Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 17, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000348

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

Applicant/Appellant: Lakeshore Developments (Thunder Bay) Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application Description: To permit the development of 24 residential units, 2 other units, and a green space. Reference Number: Z2-21 Property Address: Lot 1-12 and Blocks 13-24 Registered Plan 55M-639 Municipality/UT: Shuniah/Thunder Bay OLT Case No: OLT-24-000348 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000348 OLT Case Name: Lakeshore Developments (Thunder Bay) Inc. v. Shuniah (Municipality)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 51(39) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Applicant/Appellant: Lakeshore Developments (Thunder Bay) Inc. Subject: Plan of Subdivision - Refusal by Approval Authority Description: To permit the development of 24 residential units, 2 other units, and a green space. Reference Number: SD1-22 Property Address: Lot 1-12 and Blocks 13-24 Registered Plan 55M-639 Municipality/UT: Shuniah/Thunder Bay OLT Case No: OLT-24-000349 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000348

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

Request by: Lakeshore Developments (Thunder Bay) Inc. Request for: Request for Directions Heard: February 26, 2025 by video hearing and February 28, 2025 by telephone conference call

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Lakeshore Developments (Thunder Bay) Inc.	Matthew Pascuzzo, Richard Buset (in absentia)
Municipality of Shuniah	Anne-Marie McKitrick
City of Thunder Bay	Michael Grimaldi

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C.I. MOLINARI ON FEBRUARY 28, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal is a Motion for Directions (“Motion”) in relation to appeals brought pursuant to ss. 34(11) and 51(39) of the Planning Act, from the refusal of the Municipality of Shuniah (“Respondent”/ “Municipality”) of Zoning By-law Amendment application (“ZBA Application”) and Vacant Land Condominium (“VLC”) application (“VLC Application”) (together “Applications”). The appeals were filed by Lakeshore Developments (Thunder Bay) Inc. (“Moving Party”/ “Appellant”) regarding the property legally described as Lots 1-12 and Blocks 13-24 Registered Plan 55M-639 (“Property”).

BACKGROUND OF THE APPLICATIONS

2Previous applications resulted in the approval and registration of a 12-lot, 12-block residential VLC subdivision (“Original VLC”). The 12 blocks (“Original Blocks”), located south of an abandoned railway corridor are legally tied to the 12 lots (“Original Lots”) to ensure no development takes place on the Original Blocks until relevant studies are undertaken, and further approvals are granted.

3The Original VLC was approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (“MMAH”), the authority for subdivision and condominium control in the Municipality at the time.

4The VLC Application, although submitted to MMAH with the required studies, was ultimately processed and considered by the Municipality, along with the ZBA Application, as the Municipality had since regained its approval authority.

5The Applications propose to replace the Original VLC and implement further approvals for the Original Blocks, to create an additional 12 lots (“New Lots”) along the shore of Lake Superior, for a combined 24-lot subdivision.

6The VLC Application proposes to facilitate the New Lots as a residential VLC subdivision with common elements including a private road, parking, parks, and stormwater management features.

7The ZBA Application seeks to amend Zoning By-law No. 2038-00 to reduce lot widths of two of the Original Lots to provide for the private road to access the Original Blocks, and, in order to facilitate the New Lots, to rezone the Original Blocks from ‘Community Residential – Holding’ to ‘Shoreline Residential – Holding’, ‘Open Space’, and ‘Use Limitation’, with the holding symbol to be removed after the issuance of Draft Plan Approval.

THE MOTION

Moving Party

8The materials before the Tribunal from the Moving Party include:

1. Motion Record of the Moving Party, containing the Notice of Motion, an Affidavit of Robert Zanette sworn on February 7, 2025, a Book of Authorities, and a draft order (“Draft Order”);
2. Reply Motion Record of the Moving Party, containing the Reply to Response to Motion, a Reply Factum, and a supplementary Book of Authorities; and
3. Affidavits of Service filed by the Moving Party for the service of the Motion material on February 11, 2025 and for the service of the Reply Motion material on February 20, 2025.

9The Moving Party brought the Notice of Motion seeking:

1. an Order requiring the Respondent to disclose documents to the Appellant as set out in Schedule “A” to the Draft Order provided;
2. an Order adjourning the hearing date until June 16, 2025 or until another available date after June 16, 2025, as determined by the Tribunal;
3. an Order approving the revised Procedural Order (“PO”) attached to the Draft Order as Schedule “B”;
4. costs of the Motion; and
5. such further and other relief as Counsel for the Appellant may advise and as the Tribunal may allow.

10In addition to the Order sought in the Notice of Motion, the Moving Party’s Reply seeks an Order requiring the Respondent to disclose documents to the Appellant as set out in Schedule “A” to the Draft Order no later than 15 days from the issuance of the Order.

Respondent

11The materials before the Tribunal from the Respondent include:

1. Motion Record of the Respondent, containing the Notice of Response to Motion, an Affidavit of Kerry Bellamy sworn on February 18, 2025, the PO issued by the Tribunal on November 25, 2024, an email from McKitricks on behalf of the Municipality dated February 7, 2025, and correspondence from McKitricks on behalf of the Municipality dated February 14, 2025;
2. Factum of the Respondent; and
3. Affidavit of Service filed by the Respondent for the service of the Response Motion material on February 18, 2025.

12In it’s Responding Motion Record, the Respondent requested:

1. an Order dismissing the Motion, and specifically dismissing the Moving Party’s request: i. for production of documents; ii. that the hearing date be adjourned; and iii. that a revised PO be approved;
2. in the alternative, if document production is to be required, requesting that the same order for production be required of the Moving Party and a reasonable amount of time be given to comply with such Order;
3. costs of the Motion; and
4. such further and other relief as Counsel for the Respondent may advise and the Tribunal may permit.

City of Thunder Bay

13The City of Thunder Bay (“City”) noted that they adopt the Respondent’s submissions.

GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION

14The grounds for the Motion are summarized as follows:

• the Municipal Record included various documents, inter alia:
  1. a planning report prepared by the Municipality’s planner;
  2. a ‘timeline’ outlining the progress of the Applications;
  3. a ‘concern table’ prepared by the Municipality identifying concerns with the Applications; and
  4. other reports or documents.
• several other documents were referenced in the documents listed above but were not appended to the Municipal Record. Such documents pertain directly to the Appeals and include planning reports and comments received from commenting agencies considered by the Municipality in its decision to refuse the Applications; and
• the Municipality has not provided complete and adequate disclosure and the Appellant would be significantly prejudiced if the documents are not disclosed.

THE MOTION

15A 14-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence on Tuesday, April 22, 2025. The Moving Party submitted that they were unable to properly prepare for the hearing without disclosure of specified and unspecified documents by the Municipality in a timely manner. It contended that such documents were requested and had not yet been provided by the Municipality, resulting in the need for the motion hearing for disclosure and for the request to adjourn the merit hearing to a later date.

Moving Party Submissions

16The Moving Party submitted that the Municipality’s planner initially supported the Applications before ultimately recommending refusal. It furthered that, without the planning reports and commenting agency submissions, among other documents, the Appellant does not have the information it requires to ascertain how the Applications progressed through the planning process from initial support to ultimate refusal.

17Further, the Moving Party submitted that it would not have sufficient time to review any material disclosed through the motion hearing ahead and would therefore be prejudiced to proceed to the merit hearing as scheduled.

Respondent Submissions

18The Respondent had numerous relatively minor concerns with the Moving Party’s Reply Motion Record which were addressed in detail. It submitted that the Moving Party’s request for production was “overly broad and disproportionate”, untimely, included privileged documents, included documents already in the Moving Party’s possession, and many of which were irrelevant to the merit hearing.

19The Respondent further submitted that the documents requested were not raised at the time of the preparation of the PO or the Case Management Conferences (“CMCs”), and that the production of the documents would be prejudicial to the Respondent as it would require focus to be taken away from the preparation of the merit hearing, it would be inconsistent with the PO and the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), there is no unavoidable emergency giving reason to the adjournment of the hearing, and there is no hardship or prejudice to the Respondent by maintaining the hearing dates.

20With respect to the request to postpone the merit hearing, the Respondent submitted that paragraph 23 of the PO notes that no adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness and that Rule 17 of the Rules applies to such requests. It was the Respondent’s position that the adjournment should therefore not be granted as the request was not based on a serious hardship or illness.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

21Due to the imminent timing of the merit hearing scheduled to start on Tuesday, April 22, 2025, and the request by the Moving Party for the merit hearing to be rescheduled, the Tribunal reserved its decision and convened a subsequent Telephone Conference Call (“TCC”) on February 28, 2025 in order to deliver an Oral Decision.

22The Tribunal carefully considered the material before it, as well as the submissions of the Parties and found that the motions for production and for rescheduling of the merit hearing should succeed, in part, for the following reasons. These reasons and the ruling of the Tribunal were delivered to the Parties as an oral decision at the TCC.

23The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that some of the requested material is overly broad and not material to the merit hearing, but that the request of some of the material is reasonable in the circumstances.

24The Tribunal found that the Appellant would be at a disadvantage, and therefore prejudiced, without the disclosure of all reports to Council and agency comments related to the Applications. Although the documents requested by the Moving Party were not raised at the time of the preparation of the PO or the CMCs, the Tribunal found that it is reasonable that, subsequent to those events, the Moving Party’s witnesses might reasonably request certain documents to review in preparation for the merit hearing. Thus, it is reasonable that the Appellant might not have requested such documents earlier in the application review process. It is also reasonable to conclude that the Appellant does not have in their possession the documents they are requesting through the motion hearing, otherwise there would be no need to take the steps to go through this process.

25The Tribunal also found that any notable prejudice to an adjournment of the merit hearing would be more injurious to the Appellant yet, in this case, it is the Appellant who requested the adjournment.

26Further, the Tribunal found that Rule 1.3 of the Rules provides for the Rules to be liberally interpreted and Rule 1.6 provides for the Tribunal to grant all necessary exceptions from the Rules or from the PO, or to grant other relief as it considers necessary and appropriate.

27Finally, the Tribunal found that the reports to Council and agency comment letters would be helpful to the Tribunal at the merit hearing to ensure the issues in dispute are disposed of in the most fair, just, and expeditious manner and that the material listed in the Order should be readily available to the Respondent to produce and serve on the Moving Party.

28The Tribunal determined that the request for production of the material should be granted on a partial basis as outlined in the Order below.

29The Tribunal also found that the request to reschedule the merit hearing should be granted given the imminent timing of the hearing and the need to provide the Respondent time to assemble and serve the documents to the Moving Party, and for the Moving Party to have sufficient time to review the material and prepare for the merit hearing. In that respect, the merit hearing is to be adjourned and rescheduled as outlined in the Order below.

30The Tribunal therefore exercised its authority to grant the Motion, in part. The Tribunal did so with due consideration of all submissions and aspects of the proposed development of the Property.

Merit Hearing

31The merit hearing is therefore adjourned and rescheduled to Monday, September 15, 2025 commencing at 10 a.m. through to Friday, October 3, 2025, save for Tuesday, September 30, 2025.

32Parties are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before the hearing begins to test their video and audio connections:

GoTo Meeting: https://meet.goto.com/348282861

Access code: 348-282-861

33Parties 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

34Persons 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: (647) 497-9373 or Toll Free 1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 348-282-861.

35Individuals 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.

Costs

36Regarding the request for costs by both the Moving Party and the Respondent, the Tribunal advised the Parties that a cost award would need to be pursued through a separate Motion request made within 30 days of the issuance of this Decision and Order, in compliance with Rule 23 of the Rules. The Tribunal advised that Parties that, as per Rule 23.9, it may only award costs against a Party if the conduct or course of conduct of a Party, with respect to the proceedings before the Tribunal, has been unreasonable, frivolous or vexatious, or if a Party has acted in bad faith.

UPDATE

37The Tribunal has since received an Affidavit of Service from the Respondent confirming service of the material to the Appellant and to the City as of March 21, 2025.

38The Tribunal has also received, reviewed, and approved the updated PO which is appended as Attachment 1.

ORDER

39THE TRIBUNAL ORDERED that the Motion is granted, in part, and the Municipality is directed to disclose to the Appellant the following, as related to the Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications under appeal, by March 21, 2025:

1. all reports to Council;
2. all comment letters and/or emails, including any clearance letters, from commenting agencies and municipal departments;
3. a list of the review agencies in attendance at the September 15, 2022 meeting; and
4. a list of the review agencies consulted by the Municipality on or about November 21, 2023.

40THE TRIBUNAL ORDERED that the merit hearing is adjourned and rescheduled as directed above.

41THE TRIBUNAL ORDERED that the meeting and exchange dates in the Procedural Order be revised to reflect the new hearing dates as directed above and that the Procedural Order be resubmitted for approval by the Tribunal.

42THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that the updated Procedural Order appended as Attachment 1 shall govern the proceedings.

43The Member is not seized and no further notice is required.

“C. I. Molinari”

C. I. MOLINARI 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.

ATTACHMENT 1

ISSUE DATE: CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000348

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

Applicant/Appellant: Lakeshore Developments (Thunder Bay) Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application Description: To permit the development of 24 residential units, 2 other units, and a green space. Reference Number: Z2-21 Property Address: Lot 1-12 and Blocks 13-24 Registered Plan 55M-639 Municipality/UT: Shuniah/Thunder Bay OLT Case No: OLT-24-000348 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000348 OLT Case Name: Lakeshore Developments (Thunder Bay) Inc. v. Shuniah (Municipality)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 51(39) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Applicant/Appellant: Lakeshore Developments (Thunder Bay) Inc. Subject: Plan of Subdivision - Refusal by Approval Authority Description: To permit the development of 24 residential units, 2 other units, and a green space. Reference Number: SD1-22 Property Address: Lot 1-12 and Blocks 13-24 Registered Plan 55M-639 Municipality/UT: Shuniah/Thunder Bay OLT Case No: OLT-24-000349 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000348

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 Monday, September 15th, 2025 at 10:00AM EST.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is fourteen (14) 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.

4. The parties identified at the case management conference are set out in Schedule “A”.

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Schedule “B”. 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.

6. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Schedule “C” 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 June 20th, 2025, and in accordance with paragraph 21 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.

10. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before July 18th, 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 August 15th, 2025.

11. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in 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.

12. 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.

13. On or before August 15th, 2025, 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 21 below.

14. On or before August 11th, 2025, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

15. On or before August 29th, 2025, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 21 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

16. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence within ten (10) days after the evidence is received and in accordance with paragraph 21 below.

17. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before September 5th, 2025.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before September 8th, 2025, with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

21. All filings shall be submitted electronically and in hard copy. 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.

22. 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.

So orders the Tribunal.

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

Schedule “A” to Procedural Order

Parties

1. Lakeshore Developments (Thunder Bay) Inc.
2. The Corporation of the Municipality of Shuniah
3. The Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay

November 7, 2024

Schedule “B” to the Procedural Order

ISSUES LIST

Legislative Compliance

1. Do the Applications for Condominium Plan Approval and Zoning Amendments (“the Applications) have regard for matters of Provincial interest under Section 2 of the Planning Act and in particular under Clauses 2 a), d), f), h), i), o), p), and r?
2. Are the Applications consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, in particular Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 3.1, 3.6, 3.7, 3.9, 4.1, 4.2, 4.6, 5.1, 5.2, 6 and 8?
3. Are the Applications in conformity with the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario?
4. Do the Applications conform to the Municipality’s Official Plan, specifically Sections 3.5, 3.13.2, 3.13.4, 3.20, and 4.2(c), d), e), f), j), k), n), o), p), q), r), and s)?
5. Do the Applications meet the criteria in Subsection 51 (24) of the Planning Act?

Delay, Laches

6. Should the Applications be permitted to proceed or be approved, given: (a) the passage of time since their filing; (b) the material changes in the proposed development and regulations related thereto; (c) the stage in the Planning process at which such changes were proposed?

Condominium Development

7. Is the development as a Condominium good planning given the size, location, and configuration of the units and of the common elements to serve them?
8. Is the development as a Condominium appropriate given the inevitable contrasting and conflicting interests of the owners of units South of the CPR right of way and those of the owners of units North thereof.

Impact on Municipal Water Supply

9. Is the development of lots with septic systems in proximity to the City of Thunder Bay water supply intake good planning, safe and in the public interest?

Proposed Road System

10. Will the proposed road system: (a) provide appropriate access for emergency vehicles; (b) have adequate width, turning radii and other facilities; (c) meet applicable standards to assure safe and reliable passage in all weather conditions; (d) be sufficiently and consistently managed, funded and maintained to meet the aforementioned standards?

Site Plan Control

11. Is a Site Plan Agreement an appropriate and fair measure for this Municipality to deal with matters such as those referred to in paragraph 13 hereof?
12. Should issues such as unit density, septic systems, safe water supply, snow storage and removal, the protection of archeological resources, road width, turning radii, emergency vehicle access, grading and drainage plans and prematurity be dealt with in detail at the public hearing?

Proposed new Residential Lots / Units

13. Does the proposed development have sufficient area for key facilities including, without limitation, park facilities, safe servicing, snow removal and storage, protection of archeological resources, and parking.
14. Is the grading and drainage plan provided by the Appellant satisfactory and, if so, how will its implementation be assured?
15. Is there an assured, safe water supply for the whole of the proposed development?
16. Are the proposed lots South of the CNR right of way suitable for residential use?
17. Do the Applications conform with section 10.4.5 of the Zoning By-law 2038-00?
18. Will the provisions of section 10.4.13 of the Zoning By-law 2038-00 regarding setbacks be conformed with?
19. Is it good planning to permit the lands South of the CNR right of way to be held and developed separately from the Northerly lands or should the Southerly parcels be tied to the Northerly ones?
20. Has the Appellant made satisfactory arrangements for the adequate supply of public utilities and municipal services including, without limitation telephone, hydro-electric and gas?

General Planning Issues

21. Do the Applications represent good planning and are they in the public interest?
22. Is the proposed development premature?

Note: The identification of an issue on this list does not mean that the parties agree that the issue, or the manner in which it is expressed, is appropriate for or relevant to the proper determination of the appeals. The extent of the appropriateness and/or relevance of the issue may be a matter of evidence and/or argument at the hearing.

Schedule “C” to Procedural Order

Order of Proceedings

1. Opening Submissions Appellant Opening Submissions – Lakeshore Development Respondents Opening Submissions – Shuniah and Thunder Bay
2. Appellant Evidence – Lakeshore Developments Direct, Cross and Reply examinations of Appellant evidence.
3. Respondent Shuniah Evidence Direct, Cross and Reply examinations of Respondent evidence.
4. Respondent Thunder Bay Evidence Direct, Cross and Reply examinations of Respondent evidence.
5. Appellant Reply, if necessary
6. Closing Submissions Closing Submission by Appellant. Closing Submissions of Respondents. Reply Submissions of Appellant (if any).