Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: September 26, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000548
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Silvercreek Guelph Developments Limited and 2089248 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: To permit the redevelopment of the brownfield to a new mixed-use neighbourhood
Reference Number: OZS19-016
Property Address: 35, 40 and 55 Silvercreek Parkway South
Municipality/UT: Guelph/Wellington
OLT Case No: OLT-23-000548
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000548
OLT Case Name: Silvercreek Guelph Developments Limited v. Guelph (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Silvercreek Guelph Developments Limited and 2089248 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit the redevelopment of the brownfield to a new mixed-use neighbourhood
Reference Number: OZS19-016
Property Address: 35, 40 and 55 Silvercreek Parkway South
Municipality/UT: Guelph/Wellington
OLT Case No: OLT-23-000549
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000548
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Silvercreek Guelph Developments Limited and 2089248 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision–Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Description: To permit the redevelopment of the brownfield to a new mixed-use neighbourhood
Reference Number: OZS19-016
Property Address: 35, 40 and 55 Silvercreek Parkway South
Municipality/UT: Guelph/Wellington
OLT Case No: OLT-23-000550
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000548
Heard: September 10, 2024, by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Silvercreek Guelph Developments Limited and 2089248 Ontario Inc.
Tom Halinski
Naomi Mares
City of Guelph
Peter Pickfield
Colin Leger (in absentia)
Canadian National Railway Company
Isaiah Banach
Michael James
Katarzyna Sliwa (in absentia)
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BOBKA ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This was the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) for appeals brought forward by Silvercreek Guelph Developments Limited and 2089248 Ontario Inc. (“Applicant”) regarding the City of Guelph’s (“City”) refusal or neglect to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and a Draft Plan of Subdivision (“Draft Plan”) in relation to the properties municipally known as 35, 40 and 55 Silvercreek Parkway South (“Subject Property”). These Appeals are to permit the redevelopment of a brownfield site to a new mixed-use neighbourhood.
2At the previous CMC, it was determined that:
a) the Canadian National Railway Company (“CN”) and the Howitt Park Neighbourhood Residents’ Association (“HPNRA”) were each granted Party status; and
b) Michael White was granted Participant status.
3It is noted that no one appeared on behalf of the HPNRA at the second CMC.
Update
4Counsel for the Applicant explained that redevelopment of the Subject Property has posed challenges as the site is bounded by a highway (Hanlon Parkway) to the west, the Canadian National Railway main line to the north and the Guelph Exeter Railway secondary line to the south. Mr. Halinski stated that after significant efforts, there had been general agreement among the Parties on the substance of a plan resubmitted by the Applicant in July 2024 (“July Plan”) which has resulted in the substantial narrowing of the issues. He explained that while there was not yet a full settlement, many of the remaining issues were implementation issues and that on-going discussions were trending toward a settlement, with the Parties continuing to work productively to resolve issues. He highlighted that a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) had been submitted to the Tribunal in advance of this CMC; however, it had not included the City’s revised Issues List (“IL”) as it was very recently provided.
5It was the Applicant’s request that a five-day Hearing of the Merits be scheduled in early 2025, as this would serve to encourage all Parties to continue to work together. Mr. Halinski also suggested that a further CMC be scheduled in late October or early November 2024 to update the Tribunal and potentially release any hearing dates not required.
6For the City, Mr. Pickfield concurred with the Applicant’s description of the progress to date. He explained that on the eve of this CMC, the City had provided a substantially scoped IL and that many of the remaining issues related to the project’s phasing and the construction of an underpass. He concurred with the Applicant’s proposal for a subsequent CMC and the scheduling of a five-day Hearing, stating that the latter would help to keep the Parties engaged and moving forward.
7For CN, Mr. Banach highlighted that his client had been working diligently with the City to try to resolve issues. Since the resubmission of the July Plan, CN had revised their issues which now fall into two broad categories: i) noise, vibration and environmental emissions, and ii) the need for an updated crossing over the CN lands in order to facilitate development. Mr. Banach also agreed with the proposed plan and timing regarding the scheduling of a subsequent CMC and a five-day Hearing.
8Upon consideration, the Tribunal agreed with the proposed path forward and scheduled the following events:
a) a third CMC to commence on Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 10 a.m. by Video Hearing; and
b) a five-day Hearing of the Merits to commence on Monday, January 13, 2025 at 10 a.m. by Video Hearing.
9The hearing events are scheduled to proceed by video as follows:
a) Wednesday, November 13, 2024, at 10 a.m. One-Day Case Management Conference
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/687587165
Access code: 687-587-165
Audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (Toll-Free) 1-888-299-1889
Audio-only access code: 687-587-165
b) Monday, January 13, 2025, at 10 a.m. Five-day Merit Hearing
GoTo Meeting: https://meet.goto.com/996288525
Access code: 996-288-525
Audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9391 or (Toll-Free) 1 888 455 1389
Audio-only access code: 996-288-525
10Parties and Participants are asked to log into the event at least 15 minutes before it begins to test their video and audio connections.
11Parties 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
12Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to it by calling into an audio-only telephone line.
13Individuals 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 event to ensure that they are properly connected at the correct time. Questions prior to the event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator.
14The Tribunal directed the Parties to provide a final PO on or before Thursday, September 19, 2024 for consideration, which has since been received, reviewed and approved. It is attached to this Decision as Appendix 1 and shall govern the proceedings. The Tribunal directs the Parties to come to the next CMC prepared to discuss any changes required to the Issues List as a result of the implementation of the new Provincial Planning Statement, 2024.
ORDER
15The Tribunal Orders that:
a) a third Case Management Conference is scheduled as detailed in paragraph 9 a);
b) a five-day Hearing of the Merits is scheduled as detailed in paragraph 9 b).
16There will be no further notice and the Member is not seized on the matters.
“S. Bobka”
S. BOBKA
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.
Appendix 1
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000548
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Silvercreek Guelph Developments Limited and 2089248 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: To permit the redevelopment of the brownfield to a new mixed-use neighbourhood
Reference Number: OZS19-016
Property Address: 35, 40 and 55 Silvercreek Parkway South
Municipality/UT: Guelph/Wellington
OLT Case No: OLT-23-000548
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000548
OLT Case Name: Silvercreek Guelph Developments Limited v. Guelph (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Silvercreek Guelph Developments Limited and 2089248 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit the redevelopment of the brownfield to a new mixed-use neighbourhood
Reference Number: OZS19-016
Property Address: 35, 40 and 55 Silvercreek Parkway South
Municipality/UT: Guelph/Wellington
OLT Case No: OLT-23-000549
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000548
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Silvercreek Guelph Developments Limited and 2089248 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision–Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Description: To permit the redevelopment of the brownfield to a new mixed-use neighbourhood
Reference Number: OZS19-016
Property Address: 35, 40 and 55 Silvercreek Parkway South
Municipality/UT: Guelph/Wellington
OLT Case No: OLT-23-000550
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000548
- The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own motion.
Organization of the Hearing
The video hearing will begin on January 13, 2025 at 10 a.m. and will be a video hearing.
The video hearing is scheduled for 5 days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible.
The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 October 18, 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.
Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before November 1, 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 7, 2024.
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.
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.
On or before December 6, 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.
On or before December 6, 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.
On or before December 20, 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.
Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before December 20, 2024 and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.
On or before December 9, 2024, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.
The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before January 6, 2025.
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.
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.
The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before January 6, 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.
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 Rule 7.
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 DATES
DATE
EVENT
October 18, 2024
Exchange List of Proposed Witnesses
November 1, 2024
Deadline for Expert Witness Meeting
November 7, 2024
Deadline for Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues and Preliminary Hearing Plan
December 6, 2024
Deadline for Witness Statements, Expert Witness Statements and Participant Statements
December 20, 2024
Deadline for Visual Evidence
December 20, 2024
Deadline for Reply Witness Statements (if any), Reply Expert Witness Statements (if any), and Reply Visual Evidence (if any)
December 9, 2024
Deadline for advising the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are required
January 6, 2024
Deadline for Joint Document Book
January 6, 2024
Deadline for Final Hearing Plan
January 13, 2025
Commencement of Hearing
ATTACHMENT 1
LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS
Parties
Parties
Counsel/Representative
Silvercreek Guelph Developments Limited and 2089248 Ontario Inc.
Aird & Berlis LLP Brookfield Place 181 Bay Street, Suite 1800 Toronto, ON M5J 2T9 Tom Halinski Email: thalinski@airdberlis.com Naomi Mares Email: nmares@airdberlis.com Tel: 416.863.1500
City of Guelph
Garrod Pickfield LLP 9 Norwich St. W. Guelph, ON N1H 2G8 Peter Pickfield Email: pickfield@garrodpickfield.ca Colin Léger Email: cleger@garrodpickfield.ca Tel: 519.837.0500
Canadian National Railway Company
Dentons Canada LLP 77 King Street West, Suite 400 Toronto, ON M5K 0A1 Katarzyna Sliwa Email: kat.sliwa@dentons.com Isaiah Banach Email: isaiah.banach@dentons.com Michael James Email: michael.james@dentons.com Tel: 416.863.4511
Howitt Park Neighbourhood Residents’ Association
Ron Foley Email: ronf@scenework.com
Participants
Michael White (Email: mike_s_white@hotmail.com)
ATTACHMENT 2
ISSUES LIST
Note: The identification and wording of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the Tribunal or any party that the issue is relevant, appropriate, accurately-worded, or that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over it. The identification of an issue by a party indicates that party’s framing of the question and intent to tender evidence and/or make submissions on it, for the purpose of fairly identifying to the other parties the case they need to meet.
Issues of City of Guelph
Provincial Interest and Provincial Policy
Do the proposed draft plan of subdivision (the “proposed Draft Plan”) and the proposed amendments to the City of Guelph Official Plan (the “OP”) and the City of Guelph Zoning By-law (the “ZBL”) have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in section 2 of the Planning Act, in particular subsections (q) ?
Is the approval of the proposed Draft Plan and the proposed amendments to the OP and ZBL consistent with Provincial Policy Statement 2020, in particular: policies 1.1.1, c), e) and g); 1.4.3 d) and e); 1.5.1 a); 1.6.4; 1.6.7.4.; and 1.8.1 b). ?
Do the proposed Draft Plan and the proposed amendments to the OP and ZBL conform with policy 2.2.1.4 of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020?
City of Guelph Official Plan, March 2018
Would approval of the proposed Draft Plan and the associated proposed amendments to the OP and ZBL conform with Policy 1.3.14 (amendments to the plan) of the City of Guelph Official Plan, March 2018 Consolidation, (“2018 OP”)?
Would approval of the proposed Draft Plan and the associated proposed amendments to the OP and ZBL conform to the strategic directions set out in policy 2.2 of the 2018 OP and in particular the following strategic goals: 2.2.1 complete and healthy communities); 2.2.3 (transportation); and 2.2.4 (municipal services)?
Would approval of the proposed Draft Plan and the proposed amendments to the OP and ZBL conform with the objectives and policies of policy 3 (Planning a Complete and Healthy Community) of the 2018 OP including:
objectives f, g, h , and l
policy 3.1.1 iv (public transportation and options for safe, non-motorized travel); and
policy 3.15 (transportation);
Has it been demonstrated that the approval of the proposed Draft Plan and associated amendments to the OP and ZBL will have no negative impact on the City’s NHS and water resources in conformity to section 4.1.2, 4.2.1 4.3.2 of the 2018 OP, and in particular:
Should Blocks 47 and 48 be identified as NHS Blocks, as established buffers to warm water fish habitat; and
Has the proposed stormwater management system been adequately evaluated for impacts to the NHS and water resources, in order to demonstrate that it will meet the test in policy 6.4.3 (i) of the 2018 OP?
Has the proposed stormwater management system been adequately evaluated for impacts to flooding and erosion, in order to demonstrate that it will meet the test in policy 6.4.2 and 6.4.6 of the 2018 OP?
Has it been demonstrated that the approval of the proposed Draft Plan and associated amendments to the OP and ZBL will conform to section 4.4.1 of the 2018 OP? In particular, has the proposed stormwater management system been adequately evaluated for impacts to hazardous lands which are impacted by flooding hazards, in order to demonstrate that it will meet the test in policy 4.4.1.4 of the 2018 OP?
Would approval of the proposed Draft Plan and the associated proposed amendments to the OP and ZBL conform with section Section 4.4.5 (Noise and Vibration) of the 2018 OP, and related to this, has adequate documentation been provided to demonstrate that the proposed development will meet the Guelph Noise Control Guidelines (2018), and the MECP NPC-300 with respect to noise and vibration impacts?
Would approval of the proposed Draft Plan and the associated proposed amendments to the OP and ZBL conform with Section 5 (Transportation System) of the 2018 OP, including policies 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5., 5.6, 5.8, 5.10, and 5.12?
Would the proposed Draft Plan and the associated proposed amendments to the OP and ZBL conform with Section 6 of the 2018 OPA (Municipal Services and Infrastructure), and in particular:
policy 6.1.3, 6.1.6, 6.1.10, and 6.1.12 ; and
policy 6.4 (Stormwater Management)?
Would the proposed Draft Plan and associated proposed amendments to the ZBL meet the Urban Design policies of the 2018 OP, and in particular policies 8.1.3, 8.2.2, 8.2.6, and 8.3.5, and 8.8.1 vi.?
Would approval of the proposed Draft Plan and the proposed amendments to the OP and ZBL conform to the following policies of section 9.3 (Residential Designations) of the 2018 OP:
The objectives set out in 9.3 k); and
The development criteria for multi-unit residential building and intensification proposals set out in section 9.3.1.1.3, 9.3.1.1.8 and 9.3.1.1.9; and
Has an appropriate site-specific official plan amendment been proposed which reflects the final agreed upon draft plan?
Does the proposed Draft Plan, when considered together with appropriate conditions of draft plan approval, conform to the criteria set out in policy 10.9.1 of the OPA?
Engineering and Site Access
Has adequate documentation been provided, in accordance with the City of Guelph Development Engineering Manual, October 2023 (the “City Engineering Manual”) and the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (March 2003), to adequately address storm servicing and stormwater management requirements for the proposed development?
Has the conceptual drainage plan for the site demonstrated that there are sufficient lands to feasibly construct the required retaining walls on the subject property for the proposed development?
Have draft plan conditions been established to ensure an adequate hydrogeological assessment in accordance with the City Engineering Manual been completed to support the proposed development?
Has it been demonstrated that the infrastructure design for the proposed subdivision/development, including each proposed phase of the development, meets City, provincial, and federal requirements and guidelines, in particular the City’s Transportation Master Plan, the City Engineering Manual, the City’s Linear Infrastructure Standards, the Ontario Traffic Manual (Books 1, 2, 5,11,12,15, and 18), and the Transportation Association of Canada Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads?
Has adequate documentation been provided to support the rationale for, and feasibility of, the proposed subdivision phasing? Related to this, does the proposed phasing plan have appropriate regard for the City of Guelph Development Engineering Manual (2023) Section 5.11?
Does the proposed Draft Plan establish adequate access capability with respect to:
Fire services;
Paramedic and emergency services; and
Emergency evacuation routes
Can some or all of the technical issues identified under issues 27-32 above be appropriately addressed through either hold conditions in the implementing zoning by-law or conditions of draft plan approval?
Urban Design
- Does the proposed Draft Plan and the proposed amendments to the OP and ZBL reflect the principles of good urban design, including but not limited to, attractive and well-framed streets, well-connected open spaces, a safe and active public realm, and the development of strong gateways at neighbourhood entrances?
Implementing Zoning By-law Amendment
Is the proposed implementing zoning by-law amendment, including the proposed specialized regulations, in conformity with the Official Plan, consistent with city zoning standards, and in accordance with good planning?
Should a Holding Provision be established in the implementing by-law for the proposed development in order to ensure the completion of the construction of the grade separation/Silvercreek underpass prior to the development proceeding?
Issues of Canadian National Railway Company (“CN”)
Planning Act and Planning Policies
Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and Draft Plan of Subdivision have sufficient regard to matters of provincial interest as outlined in sections 2 (f),(h), (l), (m), (n), (o), (p) and (r) and 51 (24) of the Planning Act?
Do the proposed OPA, ZBA and Draft Plan of Subdivision take into consideration matters addressed by the Places to Grow Act, 2005, in particular section 14(4)?
Is the proposed OPA, ZBA and Draft Plan of Subdivision:
a. consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”) specifically Part III, Part IV and Part V policies 1.0, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, 1.2.1 a), b) and d), 1.2.3, 1.3.1, 1.4.3 (b) (1.), 1.4.3 (f), 1.6.1, 1.6.2, 1.6.3, 1.6.4, 1.6.7.1, 1.6.7.2, 1.6.7.3, 1.6.8.1, 1.6.8.2, 1.6.8.3, 1.6.8.4, 1.6.8.5, 1.6.9.1, 1.7.1 a), c), g), k); 4.0 and associated definitions;
b. conform with the A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Growth Plan 2020 (“Growth Plan”) specifically sections: 1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.3, 2.1, 2.2.1.3(c), 2.2.1.4, 2.2.2.3, 2.2.5.1, 2.2.5.2, 2.2.5.5, 2.2.5.8, 3.1, 3.2.1.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.1.4, 3.2.1.5, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.2.2, 3.2.4, 3.2.5., 4.2.10.1 (a), (c) and (i), 4.2.10.2 (a), 5.2.3.1, 5.2.4.5, 5.2.5.8 and associated schedules and definitions;
c. conform with the 2018 City of Guelph Official Plan, specifically sections: 1.1, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.3, 2.2.6, 3.0, 3.1, 3.3, 3.7, 3.11, 3.14, 3.15 (1), 3.15 (2), 3.20.1, 3.21 (a), 4.4.5, 5.0, 5.1.2, 5.1.3, 5.1.4, 5.9.15.10.1, 5.10.2, 5.10.5, 5.10.6, 5.10.7, 5.12 (1), 5.12 (2), 6.0 (d), 6.1.1, 6.1.10, 6.1.1.12, 6.4.3, 8 (a, b, f, I, k)¸ 8.11, 8.23, 9.1.2.5, 9.2.1.2, 9.3, 9.3.1.1, 9.3.1.1.4, 9.3.1.1.5, 9.3.1.1.9, 9.3.1.1.10, 9.3.4, 9.3.5, 9.4.3, 9.5, 9.5.1.4, 9.5.3, 9.13.2.5.1, 9.13.2.5.2, 9.13.2.5.3, 9.13.2.5.4, 9.13.2.5.5, 10.4.1, 10.4.3, 10.4.4, 10.5, 10.9, 10.11 and associated schedules and definitions;
d. conform or have regard to the City of Guelph February 2024 Official Plan Consolidation, specifically sections 1.3, 2.1, 2.3, 2.3.1, 2.3.3, 2.3.4(b), 3(m), 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.4, 3.6.9, 3.6.10, 3.6.11, 3.9.1(i), 3.9.1(v), 3.9.1(vi), 3.9.2(i), 3.13.1, 3.15, 4.4.6, 5.0, 5.1.2, 5.1.3, 5.1.4, 5.9.1, 5.10.1, 5.10.2, 5.10.5, 5.10.6, 5.10.7, 5.12.1, 5.12.2, 6.1.1, 6.1.10, 6.1.12(i), 6.1.12(iii), 6.4, 6.4.1, 6.4.2, 6.4.3, 6.4.4, 6.4.5, 6.4.6, 6.4.7, 6.4.8, 6.4.9, 6.4.10, 6.4.11, 8(i), 8.11, 8.23, 9.1.2.5, 9.3(b), 9.3(e), 9.3(i) , 9.3.1.1.1, 9.3.1.1.4, 9.3.1.1.5, 9.3.1.1.9, 9.3.1.1.10, 9.3.3, 9.3.4, 9.4.3, 9.4.3.11, 9.4.3.17, 9.4.4, 9.12, 9.12.2.6.1, 9.12.2.6.2, 9.12.2.6.3, 9.12.2.6.4, 9.12.2.6.5, 10.4.1, 10.4.3, 10.4.4, 10.5, 10.8, 10.10 and associated schedules and definitions.
GGH Transportation Plan
- Should the OPA and ZBA have regard to the 2051 Greater Golden Horseshoe Transportation Plan, and if so, do these instruments have proper regard for them?
Railway Operations
Do the OPA, ZBA and Draft Plan of Subdivision give consideration to CN’s statutory rights, obligations and the legislation that governs railway operations including sections 5, 95, 95.1, 95.2, 95.3, 98 of the Canada Transportation Act (S.C. 1996), c. 10 and sections 19, 47.1 of the Railway Safety Act (1985, c.32) and associated guidelines and regulations? Specifically, in relation to railway operation requirements to carry products, including dangerous goods, operate a railway, noise, vibration and odour emissions, and its ability to add additional infrastructure on railway lands?
Do the OPA, ZBA and Draft Plan of Subdivision give consideration to CN’s statutory rights, obligations and the legislation that governs CN operations including sections 100, 101, 103 of the Canada Transportation Act (S.C. 1996), c. 10 and sections 7(1), 7.1, 8(1), 16, 18(1), 18(2), 23.1(1), 24, 25, 26.2, 32 and 32.01 of the Railway Safety Act (1985, c.32) and associated guidelines and regulations? Specifically, in relation to the design, construction, and entering into and/or updating the associated crossing agreement that addresses the obligations associated with the crossing of CN infrastructure?
Freight Supportive Guidelines
- Do the Province of Ontario’s Freight Supportive Guidelines apply to the development application, and if so, does the proposed development meet the requirements of these Guidelines?
FCM/RAC Guidelines/NPC-300/CN Guidelines
Do the proposed OPA , ZBA and Draft Plan of Subdivision have regard to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities/Railway Association of Canada Guidelines for New Development in Proximity to Railway Operations (“FCM/RAC Guidelines”)? How should the FCM/RAC Guidelines be applied?
Should the acoustic assessment take into consideration the frequency content/character of the noise sources and the following federal documents:
a. “Guidelines for the Resolution of Complaints Concerning Railway Noise and
Vibration”, Canadian Transportation Agency, October, 2008;
b. “Railway Noise Measurement and Reporting Methodology”, Canadian
Transportation Agency, August 2011; and
c. “Guidance for Evaluating Human Health Impacts in Environmental Assessment: NOISE”, Health Canada, January 2017.
Do the proposed OPA, ZBA and Draft Plan of Subdivision have regard to NPC-300 and its requirements, including acoustic assessment and feasibility under Class 1 and in the context of the role of the Canadian Transportation Agency in addressing noise complaints?
Do the proposed OPA, ZBA and Draft Plan of Subdivision rely on an appropriate assessment of the transportation noise sources in the area (i.e. all sources and with current data) and the required building component requirements to meet the applicable indoor noise criteria
Do the proposed OPA, ZBA and Draft Plan of Subdivision rely on an appropriate consideration of the cumulative impact of all transportation noise sources and the required acoustical mitigation measures?
Mitigation/Implementation
If the proposed development is approved, how will any required mitigation measures be secured and enforced by the municipality?
Is the use of condominium declarations an appropriate means to secure long term mitigation measures? If it is not, should the development be approved?
If development of sensitive land uses is feasible and good planning, should any private agreements under NPC-300, environmental easements and agreements under the Industrial Mining and Lands Compensation Act be required for the residential development of the Subject Lands?
Is residential development or other sensitive uses on the Subject Lands in the proposed OPA, ZBA and Draft Plan of Subdivision good planning?
If residential development is feasible on all or a portion of the Subject Lands what policies should be contained in the OPA to ensure the implementation and maintenance of any necessary on-site receptor mitigation and phasing to address any environmental and land use impacts?
What planning tools and agreements are needed and may be utilized to secure implementation of recommendations of technical studies and other requirements identified through the review and consideration of the OPA, ZBA, and Conditions of Draft Plan Approval per Section 51 (25) and/ or Section 51 (26) of the Planning Act?
Drainage
- Have drainage patterns and related considerations been satisfactorily considered and addressed?
ATTACHMENT 3
ORDER OF EVIDENCE
Silvercreek Guelph Developments Limited and 2089248 Ontario Inc. (“Silvercreek”)
Parties in support of Silvercreek (if any)
City of Guelph
Parties in support of City of Guelph (if any)
Reply by Silvercreek (if any)
ATTACHMENT 4
PURPOSE OF PROCEDURAL ORDER
Case management conferences are scheduled by the Tribunal to organize the hearing. This sample procedural order is provided to identify who may participate in the hearing, the issues in dispute, and the matters that are required to be carried out before the hearing. The attachment to this sample procedural order explains the meaning of a number of terms in the sample procedural order, such as a party or a participant.
The Tribunal recommends that the appellant, municipality, the applicant (if applicable), or those who wish to seek party status in this proceeding, meet, remotely if necessary, to discuss this sample procedural order before the date of the case management conference and try to identify the issues and process they want the Tribunal to order following the conference. The Tribunal will hear submissions on the content of this sample procedural order at the case management conference and issue a procedural order at a later date.
If you are not represented by a lawyer, you should prepare by reviewing the Tribunal’s Video Hearings Guide, and the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), particularly Rule 20, which are available on the Tribunal’s website.
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.
61678961.1