment uses by ensuring land use compatibility with adjacent new development, as in policies 2.D.2.2 g), 2.D.2.8, and Table 2;
   2. area municipalities will refine and delineate the boundaries of the Regional Intensification Corridors based on criteria that includes compatibility with, and transition to, adjacent adjoining lands, as in policy 2.D.3.2;
   3. there is an appropriate interface between employment areas and adjacent non-employment areas to maintain land use compatibility, as in policy 2.H.1.8 c);
   4. where an employment area is located within or adjacent to an MTSA, planning to accommodate the minimum density targets will maintain the long-term viability of employment uses, as in policy 2.H.1.8 d); and
   5. area municipalities will plan to ensure that development of sensitive land uses will, in accordance with Provincial guidelines, avoid, or where avoidance is not possible, minimize and mitigate adverse impacts on industrial and other employment uses, as in policy 2.H.1.10.

Cambridge Official Plan

7. Do the Applications conform to the City of Cambridge Official Plan, and in particular, the locational criteria policies dealing with the compatibility of uses, including:
   1. the continued viability of neighbouring land uses, noise attenuation and transitions between different land uses and between sites having varying permitted uses, as in ss. 8.4.2 and 8.4.3;
   2. the compatibility between industrial and sensitive land uses, as in s. 8.5.1 g); and
   3. the restriction of sensitive land uses in or near industrial uses and near major facilities, as in s. 8.5.2.5.1?

Zoning

8. Is the proposed zoning by-law in conformity with the applicable Official Plans and Provincial plans and policies?

Employment Area Compatibility

9. Will the development proposal adversely impact the operational and economic viability of the Air Liquide facility or other employment uses in the neighbouring employment areas, as well as the planned function of the employment areas?

10. Is it appropriate to introduce high density sensitive land uses in between two heavy industrial employment areas?

11. Have compatibility issues relating to noise, vibration, odour, air quality, and the storage and handling of propane and other industrial and medical gases, been appropriately studied and modelled, the potential for adverse effects and risks to public health and safety appropriately assessed, and appropriate mitigation measures proposed, recommended and secured, such that any potential adverse impacts to Air Liquide, and any potential adverse effects and risks to public health and safety are avoided, and if avoidance is not possible, appropriately minimized and mitigated?

Compatibility with Air Liquide – Noise

12. Has an appropriate assessment of the noise impacts of Air Liquide’s operations on the proposed development been completed and documented on the basis of the predictable worst-case for daytime, evening and nighttime hours, in accordance with the Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks (“MECP”) publication “Environmental Noise Guideline, Stationary and Transportation Sources – Approval and Planning, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Publication NPC-300, October 2013 (“NPC-300”)?

13. Is it appropriate to consider the growth and expansion of Air Liquide’s operations in an assessment of noise impacts for the purpose of assessing land use compatibility? Has this been considered in the compatibility assessment?

14. Have all potential noise excesses over the sound level limits of NPC-300 at the proposed development been properly identified?

15. Where excesses over the sound level limits of NPC-300 are predicted at receptors at the proposed development due to Air Liquide’s operations, has appropriate mitigation been identified and secured as necessary to:

    1. appropriately minimize and mitigate potential adverse effects from Air Liquide’s noise emissions;
    2. appropriately minimize and mitigate potential impacts of the proposed development on Air Liquide, for existing operations and growth and expansion scenarios, and to minimize the risk of complaints; and
    3. ensure Air Liquide’s continued compliance with environmental approvals, registrations, legislation, regulations and guidelines, especially, NPC-300?

Compatibility with Air Liquide – Propane Operations

16. Have compatibility issues relating to the proposed introduction of high density residential development within Air Liquide’s propane hazard distance been studied and modelled, the potential for adverse effects and risks to public health and safety appropriately assessed, and appropriate mitigation measures proposed, recommended and secured, such that any potential adverse impacts to Air Liquide, and any potential adverse effects and risks to public health and safety are avoided, and if avoidance is not possible, appropriately minimized and mitigated?

17. Is it appropriate to consider the growth and expansion of Air Liquide’s propane operations in the assessment of land use compatibility? Has this been considered in the compatibility assessment?

18. In relation to the compatibility study undertaken with respect to the propane operations on the Air Liquide property, has appropriate mitigation been identified and secured as necessary:

    1. to appropriately minimize and mitigate the risk to public health and safety in accordance with Technical Standards and Safety Authority (“TSSA”) and Major Industrial Accidents Council of Canada (“MIACC”) guidelines;
    2. to protect the residents of the proposed high density development should there be a propane leak or explosion at the Air Liquide facility;
    3. to appropriately minimize and mitigate potential impacts of the proposed development on Air Liquide, and to minimize the risk of complaints; and
    4. to ensure Air Liquide’s continued compliance with environmental approvals, registrations, legislation, regulations and guidelines, including TSSA licensing requirements and regulations?

Compatibility with Air Liquide – Industrial and Medical Gases Operations

19. Have compatibility issues relating to the proposed introduction of high density residential development in proximity to Air Liquide’s industrial and medical gases operations been studied and modelled, the potential for adverse effects and risks to public health and safety appropriately assessed, and appropriate mitigation measures proposed, recommended and secured, such that any potential adverse impacts to Air Liquide, and any potential adverse effects and risks to public health and safety are avoided, and if avoidance is not possible, appropriately minimized and mitigated?

20. Is it appropriate to consider the growth and expansion of Air Liquide’s industrial and medical gas operations in the assessment of land use compatibility? Has this been considered in the compatibility assessment?

21. In relation to a compatibility study undertaken with respect to the industrial and medical gases operations on the Air Liquide property, has appropriate mitigation been identified and secured as necessary:

    1. to appropriately minimize and mitigate the risk to public health and safety in accordance with MIACC guidelines;
    2. to protect the residents of the proposed high density development should there be an industrial or medical gas leak or explosion at the Air Liquide facility;
    3. to appropriately minimize and mitigate potential impacts of the proposed development on Air Liquide, and to minimize the risk of complaints; and
    4. to ensure Air Liquide’s continued compliance with environmental approvals, registrations, legislation, regulations and guidelines?

General

22. Do the Applications, as proposed, represent good planning and are they in the public interest?

Note 1: 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.

Note 2: Where two or more parties raise the same technical issue, they can co-ordinate and rely upon an independent expert. Where, however, a single party alone raises a technical issue then that party must call technical evidence in support of that issue from a qualified independent expert.

Attachment 3: 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.

Attachment 4: Order of Evidence

Order of Evidence

1. Legion Heights Hespeler Inc.
2. City of Cambridge
3. Region of Waterloo
4. Air Liquide Canada Inc.
5. Legion Heights Hespeler Inc. - Reply (if any)