Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: November 18, 2025 CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000592

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

Applicant and Appellant: Transmark Developments Ltd. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment. Description: To permit the redevelopment of the Property with two mixed-use buildings. Reference Number: PLAN 25 110915 Property Address: 4261 Highway 7 East Municipality: Markham OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000592 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000592 OLT Case Name: Transmark Developments Ltd. v. Markham (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Transmark Developments Ltd. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision. Description: To permit the redevelopment of the Property with two mixed-use buildings. Reference Number: PLAN 25 110915 Property Address: 4261 Highway 7 East Municipality: Markham OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000593 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000592

Heard: November 5, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Transmark Developments Ltd.	D. Artenosi, J. Reyes
City of Markham	M. Cheung-Madar
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority	T. Duncan

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C. HARDY ON NOVEMBER 5, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The Tribunal convened this first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) relating to applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”), which were refused by Council for the City of Markham (“City”) on July 8, 2025. Transmark Developments Ltd. (“Appellant”) appealed City Council’s refusal of its OPA application pursuant to s. 22(7) and its ZBA application pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Planning Act”).

2At the commencement of the CMC, counsel for the Appellant provided a comprehensive overview of the applications. The Appellant proposes to redevelop lands located at 4261 Highway 7 East (“subject property”) with two mixed-use buildings containing approximately 864 residential units atop an eight-storey podium. To facilitate the proposal, the Appellant filed applications for an OPA and ZBA to bring the subject property up to date with current land use policies, which would permit the uses and scale of the proposed development.

3The Tribunal confirmed with the Parties that there were no concerns consolidating the OPA appeal (OLT-25-000592) and the ZBA appeal (OLT-25-000593). The Tribunal consolidated the appeals, which will proceed under Tribunal Case No. OLT-25-000592.

CONFIRMATION OF NOTICE

4In advance of the CMC, the Tribunal approved a request to abridge service of notice to 27 days in light of an ongoing postal strike. The Tribunal confirmed with Parties’ Counsel that there were no known issues with service of Notice of the CMC and as such, no further notice is required. The Tribunal received an Affidavit of Service sworn by Daniel Teichman on October 15, 2025, which was marked as Exhibit 1 to the CMC.

STATUS REQUESTS

5In advance of the CMC, the Tribunal received one written request for Party Status from Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”) and two written requests for Participant Status from Unionville Residents Association and jointly from Zhijian Xie and Haitao Li.

6TRCA’s written request set out concerns related to natural hazard matters as the subject property is located adjacent to the Rouge River with portions being located within the floodplain and the Unionville Special Policy Area. TRCA submitted that it will assist the Tribunal in ensuring that any decision is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 and natural hazard policies. The Tribunal determined that TRCA’s involvement as a Party would assist in the adjudication of the appeal and on consent of all Parties, granted Party Status to TRCA.

7The Tribunal confirmed with the representative for Unionville Residents Association that it is an incorporated entity and was advised that both Peter Miasek and Sandra Tam would be co-representatives.

8On consent of the Parties, the Tribunal granted participant status to Zhijian Xie and Haitao Li and Unionville Residents Association. As directed by the Tribunal at the CMC, each of the representatives filed a Confirmation of Representation form with the Tribunal.

9The Tribunal confirmed that there were no other persons or entities present at the CMC requesting Party or Participant Status in the proceedings.

SETTLEMENT/MEDIATION

10The Tribunal was advised that the Parties have engaged in discussions regarding the potential for mediation, however, required more time to determine whether mediation would be beneficial. The Parties agreed that they would continue informal discussions and understood that a mediation assessment could be requested through the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator.

PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST

11In advance of the CMC, the Parties submitted a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List (“IL”). During the CMC, the Parties and the Tribunal conducted a review of various timeframes and issues set out in the draft PO. The Tribunal directed the Parties to file an updated draft PO and IL on or before November 11, 2025 for the Tribunal’s review and approval.

12On November 12, 2025, a revised PO and IL was submitted to the Tribunal and is attached as Schedule 1 to this Order. The revised PO and IL have been reviewed and approved by the Tribunal and will govern the pre-hearing procedural requirements and the hearing of the appeals.

NEXT STEPS

13The Parties jointly requested that the Tribunal schedule a second CMC in the spring of 2026, to allow an opportunity for the Parties to address procedural matters and provide a status update. The Tribunal agreed that a second CMC would allow the appeal to proceed efficiently and scheduled a video hearing on Thursday, April 2, 2026 at 10 a.m.

14The Parties jointly requested that the Tribunal schedule a 15-day Merit Hearing for the appeal. Upon considering the Parties’ submissions on hearing length and number of anticipated witnesses, the Tribunal agreed with the requested hearing length.

15The Tribunal scheduled a 15-day Merit Hearing by video hearing commencing on Monday, November 2, 2026 at 10 a.m. The Tribunal will not sit on Wednesday November 11, 2026 or Monday November 16, 2026.

16The hearings are scheduled to proceed by video as follows:

Thursday, April 2, 2026 at 10 a.m. (1-day CMC) GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/656004293 Access code: 656-004-293 Audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (Toll Free) 1-888-299-1889 Audio-only access code: 656-004-293

Monday, November 2, 2026 to Tuesday, November 24, 2026 at 10 a.m. (15-day Merit Hearing) GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/344779885 Access code: 344-779-885 Audio-only line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (Toll Free) 1-888-299-1889 Audio-only access code: 344-779-885

17Parties 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.

18Parties 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 GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

19Persons 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.

20Individuals 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.

ORDER

21THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority is a Party in the proceedings. The Tribunal further orders that Zhijian Xie and Haitao Li and Unionville Residents Association are Participants in the proceedings.

22THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Procedural Order attached as Schedule 1 to this Order shall govern the proceedings.

23The case management directives above are so ordered.

24There will be no further notice and this Member is not seized, however, will remain available for case management subject to the Tribunal’s calendar.

“C. Hardy”

C. HARDY VICE CHAIR

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 1

ONTARIO LAND TRIBUNAL Tribunal ontarien de d’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: XXX CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000592 & OLT-25-000593

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

Applicant and Appellant: Transmark Developments Ltd. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment. Description: To permit the redevelopment of the Property with two mixed-use buildings. Reference Number: PLAN 25 110915 Property Address: 4261 Highway 7 East Municipality: Markham OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000592 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000592 OLT Case Name: Transmark Developments Ltd. v. Markham (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Transmark Developments Ltd. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision. Description: To permit the redevelopment of the Property with two mixed-use buildings. Reference Number: PLAN 25 110915 Property Address: 4261 Highway 7 East Municipality: Markham OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000593 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000592

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 November 2, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. at:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/344779885

Access Code: 656-004-293

3. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1.

4. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 15-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 set out in Attachment 2.

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. With the exception of the removal or narrowing of issues and subject to a party’s right to modify or supplement issues that directly arise from a revised proposal contemplated in paragraph 10, 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 may have costs awarded against it.

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

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

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

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before July 24, 2026 and in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified, and Acknowledgment of Expert Duty form(s). Any challenges to the witness list, 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 July 31, 2026.

10. If the Applicant/Appellant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing, the Applicant/Appellant shall provide copies of the revised proposal, including all revised plans, drawings, proposed instruments, and updated supporting documents and reports to the other parties on or before June 25, 2026. The Applicant/Appellant acknowledges that any revisions to the proposal after that date without the consent of the parties may be grounds for a request to adjourn the hearing.

11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before August 4, 2026 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 August 14, 2026.

12. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 13 below. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.

13. Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence as in paragraph 13 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 13 below.

14. On or before August 24, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

15. On or before August 24, 2026, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

16. On or before September 28, 2026 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

17. On or before October 16, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

18. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence within thirty (30) days after the evidence is received, on or before September 23, 2026, and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

19. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before October 23, 2026.

20. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

21. A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

22. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before October 23, 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.

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

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

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

This Member is [not] seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE: XXX

Name of Member: XXX

Date: XXX

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

ATTACHMENT 1

List of Parties and Participants

Parties

1. Transmark Developments Ltd. Overland LLP 5525 Yonge Street, Suite 1101 Toronto, ON M2N 6P4 Daniel B. Artenosi / Justine Reyes 416.730.0320 / 437.424.3244 dartenosi@overlandllp.ca / jreyes@overlandllp.ca

2. City of Markham Legal Services Department 101 Town Centre Boulevard Markham, ON L3R 9W3 Maggie Cheung-Madar 905-477-7000 X3583 Mcheung-madar@markham.ca

3. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Fogler, Rubinoff LLP Lawyers Scotia Plaza, 40 King Street West, Suite 2400 P.O. Box #215 Toronto ON M5H 3Y2 Tim Duncan 416.941.8817 tduncan@foglers.com

Participants

1. Unionville Residents Association Peter Miasek / Sandra Tam 416.526.9132 / 416.561.5893 Peter.miasek@rogers.com / Sandra.tam@steconsulting.ca

2. Zhijian Xie and Haitao Li Michael Yan 734.395.7607 / wellnessrising@yahoo.com

ATTACHMENT 2

Summary of Dates

DATE	EVENT
June 25, 2026	Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any)
July 24, 2026	Exchange of witness lists
July 31, 2026	Challenge of any witnesses to be brought by this date
August 4, 2026	Expert’s Meeting(s) prior to this date
August 14, 2026	Deadline to file any Agreed Statement(s) of Facts
August 24, 2026	Exchange of witness statements and experts’ reports, participant statements (if any) and summoned witness outlines (if any)
September 23, 2026	Exchange of reply witness statements (if any)
September 28, 2026	Parties to advise if any hearing dates can be released
October 16, 2026	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
October 23, 2026	Filing of Joint Document Book & Hearing Plan
November 2, 2026	Hearing commences (15-days) Note: Tribunal will not sit on November 11 and November 16, 2026.

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 such issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is either appropriate or relevant to the Tribunal’s determination of the issues at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing. The identification of issues 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 constructed as the Tribunal 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 Tribunal, in accordance with Paragraph 5 of this Procedural Order.

CITY OF MARKHAM

Planning Policy

1. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest, as set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections (a), (f), (h), (i), (j), (m), (o), (p), (q), and (r)?

2. Is the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 including but not limited to policies: 2.1 (6. a), 2.3.1 (2.a-d), 2.3.1 (3), 2.4.1 (2.c-d), 2.4.1 (3.a-c), 2.4.2.1, 3.1.1(c), 3.2.3, 3.6 (1. a-d), and 3.9 (1.a-b, d), 4.1.1, 4.1.5, 4.1.6, 4.1.7, 4.1.8, 5.1.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 c), d), and 5.2.5?

3. Does the proposed development conform with the 2022 York Region Official Plan, including but not limited to the following sections: a. 2.3.40, 2.3.43 – The Foundation for Complete Communities; b. 3.2.2, 3.2.4, 3.4.4, 3.4.5, 3.4.7, 3.4.13, 3.4.27 – Greenlands System; c. 3.5.1, 3.5.2 and 3.5.6 – Managing Hazards. d. 4.4.1, 4.4.5, 4.4.7, 4.4.9, 4.4.10, 4.4.11, 4.4.12, 4.4.13, 4.4.17, 4.4.19, 4.4.21, 4.4.24 (a-e, g-n, q-t), 4.4.25, 4.4.36, 4.4.38, 4.4.40, 4.4.42, and 4.4.45 – An Urbanizing Region – Intensification; e. 6.2.3, 6.3.47, 6.4.3, 6.4.3, 6.5.7 – Servicing our communities.

4. Does the proposed development conform with and have appropriate regard for the 1987 City of Markham Official Plan, as amended, including but not limited to the following sections: a. 2.13(a)(ii)&(iii) – Housing; b. 2.2.2.3 c), 2.2.2.4 a)-c), e)-f), i)-j) and m), 2.2.2.4.2 a), e) and h), 2.2.2.4.3 a), b) and h), 2.2.2.9 a)-d), and i), 2.2.2.10 a) and c) – Greenway System; c. 3.9.3 c), f) vii) and 3.9.4b) iii) – Public Parks System; d. 3.10.1 a)-b), j) and l) and 3.10.3 a) – Hazard Lands.

5. Does the proposed development conform with and have appropriate regard for the 2014 City of Markham Official Plan, as amended, including but not limited to the following sections: a. 3.1.1.2, 3.1.1.10, 3.1.2.4, 3.1.2.11, 3.1.2.12, 3.1.2.13, 3.1.2.16, 3.1.2.22, 3.1.2.25 – Greenway System; b. 3.4.1.1, 3.4.1.5, 3.4.1.6, 3.4.1.7, 3.4.1.10 to 3.4.1.14, and 9.12.7 - Natural Hazards. c. 6.1.6.1, 6.1.6.4 d), f) – Parks and Open Spaces. d. 6.1.3.4 a) (i), 7.1.7.2, 7.2.1.4 – Transportation, Services.

6. Does the proposed development conform with and have appropriate regard for the Markham Centre Secondary Plan (OPA 21), including but not limited to the following sections: a. 2.3.10 b)-d) – Urban Design; b. 3.2.1.3 – Highway 7 Corridor; c. 3.5.1 iii) – Streets, Block and Lot Pattern; d. 3.6 d) – Built Form e. 3.6.2 a) - b) - Urban Edge; f. 3.8 – Building Heights; g. 4.1.3 i), 4.6.1 a)-c) and 4.6.2 a) – Hazard Lands; h. 4.3.2.3 – Community Amenity – Major Urban Place; i. 4.3.4 a)-b) – Commercial Corridor Area; j. 4.5.8 a) i)-iii) and v)-vi) – Environmental Buffer.

Planning, Urban Design, Parkland

7. Is the proposed development compatible and appropriate in terms of the following: height, density, scale, massing and built form, transition, siting of the proposed buildings, and the location of commercial units and amenity spaces, given the established residential communities surrounding the subject lands, the anticipated development in the area, and future development planned in the area?

8. Has sufficient information been provided to address compatibility with future residential development on adjacent properties as it relates to, but not limited to the following: a. Appropriate height transition; b. Scale and massing; and c. Wind comfort and safety; and, d. Pedestrian and vehicular connectivity.

9. Is the proposed parkland appropriate, given its location constraints, being encumbered by the floodplain with no road frontage for public access, servicing, maintenance, and also, within the context of the public parks as identified in the draft Markham Centre Secondary Plan?

Transportation

10. Should the proposed development protect for the Rougeside Promenade extension that is recommended in the draft Markham Centre Secondary Plan?

11. Does the Transportation Impact Assessment, including Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan and Parking Study, dated June 2024 submitted by the Appellant satisfactorily address transportation impacts to the proposed development including but not limited to: a. An enhanced TDM Plan appropriate to support the proposed density, including but not limited to the following: i. Provision of carshare and carshare spaces; ii. Extended carshare membership subsidy; iii. Bike repair station; iv. Additional transit incentives; v. Private bike-share program (including e-bikes); vi. E-bike voucher; vii. A monitoring program that monitors parking demand, travel behavior (i.e. mode choices) and traffic operations in this area; viii. Mobility on demand; ix. Other potential measures; b. Consideration of the transportation impacts within the context of the draft Markham Centre Secondary Plan?

Servicing

12. Can the proposed development be appropriately serviced in terms of water, wastewater and stormwater management infrastructure capacity?

Natural Heritage

13. Have the limits of the Greenway System (development limits) been correctly identified in the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment in accordance with the Markham Centre Secondary Plan (OPA 21), the 1987 and 2014 City of Markham Official Plans, the 2022 York Region Official Plan and the policies of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority?

14. Should the Greenway System lands be conveyed into public ownership as encouraged by Section 3.1.2.4 of the 2014 Markham Official Plan and as required by Section 4.6.1 of the Markham Centre Secondary Plan (OPA 21), Sections 2.2.2.4 and 3.10.1 of the 1987 Markham Official Plan and Section 3.4.1.7 of the 2014 Markham Official Plan?

Natural Hazard

15. Does the proposed development conform with the natural hazard policies of the Markham Centre Secondary Plan (OPA 21), 2014 Markham Official Plan, and the 2022 York Region Official Plan, and is it consistent with the natural hazard policies of the Provincial Planning Statement 2024?

Other

16. Does the proposed development include an appropriate amount of affordable housing?

17. Is it premature or good planning to approve the proposed development until – a All third parties’ comments, including those required by Metrolinx and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, have been addressed satisfactorily; and b The Proposed Development appropriately reflects the City’s vision for the area as reflected in the draft Markham Centre Secondary Plan?

18. Does the proposed development represent good planning and urban design, and is it in the public interest?

19. Is it appropriate to apply a holding provision to the Zoning By-law Amendment to address: a. Submission of any required technical studies or addendum, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Development Services; b. Servicing allocation to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Planning; c. An enhanced TDM Plan to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Engineering; d. Execution of agreement(s) to secure any required upgrades or improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure, including a TDM agreement, for the proposed development, to the satisfaction of the City; and e. Where required, flood risk mitigation measures to the satisfaction of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority?

20. In the event that the Tribunal allows the appeals in whole or in part, should the Final Order be withheld pending the City Solicitor advising the Tribunal that: a. The proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment are in forms satisfactory to the City; and b. The Appellant has provided the necessary studies, reports, and/or confirmations, to satisfy matters as set out in Issue #17, above.

TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

21. Would a decision permitting redesignation and development of the lands have regard to matters of provincial interest, as set out in Section 2 of the of the Planning Act, including subsections 2 (h), (m) (o), and (p)?

22. Have the hazardous lands, as defined in the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, been adequately identified through site evaluation and an adequate floodplain study and geotechnical slope stability study?

23. Are the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, including policies 5.1, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.5, 5.2.8 and 6.2.1?

24. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment conform with Section 3.5, Managing Hazards, of the 2022 York Region Official Plan?

25. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment conform with the natural hazard policies of the City of Markham Official Plan, 1987, and the Markham Centre Secondary Plan (OPA 21)?

26. Has the proposed land use designation applying to Special Policy Area lands been approved by the Ministers of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Natural Resources prior to the Ontario Land Tribunal approving such change?

27. Do the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendments conform with the Special Policy Area policies identified in the City of Markham Official Plan, 2014, as amended?

28. Do the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment have regard for the Living City Policies for Planning and Development in the Watersheds of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority?

29. Has the location of the future road and trail network, the floodplain, and subsequent development limits been identified to the satisfaction of the City of Markham and TRCA?

ATTACHMENT 4

Order of Evidence

1. Transmark Developments Ltd.
2. City of Markham
3. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
4. Transmark Developments 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.