Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

CORRECTION NOTICE

OLT CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000748

DECISION ISSUE DATE(S): February 11, 2025

CORRECTION NOTICE ISSUE DATE: February 26, 2025

RE: Upper West Side Land Owners Group Inc. v Hamilton (City)

Correction to: the heard date and the Decision By-line

Originally:

Corrected to:

Heard: January 13, 2025 by video hearing

Heard: January 14, 2025 by Video Hearing

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY David Brown ON January 13, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY David Brown ON January 14, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

“Euken Lui”

EUKEN LUI

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.

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 11, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000748

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Appellant: Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description: Applications for the purposes of Urban Boundary Expansion

Reference Number: UHOPA-20-018

Property Address: Various Addresses: (9285, 9445, 9511, 9625 and 9751 Twenty Road East and 555 Glancaster Road, (Glanbrook (Ward 11))

Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton

OLT Case No: OLT-24-000748

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000748

OLT Case Name: Upper West Side Land Owners Group Inc. v Hamilton (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Reference Number: UHOPA-20-019

Property Address: Various Addresses: (9285, 9445, 9511, 9625 and 9751 Twenty Road East and 555 Glancaster Road, (Glanbrook (Ward 11))

Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton

OLT Case No: OLT-24-000749

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000748

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Reference Number: UHOPA-20-020

Property Address: Various Addresses: (9285, 9445, 9511, 9625 and 9751 Twenty Road East and 555 Glancaster Road, (Glanbrook (Ward 11))

Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton

OLT Case No: OLT-24-000750

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000748

Heard: January 13, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc.

Ira Kagan Joel Farber Matthew Rutledge

City of Hamilton

Patrick MacDonald

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY David Brown ON January 13, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1The Tribunal convened a second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) with respect to the Appeals filed by Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc. (“Appellant” / “UWSLG”) pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the “Act”) against the City of Hamilton (“City”) for its failure to make a decision within the timeframes prescribed by the Act on Applications to amend the Official Plan proposing an expansion of the urban boundary to include the lands known municipally as 9285, 9445, 9511, 9625, and 9751 Twenty Road East and 555 Glancaster Road (“Subject Lands”).

2The Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) is requesting a privately initiated urban boundary expansion to permit the UWSLG to develop the Subject Lands for residential purposes.

3A draft Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List (“IL”) were submitted to the Tribunal for consideration.

4Mr. Kagan advised that after discussions with the City, an eight-week hearing is requested to address the issues identified on the draft IL. The Parties proposed that the Hearing would commence in April of 2026.

5The Tribunal reviewed the draft IL and requested an explanation surrounding Issue 34. Mr. MacDonald advised that the certain landowners involved with the UWSLG were involved with the Ontario Municipal Board cases identified in the issue and there are certain matters included in the Settlement of those cases that the City believes are relevant to the current Appeals. Mr. Farber noted that the UWSLG does not share the City’s position, however, they are prepared to have the issue remain and address it at the Hearing. There were some other minor revisions that were recommended and Mr. Kagan and Mr. MacDonald advised that they will refine the identified issues.

6Mr. MacDonald advised the City’s Engineering issues will be finalized within a week and the Tribunal directed that the Parties provide the final PO and IL to the Tribunal by Friday, January 31, 2025, for issuance.

7Andrew Suriano, Counsel for Dickenson Limited Partnership and Dickenson GP Inc. attended and advised that his clients own the lands south of the Subject Lands. He explained that his clients are interested in observing the subject Appeals, however, they are not seeking Party or Participant Status. Mr. Suriano explained that they currently have development applications under appeal before the Tribunal and he has been in discussions with the Appellant’s Counsel and has requested that they be included in the circulation of materials filed by the Parties in this matter. Mr. Kagan advised that he has agreed to circulate the requested information and noted that his client has made the same request of Mr. Suriano’s clients.

8The Tribunal acknowledged the request of Mr. Suriano and notes that the Tribunal’s process is a public process and further notes Mr. Kagan’s undertaking to provide the requested materials.

9Nancy Smith, Counsel for Elfrida Community Builders Group Inc. (“Elfrida Group”) attended and advised that she attended at the October 3, 2024 CMC and requested Party Status on behalf of the Elfrida Group. She advised that the Tribunal denied the request and on November 14, 2024, a Request for Review pursuant to s. 23 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021 was filed with the Chair of the Tribunal. The matter is currently under review.

10Ms. Smith explained that should the Chair of the Tribunal determine that the denial of the request for Party Status be overturned, she will be requesting a date from the Tribunal to bring a Motion requesting Party Status on behalf of the Elfrida Group.

11Ms. Smith requested that the issuance of the PO and IL be deferred until after the matter of the Request for Review and potential Motion have been resolved. She explained that her clients wish to be able to provide input on the PO and IL.

12Mr. Kagan submitted that the proposed Hearing date to commence in April 2026 will provide sufficient time to address Ms. Smith’s matter and will not impact on the dates included in the PO. He requested that the Tribunal not delay the issuance of the PO and IL so that the Appeals can continue to move forward towards resolution.

13The Tribunal finds that delaying the issuance of the PO and IL is not necessary as there is sufficient time to accommodate a Motion from the Elfrida Group, if required. In the event that a Motion is brought before the Tribunal, the Motion could include a request for revisions to the PO and IL and that can be determined at that time.

14The Tribunal scheduled an eight-week hearing for the consideration of the merits of the Appeal to commence on Monday, April 13, 2026, at 10 a.m. by video hearing and concluding on Friday, June 5, 2026. The Tribunal will not sit on Monday, May 11, 2026, Tuesday, May 12, 2026, and Monday, May 18, 2026.

GoTo Meeting : https://meet.goto.com/558205565

Access Code: 558-205-565

15Parties and Participants are asked to log in to the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:

16Parties 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

17Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: (Toll-Free) 1(888)- 299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The Access Code is indicated above.

18Individuals 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 Video Hearing 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.

19Subsequent to the conclusion of the CMC, the Parties submitted the final PO, which includes the IL. The Tribunal finds the PO and IL acceptable and attaches the PO to this decision as Schedule 1.

ORDER

20THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS the directions set out in this Decision.

21AND THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Procedural Order attached to this Order at Schedule 1 shall govern the proceedings leading up to and including the Hearing.

22The Member may be available for further case management subject to the Tribunal’s calendar.

“David Brown”

DAVID BROWN

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

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

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

Schedule 1

CASE NO.: OLT-24-000748

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Appellant: Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description: Applications for the purposes of Urban Boundary Expansion

Reference Number: UHOPA-20-018

Property Address: Various Addresses: (9285, 9445, 9511, 9625 and 9751 Twenty Road East and 555 Glancaster Road, (Glanbrook (Ward 11))

Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton

OLT Case No: OLT-24-000748

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000748

OLT Case Name: Upper West Side Land Owners Group Inc. v Hamilton (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Reference Number: UHOPA-20-019

Property Address: Various Addresses: (9285, 9445, 9511, 9625 and 9751 Twenty Road East and 555 Glancaster Road, (Glanbrook (Ward 11))

Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton

OLT Case No: OLT-24-000749

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000748

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Reference Number: UHOPA-20-020

Property Address: Various Addresses: (9285, 9445, 9511, 9625 and 9751 Twenty Road East and 555 Glancaster Road, (Glanbrook (Ward 11))

Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton

OLT Case No: OLT-24-000750

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000748

PROCEDURAL ORDER

1. The Tribunal may vary or add to these rules at any time, either on request or as it sees fit. It may alter this Order by an oral ruling, or by another written Order.

2. Further refinement of this Procedural Order is anticipated as the positions of the parties are refined.

Organization of the Hearing

3. The hearing will commence on Monday April 13, 2026, at 10am and will be conducted virtually. The Tribunal will not be sitting on May 11, 12 or 18, 2026.

4. The length of the hearing will be eight (8) weeks and is scheduled to be completed by Friday June 5, 2026.

5. The parties and participants to the hearing are set out in Attachment 1.

6. The current Issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 2. Except as contemplated in paragraph 2, there will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

7. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on consent or by Order of the Tribunal.

8. Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal and the other parties as soon as possible. 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.

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, their professional qualifications, their areas of expertise, completed Acknowledgements of Expert’s Duty, the precise area and discipline in which they will seek to be qualified to provide expert testimony, and the intended order in which the witnesses will be called during the hearing. This information must be delivered on or before Friday August 15, 2025. Any challenge by a Party to the qualifications or expertise of a witness must be filed with the Tribunal with supporting reasons within 30 days.

10. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Friday November 14, 2025 to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Expert meetings and discussions are to be held on a without prejudice and confidential basis, except insofar as it may be necessary for an expert to seek out resources or information (e.g. consult with other experts or counsel) that may be required in order for the expert witness to comply with the duties and obligations outlined in this section. The without prejudice and confidential nature of the discussions includes not being cross-examined or examined, by any party, regarding any statements or positions that may have been made or taken during an expert meeting or discussion. The experts must prepare a list of agreed facts and the remaining issues to be addressed at the hearing and provide this list to all of the parties by no later than Friday November 14, 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. Copies of this must be provided as in section 21. 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 7.4 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 21.

12. On or before Tuesday January 13, 2026, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing or the participant may not give oral evidence at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

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 section 21. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in section 15.

14. On or before Tuesday January 13, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties.

15. On or before Friday February 27, 2026, the parties shall provide any reply witness statements responding to any written evidence received to the other parties.

16. On or before Tuesday March 24, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to the other parties. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

17. 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.

18. A party who provides a witness’ 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 the record.

19. The parties shall prepare and file a hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Friday April 3, 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 and file a Joint Document Book with the Tribunal on or before Friday April 3, 2026. If a party wants a printed copy of the electronic Document Book for its own use it shall print it themselves at their own cost.

21. All filings shall be submitted electronically. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Rule 7. Documents may be delivered by personal delivery, registered or certified mail or email, or otherwise as the Tribunal may direct. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Tribunal’s Rules (Rule 7) on this subject. Material delivered by mail shall be deemed to have been received five business days after the date of registration or certification.

22. On or before Friday March 13, 2026 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

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

24. The purpose of the Procedural Order and the meaning of the terms used in the Procedural Order are set out in Attachment 4.

25. A summary of the various procedural dates is set out in Attachment 5.

ATTACHMENT 1

LIST OF PARTIES and participants

Parties

Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc.

FOGLER RUBINOFF LLP 77 King Street West Suite 3000, P.O. Box 95 TD Centre North Tower Toronto, ON., M5K 1G8 Joel Farber / Matthew Rutledge Tel: 416-365-3707 / 416-365-7607

jfarber@foglers.com / mrutledge@foglers.com

KAGAN SHASTRI DeMELO WINER PARK LLP 188 Avenue Road Toronto, ON., M5R 2J1 Ira T. Kagan / Sarah R. Kagan Tel: 416-368-2100 x. 226 / 243 ikagan@ksllp.ca / skagan@ksllp.ca

City of Hamilton

Legal Counsel, City of Hamilton

71 Main Street West

Hamilton, Ontario

L8P 4Y5

Patrick MacDonald

Tel: 905-546-2424 ext. 4708

patrick.macdonald@hamilton.ca

ATTACHMENT 2

ISSUES LIST

NOTE: The identification of an issue on this list does not mean that all Parties agree that the issue, or the manner in which it is expressed, is appropriate for or relevant to 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.

Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc.’s Issues

1. Does the proposed OPA (urban expansion) have regard for matters of provincial interest (section 2 of the Planning Act) and in particular subsections a, b, f, h, j, k, l, n, p, q, r, and s.

2. Is the proposed OPA (urban expansion) consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 and in particular policies:

a. 2.1 Planning for People and Homes

b. 2.2 Housing

c. 2.3.2 Settlement Area Boundary Expansions

d. 2.8.1(3) Supporting a Modern Economy

e. 3.1 General Policies for Infrastructure and Public Service Facilities

f. 3.2 Transportation Systems

g. 3.4 Airports, Rail and Marine Facilities

h. 3.5 Land Use Compatibility

i. 3.6 Sewage, Water and Stormwater

j. 4.1 Natural Heritage

3. Is the proposed OPA (urban expansion) in the public interest?

4. Does the proposed OPA (urban expansion) represent good planning?

City of Hamilton’s Issues

Planning

Provincial Planning Statement

1. Which population forecasts and methodology should be used for the proposed urban expansion as per Section 2.1.1 & 2.1.2 of the Provincial Planning Statement?

2. Are the applications necessary for the City of Hamilton to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of land uses to meet projected needs as per Section 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 of the Provincial Planning Statement?

3. Do the applications support the achievement of complete communities as per Section 2.1.6 of the Provincial Planning Statement?

4. Do the applications propose an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities, including affordable housing that is affordable to low and moderate income households as per Section 2.2.1 1 (a) of the Provincial Planning Statement?

5. Are the applications consistent with the General Policies for Settlement Areas set out under Section 2.3.1 of the Provincial Planning Statement, specifically sections 2.3.1.1 and 2.3.1.2?

6. Is there a need for the applications for additional land to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of land uses as per Section 2.3.2.1 a) of the Provincial Planning Statement?

7. Is there sufficient capacity in existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities to accommodate the proposed urban boundary expansion as per Section 2.3.2.1 b) of the Provincial Planning Statement?

8. Building on issue #7, would the proposed expansion remove planned infrastructure and public service facility capacity from planned development and intensification within the built-up area?

9. Are the applications consistent with Policies 2.3.2.1 (d) and (e)?

10. Do the applications demonstrate whether impacts on the agricultural system are avoided, or where avoidance is not possible, minimize and mitigate to the extent possible through the submitted Agricultural Impact Assessment as per Section 2.3.2.1 f) of the Provincial Planning Statement?

11. Do the applications provide for a phased progression of urban development as per Section 2.3.2.1 g) of the Provincial Planning Statement?

12. Do the applications protect the Hamilton International Airport from incompatible land uses and supports its long-term operation as per Section 3.4 of the Provincial Planning Statement?

13. Do the applications maintain land use compatibility between sensitive land uses and employment areas in accordance with Section 3.5.1 and 3.5.2 of the Provincial Planning Statement to maintain the long-term operational and economic viability of the planned uses and function of these areas as per Section 2.8.2.4 of the Provincial Planning Statement?

14. Do the applications include the removal of lands from employment areas as defined under the Provincial Planning Statement? If so, are the applications consistent with the Section 2.8.2.5 of the Provincial Planning Statement?

15. Do the applications include measures to mitigate the impacts of a changing climate as per Section 5.2.4 of the Provincial Planning Statement?

16. Have the applications shown that the infrastructure and public service facilities required to service the urban expansion are financially viable over their lifecycle, leverage the capacity of development proponents and meet current and projected needs as per Section 3.1.1 of the Provincial Planning Statement?

17. Do the applications make use of existing and planned infrastructure, including through the use of transportation demand management strategies as per Section 3.2.2 of the Provincial Planning Statement?

18. Would the applications protect the natural features and areas within the subject lands for the long-term as per Section 4.1.1 of the Provincial Planning Statement?

19. Has the proponent engaged early with Indigenous communities and First Nations whose traditional territories are located within the City of Hamilton municipal boundary and ensure their interests are considered when identifying, protecting, and managing archaeological resources, built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes as per Section 4.6.5 of the Provincial Planning Statement

Urban Hamilton Official Plan

20. Do the applications have regard to the impact of the applications on the City’s vision for a sustainable community, as it relates to the objectives, policies and targets established in this Plan; and the impact of the proposed expansion on the City’s communities, environment and economy and the effective administration of the public service as per, Section F.1.1.5 of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, specifically in relation to Issues 21-29, 35-39, and 43-63?

21. Do the applications comply, achieve the principles of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan set out in Section A.1.4, and meet the general intent and purpose of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan?

22. Do the applications comply with the Urban Hamilton Official Plan’s firm urban boundary expansion growth strategy as set out in Section B.2.1 and B.2.2?

23. Do the applications support the City’s housing supply and affordability targets as set out in Section B.3.2.2 of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan?

24. Do the applications impact the City’s ability to meets its residential intensification and redevelopment targets, including the intensification distribution policies set out in Section A.2.3 and B.2.4.1 of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan?

25. Do the applications impact the City’s ability to achieve its Employment Area Density Targets in Section 2.3.4.5 of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

26. Are the residential and employment uses identified in the applications based on the approved population and employment forecast and time horizon in the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, specifically Sections A.2.3.1-A.2.3.3?

27. Do the applications and proposed land uses maintain the Urban Hamilton Official Plan and Rural Hamilton Official Plan prohibitions of new sensitive land uses within 28+ Noise Exposure Forecasts Contours as per Urban Hamilton Official Plan, Table C.4.8.1?

28. Do the applications impact the long-term operation of the Hamilton International Airport as per Section C.4.8 of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan?

29. Do the applications incorporate any energy efficient and/or environmental designated development criteria established under, Section B.3.7.2 of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan?

Rural Hamilton Official Plan

30. Do the applications comply with Section B.2.1 (Defining Our Communities) of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan respecting a firm urban boundary?

31. Do the applications comply with Rural Hamilton Official Plan Airport Influence Area Policies in protecting the Hamilton International Airport from Incompatible land uses per Policies B.3.6.3.2, B.3.6.3.8, C.4.8.5, C.4.8.7, C.4.8.8 and C.4.8.9?

Other

32. Does allowing sensitive land uses between 28 to 30 Noise Exposure Forecasts Contours negatively impact the Hamilton International Airport’s ability to maintain and grow its position as a gateway hub for logistics, distribution and goods movement, such as limiting its key strategic advantage as a 24/7 unrestricted cargo airport?

33. What are the appropriate NEF/NEP contours for the purposes of Issues 12 and 13?

34. Do the applications implement the Minutes of Settlement issued by the Ontario Municipal Board agreed to by the Applicant and City of Hamilton on February 3, 2015 related to OMB case Nos. PL101300, PL90114 & PL110331?

Natural Heritage

35. Is the development proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement in terms of policies 2.9.1 d), 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.5, 4.1.6, 4.1.7, 4.1.8, and 4.2?

36. Has the applicant’s Environmental Impact Statement/Linkage Assessment been prepared as required under the Urban Hamilton Official Plan including but not limited to policies F.3.2.1.1, F.3.2.1.2, F.3.2.1.5, F.3.2.1.7, and F.3.2.1.11?

37. Does the applicant’s Environmental Impact Statement/Linkage Assessment demonstrate that the boundaries of Core Areas comply with Urban Hamilton Official Plan policies including but not limited to policies C.2.2.2?

38. Does the applicant’s Environmental Impact Statement/Linkage Assessment demonstrate that the features and functions of the Natural Heritage System will not be negatively impacted including the required setbacks under the Urban Hamilton Official Plan including but not limited to policies B.3.6.5.8, C.2.3, C.2.3.3, C.2.5.4, C.2.5.5, C.2.5.8, C.2.5.9, C.2.5.12, C.2.5.13, C.2.7, C.2.7.3, C.2.7.5, C.2.7.6, and F.3.2.1.10?

39. Has conformity been demonstrated with Urban Hamilton Official Plan policy C.2.11.1 concerning matters including but not limited to removal of private trees and ecological impacts on the Natural Heritage System?

Transportation

40. Is the development proposal consistent with Provincial Policy Statement (2024) (“PPS”) in terms of policies 3.2 Transportation Systems?

41. Is the development proposal consistent with Provincial Policy Statement (2024) (“PPS”) in terms of policies 3.3 Transportation and Infrastructure Corridors

42. Would the proposed development result in a functional road network to safely support the anticipated traffic associated with the development proposal by preventing or satisfactorily mitigating adverse impacts, including but not limited to access, road infrastructure improvements, traffic control, site layout, pedestrian facilities, and vehicle maneuverability?

43. Does the proposal comply with the policies of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan (E.3.2.4) that new development shall respect existing built form on adjacent neighbourhoods and be compatible with the scale and character of existing residential neighbourhoods?

44. Does the proposal comply with the policies of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan (E.3.6.7 d) iii) as the proposed development is premature until such time as an update Transportation Impact Study has been submitted?

45. Does the proposal comply with the policies of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan (E.3.7.6 b) that the new development shall maintain or enhance public access to trails, bikeways and parks adjacent to open spaces?

Engineering

46. Is there sufficient residual capacity in the linear trunk system and Woodward treatment plants beyond planned growth for water and wastewater to accommodate the proposed UBE?

47. Will the proposed UBE consume existing and planned system capacity (linear trunk system and Woodward treatment plants for water and wastewater) allocated to existing urban land uses (greenfield and intensification)?

48. Will the proposed UBE result in significant extension/expansions, beyond planned/budgeted trunk infrastructure, being required to service the area?

49. How would the proposed UBE address Policy C. 5.3.12 and conform to 5.3.13 of Hamilton’s Urban Official Plan and is it consistent with Section 3.6.1 of the PPS?

50. Will the proposed UBE result in intensification targets not being achieved within the current approved boundary resulting in under-utilization of existing and planned infrastructure? E.g. will the UBE impact City’s goals to meet provincial density targets in the MTSAs?

51. Does the proposed UBE optimize existing capacity with the available water/wastewater systems?

52. How will the proposed UBE impact Policy C. 5.3.14 of Hamilton’s Official Plan? Would the proposed UBE result in existing urban infrastructure not being able to maintain compliance with existing municipal and provincial standards and guidelines?

53. How would the proposed UBE conform with Policy C. 5.3.15 of Hamilton’s Urban Official Plan and is it consistent with Section 3.6.1 of the PPS?

54. Does the proposed UBE conform with Policy C. 5.3.16 of Hamilton’s Urban Official Plan?

55. Does the proposed UBE support the City’s density and intensification targets?

56. Can the proposed UBE conform with OP Policy C. 5.3.17 of Hamilton’s Urban Official Plan?

57. How should upgrades driven by the proposed UBE be programmed and coordinated while ensuring that existing approved lands can develop within the 2051 planning horizon?

58. How would the proposed UBE conform with Policy C. 5.3.18 of Hamilton’s Urban Official Plan and is it consistent with Section 4.2 of the PPS?

59. How would the proposed UBE address policies and strategies related to the City’s Climate Change Adaption Plan? Are existing approaches to assessing and mitigating downstream impacts to the system adequate?

60. How would the proposed UBE conform with Policy C.5.4 of Hamilton’s Urban Official Plan and is it consistent with Section 3.6.8 of the PPS?

61. Can infrastructure built to accommodate the proposed UBE guarantee no cumulative impacts or flooding to downstream receivers or cause undue maintenance and liability to downstream receivers?

62. Will studies prepared to support the proposed UBE be of sufficient detail for staff to evaluate the merits of the application and can the terms of references prepared for such studies be amended to address the broader context needed to evaluate its impact?

63. Is it appropriate to consider the proposed UBE in isolation of other existing and/or future UBE expansions that have been identified?

ATTACHMENT 3

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc.

2. City of Hamilton

3. Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc.

ATTACHMENT 4

Purpose of the Procedural Order and Meaning of Terms

The Tribunal recommends that the parties meet to discuss this sample Order before the Case Management Conference to try to identify the issues and the process that they want the Tribunal to order following the conference. The Tribunal will hear the parties’ comments about the contents of the Order at the conference.

Case Management Conferences usually take place only where the hearing is expected to be long and complicated. If you are not represented by a lawyer, you should prepare by obtaining the Guide to the Ontario Land Tribunal, and the Tribunal’s Rules, from the Tribunal Information Office, 15th Floor, 655 Bay Street, Toronto, M5G 1E5, 416-212-6349, or from the Tribunal’s website at https://olt.gov.on.ca/about-olt/.

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 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 (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

A participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.

A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.

Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

A witness statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which he or she will discuss; and a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons supporting their opinions and conclusions and (5) a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.

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

Additional Information

A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.

The order of examination of witnesses is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:

• direct examination by the party presenting the witness;
• direct examination by any party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;
• cross-examination by parties of opposite interest;
• re-examination by the party presenting the witness; or
• another order of examination mutually agreed among the parties or directed by the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 5

Summary of Filing Dates

EVENT

DATE

Parties to exchange their List of Witnesses

Friday August 15, 2025

Deadline for Meeting of Like Experts

Friday November 14, 2025

Deadline to file Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues

Friday December 12, 2025

Parties to exchange their Witness and Expert Witness Statements

Tuesday January 13, 2026

Parties to exchange their Reply Witness Statements

Friday February 27, 2026

Parties to advise the Tribunal if all of the scheduled hearing dates are still required.

Friday March 13, 2026

Parties to exchange Visual Evidence

Tuesday March 24, 2026

Parties to File Joint Document Book Parties to File Preliminary Hearing Plan

Friday April 3, 2026

Hearing commences

Monday April 13, 2026