Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
May 06, 2025
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-24-001146
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
SG Adelaide Ltd.
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description:
To permit development 65-storey residential/mixed-use building comprised of 600 dwelling units
Reference Number:
20 120404 STE 13 OZ
Property Address:
110-112 Adelaide Street East & 85 Lombard Street
Municipality/UT:
Toronto
OLT Case No.:
OLT-24-001146
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-24-001146
OLT Case Name:
SG Adelaide Ltd. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A
Appellant:
SG Adelaide Ltd.
Subject:
Site Plan
Description:
To permit development 65-storey residential/mixed-use building comprised of 600 dwelling units
Reference Number:
20 120404 STE 13 OZ
Property Address:
110-112 Adelaide Street East & 85 Lombard Street
Municipality/UT:
Toronto
OLT Case No.:
OLT-24-001147
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-24-001146
OLT Case Name:
SG Adelaide Ltd. v. Toronto (City)
Heard:
April 17, 2025 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
SG Adelaide Ltd.
A. Frank J. Park, in absentia
City of Toronto
D. Abimbola
St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association
S. Kavanagh*
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C. HARDY ON APRIL 17, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This is the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) conducted in these proceedings before the Tribunal concerning appeals brought by SG Adelaide Ltd. (“Appellant”) pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended and s. 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, as amended relating to the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to render decisions within statutory timelines respecting the Appellant’s applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and Site Plan Approval (“SPA”). The ZBA and SPA pertain to lands municipally known as 110-112 Adelaide Street East and 85 Lombard Street (“subject property”) and are required to permit redevelopment of the subject property with a mixed-use building comprised of residential, retail and office space.
2The purpose of scheduling a second CMC was to further consider status requests, receive a status update from the Parties and discuss next steps in the proceedings.
STATUS REQUESTS
3St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association (“SLNA”) was granted Party status at the first CMC. The representative for SLNA, Suzanne Kavanagh, was directed by the Tribunal to file an Authorization Form with the Tribunal confirming that she was authorized to represent SLNA in the proceedings.
4At the first CMC, Karen Rolfe and Derrick Hughes were directed to provide their addresses to support their proximity to the subject property if they wished to continue to seek participant status. The Tribunal confirmed that it did not receive updated information from Ms. Rolfe or Mr. Hughes and denied their participant status requests.
5Similarly, at the first CMC the condominium Boards for the buildings located at 77 Lombard Street and 95 Lombard Street were directed to clarify their positions. Counsel for the Appellant advised the Tribunal that he had been in contact with Alexander MacIsaac and Marko Tesanovic, who had both been granted participant status at the first CMC. It is unclear whether Mr. MacIsaac and Mr. Tesanovic were acting as participants in their personal capacity or on behalf of the board of 77 Lombard Street. On or before Friday, May 9, 2025, the Tribunal directs Mr. MacIsaac and Mr. Tesanovic to provide the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator with written confirmation clarifying whether they are participating in the proceedings in their personal capacities or on behalf of the board of 77 Lombard Street.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SETTLEMENT / MEDIATION
6The Parties indicated that without prejudice discussions were ongoing and that they were also open to mediation if it was determined that it would be of assistance. The Tribunal reviewed the availability of Tribunal-led mediation which could be arranged through the Case Coordinator.
DRAFT PROCEDURAL ORDER
7Prior to the CMC, the Appellant filed a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) with the Tribunal which contained the issues identified by the City and SLNA.
8During the CMC, the Tribunal and the Parties conducted a detailed review of the PO and the issues. The Tribunal raised a concern regarding the duplicative issues raised by the City and SLNA. Counsel for the City explained that it was preferred to keep the issues separate to avoid any misunderstanding with SLNA regarding the City’s role. Ms. Kavanagh agreed indicating it was also the preference of SLNA to keep it’s list of issues separate from those of the City. The Parties assured the Tribunal that the duplicative issues would not result in duplication of evidence.
9Counsel for the Appellant agreed to revise the PO and file a final draft with the Tribunal for review and approval on or before April 30, 2025.
10On May 2, 2025, Counsel for the Appellant submitted a final PO, which is attached as Schedule A to this Decision, and which has been reviewed and approved by the Tribunal and will govern the pre-hearing procedural requirements and the hearing of the appeals.
11The Tribunal confirmed that 28 individuals were granted participant status at the first CMC. Given the common issues raised by the participants, the Tribunal encouraged the participants to work collaboratively to submit a fulsome participant statement in order to avoid duplicative participant statements. The Tribunal reminded everyone that the merit of an argument or a position is not strengthened through duplication.
NEXT STEPS
12Counsel for the Appellant explained that the Parties were seeking a 9-day hearing commencing Monday, February 9, 2026. The Parties had been engaged in discussions and agreed that 9 days would be sufficient.
13Following a discussion with the Parties, the Tribunal agreed with the proposed approach and scheduled a 9-day video hearing commencing on Monday, February 9, 2026 at 10 a.m. as follows:
14Parties 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://meet.goto.com/348282861
Access code: 348-282-861
15Parties 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
16Persons 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.
17Individuals 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.
18The Tribunal will not be sitting on Monday, February 16, 2026.
ORDER
19The case management directives above are so ordered.
20There will be no further notice and this Member is not seized, however, will remain available for case management subject to the Tribunal’s calendar.
“C. Hardy”
c. hardy
VICE-CHAIR
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: 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.
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
Tribunal ontarien de
l’aménagement du territoire
655 rue Bay, suite 1500 Toronto ON M5G 1E5 Téléphone: (416) 212-6349 Sans Frais: 1-866-448-2248 Site Web: olt.gov.on.ca
SCHEDULE A
ISSUE DATE: May 06, 2025 CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-001146
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: SG Adelaide Ltd.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit development 65-storey residential/mixed-use building comprised of 600 dwelling units
Reference Number: 20 120404 STE 13 OZ
Property Address: 110-112 Adelaide Street East & 85 Lombard Street
Municipality/UT: Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001146
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001146
OLT Case Name: SG Adelaide Ltd. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A
Appellant: SG Adelaide Ltd.
Subject: Site Plan
Description: To permit development 65-storey residential/mixed-use building comprised of 600 dwelling units
Reference Number: 20 120404 STE 13 OZ
Property Address: 110-112 Adelaide Street East & 85 Lombard Street
Municipality/UT: Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001147
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001146
PROCEDURAL ORDER
The Tribunal orders that:
- 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
- A hearing respecting matters under the Planning Act is scheduled to proceed by video as follows:
Date: February 9, 2026
GoTo Meeting: https://meet.goto.com/348282861
Access Code: Access Code: 348-282-861
Audio only telephone line: 1 888 299 1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373
The initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 9 days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible. The procedural order deadlines are generally summarized in Attachment “1” to this Order.
The parties and participants in the hearing as identified at the Case Management Conference are listed in Attachment “2” to this Order.
The Issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment “3” to this Order. 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.
The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment “4” hereto. 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 – 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.
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, the Acknowledgment of Expert’s Duty form, 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 10, 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 October 24, 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 and the curriculum vitae and Acknowledgment of Expert Duty form previously provided in paragraph 13 below. 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. 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. 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 paragraph 13 below.
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 November 7, 2025, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case coordinator and in accordance with paragraph 22 below or the witness or participant may not give oral evidence at the hearing. Participants are only permitted to provide written evidence to the Tribunal, unless otherwise permitted by the Tribunal.
On or before November 7, 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 November 28, 2025, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.
On or before January 12, 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 November 28, 2025, the parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case coordinator 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 coordinator on or before January 26, 2026.
A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal, in compliance with Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
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 Tribunal on or before February 2, 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 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.
If the applicant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing, the applicant shall provide copies of the revised proposal, including all revised plans, drawings, proposed instruments, updated supporting documents and reports, to the other parties on or before August 23, 2025. The applicant acknowledges that any revisions to the proposal after that date without the consent of the parties may be grounds for the Tribunal to adjourn the hearing.
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
August 23, 2025
Last date to provide copied of the revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any) – para. 23
October 3, 2025
Exchange of List of Witnesses and the order in which they will be called – para. 9
October 10, 2025
Expert Witness Meeting – para. 10
October 24, 2025
Filing of Statement(s) of Agreed Facts and Issues – para. 10
November 7, 2025
Exchange of Witness & Participant Statements – paras. 13 & 14
November 28, 2025
Confirmation to Tribunal if all reserved hearing dates are still required – para. 15
November 28, 2025
Exchange of Reply Evidence/Statements – para. 17
January 12, 2026
Exchange of Visual Evidence – para. 16
January 26, 2026
Filing of Joint Document Book – para. 18
February 2, 2026
Notification to Tribunal and Parties if witness not to provide oral evidence – para. 20
February 2, 2026
Filing of Hearing Plan – para. 21
February 9 to 13 and 17 to 20, 2026
Contested Hearing (if required) – para. 2
ATTACHMENT “2”
PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS
PARTIES
SG ADELAIDE LTD.
Jason Park / Adrian Frank
Kagan Shastri DeMelo Winer Park LLP
188 Avenue Road
Toronto, ON M5R 2J1
T: 416.645.4572 / 416.645.4532
E: jpark@ksllp.ca / afrank@ksllp.ca
CITY OF TORONTO
Derin Abimbola
Planning & Administrative Tribunal Law
26th fl., 55 John Street
Toronto, ON M5V 3C6
T: 416.338.1376
ST. LAWRENCE NEIGHBOURHOOD ASSOCIATION
Suzanne Kavanagh
230 The Esplanade
Toronto, ON M5A 4J6
T: 647-309-4365
PARTICIPANTS
Elaine Iannuzziello
Robert Duke
Dianne Coles
Alice Gray
Ashalea Stone
Valerie Walker
Kathryn Froh
Tesha Slack
Sandra Piperias
Romuald Lamps
Rod Monette
Adrienne McDonnell
Robert Alldis
Marko Tesanovic
John Lo
Clemens Sels
Colleen Farrell
Ian Kay
Alex Falevich
Eleanor Evans
Cathy Laskoski
Callan Rolfe-Hughes
Erica Meekes
Jerrett Young
Patrick Sabourin
Nina Coutinho
Yao Xu
Alexander Maclsaac
ATTACHMENT “3”
ISSUES LIST
City of Toronto
Do the Zoning By-law Amendment and proposed development have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections (h), (h.1), (n), (q), and (r)?
Would approval of the Zoning By-law Amendment and proposed development by the Tribunal have regard to the decision of City Council and the information and material that City Council considered in making its decision as required by Section 2.1 of the Planning Act?
Provincial Planning Statement (2024)
- Are the Zoning By-law Amendment and proposed development consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024) as required by Section 3(5) of the Planning Act, including policies 2.1.6 and 6.1.5?
City of Toronto Official Plan
- Do the proposed development and the Zoning By-law Amendment conform with the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, including but not limited to the policies related to:
a. Downtown: the Heart of Toronto (Section 2.2.1);
b. Public Realm (Section 3.1.1);
c. Built Form (Sections 3.1.3, 3.1.4);
d. Housing (Section 3.2.1)
e. The Natural Environment (Section 3.4);
f. The Future of Retailing (Section 3.5.3);
g. Mixed Use Areas (Section 4.5); and
h. Implementation (Sections 5.1.2; 5.2.1; 5.3.2)?
- Do the proposed development and the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment conform with Chapter 6, Section 41 of the Official Plan being the Downtown Plan, including but not limited to the policies related to:
a. Complete Communities (3.3, 3.5, 3.8, 3.18);
b. Directing Growth (4.2);
c. Mixed Use Areas (6.20, 6.21, 6.22, 6.26, 6.37, 6.38);
d. Urban Forest (7.34, 7.36);
e. Mobility (8.4, 8.27, 8.29, 8.30); and
f. Built Form (9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.8, 9.9, 9.11, 9.14, 9.25, 9.27, 9.30, 9.34)?
- Do the proposed development and the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment conform with Chapter 7, Site and Area Specific Policy 517, Downtown Tall Building Setbacks ("SASP 517") of the Official Plan?
Guidelines
Does the proposed development meet the intent and purpose of the Tall Building Design Guidelines (2013)?
Does the proposed development meet the intent and purpose of the Growing Up Guidelines: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities and Pet Friendly Design Guidelines?
Does the proposed development meet the intent and purpose of the Retail Design Manual?
Proposed Amendments to the Zoning By-law
- Is the requested Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 65-storey tower appropriate and is the development proposed to be permitted by the Zoning By-law Amendment compatible with its physical context?
Built Form
Does the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment fit appropriately within the existing and planned built form context, with regard to its base building heights, tower setbacks, tower separation distances, and tower stepbacks?
Does the proposed development consider the potential development on adjacent lands?
Does the proposed development:
a. Protect privacy with adjacent buildings;
b. Appropriately mitigate the impact of overlook and loss of skyview and daylight?
Are residential units appropriately located to ensure access to daylight, protect for privacy and minimize overlook to adjacent properties?
Does the proposed development provide a streetwall height that appropriately relates to the neighbouring sites?
Public Realm
- Does the proposed development improve the public realm and supports pedestrian activity and connectivity?
Amenity Space
Does the proposal make adequate provision for indoor and outdoor amenity space?
Is the proposed amenity space in an appropriate location and form and does it meet the intent and purpose of the Growing Up Guidelines and Pet Friendly Design Guidelines?
Streetscape
Does the proposed development provide for appropriate podium setbacks and tower stepbacks along the Adelaide Street East and Lombard Street frontages?
Does the proposed development support long term tree growth?
Parking and Access
Does the proposed development provide appropriate visitor, accessible, and car-share vehicle parking spaces?
Does the proposed development provide sufficient facilities to support on-site pick-up and drop-off and short-term delivery activities?
Does the proposed development provide sufficient and functional bicycle parking facilities, including appropriate access to the bicycle parking facilities?
Servicing
Is there sufficient municipal infrastructure capacity to service the proposed development with water, sewer and stormwater management facilities? If not, should a Holding (H) symbol pursuant to Section 36 of the Planning Act be included in the amending by-law until such time as the proposed development can be serviced?
Does the proposed development provide sufficient loading facilities?
Public Interest and Good Planning
- Is the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment good planning and in the public interest?
Other Matters
- If the requested Zoning By-law Amendment is approved by the Tribunal, in whole or in part, should the Tribunal's final order on the Zoning By-law Amendment be withheld until it has been advised by the City Solicitor that:
a. the final form and content of the Zoning By-law Amendment are satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Executive Director, Development Review;
b. the owner has, at its sole expense:
i. submitted a revised Functional Servicing Report and Stormwater Management Report, Hydrogeological Review, including the Foundation Drainage Report ("Engineering Reports") to demonstrate that the existing sewer system and watermain and any required improvements to them, have adequate capacity and supply to accommodate the development of the lands, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, in consultation with the General Manager, Toronto Water;
ii. secured the design and provided financial securities in respect of any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure identified in the accepted Engineering Reports, to support the development, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and the General Manager, Toronto Water, should it be determined that improvements or upgrades are required to support the development, according to the Engineering Reports accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and the General Manager, Toronto Water; and
iii. ensured that implementation of the accepted Engineering Reports does not require changes to the proposed amending By-law or that any required changes have been made to the proposed amending By-law to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review and the City Solicitor, including the use of a Holding ("H") By-law symbol regarding any new municipal servicing infrastructure or upgrades to existing municipal servicing infrastructure, as may be required.
- In the event the proposed development is approved in whole or in part, should the Tribunal withhold its final order on the Site Plan Control application until the Tribunal has been advised by the City Solicitor that:
a. the City has issued Notice of Approval Conditions for the Site Plan Control application to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review; and
b. the Owner has satisfied all pre-approval conditions included in the Notice of Approval Conditions, including the execution and registration of a Site Plan Agreement that will secure, amongst other matters, the implementation of any wind measures required, at the Owner’s sole cost, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review, and the City Solicitor.
St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association
Building & Design Issues
- Is the building height as it relates to St. James Park appropriate?
- Are the building setback and step back on Adelaide Street appropriate?
- Are the building separate distances for neighbouring properties appropriate?
- Does the building in its current state relate appropriately to the neighbourhood and the adjacent St. Lawrence Heritage Conservation District?
- Does the base building fit with the existing built form context?
- Does the street wall relate appropriately to neighbouring properties?
- In terms of design:
- Was the original design more in context with the neighbourhood?
- Is the current design out of context with respect to transitioning from St. James Park?
- Are the materials out of context and/or too much of a contrast for this area?
- Does the proposed development meet the Tall Building Design Guidelines?
- Does the design create concerns for privacy with adjacent buildings?
Amenity Space Issues
- Does the current amenity space meet the zoning bylaw requirement, in a way that is sufficient for this location and quality of life?
- Does the proposal adequately provide for pet friendly design and space for young families?
Parking and Loading Issues
- Does the current proposal create concern for pedestrian and cycle safety?
- With respect to parking:
- Does the proposal provide sufficient visitor and accessible parking spaces?
- Does the proposal adequately provide for aging in place, as health care providers need parking?
- Does the proposal provide adequate parking to keep food deliveries off of Adelaide?
Public Realm and Streetscape Issues
- Does the proposal provide adequate support for public realm and pedestrian activity and safety?
- Does the proposal cause concerns for long term tree growth?
- Does the proposal provide appropriate setbacks and tower stepbacks along the Adelaide Street East and Lombard Street frontages?
ATTACHMENT “4”
ORDER OF EVIDENCE
SG Adelaide Ltd.
City of Toronto
St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association
Reply by SG Adelaide Ltd. (if any)
ATTACHMENT “6”
DEFINITIONS
A party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. An unincorporated group cannot be a party and it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorization from the party.
NOTE that a person who wishes to become a party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.
A participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.
A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.
Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.
Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing.
A witness statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which he or she will discuss ; and a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing.
An expert witness statement should include his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons supporting their opinions and conclusions and (5) a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.
A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the participant’s position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submissions of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports or materials, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.
Additional Information
A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.
The order of examination of witnesses is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:
direct examination by the party presenting the witness;
direct examination by any party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;
cross-examination by parties of opposite interest;
re-examination by the party presenting the witness; or
another order of examination mutually agreed among the parties or directed by the Tribunal.