1153 Queen West Holdings Inc. v. Toronto (City), 2025 CanLII 101540

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

October 3, 2025

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-25-000126

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(4) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18. as amended

Appellant:

1153 Queen West Holdings Inc.

Appellant:

Queen Street Post Inc.

Subject:

Appeal of decision

Description:

to maintain heritage character of West Queen West Heritage Conservation District

Reference Number:

By-law 1368-2024

Property Address:

Various addresses in the West Queen West Heritage Conservation District

Municipality/UT:

City of Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-25-000126

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-25-000126

OLT Case Name:

1153 Queen West Holdings Inc. v. Toronto (City)

Heard:

August 1, 2025 and September 9, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

1153 Queen West Holdings Inc.

D. Bronskill

Queen Street Post Inc.

J. Nehmetallah

M. Foderick (in absentia)

City of Toronto (“City”)

M. Longo

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY D. ARNOLD ON AUGUST 1, 2025 AND SEPTEMBER 9, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was held to prepare for a Hearing on the merits of the appeal by 1153 Queen West Holdings Inc. (“1153 Queen Appellant”) and the appeal by Queen Street Post Inc. (“Queen Street Appellant”) made pursuant to subsection 41(4) of the Ontario Heritage Act of the passage of By-law 1368-2024 by the City designating the West Queen West Heritage Conservation District (“WQW HCD By-law”) pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act (collectively, the “Appeals”). Two other appeals of the WQW HCD By-law that were filed by 2692201 Ontario Inc., and B & C Ltd. and IG Woolf Textiles Ltd. were withdrawn by written notification to the Tribunal prior to the commencement of this CMC.

2The Tribunal entered into evidence as Exhibit 1 in these proceedings the Affidavit of Service of Olivia Morris sworn on July 8, 2025 and is satisfied that same demonstrates proper notice such that no further notice is required in these proceedings. The Tribunal noted a minor typographical error on the Notice (as provided to the City by the Tribunal) pertaining to the specific subsection reference of the Ontario Heritage Act and was satisfied that such error was minor and in all substantive and material respects the Notice was sufficient.

PARTY AND PARTICIPANT STATUS

3There were no requests for Party Status and four (4) requests for Participant Status in the subject proceedings as follows:

(a) Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation 2210 – A written request for Participant Status was filed with the Tribunal and a representative, Karen Beitel, made submissions in furtherance of this request at the CMC; however, following the CMC the Tribunal was provided with written notice of the withdrawal of this request.

(b) West Side Community Council – A written request for Participant Status was filed with the Tribunal, together with a copy of its certificate of federal not-for-profit incorporation. A representative of the Council, Bruce Van Dieten, made submissions in furtherance of this request at the CMC. The Tribunal considered the written request and these submissions and is satisfied that the Council is raising genuine heritage conservation issues and, on no objections of the Parties, granted Participant Status to West Side Community Council.

(c) West Queen West Community Post – A written request for Participant Status was filed with the Tribunal, together with correspondence indicating that this organization is in the process of incorporation. A representative of the organization, Michelle Gay, made submissions in furtherance of this request at the CMC. There were no objections by the Parties to granting this organization Participant Status. The Tribunal is satisfied that this organization is raising genuine heritage conservation issues and granted Participant Status to West Queen West Community Post.

(d) West Queen West Business Improvement Association – A written request for Participant Status was filed with the Tribunal earlier on the morning of the CMC and circulated to the Parties. Unfortunately, the representative of the Association had difficulties connecting to the video platform of the CMC and was unable to provide any oral submissions with respect to the request. There were no objections by the Parties to granting the Association Participant Status. The Tribunal reviewed the written request and attachments and is satisfied that the Association is raising genuine heritage conservation issues and granted Participant Status to the West Queen West Business Improvement Association.

MEDIATION OR SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS

4The Parties are encouraged to engage in discussions in an effort to narrow or resolve issues of the Appeals. The Tribunal’s Case Coordinator may be contacted in the event that the Parties wish to make a request for consideration by the Tribunal for Tribunal-facilitated mediation.

HEARING DATES AND PROCEDURAL ORDER

5The Parties estimated that eight to nine hearing days would be required for the adjudication on the merits of the Appeals. The Parties identified the need for expert evidence in the subject matter areas including land use planning and heritage planning and architecture and the Parties estimated in sum that five to seven expert witnesses would be anticipated to provide evidence at a Hearing of the merits of the issues of the Appeals. The Tribunal is satisfied that nine hearing days is a reasonable estimate for this hearing at this time.

6A hearing of the Appeals is scheduled to take place by video commencing on Tuesday, February 17, 2026, at 10 a.m. and continue for nine hearing days up to and including Friday, February 27, 2026.

7Parties and/or Participants and/or Observers are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before it begins to test their video and audio connections:

GoTo Meeting: https://meet.goto.com/278736685

Access code: 278-736-685

8Parties and/or 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 GoTo Meeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

9Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to it by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9391 or (Toll Free) 1 888 455 1389. The access code is: 278-736-685.

10Individuals 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.

11The Parties were directed to provide a draft Procedural Order including a draft Issues List (“IL”) for the Tribunal’s consideration. A continuation of the CMC was held on September 9, 2025, in order for the Tribunal to consider submissions of the Parties and provide direction with respect to some of the draft issues that were proposed and in dispute for inclusion on the IL. Following such direction, the Parties submitted a revised draft Procedural Order including a further revised draft IL and, upon consideration by the Tribunal, the Procedural Order attached as Schedule “A” to this Decision is approved.

ORDER

12The Tribunal orders as follows:

(a) The following persons are granted Participant Status in the subject proceedings: (i) West Side Community Council; (ii) West Queen West Community Post; and (iii) West Queen West Business Improvement Association.

(b) A hearing of the Appeals is scheduled to take place by video commencing on Tuesday, February 17, 2026, at 10 a.m. and continue for nine hearing days up to and including Friday, February 27, 2026.

(c) The Procedural Order attached as Schedule “A” to this Decision is approved.

13The Tribunal so orders and provides these Case Management Conference directives for the purposes of the case management of the Appeal.

14The Member is not seized in this matter but will remain available for continued case management to the extent that the Tribunal calendar permits.

15No further notice is required or will be given.

“D. Arnold”

D. ARNOLD

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

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

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

Schedule “A”

CASE NO.: OLT-25-00126

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(4) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18. as amended

Appellant:

1153 Queen West Holdings Inc.

Appellant:

Queen Street Post Inc.

Subject:

Appeal of decision

Description:

to maintain heritage character of West Queen West Heritage Conservation District

Reference Number:

By-law 1368-2024

Property Address:

Various addresses in the West Queen West Heritage Conservation District

Municipality/UT:

City of Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-25-000126

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-25-000126

OLT Case Name:

1153 Queen West Holdings Inc. v. Toronto (City)

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 February 17, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. via video conference.

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 listed in Attachment 2 to this Order.

5. The Issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3 to this Order. 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 is 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 consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

7. Any person intending to participate in the hearing shall provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal. Any such person who retains a representative must advise the other Parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number.

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. Queen Street Post Inc. shall deliver its list on or before Friday October 3, 2025. All other parties must deliver their list on or before Friday October 17, 2025. For expert witnesses, a Party is to identify the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified. Any challenges to the witness, including qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence in the area of expertise proposed shall be made by motion in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules and notice of same must be served on the other Parties on or before on or before Friday October 24, 2025.

10. Expert witnesses in the same discipline(s) shall have at least one meeting on or before December 5, 2025. to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. The experts shall prepare a list of any agreed facts and the remaining issues to be addressed at the hearing, and provide this list to all of the Parties and the Tribunal on or before December 12, 2025.

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, the acknowledgement of expert's duty and curriculum vitae. Copies of this must be provided as in Section 13. 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. For greater certainty, each expert witness statement must comply with the minimum content requirements specified in Rule 7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. If the expert witness has prepared any report(s) that he/she intends to rely on at the hearing, and which did not form part of the submissions made to the City, such report(s) shall be provided to the other Parties at the same time as the delivery of expert witness statements, as in Section 13.

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 Section 13.

13. On or before January 9, 2026, the Parties shall provide copies of their witness statements and expert witness statements (full disclosure including reports) to the other Parties.

14. At least on or before January 23, 2026, the Parties may provide to all other Parties a written response to any written evidence.

15. On or before January 23, 2026 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required. If no hearing dates are intended to be released from the Tribunal's calendar, no Party is required to advise the Tribunal anything further in that regard.

16. On or before February 2, 2026, the Parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other Parties. The Tribunal and all Parties shall be notified if a model will be used, all Parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the scheduled commencement of the hearing.

17. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. Such a motion shall be in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rule 10, which requires that the moving Party provide copies of the motion to all other Parties at least 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

18. A Party who provides a witness’ written evidence 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.

19. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before February 9, 2026 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

20. The parties shall cooperate to prepare an electronic joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before February 9, 2026.

21. If one ore more Appellants wishes to propose any modification(s) to the West Queen West Heritage Conservation District Plan any such modification(s) shall be delivered to all Parties and the City on or before November 14, 2025. Should an Appellant attempt to advance any modification(s) after this date without the consent of the City the Tribunal may limit or exclude such modification(s) from being considered at the hearing.

22. All filing of documents and materials shall be electronic to the Tribunal, the Parties and Participants (if any). The Tribunal will be provided a hard copy of documents and materials in advance of the hearing event, if requested, as soon as practicable. 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 email shall be governed by the Rule 7. All documents to be filed with the Tribunal shall be organized, tabbed and digitally searchable and such materials will be filed in accordance with directions contained in the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, dated June 29, 2021, or as may be amended. Section 2 applies regardless if the hearing event is in-person or electronic.

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

24. The Tribunal may conduct mediation on consent of all Parties, on consent of those Parties who wish to participate in mediation, or if the Tribunal sees fit.

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:

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE

EVENT

October 3, 2025

Queen Street Post Inc. - Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)

October 17, 2025

All other parties - Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)

October 24, 2025

Last date to challenge identification of expert witness

November 14, 2025

Final date to propose modifications

December 5, 2025

Experts meeting prior to this date

December 12, 2025

Agreed Statement of Facts

January 9, 2026

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

January 23, 2026

Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)

February 2, 2026

Exchange of visual evidence (if any)

February 9, 2026

Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal

February 9, 2026

Finalize Joint Document Book

February 17, 2026

Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

Municipality

Representative

City of Toronto

Matthew Longo City of Toronto Legal Services Planning & Administrative Tribunal Law Section | 55 John Street, 26th Floor Metro Hall, M5V 3C6, Toronto matthew.longo@toronto.ca 416-392-8109

Appellant

Address

Representative

A1

1153 Queen West Holdings Inc.

1149 & 1153 Queen Street West

David Bronskill Goodmans LLP Bay Adelaide Centre 333 Bay Street, Suite 3400 Toronto, Ontario MSH 2S7 dbronskill@goodmans.ca 416-597-4299

A2

Queen Street Post Inc.

1117 Queen Street West

Michael Foderick McCarthy Tetrault LLP PO Box 48, Suite 5300 Toronto Dominion Bank Tower Toronto, Ontario M5K 1E6 mfoderick@mccarthy.ca 416-601-7783

Participant

Representative

PTP1

West Side Community Council

c/o Ric Amis me@ricamis.com 416-822-0182

PTP2

West Queen West Community Post

c/o Michelle Gay michellegay15@gmail.com 416-992-8035

PTP3

West Queen West Business Improvement Association

c/o Djanka Gajdel web@westqueenwest.ca 416-725-9593

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUES LIST

NOTE: The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the Tribunal or any Party that the issue is either relevant or appropriate. 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 Tribunal have jurisdiction over such matters in each circumstance. Accordingly, no Party shall advance an issue not identified on the Issues List without leave of the Tribunal.

Issues List of 1153 Queen West Holdings Inc. (1153 Queen Street West)

Review of the HCD Plan

1. Should the Proposed HCD Plan include a protocol to ensure mandatory review? If so, what period of time is appropriate to ensure periodic review?

Objectives of the HCD Plan

2. Are the Plan’s objectives sufficiently clear, precise and accurate to enable appropriate application of Section 41.2 of the Ontario Heritage Act?

3. Are the Plan’s policies and guidelines consistent with the Plan’s objectives?

Policies and Guidelines of the HCD Plan

4. Are mandatory policies and/or guidelines appropriate in an HCD Plan?

5. Is it appropriate to include specific urban design and/or built form standards, including stepbacks and projections, in an HCD Plan?

6. Is it appropriate for the proposed HCD Plan to establish mandatory requirements for non-contributing properties?

7. Is Section 7.6 appropriate given that it focuses on urban design considerations already addressed in the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan?

8. Are mandatory stepbacks, limited projections, and streetwall heights in Policies 7.6.5, 7.6.6, 7.6.7, 7.6.8 appropriate?

Applicable Planning Documents

9. Is the proposed HCD Plan consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024), in particular policies 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 2.1.6, 2.2.1, 2.3.1.1, 2.3.1.2, 2.3.1.4, 2.4.1.1, 2.4.1.2, 2.4.1.3 c), 2.4.2.1, 2.4.2.3, 2.4.3.1 , 2.9.1 a), 4.6.1, 4.6.2, 4.6.3, 4.6.4 b), 6.1.1, 6.1.5 and 6.1.12?

10. Does the proposed HCD Plan conform with the City of Toronto Official Plan, in particular policies 2.1.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 3.1.6.4, 3.1.6.5, 3.1.6.6, 3.1.6.22, 3.1.6.23, 3.1.6.26, 3.1.6.29, 3.1.6.30, 3.1.6.31, 3.1.6.32, 3.1.6.3.3, 4.7.1, 5.3.1.1, 5.6.1 and 5.6.1.1?

Other Applicable Guidelines

11. Is the Proposed HCD Plan consistent with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Parks Canada, 2010)?

Site-Specific

12. In the event that the Ontario Land Tribunal approves the Zoning By-law Amendment in OLT Lead Case No. OLT-25-000270, should such approval be included in Schedule F of the Proposed HCD Plan?

Issues List of Queen Street Post Inc. (1117 Queen Street West)

Planning Policy Framework

Planning Act

1. Does the proposed West Queen West Heritage Conservation District Plan (the “Proposed HCD Plan”) reflect appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest under Section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections 2(d), (h), (h.1), (j), (m), (n), (p), (q) and (r)?

Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”)

2. Does the Proposed HCD Plan reflect the principle that the PPS must be read in its entirety and all relevant policies applied to the properties within the Proposed HCD boundary, including the property at 1117 Queen Street West (the “Property”)?
3. Is the Proposed HCD Plan consistent with the PPS, including Policies 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 2.1.6, 2.2.1, 2.3.1.1, 2.3.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 2.3.1.4, 2.4.1.1, 2.4.1.2, 2.4.1.3 c), 2.4.2.1, 2.4.2.3, 2.4.3.1 , 2.9.1 a), 4.6.1, 4.6.2, 4.6.3, 4.6.4 b), 6.1.1, 6.1.5 and 6.1.12?

City of Toronto Official Plan (“Official Plan”)

4. Does the Proposed HCD Plan conform to the Official Plan, including but not limited to policies 2.1.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 3.1.6.4, 3.1.6.5, 3.1.6.6, 3.1.6.22, 3.1.6.23, 3.1.6.26, 3.1.6.29, 3.1.6.31, 3.1.6.32, 4.7.1, 5.3.1.1, 5.6.1 and 5.6.1.1?
5. Do the Proposed HCD Plan’s objectives conform to Policies 3.1.6.30, 3.1.6.31, 3.1.6.32 and 3.1.6.33 of the Official Plan?
6. Is the failure to include a mandatory review contrary to Official Plan Policy 3.1.6.31(b), which directs that HCD studies and plans will “include protocols for amendment and periodic review”?

Official Plan Amendment No. 445 (“OPA 445”)

7. Does the Proposed HCD Plan reflect appropriate consideration of paragraph 21 f. of the Ontario Land Tribunal Decision and Final Order approving OPA 445?

Proposed HCD Plan

8. Should the Proposed HCD Plan require a mandatory review after a certain period of time?
9. In the context of considering other issues in this issues list are the Definitions within the proposed HCD Plan adequate and are they consistent and in conformity with in-force Official Plan policy, the PPS, and legislation?
10. Is the Proposed HCD Plan consistent with the content and recommendations of the HCD Study?
11. Is the Proposed HCD Plan consistent with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Parks Canada, 2010) (the “Standards and Guidelines”)?
12. Are the Proposed HCD Plan’s objectives sufficiently clear, precise and accurate so as to provide certainty with respect to the application of section 41.2 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18?
13. Are the Proposed HCD Plan’s objectives consistent with each other and if not, should they be revised?
14. Is the identification of “landmark” as a building typology consistent with the introductory language in section 5.3 of the Proposed HCD Plan?
15. Is it appropriate for the Proposed HCD Plan to treat the properties identified as landmarks with the same prescriptive built form policies as every other property within the Proposed HCD boundary?
16. Does the description of “Beaux-Arts” in section 5.4.3 of the Proposed HCD Plan reflect an appropriate understanding of the architectural style, consistent with the Standards and Guidelines?
17. With respect to the Property, is the Proposed HCD Plan consistent with Schedule “B” to By-law 961-2023, which designated 1117 Queen St. W. under Part IV of the OHA?
18. Does section 5.4.3 of the Proposed HCD Plan place undue emphasis on the existing building on the Property?
19. Is the mandatory nature of the policies appropriate?
20. Is it appropriate for additions and alterations to the existing building on the Property to provide for accessibility, fire and life safety and compliance with the Ontario Building Code requirements?
21. Is it appropriate for the Proposed HCD Plan to comment on matters subject to other provincial statues, including but not limited to the Building Code Act, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act , the Ontario Human Rights Code, and any associated regulations?
22. Are the alteration policies in 6.10.3 and 6.10.4 appropriate?
23. Are quantified urban design and built form standard policies, including stepbacks and projections, appropriate for inclusion in an HCD Plan?
24. Are the mandatory stepback policies in 6.11.5, 6.11.6, 6.11.7 and 6.11.10 and in the associated guidelines appropriate?
25. Do policies 6.11.1, 6.11.2, 6.11.3 and 6.11.11 and the associated guidelines and Definitions referred to in those policies inappropriately restrict development of the Property?
26. Is the mandatory and prescriptive language in policy 6.11.4 and associated guidelines appropriate?
27. Is it appropriate for the Proposed HCD Plan to include prescriptive and restrictive non-policy text, as in the introductory language in 11.12?
28. Do the policies in 6.11.12, 6.11.13, 6.11.13.1, 6.12.2, 6.13.1 and 6.13.2 and associated guidelines inappropriately restrict meaningful intensification in a Protected Major Transit Station Area on properties with buildings identified as landmarks?
29. Is the shadow policy in 8.2.4 appropriate?

Site-Specific Issue

30. In the event the Ontario Land Tribunal approves the Zoning By-law Amendment, Official Plan Amendment and Heritage Permits in OLT Lead Case Nos. OLT-24-000538 and OLT-24-000627, should those approvals be included in Schedule F of the Proposed HCD Plan?

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

NOTE: Where Parties of like interest have issues in common, they shall make reasonable efforts to coordinate their examinations-in-chief and cross-examinations so as to minimize any duplication or overlap of evidence.

City of Toronto

Appellants and Parties aligned in interest with the City of Toronto

Appellants and Parties opposed to the City of Toronto

Reply Evidence (if required)

City of Toronto Reply Evidence (if required)

ATTACHMENT 5

Purpose of the Procedural Order and Meaning of Terms

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. If an unincorporated group wishes to become a Party, 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 authorization 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, must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

Participant is an individual, group 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). Subsection 33.2 of the Local Planning Appeal 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 and Visual Evidence:

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a Party 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 intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

Witness Statements:

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 the witness will discuss and the witness’ opinions on those issues; and a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include the expert’s (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 for the opinions and (5) a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

A Participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which the Participant wishes to address and the submission of the Participant on those issues; and a list of reports, if any, which the Participant wishes to refer to in their statement

Additional Information:

Summons: A Party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons. This request must be made before the time that the list of witnesses is provided to the Tribunal and the Parties (see Rule 13 on the summons procedure). If the Tribunal requests it, an affidavit must be provided indicating how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the affidavit, it will require that a motion be heard to decide whether the witness should be summoned.

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.