CORRECTION NOTICE
OLT CASE NO(S).:
OLT-24-001025
DECISION ISSUE DATE(S):
April 15, 2025
CORRECTION NOTICE ISSUE DATE:
April 23, 2025
RE: 668390 Ontario Ltd. et al. v. Clarington (Municipality)
Correction to: amend the dates in the Order pertaining to the upcoming Merit Hearing.
Originally:
Corrected to:
THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:
c. The Merit Hearing is scheduled to commence at 10
a.m. by video on Monday, February 2, 2025, to Friday, March 6, 2025. The Tribunal will not be sitting February 16 or March 2, 2025; and…
THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:
c. The Merit Hearing is scheduled to commence at 10 a.m. by video on Monday, February 2, 2026, to Friday, March 6, 2026. The Tribunal will not be sitting February 16 or March 2,
2026; and…
“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.
ISSUE DATE:
April 15, 2025
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-24-001025
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant
668390 Ontario Ltd. and 829426 Ontario Inc.
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description:
To permit a mixed-use building consisting of nine high-rise buildings up to 40 storeys totaling 3,965 units and a linear park
Reference Number:
COPA2024-0001
Property Address:
0 Prince William Boulevard; 1800 and 1850 Bowmanville Avenue
Municipality/UT:
Clarington/Durham
OLT Case No:
OLT-24-001025
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-24-001025
OLT Case Name:
668390 Ontario Ltd. et al. v. Clarington (Municipality)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant
668390 Ontario Ltd. and 829426 Ontario Inc.
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description:
To permit a mixed-use building consisting of nine high-rise buildings up to 40 storeys totaling 3,965 units and a linear park
Reference Number:
ZBA2024-0002
Property Address:
0 Prince William Boulevard; 1800 and 1850 Bowmanville Avenue
Municipality/UT:
Clarington/Durham
OLT Case No:
OLT-24-001024
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-24-001025
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant
668390 Ontario Ltd. and 829426 Ontario Inc.
Subject:
Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Description:
To permit a mixed-use building consisting of nine high-rise buildings up to 40 storeys totaling 3,965 units and a linear park
Reference Number:
S-C-2024-0001
Property Address:
0 Prince William Boulevard; 1800 and 1850 Bowmanville Avenue
Municipality/UT:
Clarington/Durham
OLT Case No:
OLT-24-001023
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-24-001025
Heard:
March 25, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
668390 Ontario Ltd and 829429 Ontario Inc
Evan Barz Chris Barnette (in absentia)
Municipality of Clarington
Andrew Biggart
Region of Durham
Samantha Whalen Robert Woon
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY YASNA FAGHANI ON MARCH 25, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This is the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) for the above-noted matter. 668390 Ontario Ltd and 829429 Ontario Inc. (“Applicants”) have filed appeals against the Municipality of Clarington’s (“Clarington”) failure to make a decision regarding applications pursuant to s. 22(7), s. 34(11), and s.51(34) of the Planning Act.
The lands are municipally known as 0 Prince William Blvd, 1800 and1850 Bowmanville Avenue in Clarington (“Subject Lands”).
2The applications under appeal related to the development of nine high-rise buildings up to 40 storeys totaling 3,965 units, 2,700 square metres of retail space, and a linear park.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
5The Tribunal received the Affidavit of Service sworn by Ravneet Jammu dated March 3, 2025, and marked as Exhibit 1. There were no issues with the Service of Notice for the CMC and as such, no further notice is required.
PARTICIPANT/PARTY REQUESTS
3The Tribunal received a Party Status Request from the Regional Municipality of Durham (“Durham”). Counsel for Durham submitted that Durham’s interest in the appeals is to address issues related to water/sanitary conditions, waste management and transportation matters. Further the Subject Lands are bounded by regional roads and infrastructure and therefore there are regional interests to address. Durham would be calling several witnesses to address said issues. Counsel for Durham further submitted that its status request was canvassed with the Parties and there were no objections.
4Counsel for the Applicants and Counsel for Clarington confirmed that they consented to Durhams Party Status Request.
5On consent of the Parties and based on a determination that adding Durham as a Party will enable the Tribunal to adjudicate the appeals effectively and completely, the Tribunal granted Party Status to Durham.
6The Tribunal also received Party Status request from Mike Domovitch, CEO and president of 1989774 Ontario Limited. He said the numbered corporation owns 30 acres of land north of Highway 2, about 1000 kilometers away from the Subject Lands. Mr. Domovitch stated that the corporation’s Draft Plans for two apartment buildings with 81 units each was approved some years ago (2016) and is valid as of today. He intends to submit new applications for more buildings. His concern with the proposed development relates primarily to the height of the buildings. He also submitted that the proposed development would take away services such as water, schools and therefore he objects to the proposal. In terms of witness, he intends to call one expert, a planner, and if the need occurred, he would hire a lawyer “if things get out of hand”. He further advised that he has appeared before the Ontario Municipal Board in the past and is familiar with the process.
7The Applicants Counsel objected to the numbered company’s Party Status Request. Counsel advised that according to the Status request, Mr. Domovitch had issues with the proposed height of the buildings and the fact that the development “will capture all water services and deny water services to other projects including our project on 30 acres on Bowmanville Ave. a short distance north of Highway 2 near Longworth Ave.”
8Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the concern regarding water is primarily a “competition issue” between developers and not a planning issue which is to be adjudicated by the Tribunal. Further, he said that the numbered companies’ lands are located 1000 meters away, not kilometers incorrectly stated by Mr. Domovitch. This means the lands are approximately 1.4 kilometers away from the subject lands adjacent opposite of Longworth Avenue on Regional 57. Counsel submitted that a different secondary plan applies to the numbers company’s proposal and the issues under this Appeal are not going to impact the numbered company. The Tribunal asked Mr. Domovitch whether the primary concern of this Appeal is height. He agreed that height is a primary concern, and a Planner would be called.
9Counsel for Clarington advised that his client took no position with respect to the Party Status request from the numbered company. The Tribunal asked whether height would be an issue that Clarington would be addressing and whether an expert would be called to discuss said issue. Counsel for Clarington advised that height would certainly be an issue which would be dealt with. Counsel for Durham also confirmed that height would be an issue and one that would be addressed by an expert.
10Having heard the submissions of all the Parties, the Tribunal denied the numbered companies Party Status request because the primary concern of height would be addressed by Clarington and Durham and the presence of the numbered corporation is not necessary to enable the Tribunal to adjudicate effectively and completely or further assist in rending its decision in the Merit Hearing.
11With that said, all the Parties consented to the numbered company being granted Participant Status so that its concerns can form part of the Tribunal’s record. As such, the Tribunal granted Participant Status Request to the numbered company and advised Mr. Domovitch that a Participant Statement can be submitted at least 60 days prior to the Hearing as outlined in the draft Procedural Order (“PO”).
MEDIATION
12The Tribunal canvassed the Parties’ interest in mediation. The Parties agreed that these applications are prime for mediation, especially in order to reduce issues or scope issues. The Tribunal reiterated that Tribunal-led mediation information can be obtained through the Case Coordinator. The Parties further confirmed that they will keep the Tribunal apprised of any developments with their resolution efforts which the Tribunal finds satisfactory.
PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST
13Counsel for the Applicant submitted a PO inclusive of an Issues List (“IL”) on April 10, 2025, (attached hereto as Schedule A) for the Tribunal’s consideration and approval. The Tribunal approves the PO and IL as being in force and effect to guide the proceeding of the Merit Hearing. Any changes to the attached PO and/or IL must be submitted to the Case Coordinator for the Tribunal’s consideration.
HEARING
14Counsel for the Applicant and Clarington agreed to schedule hearing dates in February/March of 2026. Counsel for Clarington advised that there would be seven areas of concern and likely experts would include a Land Use Planner, Urban Designer, Transportation Engineer, Shadow and Wind impact expert as well as an expert to discuss community services and availability. In total, Counsel for Clarington advised an anticipated seven experts would be called. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that his client would also likely call seven experts and Counsels for Durham noted that they would be calling two to three witness. All parties agreed on four weeks for the Hearing dates.
15After hearing submissions of the Parties and noting the number of witness, the Tribunal granted five weeks starting Monday, February 2, 2026 to Friday, March 6th, 2026, due to the number of witness and in order to ensure the Parties do run out of dates and are required to secure dates in the future. Of note, the Tribunal will not be sitting on Monday, February 16, 2026 due to Family Day holiday and Friday, March 6, 2026 due to a professional development meeting at the Tribunal.
16The parties were directed to advise the Tribunal if some of the hearing dates could be released well in advance, as settlement discussions and or mediation results in resolving issues and therefore the need of certain experts dissipated.
17Parties and Participants 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/638422541
Access code: 638-422-541
18Parties 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 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 the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: +1-647-497-9373 or (toll-free) +1-888-299-1889. The access code is as indicated above.
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:
a. Party status is granted to the Regional Municipality of Durham;
b. Participant Status is granted to 1989774 Ontario Limited;
c. The Merit Hearing is scheduled to commence at 10 a.m. by video on Monday, February 2, 2025, to Friday, March 6th, 2025. The Tribunal will not be sitting February 16 or March 2, 2025; and,
d. The Tribunal may be spoken to in the event of any issue arising from this Order.
22There is no further notice, and the Member is not seized.
“Yasna Faghani”
YASNA FAGHANI
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 A
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant
668390 Ontario Ltd. and 829426 Ontario Inc.
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description:
To permit a mixed-use building consisting of nine high- rise buildings up to 40 storeys totaling 3,965 units and a linear park
Reference Number:
COPA2024-0001
Property Address:
0 Prince William Boulevard; 1800 and 1850 Bowmanville Avenue
Municipality/UT:
Clarington/Durham
OLT Case No:
OLT-24-001025
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-24-001025
OLT Case Name:
668390 Ontario Ltd. et al. v. Clarington (Municipality)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant
668390 Ontario Ltd. and 829426 Ontario Inc.
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description:
To permit a mixed-use building consisting of nine high- rise buildings up to 40 storeys totaling 3,965 units and a linear park
Reference Number:
ZBA2024-0002
Property Address:
0 Prince William Boulevard; 1800 and 1850 Bowmanville Avenue
Municipality/UT:
Clarington/Durham
OLT Case No:
OLT-24-001024
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-24-001025
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990,
c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant
668390 Ontario Ltd. and 829426 Ontario Inc.
Subject:
Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Description:
To permit a mixed-use building consisting of nine high- rise buildings up to 40 storeys totaling 3,965 units and a linear park
Reference Number:
S-C-2024-0001
Property Address:
0 Prince William Boulevard; 1800 and 1850 Bowmanville Avenue
Municipality/UT:
Clarington/Durham
OLT Case No:
OLT-24-001023
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-24-001025
PROCEDURAL ORDER
- The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own motion.
Organization of the Hearing
The video hearing will begin on February 2, 2026 at 10 a.m. and can be accessed via the following link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/638422541
The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 23 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 key dates established by this procedural order are listed in Attachment 1.
The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 2 (see the sample procedural order for the meaning of these terms).
The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. 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, except if the Issues List is modified to reduce issues, or in order to address changes to the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement and/or Growth Plan or other relevant provincial policy, or through mediation or pursuant to a settlement between any of the parties, or is otherwise on consent of the parties.
The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 4 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the
qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.
Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.
Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.
Requirements Before the Hearing
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 October 3, 2025 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.
Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before October 25, 2025 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before November 14, 2025.
An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 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.
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.
On or before December 4, 2025, the parties shall provide copies of their witness statements, including expert witness statements, and/or brief outlines (if any), to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.
On or before December 4, 2025, 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.
On or before December 29, 2025, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.
On or before January 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.
On or before January 9, 2026, Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co- ordinator a written response to any written evidence in accordance with paragraph 22 below.
The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before January 23, 2026
A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.
A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.
The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the OLT case coordinator on or before January 26, 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.
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. Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by Tribunal’s Rule 7. All documents to be filed with the Tribunal shall be organized, tabbed and digitally searchable and such materials will be filed in accordance with directions contained in the Tribunal's Video Hearing Guide, or as may be amended. Section 22 applies regardless if the hearing event is in person or electronic.
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.
This Member is [not] seized. So orders the Tribunal.
BEFORE:
Name of Member: Date:
TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR
ATTACHMENT 1 SUMMARY OF KEY DATES
Date
Hearing Event
October 3, 2025
Exchange of List of Witnesses
October 25, 2025
Expert Witness Meeting
November 14, 2025
Filing of Statement(s) of Agreed Facts and Issues
December 4, 2025
Exchange of Witness Statements
December 4, 2025
Delivery of Participant Statements
December 29, 2025
Confirmation to Tribunal if all reserved hearing dates are still required
January 16, 2026
Exchange of Visual Evidence
January 9, 2026
Exchange of Reply Witness Statements
January 23, 2026
Filing of Joint Document Book
January 26, 2026
Filing of Hearing Plan
February 2, 2026
Hearing Commences
ATTACHMENT 2
PARTIES
1. 668390 ONTARIO LTD. and 829426 ONTARIO INC.
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP Box 50, 1 First Canadian Place Toronto, Ontario
M5X 1B8
Chris Barnett
416-862-6651
Evan Barz
416-862-4209
2. MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
Ritchie, Ketcheson, Hart & Biggart LLP 303 - 1 Eva Road
Toronto, Ontario M9 4Z5
R. Andrew Biggart
416-622-6601 Ext. 1003
3. The Regional Municipality of Durham
605 Rossland Road East Whitby, ON L1N 6A3
Robert Woon
905-668-7711 Ext. 3867
Samantha Whalen
905-668-4113 Ext. 2466
PARTICIPANTS
1. 1989774 Ontario Limited
100-6021 Yonge St. Toronto, ON M2M 3W2
Mike Domovitch
416-878-6016
ATTACHMENT 3
Issues List of the Municipality of Clarington
Do the applications have regard to matters of Provincial Interest identified in Sections 2(e), (f), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (p), (q), (r), (s) of the Planning Act?
Are the applications consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024, and in particular policies 2.2.1(a), 2.2.1(c), 2.4.1.2, 2.8.1.1, 2.8.1.2, 2.8.1.4,
3.1 , 3.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.6.1(a)(b), 3.8 and 4.2?
- Do the applications conform with the 1993 Durham Region Official Plan, including policies 1.2, 3.2.2, 4.2.1, 4.2.4, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 5.3.9, 5.3.11, 5.3.14,
6.3.2, 7.1.4, 7.1.6, 7.3.3, 8.1.4, 8A.1.2c), 8A.1.2d), 8A.1.2e), 8A.2.2 b) i),
8A.2.4, 11.3.19, and 14.5.3?
Are the applications contrary to the goals and objectives of the Durham Region Official Plan, 2024 (Envision Durham) which is relevant but not determinative regarding the determination as to whether the applications constitute good planning, especially when the location of the Protected Major Transit Station is considered?
Do the applications conform with the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, including policies 2.2.3, 4.2.1, 4.2.5, 4.3, 4.3.7, 4.3.8, 4.3.9, 4.6, 5.5.1, 5.2,
5.3, 5.3.5, 5.4.10, 5.4.3, 5.4.13, 5.5.1, 5.6, 6.1, 7.2.1, 7.2.2, 7.2.3, 7.3.2, 9.4.5,
10.2, 10.3.4, 10.4.2, 10.4.4, 23.10, 18.3.3, 18.3.6, 19.2, 19.6.28, 19.6.4, 19.8,
19.8.3, 20.3.5, 20.3.8, 23.3.1, and Table 4-3?
- Do the applications conform with the Bowmanville West Town Centre Secondary Plan, including policies 2.1, 2.3, 3.2, 3.4, 7, 8.2.4, 8.2.5, 8.2.5 d),
10, 13, 16.2, 17, and 17.3?
Does the zoning bylaw amendment implement the applicable policies of the Region and Municipality of Clarington?
Does the proposed zoning by-law amendment provide adequate direction for the preferred built form and function of the proposal, including through detailed provisions for height, density, massing, setbacks, step backs, amenity spaces, parking, and access?
Does the proposed zoning by-law amendment include appropriate holding provisions to ensure phased development aligns with the timing of the proposed GO station, future infrastructure programs, and the existing and planned visions of the BWSP and BWUCSP?
Is the proposed draft plan of subdivision supportive of the preferred form and function of the site within the existing and proposed secondary plans, including consideration of policy conformity and technical comments related to block layout, building spacing, underground parking, and parkland placement?
Does the application for plan of subdivision appropriately implement the applicable policies of the Region and Municipality of Clarington?
Is the subdivision supportive of the preferred form and function of this site within existing and proposed secondary plans?
Does the timing of this development application support the necessary tools being in place to finance the construction of the proposed GO station?
Does the proposed development reflect orderly and proper planning, considering its height and density, urban design, traffic, parking and access, infrastructure capacity, and alignment with the timing and phasing of the PMTSA and the proposed BWUCSP?
Issues of The Regional Municipality of Durham
Do the applications have regard for matters of provincial interest identified in the Planning Act, including but not limited to sections 2(f), (h), (j), (p), (q), and (r)?
Does the proposed plan of subdivision satisfy the criteria of subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act, including but not limited to subsections (a), (c), and (i)?
Are the applications consistent with the policies of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, in particular policies 2.4.1.2 (c), 2.4.2.6, 3.1, 3.2, and 3.6?
Does the proposed development conform to and meet the overall goals, objectives and intent of the polices of the Durham Regional Official Plan 1993, including but not limited to policies 5.3.13, 5.3.14, 5.3.18, 8.1.10, 8.2.1, 11.2,
11.3.19, 11.3.22, 14.5?
Does the zoning bylaw amendment contain a holding provision to protect for the collection of a Transit Station Charge pursuant to the GO Transit Station Funding Act, 2023?
Does the applications appropriately address the site servicing and engineering comments from the Region in relation to water and sanitary servicing, transportation and waste management?
If a draft plan of subdivision is approved, what are the appropriate draft plan conditions pursuant to sections 51(25) of the Planning Act?
ATTACHMENT 4 ORDER OF EVIDENCE
668390 Ontario Ltd. and 829426 Ontario Inc.
Municipality of Clarington
The Regional Municipality of Durham
668390 Ontario Ltd. and 829426 Ontario Inc. in reply