Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: January 8, 2025
CASE NO.: OLT-23-000218
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Cheong Family Holdings Ltd.
Subject: Official Plan Amendment
Description: To permit development of 29-storey building containing 143 dwelling units
Property Address: 69 Yorkville Avenue
Municipality/UT: Toronto
Municipal File No.: 21 234044 STE 11 OZ
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000218
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000218
OLT Case Name: Cheong Family Holdings Ltd. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Cheong Family Holdings Ltd.
Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment
Description: To permit development of 29-storey building containing 143 dwelling units
Property Address: 69 Yorkville Avenue
Municipality/UT: Toronto
Municipal File No.: 21 234044 STE 11 OZ
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000219
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000218
BEFORE:
JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS
Wednesday, the 8th day of
MEMBER
January, 2025
THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that further to the Decision issued on December 3, 2024, the Procedural Order, as agreed to between the Parties and attached hereto as Schedule “A”, shall be in force and effect for the purpose of governing the required procedures leading up to and including the hearing, which is scheduled to commence on July 28, 2025. The Tribunal has set aside nine days for the hearing.
“Euken Lui”
EUKEN LUI
ACTING REGISTRAR
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”
ISSUE DATE: CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000218
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Cheong Family Holdings Ltd.
Subject: Official Plan Amendment
Description: To permit development of 29-storey building containing 143 dwelling units
Property Address: 69 Yorkville Avenue
Municipality/UT: Toronto
Municipal File No.: 21 234044 STE 11 OZ
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000218
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000218
OLT Case Name: Cheong Family Holdings Ltd. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Cheong Family Holdings Ltd.
Subject: Zoning Bylaw Amendment
Description: To permit development of 29-storey building containing 143 dwelling units
Property Address: 69 Yorkville Avenue
Municipality/UT: Toronto
Municipal File No.: 21 234044 STE 11 OZ
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000219
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000218
- The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own motion.
Organization of the Hearing
- The video hearing will begin on July 28, 2025 at 10:00 a.m at:
GoTo Meeting: https://meet.goto.com/677087597
Access Code:677-087-597
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.
The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 2 to this Order (see the sample procedural order for the meaning of these terms).
The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. With the exception of removal or narrowing of the issues, there will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits and/or the parties consent to the changes. A party who asks for changes to this list may have costs awarded against it.
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.
Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.
Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website at (https://olt.gov.on/tribunals/lpat).
Requirements Before the Hearing
Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before March 26, 2025 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 April 9, 2025.
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.
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.
On or before May 14, 2025 the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator in accordance with paragraph 24 below.
On or before May 14, 2025 a participant shall provide copies of their participant statement to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator in accordance with paragraph 24 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.
On or before June 27, 2025 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.
On or before June 11, 2025 the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all the other parties in accordance with paragraph 24 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.
Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence within twenty-one (21) calendar days after the evidence is received (on or before June 4, 2025) and in accordance with paragraph 24 below.
On or before June 18, 2025, the parties may provide to the other parties a reply to any visual evidence in accordance with paragraph 24 below.
The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before June 27, 2025.
A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.
A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal on or before June 27, 2025 that the written evidence is not part of their record.
The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before July 4, 2025 with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.
All filings shall be submitted electronically 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 as soon as practicable should it request same. 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.
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.
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:
Jean-Pierre Blais ) January 8, 2025
TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR
ATTACHMENT 1
Summary of Dates
| DATE | EVENT |
|---|---|
| March 26, 2025 | Experts meeting(s) prior to this date |
| April 9, 2025 | Deadline to File any Agreed Statement(s) of Facts |
| May 14, 2025 | Exchange of witness statements and experts reports, participant statements (if any), and summoned witness outlines (if any) |
| June 4, 2025 | Exchange of reply witness statements (if any) |
| June 11, 2025 | Exchange of visual evidence (if any) |
| June 18, 2025 | Exchange of reply visual evidence (if any) |
| June 27, 2025 | Filing of Joint Document Book |
| June 27, 2025 | Deadline to notify Tribunal if a witness is not attending the hearing to give oral evidence |
| June 27, 2025 | Parties to advise if any hearing dates can be released |
| July 4, 2025 | Filing of hearing plan |
| July 28, 2025 | Hearing commences (9 days) |
ATTACHMENT 2
List of Parties
Cheong Family Holdings Ltd. Overland LLP 5255 Yonge Street, Suite 1101 Toronto, ON M2N 6P4 Christopher J. Tanzola / Natalie Ast 416.730.0645 / 416.730.0387 ctanzola@overlandllp.ca / nast@overlandllp.ca
City of Toronto City of Toronto Legal Services 55 John Street, 26th Floor, Metro Hall Toronto, ON M5V 3C6 Sarah O’Connor / Adam Ward sarah.oconnor@toronto.ca / adam.ward@toronto.ca
Minto Apartment GP Inc., as general partner for Minto Apartment Limited Partnership McCarthy Tetrault LLP PO Box 48, Suite 5300 Toronto-Dominion Bank Tower Toronto, ON M5K 1E6 Cynthia A. MacDougall / Christie Gibson 416.601.7634 / cmacdoug@mccarthy.ca / 416-601-8132 cegibson@mccarthy.ca
Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2075 Eric K. Gillespie Professional Corporation 160 John Street, Suite 300 Toronto, ON M5V 2E5 Ian Flett 416.939.6396 / iflett@gillespielaw.ca
ABC Residents Association Ritchie Ketcheson Hart & Biggart LLP 206-1 Eva Road Toronto, ON M9C 4Z5 R. Andrew Biggart 416.622.6601 ext. 1003 abiggart@ritchieketcheson.com
Greater Yorkville Ratepayers’ Association Ritchie Ketcheson Hart & Biggart LLP 206-1 Eva Road Toronto, ON M9C 4Z5 R. Andrew Biggart 416.622.6601 ext. 1003 abiggart@ritchieketcheson.com
Participants:
- Jennifer Ricci
- Johnathan Wener
ATTACHMENT 3
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.
City of Toronto
- Height. Is the development's proposed height appropriate, and does it represent good planning? Specifically, is the height appropriate for an area identified as appropriate for low-rise built form? In particular:
a. Does the proposed height conform with Official Plan policies: 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 (Built Form), and 4.5 (Mixed Use Areas)?
b. Does it conform with the Downtown Plan (OPA 406)?
c. Does it conform with Site and Area Specific Policy 211?
d. Does it have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines?
- Massing. Is the development's proposed massing, including setbacks, stepbacks, scale, relationship to adjacent properties, separation distances, streetwall height, density, and design appropriate, and does it represent good planning? In particular:
a. Does the proposed massing conform with Official Plan policies: 3.1.1 (Public Realm), 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 (Built Form) and 4.5 (Mixed Use Areas)?
b. Does the proposed massing conform with the Downtown Plan (OPA 406)?
c. Does the proposed massing conform with Site and Area Specific Policy 211?
d. Does the massing of the development have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines?
e. Does the proposed development represent over-development of the site?
- Streetscape & Public Realm. Is the proposed development's relationship with the public realm and resulting streetscape appropriate, and does it represent good planning? In particular:
a. Does it conform with Official Plan policies 3.1.1 (Public Realm), 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 (Built Form), and 4.5 (Mixed Use Areas)?
b. Does it conform with the Downtown Plan (OPA 406)?
c. Does it conform with Site and Area Specific Policy 211?
d. Does the development have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines?
- Wind Impacts. Does the proposed developments wind impacts on the public realm and adjacent properties represent good planning? In particular:
a. Does it conform with Official Plan policies: 3.1.1 (Public Realm), 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 (Built Form), 3.2.3 (Parks and Open spaces), and 4.5 (Mixed Use Areas)?
b. Does it conform with the Downtown Plan (OPA 406)?
c. Does it conform with Site and Area Specific Policy 211?
d. Does the development have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines?
Servicing. Has the applicant demonstrated that adequate municipal services are in place to support the development, including but not limited to the availability of adequate sanitary sewage capacity and the implementation of appropriate stormwater management measures and groundwater management measures?
Implementation. In the event the proposed development is approved in whole or in part, should the Tribunal Order be withheld until the City Solicitor has indicated that the following conditions have been satisfied:
a. The proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendments are in a form and content satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and City Solicitor;
b. The owner has addressed outstanding issues in relation to site servicing and has submitted a revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report and a detailed Hydrogeological providing confirmation of water, sanitary and stormwater capacity to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and entered into and registered a financially secured agreement satisfactory to the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services to construct, provide, make operational, and warrant any necessary upgrades to existing services and facilities or new services and facilities;
LEGISLATIVE & POLICY TESTS
- Policy Tests. Does the proposed development satisfy the applicable legislative and policy tests? Specifically:
a. Does the proposed development have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections 2 (f) and (r)?
b. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for the decision of City Council as required by Section 2.1 of the Planning Act?
c. Would a decision to refuse the proposed development be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement as required by Section 3(5) of the Planning Act?
d. Would a decision to refuse the proposed development conform to and not conflict with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe as required by Section 3(5) of the Planning Act?
e. Does the proposed development conform with the applicable policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, Downtown Plan, and Site and Area Specific Policy 211?
f. Would approval of the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendments represent good planning and good urban design? Would it be in the public interest?
Minto Apartment GP Inc., as general partner for Minto Apartment Limited Partnership
On September 11, 2024, this Party advised the Tribunal and other parties of its reaching a settlement with the proponent. As the party further advised it will not be taking a position on the revised application so long as the terms of settlement continue to be met, the following issues list forming part of the original procedural order has not been updated in response to the invitation from the Ontario Land Tribunal in its December 3, 2024, Order. Should the terms of settlement cease to be met, Minto reserves the right to revise the following issues list as required.
We adopt the issues of the City of Toronto, in particular, in respect of the property at 61 Yorkville Avenue.
Is the proposed tower setback of 0 metres to the east lot line which abuts Genoa Street appropriate, and in particular given the existing high rise residential building located at 61 Yorkville Avenue?
Is the development's proposed massing and situation, including setbacks, stepbacks, scale, separation distances, streetwall height, density, and design appropriate, and does it represent good planning? In particular, in respect of the existing high rise residential building located at 61 Yorkville Avenue:
a. Does the proposed massing conform with Official Plan policies: 3.1.1 (Public Realm), 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 (Built Form) and 4.5 (Mixed Use Areas)?
b. Does the proposed massing conform with the Downtown Plan (OPA 406)?
c. Does the proposed massing conform with Site and Area Specific Policy 211?
d. Does the massing of the development have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines?
e. Does the proposed development represent over-development of the site?
Is the impact on Genoa Street and Yorkville Avenue acceptable, including but not limited to queuing, given the form of the current proposal with its automated garage and location of the vehicular access?
If development is approved, what provisions should be made, changes to the proposed development or condition attached respecting vehicular access from Genoa Street to avoid impact on abutting streets and adjacent properties, including 61 Yorkville?
Do the proposed official plan and zoning by-law amendments appropriately secure and/or provide for appropriate development in light of the issues raised above?
Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2075
- Height. Is the development's proposed height appropriate, and does it represent good planning? Specifically, is the height appropriate for an area identified as appropriate for low-rise built form? In particular:
a. Does the proposed height conform with Official Plan policies: 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 (Built Form), and 4.5 (Mixed Use Areas)?
b. Does it conform with the Downtown Plan (OPA 406)?
c. Does it conform with Site and Area Specific Policy 211?
d. Does it have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines?
- Massing. Is the development's proposed massing, including setbacks, stepbacks, scale, relationship to adjacent properties, separation distances, streetwall height, density, and design appropriate, and does it represent good planning? In particular:
a. Does the proposed massing conform with Official Plan policies: 3.1.1 (Public Realm), 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 (Built Form) and 4.5 (Mixed Use Areas)?
b. Does the proposed massing conform with the Downtown Plan (OPA 406)?
c. Does the proposed massing conform with Site and Area Specific Policy 211?
d. Does the massing of the development have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines?
e. Does the proposed development represent over-development of the site?
- Streetscape & Public Realm. Is the proposed development's relationship with the public realm and resulting streetscape appropriate, and does it represent good planning? In particular:
a. Does it conform with Official Plan policies 3.1.1 (Public Realm), 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 (Built Form), and 4.5 (Mixed Use Areas)?
b. Does it conform with the Downtown Plan (OPA 406)?
c. Does it conform with Site and Area Specific Policy 211?
d. Does the development have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines?
ABC Residents Association & Greater Yorkville Ratepayers’ Association
- Does the proposed development satisfy the applicable legislative and policy tests? Specifically:
a. Does the proposed development have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections 2 (f) and (r)?
b. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for the decision of City Council as required by Section 2.1 of the Planning Act?
c. Would a decision to refuse the proposed development be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement as required by Section 3(5) of the Planning Act?
d. Does the proposed development conform with the applicable policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, Downtown Plan, and Site and Area Specific Policy 211?
e. Would approval of the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendments represent good planning and good urban design? Would it be in the public interest?
- Is the development's proposed height appropriate, and does it represent good planning? Specifically, is the height appropriate for an area identified as appropriate for low-rise built form? In particular:
a. Does the proposed height conform with Official Plan policies: 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 (Built Form), and 4.5 (Mixed Use Areas)?
b. Does it conform with the Downtown Plan (OPA 406)?
c. Does it conform with Site and Area Specific Policy 211?
d. Does it have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines?
- Is the development’s proposed massing, including setbacks, stepbacks, scale, relationship to adjacent properties, separation distances, streetwall height, density, and design appropriate, and does it represent good planning? In particular:
a. Does the proposed massing conform with Official Plan policies: 3.1.1 (Public Realm), 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 (Built Form) and 4.5 (Mixed Use Areas)?
b. Does the proposed massing conform with the Downtown Plan (OPA 406)?
c. Does the proposed massing conform with Site and Area Specific Policy 211?
d. Does the massing of the development have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines?
e. Does the proposed development represent over-development of the site?
- Is the proposed development’s relationship with the public realm and resulting streetscape appropriate, and does it represent good planning? In particular:
a. Does it conform with Official Plan policies 3.1.1 (Public Realm), 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 (Built Form), and 4.5 (Mixed Use Areas)?
b. Does it conform with the Downtown Plan (OPA 406)?
c. Does it conform with Site and Area Specific Policy 211?
d. Does the development have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto Tall Building Guidelines?
ATTACHMENT 4
Order of Evidence
Cheong Family Holdings Ltd.
City of Toronto
Minto Apartment GP Inc., as general partner for Minto Apartment Limited Partnership
Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2075
ABC Residents Association
Greater Yorkville Ratepayers’ Association
Cheong Family Holdings Ltd. (in reply, if necessary)
ATTACHMENT 5
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.