Toronto Port Authority v. Toronto (City), 2025 CanLII 19745

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 04, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000835

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Toronto Port Authority

Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 409

Description: To permit OPA 409 and ZBL 702-2024

Reference Number: 24 110589 STE 14 OZ

Property Address: Villiers Island

Municipality/UT: Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000835

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000835

OLT Case Name: Toronto Port Authority v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Toronto Port Authority Applicant: City of Toronto

Subject: Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment No. 702-2024

Description: To permit OPA 409 and ZBL 702-2024

Reference Number: 24 110589 STE 14 OZ

Property Address: Villiers Island

Municipality/UT: Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000836

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000835

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6

Request by: City of Toronto

Request for: Request for Directions

Heard: February 14, 2025 by Video Hearing

Parties	Counsel
City of Toronto (“City”)	S. O’Connor, L. Pinder
Toronto Port Authority (“PortsToronto”)	A. Jeanrie
2034055 Ontario Limited; 1337194 Ontario Inc. (“309 Cherry St. Owners”)	S. Tomasella
LaFarge Canada Inc. (“LaFarge”)	K. Mullin, S. Ovas
Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (“Waterfront Toronto”)	A. Biggart
Atura Power (“Atura”)	R. Aburto, A. Mihailescu

DECISION DELIVERED BY WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

PART 1: INTRODUCTION

1This Decision arises from the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held on February 14, 2025. A motion for certain relief was also made returnable at the CMC, which is further discussed in Part 3 below.

2The two instruments at issue in this proceeding – Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 409 (“OPA”) and Zoning Bylaw 702-2024 (“ZBL”)– stem from a very long development history which has been unfolding in the City’s Port Lands area for approximately 20 years. More particularly, they concern an area known as Ookwemin Minising – formerly known as Villiers Island – (the “Island”) which is located on Toronto’s waterfront just east of its downtown core.

3As was made clear in the motion materials dealt with in Part 3 below, at its meeting held on June 26 and 27, 2024 City Council adopted OPA 409, which amends the Port Lands Area Specific Plan (“PLASP”) for 2, 62, 65, 105, 155, 165, and 170 Villiers Street; 16 Munitions Street; 39, 51, 54, 63, 75, 85, 95, 97, 99 and 130 Commissioners Street; 222, 238, 242, 256, 275, 281, 301, 309 and 312 Cherry Street; and, 72 Polson Street, which are the addresses comprising the Island.

4The PLASP was originally adopted by City Council in December, 2017. Through various OLT appeal proceedings, policy modifications were endorsed and ultimately approved in the OLT Interim Decision and Order dated May 19, 2022, issued on July 11, 2022 in Tribunal File Nos: OLT-22-002109 (Formerly PL030514), OLT-22-003806 (Formerly PL030412), and OLT-22-002672 (Formerly PL101091), which resolved most concerns, with outstanding scoped site-specific appeals regarding some of the policies pertaining to parks, affordable housing and community benefits.

5OPA 409 updates the policies for the Island relating to built form, affordable housing, and land uses through the introduction of meanwhile use and expanded commercial use permissions, as well as community infrastructure, views and parkland policies for the Island. The Notice of Adoption of OPA 409 was given by the City Clerk on July 8, 2024. The last day to appeal in accordance with the Notice of Adoption of OPA 409 was July 29, 2024. Therefore, pursuant to subsection 17(27) of the Planning Act, the day after the last day of filing an appeal is July 30, 2024 – which is relevant to the motion described in Part 3. The appeal by PortsToronto was filed one day prior (as was the former appeal by LaFarge which has been resolved as noted in Part 2 and pursuant to certain agreements by the City which is relevant to the motion noted in Part 3.

PART 2: STATUS REQUESTS

6The sole statutory appellant of these instruments is PortsToronto. However, four (4) other entities sought Party status for various reasons.

7LaFarge operates a cement terminal on Polson Quay that is adjacent to the area covered by the OPA and ZBL located just south of the Island but does not own any land within the boundaries of the OPA. It had originally sought to appeal both planning instruments. However, as a result of discussions with the City, LaFarge agreed to withdraw its intention and now seeks Party status and has agreed to shelter under the appeal of PortsToronto. Given its obvious interest in the OPA and ZBL, the Tribunal granted Party status to LaFarge.

8Atura Power is an entity that is part of Ontario Power Generation and has facilities also adjacent to the area under the OPA and ZBL It has been involved in the development planning process regarding these lands since 2005 and neither the City nor any other Party objected to the granting of Party status to Atura Power – which was agreed to by the Tribunal.

9Waterfront Toronto has also been long involved in the planning policy development affecting the Island and seeks Party status in support of the OPA and the ZBL. As noted in its request filed with the Tribunal, Waterfront Toronto has worked for more than the past 20 years as a steward for the revitalization of the Toronto waterfront. Funded by the three levels of government, Waterfront Toronto has invested billions of dollars, working with Create TO, the City of Toronto, the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, and other stakeholders, to bring the ambitious redevelopment of the City’s waterfront to fruition, including the development proposed for the Island. There were no objections to this request which was granted by the Tribunal.

10309 Cherry St. Owners also supports the instruments and seeks Party status as one of the affected landowners, but only in respect of the OPA. The Tribunal granted it Party status.

11There were no other requests for either Party or Participant status, although there were other entities present at the CMC who were maintaining watching briefs as observers only.

PART 3: MOTION

12The City, on consent of all Parties, seeks Orders effecting the coming into force of all sections of the OPA that are not the subject of this appeal, by operation of subsection 17(27) of the Planning Act, (“Act”) which provides that where there is an appeal of the decision of Council but the part of the decision is not a subject of the appeal, the decision is final and comes into effect after the last date of filing a notice of appeal:

Decision final

(27) If one or more persons or public bodies have a right of appeal under subsection (24) in respect of all or part of the decision of council, but no notice of appeal is filed under that subsection and the time for filing appeals has expired,

(a) the decision of council or the part of the decision that is not the subject of an appeal is final; and

(b) the plan or part of the plan that was adopted and that is not the subject of an appeal comes into effect as an official plan or part of an official plan on the day after the last day for filing a notice of appeal. 1996, c. 4, s. 9; 2017, c. 23, Sched. 3, s. 6 (4).

13Lafarge agreed with the City that its concerns would be resolved if the City were to advance a minor modification (the “Lafarge Proposed Modification”) to clarify the intent of an existing in-force policy of the Port Lands Area Specific Policy that was approved by the Tribunal by virtue of its Decision and Order issued on July 11, 2022 in OLT Case Nos. OLT 22-002109 and OLT 22-003806.

14Simply put, the language set out in the Tribunal’s Order below has been agreed to by PortsToronto and LaFarge and is not opposed by any other Party to this proceeding. Based on the expert planning evidence set out in the affidavit of Anthony Kittel sworn February 6, 2025, submitted on consent and unchallenged by any other evidence or Party, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Orders made below, including the content of Attachments A and B appended hereto, are in accordance with subsection 17(27) of the Act and also subsection 17(50) of the Act (set out below in paragraph 15).

15The Tribunal accepts Mr. Kittel’s opinion that the Lafarge Proposed Modification is minor in nature and maintains a key objective of the PLASP and OPA 409; is consistent with the City’s Official Plan; has regard for matters of provincial interest pursuant to section 2 of the Planning Act and is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024; constitutes good planning and represents a fair and appropriate balancing of all interests in the land use planning process and provides some certainty as to the applicable policy framework within the Island, without prejudicing the PortsToronto appeal of OPA 409:

Powers of Tribunal

(50) On an appeal or a transfer under this section, the Tribunal may approve all or part of the plan as all or part of an official plan, make modifications to all or part of the plan and approve all or part of the plan as modified as an official plan or refuse to approve all or part of the plan.

PART 4: PROCEDURAL ORDER

16The Parties also agreed that hearing of the appeals will require 20 days to complete. The Tribunal scheduled the hearing to proceed by video on Thursday, October 2, 2025 at 10 a.m., ending on Friday, October 31, 2025. (The Tribunal will not sit October 13 and 14, 2025).

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:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/719383509

Access code: 719-383-509

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 GoTo Meeting 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: +1 (647) 497-9373 or Toll-Free 1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 719-383-509.

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.

21The Parties prepared a draft Procedural Order taking into account the scheduled hearing dates which has been reviewed and considered by the Tribunal.

ORDER

22THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. The following entities shall be granted Party status in this proceeding: LaFarge Canada Inc.; Atura Power; 2034055 Ontario Limited; 1337194 Ontario Inc. (only in respect of the appeal of OPA 409); and Waterfront Revitalization Corporation;

2. All unhighlighted sections, non-policy text, policies and maps of Official Plan Amendment No. 409 (“OPA 409”) to the City of Toronto Official Plan included in Attachment “A” hereto, with the exception of Policy 36.1, came into force and effect on July 30, 2024 by operation of subsection 17(27) of the Planning Act (“Act”);

3. Policies 4 (Section 4.2.1 e)(i), (iii) and (v)), 4 (Section 4.2.1 f)(i) through (iv)), and Policy 6, as highlighted in Attachment “A”, came into force and effect on July 30, 2024 by operation of subsection 17(27) of the Act, except as those policies are appealed by PortsToronto on a site specific-basis for the lands identified in Attachment “B”;

4. Policies 32 and 34, as highlighted in Attachment “A”, are under appeal by PortsToronto on a precinct-wide basis;

5. Pursuant to ss. 17(50) of the Act, OPA 409 shall be modified and partially approved with the addition of a new policy 36.1 to OPA 409, as reflected in Attachment “A” and as follows (the “Proposed Modification”):

36.1. Port Lands Area Specific Policy 10.8.6 g) is modified by adding the following underlined words, so that it reads as follows:

g) Situating the tall buildings to maximize separation distance to the Cement Terminal on Polson Quay and to minimize noise and air quality impacts from the Cement Terminal on sensitive uses.

6. The modification and partial approval of OPA 409 shall be strictly without prejudice to and shall not have the effect of limiting:

a. the positions that may be taken by PortsToronto in this proceeding in respect of its appeal of policies of OPA 409 as highlighted in Attachment “A” on a precinct-wide or site-specific basis, as the case may be;

b. the rights of PortsToronto to seek to modify, delete, or add to the unapproved policies of OPA 409 as highlighted in Attachment “A” on a precinct-wide or site-specific basis, as the case may be; and

c. the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to consider and approve modifications, deletions or additions to the policies as highlighted in Attachment “A” on a precinct-wide, or site- specific basis, as the case may be; however,

d. the City's right to assert in this proceeding that policies as highlighted in Attachment “A” should be approved without modification on the basis that they are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conform with provincial plans and that they constitute good planning but the City will not take the position that the position that the Tribunal ought not to approve a proposed modification on the basis that they deviate from, or are inconsistent with, approved portions of OPA 409 on a Plan -wide basis (or as approved in respect of other lands);

7. Abridged notice for service of the motion brought by the City of Toronto, on consent of all Parties is granted; and

8. The Procedural Order appended hereto as Attachment “C” shall govern the conduct of this proceeding.

23This Vice Chair shall remain seized of this proceeding for case management purposes and any other matter save and except for the final hearing of these appeals.

“William R. Middleton”

WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON

VIce-Chair

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.

ATTACHMENT C

Ontario Land Tribunal 655 Bay Street, Suite 1500 Toronto ON M5G 1E5 Telephone: (416) 212-6349 Toll free: 1-866-448-2248 Website: olt.gov.on.ca

Tribunaux de l’aménagement du territoire Ontario 655 rue Bay, bureau 1500 Toronto ON M5G 1E5 Téléphone: (416) 212-6349 Sans Frais: 1-866-448-2248 Site Web: olt.gov.on.ca

CASE NO.: OLT-24-000835

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Toronto Port Authority

Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 409

Description: To permit OPA 409 and ZBL 702-2024

Reference Number: 24 110589 STE 14 OZ

Property Address: Villiers Island

Municipality/UT: Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000835

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000835

OLT Case Name: Toronto Port Authority v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Toronto Port Authority Applicant: City of Toronto

Subject: Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment No. 702-2024

Description: To permit OPA 409 and ZBL 702-2024

Reference Number: 24 110589 STE 14 OZ

Property Address: Villiers Island

Municipality/UT: Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000836

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000835

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 hearing will begin on Thursday, October 2, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. as directed in the Tribunal's Decision and Order.

3. The length of the hearing will be 20 days, and will continue until Friday, October 31, 2025. (The Tribunal will not sit on October 13th or October 14th.) The Parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues, where possible. The procedural order deadlines are generally found in Attachment 1.

4. The Parties identified at the Case Management Conference are listed in Attachment 2 to this Order.

5. The Issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3 to this Order. The Parts will attempt to resolve the issues prior to the hearing on the merits of the appeal. There will be no changes to the Issues List unless the Tribunal permits, and a Party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6. The order of evidence is tentatively set out in Attachment 4 to this Order, but may be changed at the request of the Parties in advance of the hearing, with the approval of the Tribunal. 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 shall provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal. Any such person who retains a representative must advise the other Parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number.

8. If the hearing is to proceed electronically, 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 (https://olt.gov.on.ca/guides/).

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, the expert witness(es)' curriculum vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert Duty form(s), and the order in which the witnesses will be called. This list must be delivered at least on or before June 4, 2025. For expert witnesses, a Party is to identify the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified. Any challenges to the witness, including qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence in the area of expertise proposed shall be made by motion in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules and notice of same must be served on the other Parties on or before June 24, 2025.

10. Expert witnesses in the same discipline(s) shall have at least one meeting before the hearing to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. The experts shall prepare a list of any agreed facts and the remaining issues to be addressed at the hearing, and provide this list to all of the Parties and the Tribunal at least fifteen days (15) days prior to July 14, 2025, if agreement is reached.

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, and the curriculum vitae and Acknowledgment of Expert Duty Form previously provided as in Section 9. Copies must be provided as in Section 14. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony. For greater certainty, each expert witness statement must comply with the minimum content requirements specified in Rule 7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”). If the expert witness has prepared any report(s) that they intend 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 as the delivery of expert witness statements, as in Section 3.

12. A witness or participant must provide to the Tribunal and the Parties a witness statement or participant statement, respectively, on or before July 29, 2025 or the witness may not give oral evidence at the hearing. A participant cannot present oral submissions 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 3.

14. On or before July 29, 2025, the Parties shall provide copies of their expert witness statements (full disclosure including reports) to the other Parties.

15. On or before August 18, 2025, the Parties may provide to all other Parties a written response to any written evidence.

16. On or before August 23, 2025: (i) the Parties shall advise the Tribunal of whether any hearings dates scheduled for this matter may be released from the Tribunal's calendar. This request may only be made on consent of all of the Parties. If no hearing dates are intended to be released from the Tribunal's calendar, no Party is required to advise the Tribunal anything further in that regard; and (ii) if Party seeks to exclude any part of the written evidence of another Party, it shall bring a written motion pursuant to Rule 10 of the Rules

17. On or before September 2, 2025, the Parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other Parties. The Tribunal and all Parties shall be notified if a model will be used, all Parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the scheduled commencement of the hearing.

18. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. Such a motion shall be in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rule 10.

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

20. On or before September 2, 2025, the Parties shall prepare and file a detailed Work Plan that identifies the following, at a minimum: the identified Parties participating in the Hearing Event, preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the date a witness is intended to attend the Tribunal, the identified witness name/expertise, and the approximate time allotted for Examination in Chief, Cross Examination and any re-examination (if any) (the “Work Plan”). The Work Plan should be adhered to guide the Hearing Event to the best ability of all the Parties, and any and all witnesses shall be available on the identified date(s), unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the Work Plan throughout the Hearing Event.

21. The Parties shall prepare a Joint Document Book on or before September 12, 2025, and which one (1) hard copy will be filed with the Tribunal as soon as practicable in advance of the Hearing. All Parties must be served with the Joint Document Book in paper or an accessible electronic format in accordance with Section 22.

22. 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.

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

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

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
Wednesday, April 15, 2025 (105 days before Witness Statement Date)	Last date to provide proposed policy revisions to be advanced at the hearing (if any)
Wednesday, June 4, 2025 (120 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
Tuesday, June 24, 2025 (100 days prior to hearing)	Last date to challenge identification of expert witness
Monday, July 14, 2025 (80 days prior to hearing)	Experts meeting prior to this date
Monday, July 14, 2025 (80 days prior to hearing)	Agreed Statement of Facts
Tuesday, July 29, 2025 (65 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
Monday, August 18, 2025 (45 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
Friday, August 23, 2025 (41 days prior to hearing)	Parties to Advise Tribunal if any hearing dates are to be released from the hearing calendar (if any)
Tuesday, September 2, 2025 (30 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
Tuesday, September 2, 2025 (30 days prior to hearing)	Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal
Friday, September 12, 2025 (20 days prior to hearing)	Finalize Joint Document Book
October 2, 2025	Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES

A. PARTIES

Counsel

1. City of Toronto

Lauren Pinder / Sarah O’Connor City of Toronto, Legal Services Metro Hall, 26th Floor 55 John Street Toronto, Ontario M5V 3C6 E-mail: lauren.pinder@toronto.ca, sarah.oconnor@toronto.ca Tel: 416-392-0797 Fax: 416-397-5624

2. PortsToronto

Andrew Jeanrie Bennett Jones LLP 1 First Canadian Place, Suite 3400 PO Box 130 Toronto, ON M5X 1A4 E-mail: jeanriea@bennettjones.com Tel: 416-777-4814

3. Lafarge Canada Inc.

Kim Mullin / Sean Ovas Wood Bull LLP 65 Queen Street West, Suite 1400 Toronto, ON M5H 2M5 E-mail: kmullin@woodbull.ca, sovas@woodbull.ca Tel.: 416-203-5633

4. Waterfront Toronto

Andrew Biggart Ritchie Ketcheson Hart & Biggart LLP 1 Eva Road Etobicoke, ON M9C 4Z5 E-mail: abiggart@ritchieketcheson.com Tel: 416.622.6601 ex. 1003

5. 2034055 Ontario Ltd. and 1337194 Ontario Inc. 309 Cherry Street

Sidonia Tomasella / Patrick Harrington Aird Berlis LLP Brookfield Place 181 Bay Street, Suite 1800 Toronto, ON M5J 2T9 E-mail: stomasella@airdberlis.com, pharrington@airdberlis.com Tel: 416-865-7763

6. Atura Power

Roberto Aburto / Alice Mihailescu Dentons Canada LLP 77 King Street West, Suite 400 Toronto-Dominion Centre Toronto, ON, Canada M5K 0A1 E-mail: roberto@aburto@dentons.com, alice.mihailescu@dentons.com Tel: 613-288-2716

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUES LIST

NOTE: The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the Tribunal or any Party that the issue is either relevant or appropriate. The identification of an issue on this list by a Party indicates that Party’s intent to lead evidence or argue that the issue is relevant to the proceeding, for the purpose of fairly identifying to the other Parties the case they need to meet.. Accordingly, no Party shall advance an issue not identified on the Issues List without leave of the Tribunal.

Potential Constitutional Issue Raised by the City of Toronto

Absent delegation pursuant to the federal Aeronautics Act, does a provincial planning authority have the jurisdiction given the division of powers set out in ss. 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, and the legislative framework provided by the Aeronautics Act, to regulate building heights for the sole purpose of protecting airspace and airport operations?

PortsToronto Issues

Consistency With the Provincial Planning Statement (2024)

1. Are the Villiers Island Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment (the “Villiers Island Instruments”) consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024), including but not limited to:

• 2.8.1 Supporting a Modern Economy
  • 1. Promoting economic development and competitiveness;
  • 2. Industrial, manufacturing and small-scale warehousing uses locational characteristics
• 3.2 Transportation Systems
• 3.3 Transportation and Infrastructure Corridors
  • 1.;
  • 2.; and
• 3.4 Airport, Rail and Marine Facilities

2. As of October 20, 2024 do the Villiers Island Instruments sufficiently consider Section 6.1 7. of the Provincial Planning Statement 2024?

Former City of Toronto Official Plan and Central Waterfront Secondary Plan

3. Do the Villiers Island Instruments conform to the former City of Toronto Official Plan and Central Waterfront Secondary Plan, including but not limited to:

• Ensuring the Port Lands’ ongoing economic contribution to the City; and

4. Do the Villiers Island Instruments appropriately recognize the role of the Toronto City Centre Airport in the City of Toronto economy although it is physically not within the of boundaries Central Waterfront Secondary Plan, but planes “fly over” lands governed by the Villiers Island Instruments?

General

5. Do the Villiers Island Instruments represent good planning?

6. Do the Villiers Island Instruments appropriately account for the role PortsToronto plays in the operation, governance and continuation of port uses?

Zoning By-law Section 7. Exception CRE 91 (I), (N), (O), and (Y); Section 8. Exception OR 46 (C); Section 10. of By-law 702-2024 Holding Provisions (E) and (N).

7. Do the Villiers Island Instruments ensure that the Toronto City Centre Airport, will be able to safely prosper into the future through the appropriate height permissions on Villiers Island?

OPA 409 Policies 32. and 36.

Zoning By-law Section 7. Exception CRE 91 (EE), (MM), (OO), (CCC), (DDD) and Section 10. of By-law 702-2024 Holding Provision (N) and By-law 702-2024 Diagrams 7A to 7E

8. Do the Villiers Island Instruments ensure that marine and port functions, lake access, and employment uses related to same will be able to prosper into the future through the appropriate use permissions/ land use designations?

OPA 409 Policy 4 (Section 4.2.1 e)(i), (iii) and (v);

OPA 409 Policy 4 (Section 4.2.1 f)(i) through (iv)); and

OPA 409 Policy 6.

Zoning By-law Section 7. Exception CRE 91 (I), (N), (O), and (Y); and Section 10. of By-law 702-2024 Holding Provisions (E)

9. Is it appropriate to have the undefined “Meanwhile Uses” informed on a go forward basis by a yet to be commenced “Meanwhile Use Strategy”?

OPA 409 Policy 4 (Section 4.2.1 e)(v))

10. Should the Villiers Island Instruments limit the length of term of “Meanwhile Uses” to 20 years and be required to be ‘ancillary to existing parks”?

OPA 409 Policy 4 (Section 4.2.1 f)(i) and (ii))

11. Should the Villiers Island Instruments permit the use of premises or facilities for the operation of a mass transit system or a transportation system by PortsToronto?

Zoning By-law Section 7. Exception CRE 91 (Y); OR 46 (C); and Section 10. of By-law 702-2024 Holding Provision (E)

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

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

The Order of Evidence is subject to confirmation in advance of the hearing.

A. City of Toronto

B. Waterfront Toronto

C. 309 Cherry

D. PortsToronto

E. Atura Power

F. City of Toronto – Reply

ATTACHMENT 5

Purpose of the Procedural Order and Meaning of Terms

Party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other Parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. If an unincorporated group wishes to become a Party, it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a Party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer, and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorization from the Party.

NOTE that a person who wishes to become a Party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the Case Management Conference, must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

Participant is an individual, group or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may attend only part of the proceeding but who makes a written statement to the Tribunal on all or some of the issues in the hearing in accordance with Rule 7.7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

NOTE that such persons will likely not receive notice of a mediation or conference calls on procedural issues. They also cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision as Parties can.

Written and Visual Evidence:

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

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

Witness Statements:

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

An expert witness statement should include the expert’s (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons for the opinions and (5) a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which the participant will address and a short outline of the evidence on those issues; and a list of reports, relied upon, if any, which the participant will provide to the Tribunal for consideration of the written statement at the hearing.

Additional Information:

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

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

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