Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

September 20, 2024

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-24-000453

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

Applicant and Appellant:

Lawrence Parktown Residences Inc.

Subject:

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

Description:

To permit development of a 9-storey building comprised of 40 residential units with a 4-storey podium base

Reference Number:

23 119635 NNY 15 OZ

Property Address:

49-59 Lawrence Avenue

Municipality/UT:

Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-24-000453

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-24-000453

OLT Case Name:

Lawrence Parktown Residences Inc. v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant:

Lawrence Parktown Residences Inc.

Subject:

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

Description:

To permit development of a 9-storey building comprised of 40 residential units with a 4-storey podium base

Reference Number:

23 119635 NNY 15 OZ

Property Address:

49-59 Lawrence Avenue

Municipality/UT:

Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-24-000454

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-24-000453

Heard:

September 11, 2024, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Lawrence Parktown Residences Inc. (Applicant/Appellant)

Raj Kehar

City of Toronto

Lauren Pinder

Lawerence Park Ratepayer’s Association

William Roberts

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JENNIFER INNIS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2024, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This is the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) respecting an appeal by Lawrence Parktown Residences Inc. (“Applicant”). The appeal arises following the failure by the City of Toronto (“City”), to make a decision within the statutory timeframe prescribed by the Planning Act, with respect to an Official Plan Amendment application and Zoning By-law Amendment application to facilitate the development of a nine-storey mid-rise building, consisting of 29 residential family sized units, on lands known municipally as, 49-59 Lawrence Avenue East (“Subject Property”).

Service of Notice of CMC

2There is no issue with service of the Notice of this CMC, and so no further notice is required. The Tribunal is in receipt of the Affidavit of Service, which is marked as Exhibit 1.

Requests for Status

3Counsel for the Lawrence Park Ratepayer’s Association(“LPRA”) attended the CMC seeking Party status. The Association represents area residents and has a clear genuine interest in the matter. Counsel for LPRA confirmed that they understand the role and obligations of a Party and are prepared to fulfil such a role and satisfy such obligations. On consent of the Parties, the Tribunal granted Party status to the Association. The LPRA was directed to provide its articles of incorporation to the Tribunal as soon as possible.

4Mr. John Detwiler requested Party status as an adjacent property owner. He was fully aware of his roles and obligations as a Party and has experience as a Participant in previous land use hearings held by the Ontario Land Tribunal’s predecessor Tribunals. It was his experience and opinion that through these previous hearings, his issues were not properly addressed and thus was seeking Party status for this matter. Mr. Detwiler advised the Tribunal that the Subject Property is listed as Heritage, and he had concerns regarding the Heritage Impact Assessment but did not have any intention to call expert opinion evidence to support his concerns. His further issues were related to the Site Plan Application, which is not before the Tribunal.

5Counsel for the Applicant opposed the request for Party status and suggested that Participant status would be more appropriate, given Mr. Detwiler had no intention to bring forward any evidence other than his own testimony, which should be done through a Participant Statement. Counsel for the City and LPRA did not oppose the request for Party status. Parties are expected to participate fully in the process, as such, Party status was not granted to Mr. Detwiler and was granted Participant status and directed to provide a detailed Participant Statement that would be addressed at the merit hearing.

6Ms. Khandelwa attended the CMC seeking Participant status after being abroad for some time. She advised the Parties that she resides adjacent to the proposed development and has participated in the process thus far regarding the applications. The Parties consented to the granting of Participant status. The Tribunal advised Ms. Khandelwa to formally submit the Participant Status Request Form to the Tribunal by the end of business day on September 11, 2024, and was granted Participant status.

7The Tribunal was in receipt of a Participant status request from Scott and Mila Singer. However, as required by the Participant Status Request Form, the requester did not circulate their request to the Parties, and they were not present at the CMC to speak to their request. As such, Counsel for the Applicant opposed the request, while the City and LPRA supported the request. Given that the request was not circulated and neither Scott nor Mila Singer were present, the Tribunal did not grant Participant status.

8On consent of the Parties, Mr. Vic Furguliele, an immediate neighbour to the Subject Property, was granted Participant status by the Tribunal.

9No one else attended the CMC seeking either Party or Participant status.

PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST

10On consent, the Parties requested an eight-day hearing of the merits. The Tribunal received and reviewed a draft Procedural Order from the Parties. The Tribunal finds it acceptable, and the proceedings shall be governed by it (see Attachment 1).

11Given the additional Participants, the Tribunal advised that the new/revised Participant Statements are to be provided to the Tribunal and the Parties by Friday, October 25, 2024.

HEARING

12Upon request of the Parties, the Tribunal set an eight-day Merit Hearing commencing on Monday, January 20, 2025 at 10 a.m. by video hearing (with the exception of Monday January 27, 2025). No further Notice is required for the hearing.

13Parties 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://meet.goto.com/357283957

Access Code: 357-283-957

14Parties 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

15Persons 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) 1 888 455 1389 or +1 (647) 497-9391. The Access Code is as indicated above.

16Individuals 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

17The Tribunal Orders that the dates and particulars of the hearing are set out above.

18The Procedural Order appended as Attachment 1 shall govern the proceedings.

19The Lawrence Park Ratepayer’s Association is granted Party status.

20John Detwiler, Vic Furgiuele, and Kavi Khandelwa are granted Participant status.

21The Member is not seized but may be spoken to through the Case Coordinator if any issues arise.

“J. Innis”

j. inniS

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.

ATTACHMENT 1

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000453

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

Applicant and Appellant:

Lawrence Parktown Residences Inc.

Subject:

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

Description:

To permit development of a 9-storey building comprised of 40 residential units with a 4-storey podium base

Reference Number:

23 119635 NNY 15 OZ

Property Address:

49-59 Lawrence Avenue

Municipality/UT:

Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-24-000453

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-24-000453

OLT Case Name:

Lawrence Parktown Residences Inc. v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant:

Lawrence Parktown Residences Inc.

Subject:

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

Description:

To permit development of a 9-storey building comprised of 40 residential units with a 4-storey podium base

Reference Number:

23 119635 NNY 15 OZ

Property Address:

49-59 Lawrence Avenue

Municipality/UT:

Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-24-000454

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-24-000453

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 January 20, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. https://meet.goto.com/357283957 at and is scheduled to sit until January 30, 2025. The Tribunal will not sit on January 27, 2025.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is eight (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.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1 (see the sample procedural order 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. Attachment 4 contain a summary of the key dates. Where there is an inconsistency between Attachment 4 and the dates contained herein, the dates contained herein shall prevail.

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 November 8, 2024 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 November 22, 2024 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before November 29, 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, as in paragraph 13 below.

13. On or before December 13, 2024, 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 October 25, 2024, 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 December 16, 2024, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

16. On or before December 13, 2024, 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 January 13, 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 January 13, 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 January 15, 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 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.

24. 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, that may be necessary to support the revision, to the other parties and the Tribunal on or before October 11, 2024. The applicant acknowledges that any revisions to the proposal after the date without consent of the parties may be grounds for a request to adjourn the hearing. This paragraph 24 is not intended to limit the applicant from revising its proposal in order to attempt to narrow or scope issues raised by the other parties.

This Member is [not] seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

Parties

1. Lawrence Parktown Residences Inc.

Weirfoulds LLP 1320 Cornwall Road, Suite 201 Oakville, ON L6J 7W5 Raj Kehar rkehar@weirfoulds.com 416-947-5051

Narmada Gunawardana ngunawardana@weirfoulds.com 647-715-7117

2. City of Toronto City of Toronto Legal Services Planning & Administrative Tribunal Law Metro Hall 26th Floor, 55 John Street Toronto, ON M5V 3C6 Lauren Pinder lauren.pinder@toronto.ca 416-392-0797

3. Lawrence Park Ratepayers’ Association William H. Roberts Barrister & Solicitor 203A/881A Jane Street York, ON M6N 4C4 William Roberts willadvocate@aol.com 416-769-3162

Participants

1. Vic Furgiuele – 86 Weybourne Crescent 86 Weybourne Crescent Toronto, ON M4N 2R7 vic.furgiuele@rogers.com 647-241-2500

2. John Detwiler – 77 St. Edmund’s Drive 77 St. Edmund’s Drive Toronto, ON M4N 2P8 johndetwiler@outlook.com 416-485-0104

3. Kavi Khandelwal – 80 Weybourne Crescent

80 Weybourne Crescent Toronto, ON M4N 2R7 kavita.khandelwalyoung@gmail.com 416-466-5454

ATTACHMENT 2

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, within the jurisdiction of, or otherwise appropriate, to adjudicate. The identification of an issues on this list by a party indicates that party’s intent to lead evidence or argue that the issues is relevant to the proceeding, for the purpose of fairly identifying to the other parties the case they need to meet. Accordingly, no party shall advance an issue not identified on the Issues List without leave of the Tribunal.

[Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)

1. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest as set out in subsections 2(f), (h), (n), (p), (q), and (r) of the Planning Act?

(City) / (LPRA) except s. 2(f))

Provincial Policy Statement (2020)

2. Is the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) pursuant to Section 3 of the Planning Act, including Policies 1.1.1 (g), 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, 1.5.1 (a), 1.5.1 (b), 2.6.3, and 4.6?

(City) / (LPRA except policies 1.1.3.3 and 2.6.3)

Provincial Planning Statement (2024)

3. Is the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024) pursuant to Section 3 of the Planning Act, including policies 2.4.1.3 (b), 3.6.1d)., 3.6.8, 3.9.1 (a), and 4.6.3?

(City) / (LPRA only policy 2.4.1.3 (b))?

A Place to Grow – Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020)

4. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, conform with A Place to Grow – Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020), including Policies 2.2.1.4.(e), 3.2.2.3, and 4.2.7.1?

(City) / (LPRA except policy 4.2.7.1)?

City of Toronto Official Plan

5. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, conform with the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan (“the Official Plan”) with respect to:

a) Section 2.3 (Stable but not Static: Enhancing our Neighbourhoods and Green Spaces)

i. In particular, policy 2.3.1

b) Section 2.4 (Bringing the City Together: A Progressive Agenda of Transportation Change)

c) Section 3.1 (The Built Environment)

i. In particular, policies 3.1.1, 3.1.3, 3.1.4, and 3.1.6

d) Section 4.1 (Neighbourhoods)

i. In particular, policies 4.1.5, 4.1.6, 4.1.7, 4.1.8, 4.1.10, 4.1.12 and 4.1.13

e) Section 5.1.2 (Holding By-laws)

f) Section 5.3.2 (Implementation Plans and Strategies for City-Building)

g) Section 5.6 (Interpretation)

(City)

6. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, conform with the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan (“the Official Plan”) with respect to:

a) Section 2.3 (Stable but not Static: Enhancing our Neighbourhoods and Green Spaces)

i. In particular, policy 2.3.1

b) Section 2.4 (Bringing the City Together)

i. In particular, policy 2.4.8a, 2.4.22

c) Section 3.1 (The Built Environment)

i. In particular, policies 3.1.1, 3.1.3, 3.1.4, and 3.1.6

d) Section 4.1 (Neighbourhoods)

i. In particular, policies 4.1.1, 4.1.5, 4.1.6, 4.1.7, 4.1.8, 4.1.10, 4.1.12 and 4.1.13, 4.2.1, 4.2.2 and 4.2.3

e) Section 5.3.2 (Implementation Plans and Strategies for City-Building)

f) Section 5.6 (Interpretation)

(LPRA)

7. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, conform with Official Plan Amendment 727?

(LPRA)

8. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, conform to the R zone and RA zone provisions in By-law 569-2013?

(LPRA)

Land Use

9. Is the proposed development appropriate, given the site context? Has the site been adequately organized to facilitate the proposed use? Is the proposed built form appropriate for the proposed land use?

(City) / (LPRA)

Site Organization

10. Does the proposed site organization, including the location of the proposed building, setbacks, stepbacks, street frontage, in the manner of which the public realm elements fit within the broader area, and in consideration of the future public realm framework, serve to create a development that will adequately function, result in good planning and urban design, and contribute to complete community?

(City) / (LPRA)

11. Is the proposed development appropriately organized to minimize impacts on the public realm of the subject site and surrounding areas, including such matters as vehicular access, driveways, ramps, drive aisles, bicycle and vehicle parking, loading, servicing, storage areas, utilities, and other related structures?

(City) / (LPRA)

Built Form

12. Are the built form type, height, massing, location, placement and scale of the proposed development appropriate, given principles of good planning and urban design, including the following: the relationship of the proposed development to the surrounding existing and planned context, transition and separation to adjacent and nearby Neighbourhoods lands, and the public realm, pedestrian comfort and safety?

(City) / (LPRA)

13. Does the proposed development establish appropriate relationships at grade, including setbacks, street frontage, streetwall height, and the provision of an appropriate pedestrian realm, including contributions to streetscaping, public spaces, and private open spaces/outdoor amenity space?

(City) / (LPRA)

Toronto Green Standard

14. Does the application meet the requirements of ecology measure 1.1 related to minimum soil volume requirements and 1.2 related to trees along street frontages including but not limited to a minimum 3.0m setback between trees and buildings, and 75cm between trees and hard surfaces.

(City)

Guidelines

15. Does the proposed development meet the intent and purpose of the Mid-Rise Building Performance Standards?

(City) / (LPRA)

16. Does the proposed development meet the intent and purpose of the Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities (2020)?

(City)

17. Does the proposed development meet the intent and purpose of the Pet-Friendly Guidelines and Best Practice for New Multi-Use Buildings?

(City)

Wind

18. Does the proposed development provide a pedestrian-level wind study that demonstrate comfortable and safe wind condition on the public realm and outdoor amenity areas?

(City)

Public Realm

19. Does the proposed development adequately improve the public realm along Lawrence Avenue East and Weybourne Crescent?

(City) / (LPRA)

20. Does the proposed development fit within the broader existing and planned context, in consideration of the future public realm framework?

(City) / (LPRA)

Amenity Space

21. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, provide indoor and outdoor amenity space at appropriate locations that promote uses in all seasons and have access to daylight and sunlight?

(City) / (LPRA)

Transportation

22. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, provide sufficient loading and appropriate pick up and drop off location on site?

(City)

23. Does the proposed development provide appropriate vehicular and servicing access?

(City)

24. Does the proposed development conform to OP 2.4.22: Development will be encouraged to make off-street provisions for pick-ups and drop-offs, loading and parking activity?

(LPRA)

25. Does the proposal satisfy By-law 59-2013 standard 15.5.100.1(2) Driveway Access to Apartment Buildings: regarding vehicles entering and leaving the lot while driving forward in one continuous movement.

(LPRA)

Public Interest and Good Planning

26. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, represent good planning and are they in the public interest?

(City) / (LPRA)

Site Specific Issues

27. Has the application demonstrated that proposed development conserves the cultural heritage of the adjacent heritage property?

(City)

28. Has the application demonstrated that the water, wastewater, stormwater, and other essential infrastructure of the site and surrounding areas and other relevant areas, are able to accommodate the proposed development?

(City)

29. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, provide sufficient waste storage area to meet the solid waste services standards?

(City)

Order if Application Approved

30. In the event the proposed development is approved in whole or in part, should the Tribunal Order be withheld until the following conditions are satisfied:

a) the final form and content of the draft Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment are to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, including, should it be determined that upgrades are required to the infrastructure to support the development according to the accepted Functional Servicing Report and/or the Transportation Impact Study, a Holding provision (H) including entering into appropriate agreement(s) with the City for required mitigation, as well as the design and construction of any improvements to the municipal infrastructure and the provision of financial securities to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and General Manager, Transportation Services;

b) the owner has submitted a Computational Fluid Dynamics Phase 2 Pedestrian Level Wind Study as per the City of Toronto Terms of Reference, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

c) the owner has satisfactorily addressed the Engineering and Construction Services matters in the Engineering and Construction Services Memorandum dated February 15, 2024, or as may be updated, including a revised Functional Servicing Report, Stormwater Management Report and Hydrogeological Report accompanied by a coordinated Hydrological Review Summary Form and Servicing Report Groundwater Summary Form, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer & Executive Director, Engineering Construction Services;

d) the owner has submitted a revised Transportation Impact Study, including acceptable Travel Demand Management, addressing outstanding issues in the Transportation Services memo dated February 15, 2024, or as may be updated in response to further submissions filed by the Owner, all to the satisfaction of Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the General Manager, Transportation Services and that such matters arising from such Plan be secured as required; and

e) the owner has submitted a revised Heritage Impact Assessment to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning that matters arising from such study be secured, if required.

(City)

ATTACHMENT 3

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Lawrence Parktown Residences Inc.

2. City of Toronto

3. Lawrence Park Ratepayers’ Association

4. Lawrence Parktown Residences Inc., Reply

ATTACHMENT 4

SUMMARY OF KEY DATES

Date for any revisions to plans October 11, 2024

Participant Statements October 25, 2024

Witness List November 8, 2024

Expert’s Meeting November 22, 2024

Agreed Statement of Facts November 29, 2024

(Expert) Witness Statement / Outline of Evidence December 13, 2024

Visual Evidence December 13, 2024

Confirmation re Hearing Dates December 16, 2024

Reply Witness Statements January 13, 2025

Joint Document Book January 13, 2025

Hearing Plan January 15, 2025

Hearing Commences January 20, 2025

Attachment to Sample Procedural Order

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.