Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

February 06, 2024

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-23-000363

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

Appellant

Essence Holdings lnc.

Applicant

Gagnon Walker Domes Ltd.

Subject:

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

Description:

Zoning By-Law and Subdivision

Reference Number:

OZS-2022-0021

Property Address:

0 and 8265 Churchville Road (North of Steeles Avenue West, east of Creditview Road)

Municipality/UT:

Brampton/Peel

OLT Case No:

OLT-23-000363

OLT Lead Case No:

OLT-23-000363

OLT Case Name:

Essence Holdings lnc. v. Brampton (City)

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

Subject:

Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision

Reference Number:

OZS-2022-0021

Property Address:

0 and 8265 Churchville Road

Municipality/UT:

Brampton/Peel

OLT Case No:

OLT-23-000364

OLT Lead Case No:

OLT-23-000363

Heard:

October 25, 2023 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative*

Essence Holdings Inc.

J. Alati N. Gunawardana G. O’Brien (“in absentia”)

City of Brampton

E. Bashura S. Ross (“in absentia”)

Jubin Abuwalla

A. Ciccone

Meetu Mahendra

Self-represented*

Sukhwant Baidwan

Self-represented*

Manesh Patel

Self-represented*

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C.I. MOLINARI ON october 25, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

1The Tribunal convened the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) in respect of an appeal filed pursuant to s. 34(11) and s. 51(34) of the Planning Act (“Act”) by Essence Holdings Inc. (“Appellant”) against the City of Brampton (“City”) for its failure to make a decision within the timeframe prescribed by the Act on applications (“Applications”) for approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision for the property municipally known as 8265 Churchville Road (“Subject Property”).

2The purpose of the Applications is to facilitate the development of a subdivision for 30 single detached residential lots along with a natural heritage system block, a buffer block, a parkette, a residential reserve block intended to provide access to 8261 Walnut Road, and a new public road terminating in a cul-de-sac.

3The proposal was revised on March 2, 2023, to include the conversion of the public road to a condo road, revisions to the alignment of Walnut Road, revisions to the lot configuration with no lots fronting on Churchville Road, revisions to lot sizes, a reduction in the density of the development, an increase in the number of lots to 35, and an increase in tree retention.

4The Subject Property is located along the northwest side of Churchville Road and has a total land area of approximately 3.32 hectares. The Subject Property includes an existing private road known as Walnut Road, which extends northwest from the intersection of Churchville Road and Honour Oak Crescent, providing access to 8261 Walnut Road.

5The Subject Property is surrounded by-low density residential development consisting primarily of large lot, single-detached dwellings to the north, west and south, and a single-detached subdivision to the northeast.

6The purpose of the second CMC was to receive an update from the Parties, consider further requests for Party status, finalize the Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List (“IL”), and set dates for the merit hearing.

PARTY STATUS REQUESTS

7The Tribunal confirmed Mr. Patel’s Party status.

8At the first CMC, the request for Party status for Eldorado Mills Inc. (“Eldorado”) was deferred to the second CMC to allow time for Naresh Jain to submit Eldorado’s Articles of Incorporation (“Articles”) and a signed authorization form.

9Mr. Jain submitted the Articles to the Tribunal during the second CMC; however, after several requests, the authorization form was not submitted. Mr. Jain was only in attendance for a portion of the CMC and had not submitted an IL.

10Tribunal hearings are to be attended in full by all Parties and those seeking status. With no authorization form having been submitted and Mr. Jain’s absence for much of the proceedings, the Tribunal denied Eldorado’s Party status request.

11Ahead of the first CMC, submissions, but no Party or Participant status request forms, were received from:

• Jean Jamieson

• Leroy Anthony, and

• Balasubramanian Vishwanathan.

12At the first CMC, Ms. Jamieson was advised to submit a status request form to the Tribunal ahead of the second CMC, and ideally before August 16, 2023. Additionally, the Tribunal forwarded her a status request form on August 24, 2023, with a request for it to be submitted by August 28, 2023. Ms. Jamieson emailed a further submission on October 16, 2023, titled ‘Second Submission Triangle Trees’, which did not provide any land use planning-related concerns about the proposed development.

13The Tribunal did not receive a status request form from Ms. Jamieson and, having provided sufficient direction regarding requesting status, denied Party or Participant status to Ms. Jamieson.

14Although Mr. Anthony and Mr. Vishwanathan made submissions, in the form of Affidavits in opposition to the proposed development and the Tribunal received a Party status request form from Mr. Vishwanathan after the first CMC, the Tribunal denied Party or Participant status to both Mr. Anthony and Mr. Vishwanathan as they neither attended the CMCs, nor submitted an IL.

15There were no additional requests for Party or Participant status.

UPDATE

16Ms. Bashura advised the Tribunal that the City and the Appellant had settled the appeals in principle based on the revised proposal, subject to the resolution of outstanding technical matters. In this respect, the Appellant and the City had not yet entered into Minutes of Settlement, however, the City confirmed that it would not be filing an IL nor calling any witnesses at the Merit Hearing.

PROCEDURAL ORDER/ISSUES LIST

17A draft PO was submitted to the Tribunal ahead of the second CMC with an IL attached, including the issues of all Parties except for the City, for the reasons noted above.

18Mr. Abuwalla’s issues are specific and in question format, and Mr. Alati had no concerns in this regard. Mr. Abuwalla has retained a land use planner and is engaged in resolution discussions with the Appellant.

19The Tribunal stood down to allow for discussions between Mr. Alati and Mr. Baidwan, and Mr. Alati and Mr. Patel, to flesh out their issues. The discussions were fruitful and resulted in an expanded and agreed to IL from both Mr. Baidwan and Mr. Patel.

20Mr. Baidwan advised that he supports the development in principle, but not to the same degree as the City. He plans to cross-examine the Appellant’s land use planner, subpoena the City’s land use planner, and call his own witness, expert or otherwise.

21Mr. Patel advised that he also supports the development in principle but had certain concerns that he wanted to address at the merit hearing. He plans to retain an expert land use planning witness and will advise the Parties and the Tribunal once retained.

22Ms. Mahendra spoke at length regarding her perceived lack of public consultation through the processing of the Applications. Both the City and the Appellant responded that a public meeting was held in accordance with the Act, and an open house was hosted by the Appellant and attended by City staff. Ms. Bashura added that the Applications were appealed on the basis of a non-decision by the City, meaning that no recommendation report was written or submitted for Council’s consideration.

23The Tribunal advised that the Merit Hearing will provide the opportunity for the Parties to have their concerns and issues addressed and that any concerns related to public consultation should be addressed with the City, separate from the Tribunal proceedings.

24Ms. Mahendra advised that she intends to call an environmental witness but has had difficulty in retaining such witness for the hearing. She undertook to advise the Tribunal once a witness has been retained and to work with Mr. Alati to flesh out her issues to formulate more specific and appropriately worded issues for the IL.

25Mr. Alati noted that the IL contains a caveat, that the inclusion of an issue on the IL does not necessarily mean that all Parties are in agreement that such issue is appropriate or relevant, and that the appropriateness or relevance of an issue may be a matter to be heard at the merit hearing.

26There was discussion between Mr. Baidwan and Mr. Alati related to an additional paragraph added to the PO that reads as follows:

10. In the event a party files a list of witnesses that does not include a witness with the technical expertise to address such a party’s technically related issues, said issues may be struck from the Issues List set out in Attachment 3 upon written request made to the Tribunal.

27Mr. Baidwan submitted that the paragraph contravenes Rule 7.6 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) in that it would serve to limit witnesses. Mr. Alati responded that the paragraph is in relation to issues, not witnesses, and that the Tribunal has allowed the paragraph in at least seven other hearings. Mr. Alati forwarded the decisions related to the other hearings to the Tribunal. After a private discussion between Mr. Baidwan and Mr. Alati during the break in the proceedings, the intent of the wording was clarified, and Mr. Baidwan was agreeable to leaving the paragraph in the PO.

28It was the Tribunal’s determination that, although it is reluctant to allow additions to POs, there is a distinction between limiting witnesses and limiting issues. Rule 7.6 is with respect to witness statements of non-expert witnesses, which the additional paragraph does not address.

29As the wording of the paragraph leaves the decision regarding witnesses to the discretion of the Tribunal, the Tribunal finds that the paragraph is not prejudicial to any party, is not in contravention of the Rules, and speaks to a mechanism that already exists. In this respect, the paragraph is allowed, subject to the wording being broadened to say, “upon a motion made to the Tribunal” rather than “upon written request made to the Tribunal”, so that the Paragraph reads as follows:

10. In the event a party files a list of witnesses that does not include a witness with the technical expertise to address such party’s technically related issues, said issues may be struck from the Issues List set out in Attachment 3 upon a motion made to the Tribunal.

NEXT STEPS

30Mr. Baidwan, Mr. Patel, and Ms. Mahendra are each to submit to the Tribunal and to all Parties a final IL with greater specificity, limited to the areas of concern already identified in the CMC decision from August 2, 2023, and in question format.

31The final draft IL was to be filed with the Tribunal and all Parties on or before November 10, 2023, with an indication of the number of witnesses to be called, expert or otherwise, and their area(s) of discipline.

32The final draft PO was to be submitted to the Case Coordinator by November 17, 2023, for approval by the Tribunal. The Tribunal received the final draft PO with the IL, which was agreed to by all Parties, and is approved and appended as Attachment 1 to this decision.

33The Appellant requested a ten-day hearing within the first six months of 2024. With the many conflict dates provided by the Parties, the Tribunal was only able to secure a nine-day hearing within the timeframe provided. This was acceptable to Mr. Alati, on the basis that issues may be eliminated through discussions with the Parties.

34The Appellant was to advise the Tribunal by November 17, 2023, whether the full nine days are required, based on the revised IL and final draft PO. The Appellant subsequently advised that the required number of hearing dates could not be confirmed at that time due to not having received the list of expert witnesses from Mr. Baidwan, Mr. Patel and Ms. Mahendra,

HEARING EVENT

35At the request of the Appellant, the Tribunal scheduled a nine-day video hearing event commencing on Tuesday, April 9, 2024, at 10 a.m. and concluding on Friday, April 19, 2024.

36Statutory Parties and anyone seeking Party or Participant status 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.

https://meet.goto.com/558205565

Access code: 558-205-565

37Parties 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.

38Persons 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) 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373.The Access Code is as indicated above.

39Individuals 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

40The Tribunal confirms the Party Status of Manesh Patel in this proceeding.

41The Tribunal orders that Party or Participant Status is denied to Eldorado Mills Inc., Jean Jamieson, Leroy Anthony, and Balasubramanian Vishwanathan.

42The Tribunal orders a nine-day Merit Hearing will commence by video hearing on Tuesday, April 9, 2024, at 10 a.m. and concluding on Friday, April 19, 2024.

43The Tribunal orders that the Procedural Order and Issues List set out as Schedule 1 is deemed in force and effect and shall govern the hearing of the merits.

44There will be no further notice.

45The Member is not seized of this matter.

“C. I. Molinari”

C. I. MOLINARI

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.

Case No.: OLT-23-000363

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

Appellant

Essence Holdings lnc.

Applicant

Gagnon Walker Domes Ltd.

Subject

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

Description:

Gagnon Walker Domes Ltd. Zoning By-Law and Subdivision

Reference Number

OZS-2022-0021

Property Address/Description:

0 and 8265 Churchville Road (North of Steeles Avenue West, east of Creditview Road)

Municipality:

Brampton/Peel

OLT Case No.:

OLT-23-000363

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-000363

OLT Case Name:

Essence Holdings Inc. v Brampton (City)

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

Subject:

Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision

Reference Number

OZS-2022-0021

Property Address/Description:

0 and 8265 Churchville Road

Municipality:

Brampton/Peel

OLT Case No.:

OLT-23-000364

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-000363

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 Tuesday, April 9, 2024, at 10 a.m. at _______________________

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 9 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 procedural order deadlines are generally found in Attachment 1.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 2.

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. Aside from the potential for the removal of issues as they may be resolved, there will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 4 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

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

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

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before Wednesday, February 14, 2024 and in accordance with paragraph 23 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. In the event a party files a list of witnesses that does not include a witness with the technical expertise to address such party’s technically related issues, said issues may be struck from the Issues List set out in Attachment 3 upon a motion made to the Tribunal.

11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Friday, February 16, 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 Tuesday, February 20, 2024.

12. 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 14 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.

13. 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 14 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 14 below.

14. On or before Friday, February 23, 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 23 below.

15. On or before Friday, February 23, 2024, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

16. On or before Monday, March 11, 2024, parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

17. On or before Tuesday, March 5, 2024, the parties shall further confirm with the Tribunal if there are any additional reserved hearing dates that may be released other than those previously indicated to the Tribunal on November 17, 2023.

18. On or before Friday, March 22, 2024, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

19. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Tuesday, April 2, 2024.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Tuesday, April 2, 2024 with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. The purpose of this Procedural Order and the meaning of the terms used in this Procedural Order are set out in Attachment 5.

This Member is [not] seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE:

Name of Member:

Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

Attachment 1

Summary of Dates

DATE

EVENT

Wednesday, February 14, 2024

Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)

Friday, February 16, 2024

Experts meetings, if any, prior to this date

Tuesday, February 20, 2024

Experts to file agreed statement of facts and remaining issues (if any)

Friday, February 23, 2024

Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements

Tuesday, March 5, 2024

Parties to Advise Tribunal if any further hearing dates are to be released from the hearing calendar (if any)

Monday, March 11, 2024

Exchange of Reply Witness Statements

Friday, March 22, 2024

Exchange of visual evidence

Tuesday, April 2, 2024

Hearing Plan filed with the Tribunal

Tuesday, April 2, 2024

Joint Document Book filed with the Tribunal

Tuesday, April 9, 2024

Hearing commences

Attachment 2

List of Parties/Participants

Parties

1. Essence Holdings Inc.

Davies Howe LLP The Tenth Floor 425 Adelaide Street West Toronto, Ontario M5V 3C1 John Alati E-mail: johna@davieshowe.com Tel: 416-263-4509 Grace O’Brien Email: graceo@davieshowe.com Tel: 416-263-4507

2. City of Brampton

Legislative Services The Corporation of The City of Brampton City Hall West Tower, 9th Floor Brampton Ontario L6Y 4R2 Eugenia Bashura Email: eugenia.bashura@brampton.ca Tel: 905-874-2682 Steven Ross Email: steven.ross@brampton.ca Tel: 905-874-3345

3. Zubin Abuwalla

Garrod Pickfield LLP 9 Norwich Street West Guelph, Ontario N1H 2G8

Alex Ciccone Email: aciccone@garrodpickfield.ca

Tel: 519-837-0500

4. Sukhwant Baidwan

Email: sukhi.cla@gmail.com

Tel: 416-825-5757

5. Meetu Mahendra

Email: meetumahendra@hotmail.com

Tel: 416-801-0910

6. Manesh Patel

Email: maneshis@gmail.com

Tel: 647-295-7547

Attachment 3

Issues List

Note: The identification of an issue on this list does not mean that all Parties agree that such an issue, or the manner in which it is expressed, is appropriate or relevant for the proper determination of the appeals. The extent of the appropriateness and/or relevance of the issue may be a matter of evidence and/or argument at the hearing.

Issues of Sukhwant Baidwan

1. Compatibility of the proposed development:

(i) Is the existing neighbourhood recognized to have rural/ scenic characters?

(ii) If the neighbourhood does have rural characteristics, does the massing of the lots maintain the prevailing character of this rural character?

(iii) Whether the proposed development is quantitively and qualitatively compatible with the existing/ prevailing neighbourhood?

(iv) Whether the proposed development one third lot size and scale integrate with the immediate neighbourhood?

(v) Is this existing neighbourhood suitable for a condo road development?

(vi) Whether the proposed lot size within this neighbourhood represents appropriate development of the subject lands and is it compatible in terms of lot area, lot frontage and lot coverage with the existing/ prevailing community?

(vii) Does the proposed development have regard to Planning Act Section 2, and to Subsection 51(24) (a) to (f)?

(viii) Does the proposed development conform to the Credit Valley Secondary Plan section 4.2.1, 4.1.3,4.2.4, section 6.1 special area policy, as specifically related to Eldorado Mills Area?

(ix) Is the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, specifically sections 1.1.1, 1.1.3 and 1.4.3?

2. Traffic Impact Study:

(i) Whether the builder’s Traffic Impact Study (TIS) addresses the issues relating specifically to the safety, pedestrian, walkway, streetlights and traffic hazard?

(ii) Whether the TIS adequately addresses and responds to the policies of the Region of Peel’s VISION ZERO ROAD SAFETY STRATEGIC PLAN (2018)?

(iii) Whether an increase in volume of motorized vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists (traffic) as a result of the proposed development, results in an unacceptable safety risk in the immediate neighbourhood on and around Churchville Road?

3. Sustainability issues:

(i) Is the failure to provide an updated sustainability report for a 35 unit/home development a reason to not approve the proposed development?

(ii) If an updated report is provided have the concerns related to sustainability been adequately addressed?

Issues of Manesh Patel

1. An updated sustainability report has not been filed. Has the proposed development satisfied the sustainability guidelines?

2. Does the proposed development provide sufficient support for transit?

3. Does the proposed development sufficiently support walkability and provide adequate pedestrian connection to schools?

4. Has appropriate regard been given to heritage matters?

5. Are the schools in the neighbourhood able to satisfactorily support the proposed development?

6. Has storm water been adequately addressed?

Issues of Meetu Mahendra

1. Does the proposed development provide sufficient regard for the lands which are subject to the policies of the Credit Valley Conservation Authority in terms of ecological respect and environmental stewardship?

Issues of Zubin Abuwalla

1. Does the application for draft plan of subdivision have appropriate regard for the matters set out in section 51(24) of the Planning Act, specifically 51(24) (a), (b), (c), (d), (f), and (g)?

2. Do the applications have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in section 2 of the Planning Act, specifically 2 (f), (h), (n), (o), (p) and (r)?

3. Are the applications consistent with the applicable policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, specifically 1.1.1 (c), (g) and (h); 1.1.3.3; 1.1.3.4; 1.4.3 (c); and 4.6?

4. Do the applications conform to the Growth Plan, specifically sections 1.2.1; and 2.2.1?

5. Do the applications conform to the Region of Peel Official Plan, specifically sections : 5.3.1.3; 5.3.1.4; 5.3.1.7; 5.3.2.6; and 7.2.2.6.?

6. Do the applications conform to the City of Brampton Official Plan, specifically policies: 3.1; 4.2.1.20; and 4.2.2?

7. Do the applications conform to the Credit Valley Secondary Plan, specifically policies: 4.2.4; 4.3; 5.2.1.3; 5.2.4; 6.1; 11.0; and Part III - Chapter 45-6: Block Plan for Sub Area 45-6 of the Credit Valley Secondary Plan?

8. Does the Application preclude or hinder the future development of the adjacent lands at 8261 Walnut Road, Brampton? If so, should it be designed to ensure that it does not?

9. If the applications include the removal of Walnut Road, can they be approved without the consent of the dominant tenement of the existing easement over Walnut Road?

Attachment 4

Order of Evidence

1. Essence Holdings Inc.

2. City of Brampton

3. Sukhwant Baidwan

4. Manesh Patel

5. Meetu Mahendra

6. Zubin Abuwalla

7. Reply of Essence Holdings Inc. (if any)

Attachment 5

Purpose of the Procedural Order and Meaning of Terms

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.