Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 08, 2024 CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003909

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

Appellant: Picton Heights Ltd. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit a redevelopment of the Lands with a residential community of 560 residential units Reference Number: Z59-20 Property Address: 4-74 Nery Avenue and 27-83 Inkerman Avenue Municipality/UT: Prince Edward/Prince Edward OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003909 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003909 OLT Case Name: Picton Heights Ltd. v. Prince Edward (County)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Appellant: Picton Heights Ltd. Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision Property Address: 4-74 Nery Avenue and 27-83 Inkerman Avenue Municipality/UT: Prince Edward/Prince Edward OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003910 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003909

Heard: February 1, 2024 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Picton Heights Ltd.	M. Helfand E. Costello (in absentia)
County of Prince Edward	J. Savini
PEC Community Partners Inc.	P. DeMelo S. Kagan (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY A. MASON ON FEBRUARY 1, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This was the fourth Case Management Conference (“Fourth CMC”) held concerning appeals filed by Picton Heights Ltd (“Applicant/Appellant”), owner of the lands at 4-74 Nery Avenue and 27-83 Inkerman Avenue in the County of Prince Edward (“County”). Appeals were filed regarding a non-decision of the County pursuant to section 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) to amend the Zoning By-law (“Zoning Appeal”) and section 51(34) of the Act for approval of a draft plan of subdivision for 560 residential units (“Draft Plan Appeal”).

2At the second CMC, the Parties proffered a settlement proposal with respect to the Zoning Appeal. The Tribunal, differently constituted, allowed the Zoning Appeal and an Order was issued with respect to same on September 1, 2023.

3At the Fourth CMC, the Parties advised that technical material and comments with respect to the remaining Draft Plan Appeal have been circulated between the Parties with some reduction in the remaining issues. The Parties advised that they expect to continue to work through technical comments and narrow the issues in advance of the Merit Hearing commencing on April 3, 2024.

PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST

4The Parties jointly provided a draft Issues List and Procedural Order (“PO/IL”) in advance of the CMC. Having reviewed the PO/IL and discussed same with the Parties, the Tribunal Orders that the PO/IL attached as Schedule 1 to this Decision shall govern the proceedings.

ORDER

5The Tribunal Orders the direction set out above.

6No further notice will be given.

7The Member is not seized.

“A. Mason”

A. MASON MEMBER

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

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

Schedule 1

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003909

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

Appellant: Picton Heights Ltd. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit a redevelopment of the Lands with a residential community comprised of 560 residential units Reference Number: Z59-20 Property Address: 4-74 Nery Avenue and 27-83 Inkerman Avenue Municipality/UT: Prince Edward/Prince Edward OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003909 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003909 OLT Case Name: Picton Heights Ltd. v. Prince Edward (County)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Appellant: Picton Heights Ltd. Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision Property Address: 4-74 Nery Avenue and 27-83 Inkerman Avenue Municipality/UT: Prince Edward/Prince Edward OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003910 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003909

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 April 3, 2024, at 10:00 a.m.

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

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 February 5, 2024 (fifty-eight (58) days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing) 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 may have a meeting on or before February 14, 2024 (forty-eight (48) days prior to the hearing) 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 February 21, 2024 (forty-right (48) days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing).

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 March 4, 2024 (thirty (30) days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing), 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 March 4, 2024 (thirty (30) days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing), 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 March 7, 2024 (twenty-seven (27) days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing) the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

16. On or before March 23, 2024 (eleven (11) days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing), 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 within ten (10) days after the evidence is received 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 March 23, 2024 (eleven (11) days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing).

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 March 29, 2024 (five (5) days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing) with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

22. All filings shall be submitted electronically and in hard copy. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Rule 7.

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

This Member is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

Attachment 1

List of Parties and Participants

Parties:

Picton Heights Ltd. Aird & Berlis LLP Brookfield Place, 181 Bay Street, Suite 1800 Toronto ON M5J 2T9 Eileen P.K. Costello Tel: 416.865.4740 Email: ecostello@airdberlis.com

Matthew Helfand Tel: 416.865.4624 Email: mhelfand@airdberlis.com

Prince Edward County Templeman LLP 205 Dundas Street East Suite 200 Box 234 Belleville, ON, K8N 5A2 Jennifer Savini Tel: 613-966-2620 Email: jsavini@tmlegal.ca

Prince Edward County Community Partners Inc. Kagan Shastri LLP 188 Avenue Road Toronto, ON, M5R 2J1 M5R 2J1 Ira Kagan Tel: 416-368-2100 x226 Email: ikagan@ksllp.ca

Kristie Stitt Tel: 416.368.2100 ext. 244 Email: kstitt@ksllp.ca

Sarah Kagan Tel: 416.368.2100 ext. 243 Email: skagan@ksllp.ca

Paul De Melo Tel: 416.368.2100 ext. 228 Email: pdemelo@ksllp.ca

Attachment 2

Issues List

NOTE: The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the OLT or any party that such issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is either appropriate or relevant to the determination of the OLT at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the OLT at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing. The identification of an issue on this list by a party indicates that party’s intent to lead evidence or argue that the issue is relevant to the proceeding, for the purpose of fairly identifying to the other parties the case they need to meet and shall not be construed as the OLT having jurisdiction over such matters in each circumstance. Accordingly, no party shall advance an issue not identified on the Issues List without leave of the OLT.

A. County of Prince Edward

General Issues

1. Are the proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications premature given the lack of servicing at the subject property?
   1. See Picton Urban Secondary Plan issues.
2. Do the applications represent good land use planning?

Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning Issues – s.51 & s. 34

3. Is the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and amendment to Zoning By-Law No. 1816-2006 (“the Zoning By-law Amendment”) consistent with the applicable policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020)?

   1. Are they consistent with policy 1.1.1(a) in terms of pre-maturity in servicing creating risks to the financial well-being of the Municipality over the long term?
   2. Are they consistent with policy 1.1.1 (b) in terms of park and open space being privately owned?
   3. Are they consistent with policy 1.1.1(g) as the sanitary sewer and water servicing strategy proposes to use existing pipes which are already surcharged?
   4. Are they consistent with policy 1.1.3.2 (b) as the proposed sanitary sewer and water servicing strategy may present the need for an unjustified and/or uneconomical expansion?
   5. Are they consistent with policy 1.2.1 (a), in that the applications are pre-mature as the Municipality is currently undertaking a Master Servicing Study for Picton to determine appropriate infrastructure planning?
   6. Are they consistent with policy 1.5.1 (b) as the open space is proposed to be privately owned?
   7. Does the proposed development ensure sewage and water services are provided in a manner consistent with policy 1.6.6.1 (b)?
   8. Has the proposed development addressed servicing and intensification of adjacent land uses consistent with policy 1.6.6.1(d)?
   9. Has stormwater management been adequately addressed consistent with policy 1.6.6.7?

4. Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision conform with the applicable policies of the County of Prince Edward Official Plan (2006), specifically:

   1. Part 2 Vision for the County i. Do they conform with Section 2.3.2 by moving forward prior to the completion of the Master Servicing Plan the municipality is currently undertaking to accommodate anticipated growth? ii. Is section 2.4.7 properly addressed by the proposed subdivision form with the existing neighbourhood? iii. Do the applications avoid future servicing problems as outlined in Section 2.4.8? iv. Do the proposed applications effectively provide transportation linkages as outlined in Sections 2.10.1, 2.10.3, & 2.10.7?
   2. Part 3 General Development Strategies i. Do they conform to Section 2.2.2 by ensuring that appropriate water and sewage servicing is being promoted through the development? ii. Do they conform to Section 2.2.9 by coordinating within the existing road system? iii. Do they conform with Section 2.5.1 in terms of pre-maturity given the servicing constraints? iv. Do they conform with Section 2.5.10 in regards to allocation of capacity? v. Do they conform with Section 2.9.1 by providing adequate storm water management and outlet drainage? vi. Do they conform with Section 4.1.2, specifically do private parks promote a sense of community for all residents? vii. Do they conform with Section 4.4.3 and 4.4.5 in terms heritage conservation? viii. Do they conform with Section 4.7.1, in regards to the privately owned parkland? ix. Do they conform with Section 4.7.6 by providing parkland?
   3. Part 4 land Use Designation Policies i. Do they conform to Section A) Growth and Settlement Strategy in terms of pre-maturity given servicing constraints?
   4. Part 5 The Division of Land i. Do they conform to Section 1.1.1 pre-maturity in servicing creating risks to the financial well-being of the Municipality over the long term? ii. Does the Draft Plan of Subdivision Application Conform to Section 1.2.1? iii. Do they conform to Section 1.2.4, in regards to adequate servicing? iv. Do they conform to Section 1.2.5 in regards to Stormwater Management? v. Do they conform to Section 1.2.7 in regards to the location of public roads and the conveyance of 1 foot reserves at dead ends and open sides of road allowances to the Municipality and to be conveyed to the developer? vi. Do they conform to Section 1.2.11 in terms of parkland?
   5. Part 6 Implementation i. Do they conform to Section 1.3 in regards to pre-maturity given the current Master Servicing Plan being undertaken by the Municipality?

5. Have the applicable policies of the County of Prince Edward Official Plan (2021) been appropriately considered, specifically:

   1. Section 2.3.1 Vision Principles
   2. Section 2.4 Growth Management Strategies
   3. Section 3.0 Shaping the County
   4. Section 3.4 Infrastructure
   5. Section 3.5 Livable Community
   6. Section 4.1 Settlement Areas and 4.1.1 Objectives
   7. Section 4.1.2.1 Secondary Plans
   8. Section 5.0 Implementation Policies?

6. Do the Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications conform with the applicable policies of the Picton-Hallowell Urban Secondary Plan?

   1. Does the proposed development conform with the following policies: i. Do they conform to the criteria outlined in the preface Vision for Picton-Hallowell on page iv? ii. Do they conform to Section 2.4 Town Residential Area Guiding Policy No.2 as it relates to create a complete community and making the most of the existing infrastructure? iii. Do they conform to Section 2.4 Town Residential Area Guiding Policy No. 3, in regard to being compatible with the existing neighbourhood? iv. Do they conform with Section 2.4.2.5, in regards to providing community uses i.e. parks? v. Do they conform with Section 2.4.2.6, in regards to connections with adjacent lands? vi. Do they conform to Section 3.1.7, as it relates to the proposed street pattern? vii. Do they conform to Section 3.1.8, by establishing grid like pattern connections adjacent existing and future development? viii. Do they conform to Section 3.1.11, in regards to the Traffic Impact Study submitted? ix. Do they conform to Section 3.1.4.4, in regards to opportunities for active transportation within the proposed road network? x. Do they conform to Section 3.2.2, by providing adequate services? xi. Do they conform to the servicing principles outlined in Section 3.2.3? xii. Do they conform to the criteria outlined in Section 3.2.5 for water and wastewater allocation? xiii. Do they conform to Section 3.2.12, in regards to stormwater management? xiv. Do they conform with the compatibility criteria set out in Section 4.1.5? xv. Do they conform to the elements for accessible, safe and sustainable development in Section 4.1.6? xvi. Do they conform to Section 4.1.1.1, by reflecting the character of the existing neighbourhood? xvii. Do they conform to Section 4.1.1.3, in regards to location of three storey buildings? xviii. Do they conform to Section 4.1.1.4, in regards to street design? xix. Do they conform to Section 4.2.1, in regards to Heritage Conservation? xx. Do they conform to the guiding policies of Section 4.6.1? xxi. Do they conform with Section 4.6.1.1, in regards to providing parkland? xxii. Do they conform with Section 4.6.1.3, by contributing parkland and active transportation connections? xxiii. Do they conform with Sections 4.6.1.7, 4.6.1.8 & 4.6.1.9, in regards to parkland dedication? xxiv. Do they conform with Section 4.2.1.6, in regards to connections to the adjacent conservation area? xxv. Do they conform with Section 4.7.1.3, in regards to stormwater management? xxvi. Do they conform to the criteria for Draft Plan Approval in Section 5.1.3.2? xxvii. Do they conform to Section 5.3.2, in terms of pre-maturity in servicing creating risks to the financial well-being of the Municipality over the long term?

7. Does the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision meet requirements of Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act: a. Will the development of the proposed subdivision affect matters of Provincial Interest? b. Is the proposed Subdivision premature or in the public interest? c. Does the proposed subdivision conform to the Official Plan and adjacent plans of Subdivision? d. Have the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy of them, and have the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the adequacy of them, been appropriately addressed? e. Has appropriate regard been had to the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots (blocks)? i. Are there adequate utilities and municipal services? k. Is there any area of land within the proposed subdivision that, exclusive of highways, is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes? l. Has appropriate regard been had to the interrelationship between the design of the proposed plan of subdivision and site plan control matters relating to any development on the land, if the land is also located within a site plan control area designated under subsection 41(2) of this Act?

B. Prince Edward County Community Partners Inc.

1. What is the impact that the proposed development will have on the future development of Prince Edward County Community Partners Inc. lands respecting:
   1. Servicing capacity; and
   2. Transportation capacity

Attachment 3

Order of Evidence

1. Picton Heights Ltd.
2. County of Prince Edward
3. Prince Edward County Community Partners Inc.
4. Picton Heights Ltd. (in reply, if necessary)

Attachment 4

Purpose of the Procedural Order and Meaning of Terms

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 5

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
February 5, 2024 (58 days before hearing)	Exchange of witness lists
February 14, 2024 (48 days before hearing)	Experts meeting prior to this date
February 21, 2024 (49 days before hearing)	Exchange of agreed statement of facts
March 4, 2024 (30 days before hearing)	Exchange of participant statements
March 4, 2024 (30 days before hearing)	Exchange of witness statements and expert witness statements
March 7, 2024 (27 days before hearing)	Confirmation that all hearing dates are required
March 14, 2024 (10 days after evidence is received)	Exchange of written response to evidence
March 23, 2024 (11 days before hearing)	Exchange of visual evidence
March 23, 2024 (11 days before hearing)	Finalize and file joint document book
March 29, 2024 (5 days before hearing)	File hearing plan with the Tribunal
April 3, 2024	Hearing commences (3 days)

54874449.6