Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: May 9, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000968

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

Applicant and Appellant: Argo Neyagawa Corporation Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit the development of a mixed-use community with a storm water management pond Reference Number: OPA1220.02 Property Address: Part of Lot 20, Concession 2, NDS Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000968 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000968 OLT Case Name: Argo Neyagawa Corporation v. Oakville (Town)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Argo Neyagawa Corporation Description: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Reference Number: Z.1220.02 Property Address: Part of Lot 20, Concession 2, NDS Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000969 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000968

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Argo Neyagawa Corporation Description: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision Reference Number: 24T-24001/1220 Property Address: Part of Lot 20, Concession 2, NDS Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000970 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000968

Heard: April 16, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Argo Neyagawa Corporation	P. Harrington, M. Barrett
Town of Oakville	N. Chandra, J. Huctwith (in absentia)
Burnhamthorpe / Oakville Holdings Inc.	A. Pilkington, S. Leisk (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C. HARDY ON APRIL 16, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This is the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) conducted in these proceedings before the Tribunal concerning appeals brought by Argo Neyagawa Corporation (“Appellant”) pursuant to ss. 22(7), 34(11) and 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”) relating to the failure of the Town of Oakville (“Town”) to render decisions within statutory timelines respecting the Appellant’s applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”). The OPA, ZBA and DPS pertain to lands municipally known as 505 Burnhamthorpe Road West (“subject property”).

2The purpose of the OPA, ZBA and DPS are set out in the Tribunal’s CMC decision issued on January 28, 2025 and need not be reiterated.

3The purpose of scheduling a second CMC was to consider one participant request, providing the participant was present at the CMC, receive a status update from the Parties and discuss next steps in the proceedings.

STATUS REQUESTS

4In advance of the first CMC, the Tribunal received one request for Participant status from Parminder Narang. Mr. Narang did not appear at the first CMC and as such, the Tribunal denied Mr. Narang’s request on a without prejudice basis allowing Mr. Narang an opportunity to make his request for Participant status at the second CMC, providing he is in attendance.

5Mr. Narang attended the CMC and affirmed that he wished to have his Participant status request considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed with Mr. Narang that his concerns related to traffic, school availability and lack of green space and further confirmed that he would be limited to written submissions. On consent of the Parties, the Tribunal granted Participant status to Parminder Narang.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR SETTLEMENT / MEDIATION

6Counsel for the Appellant provided a helpful status update and explained that a Town-initiated Official Plan had been brought forward following the first CMC and was subject to appeals, including an appeal by the Appellant. The Appellant is seeking to engage in Tribunal-led mediation with the Town on the appeals which are the subject of this CMC, not on the larger Town-initiated OP.

7Counsel for the Town advised that the Town was in agreement with the approach to proceed with Tribunal-led mediation on the herein appeals. Counsel for Burnamthorpe / Oakville Holdings Inc. (“BOH”) was seeking instructions on its attendance at any potential mediation.

DRAFT PROCEDURAL ORDER AND HEARING DATES

8Prior to the CMC, the Appellant filed a draft Procedural Order with the Tribunal, and the Town filed its Issues List under separate cover.

9Counsel for BOH confirmed that it was aligned with the position of the Appellant and to avoid duplication, would not be raising any additional issues on the Issues List. BOH submitted that it would file a witness list but would not file witness statements and would also limit its submissions to reply once it had reviewed the Town’s position on the issues. The Town raised concerns with this approach, given that the Town would not have an opportunity to respond to the submissions of BOH. The Appellant also had concerns given that, although they were aligned, it may also want to reply to the submissions of BOH. The Tribunal suggested, and the Parties agreed, that the Town and the Appellant would be permitted an opportunity to file sur-reply to any reply received from BOH.

10Counsel for the Appellant agreed to revise the Procedural Order to incorporate the details discussed at the CMC and on Wednesday April 30, 2025 submitted a final Procedural Order, on consent of the Parties, for review and approval by the Tribunal. The Procedural Order attached as Schedule A to this Decision has been reviewed and approved by the Tribunal and will govern the pre-hearing procedural requirements and the hearing of the appeals.

11Counsel for the Appellant submitted that it anticipated the Parties would call a total of eight witnesses and as such, they were seeking to schedule a 10-day hearing. Following an in-depth discussion in an attempt to accommodate the schedules of Counsel and witnesses, the Tribunal proposed that the hearing be scheduled for five days in December 2025 and five days in January 2026. The Parties agreed with the suggested approach.

12The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day video hearing from Monday December 8, 2025 – Friday December 12, 2025 and continuing on Monday January 12, 2026 – Friday January 16, 2026 at 10 a.m.

13Parties 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

14Parties 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

15Persons 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.

1Individuals 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

16THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT Parminder Narang is granted Participant status to the proceedings.

17The Procedural Order attached as Schedule A to this Order shall govern the hearing of the appeals.

18The case management directives above are so ordered.

19There 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.

SCHEDULE A

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

Applicant and Appellant: Argo Neyagawa Corporation Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit the development of a mixed-use community with a storm water management pond Reference Number: OPA1220.02 Property Address: Part of Lot 20, Concession 2, NDS Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000968 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000968 OLT Case Name: Argo Neyagawa Corporation v. Oakville (Town)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Argo Neyagawa Corporation Description: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Reference Number: Z.1220.02 Property Address: Part of Lot 20, Concession 2, NDS Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000969 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000968

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Argo Neyagawa Corporation Description: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision Reference Number: 24T-24001/1220 Property Address: Part of Lot 20, Concession 2, NDS Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000970 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000968

PROCEDURAL ORDER

1. The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own motion.

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing is scheduled from December 8, 2025 at 10:00 a.m – December 12, 2025 and continuing from January 12, 2026 at 10:00 a.m – January 16, 2026. The link to the video hearing is as follows: https://meet.goto.com/348282861

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 10 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 found in Attachment 1.

4. The parties and participants previously identified at a case management conference in this proceeding are set out in Attachment 2. Unless the Tribunal directs otherwise, a person who wishes to become a party or participant at the hearing who is not listed in Attachment 2 must make the necessary motion to the Tribunal. The Tribunal may refuse to grant such status.

5. The issues to be adjudicated at the hearing are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. There will be no changes to the Issues List unless the Tribunal permits and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

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

7. The meaning of the terms used in this Procedural Order are identified in Attachment 5.

8. Any person granted status 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.

9. 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

10. If the Applicant/Appellant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing, the Applicant/Appellant shall provide copies of the revised proposal, including any available revised plans, drawings and proposed instruments, to the other parties on or before August 20, 2025. The Applicant/Appellant acknowledges that any revisions to the proposal after that date, without consent of the parties or which do not seek to scope or resolve concerns expressed in the Witness Statement(s) filed by another party, may be grounds for a request to adjourn the hearing.

11. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of their intended witnesses in the order in which the witnesses will be called during the hearing. This list must be delivered on or before September 19, 2025 and in accordance with paragraph 25 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must provide a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and detailing the precise area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified.

12. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have at least one experts’ meeting, which is to be held on a without prejudice and confidential basis (except insofar as it may be necessary for an expert to seek out recourses or information required for the expert to participate – e.g., consult with other experts or counsel) for the purposes of using best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting(s) the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before October 3, 2025.

13. 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 25 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.

14. 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 25 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 25 below.

15. On or before October 9, 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 25 below.

16. On or before October 9, 2025 a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 25 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement unless ordered by the Tribunal.

17. On or before October 10, 2025 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

18. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before October 29, 2025 and in accordance with paragraph 25 below.

19. Parties in need of sur-reply may provide to all parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written sur-reply to written evidence on or before November 10, 2025 and in accordance with paragraph 25 below. For greater certainty, sur-reply for the Town and the Applicant/Appellant is limited to reply to any written response filed by Burnhamthorpe/Oakville Holdings Inc. in accordance with paragraph 18 above.

20. On or before November 19, 2025 the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 25 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

21. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before November 21, 2025.

22. 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.

23. 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 10 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

24. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before December 1, 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.

25. All filings shall be submitted electronically. 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.

26. 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.

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
August 20, 2025	Last day to provide revised proposal, including revised instruments, plans and drawings (if any)
September 19, 2025	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines, CVs included)
October 3, 2025	Agreed Statements of Facts and Issues to be filed
October 9, 2025	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
October 10, 2025	Deadline to advise OLT of any reductions in hearing time.
October 29, 2025	Exchange of Reply Statements (if any)
November 10, 2025	Exchange of Sur-Reply Statements (if any)
November 19, 2025	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
November 21, 2025	Finalize & submit Joint Document Book
December 1, 2025	Hearing Plan filed with the Tribunal
December 8, 2025	Hearing commences (10 days)

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

Parties

Argo Neyagawa Corporation [Applicant/Appellant] Patrick Harrington & Meaghan Barrett Aird & Berlis LLP Brookfield Place, 181 Bay Street, Suite 1800 Toronto, ON M5J 2T9 Tel: 416-863-1500 Email: pharrington@airdberlis.com mbarrett@airdberlis.com

Town of Oakville Nadia Chandra & Jennifer Huctwith Assistant Town Solicitors 1225 Trafalgar Road Oakville, ON L6H 0H3 Tel: 905-845-6601 Email: nadia.chandra@oakville.ca jennifer.huctwith@oakville.ca

Burnhamthorpe/Oakville Holdings Inc. Adrianna Pilkington & Signe Leisk Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP 40 Temperance Street Toronto, ON M5H 0B4 Tel: 416 860 6453 Email: apilkington@cassels.com sleisk@cassels.com

Participants

Parminder Narang Email: parminder.narang@gmail.com

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUES LIST

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

ISSUES LIST OF THE TOWN OF OAKVILLE

General

1. Do the proposed amendments to the North Oakville East Secondary Plan and Zoning By-law together with the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision have appropriate regard to matters of provincial interest within Section 2 of the Planning Act, including but not limited to Sections 2 (f), (h), (i), (j), (m), (n), (q) and (r)?

2. Are the applications consistent with the policies of the Provincial Planning Statement (2024) issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act, including but not limited to Chapters 2.1.5, 2.1.6, 2.3.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 2.1.3.4, 2.1.3.5, 2.4.1.2, 2.4.1.3, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.6.1, 3.6.8, 3.9.1(a), 6.1.5, 6.1.6, 6.1.8, 6.1.12, 6.2.1?

3. Do the applications conform to the Region of Halton Official Plan (now a town Official Plan), including but not limited to Sections 58(1.1 and 2),72, 72.1, 76, 77 (5), 79, 82, 82.2, 89(3), 172(6, 9.1), 173(1.2), 173(10)?

4. Do the applications have appropriate regard to the Council-approved official plan policies for the Neyagawa Urban Core Area (OPA 326) including but not limited to a Hwy 407 transit station as presently shown on Figure NOE4 of the North Oakville Ease Secondary Plan, minimum densities, heights and commercial uses?

5. Are the proposed zoning standards appropriate?

6. Is it appropriate to remove the transit station overlay shown on Figure NOE4 of the North Oakville East Secondary Plan in the absence of an in-force and effect Official Plan for the Neyagawa Urban Core Area?

7. Are the proposed uses, densities, heights and built forms appropriate?

8. Does the application provide for a minimum density of 160 residents and jobs combined per hectare density as set out in the Regional Official Plan for Primary Regional Nodes?

9. Does the application provide for the 85:15 proportion of residents and jobs of as set out in the Regional Official Plan for Primary Regional Nodes? Does the proposal satisfactorily respond to the Town/Region Best Planning Estimates for the Neyagawa Urban Core Area and the town as a whole?

10. Do the applications represent good planning and in the public interest?

Transportation

11. Does the proposal protect for transit corridors, rights-of-way, and transit stations to meet current and projected needs as required by the Provincial Planning Statement and the North Oakville East Secondary Plan?

12. Does the proposal appropriately provide for the integration of a Hwy 407 transit station as identified on Figure NOE4 of the North Oakville East Secondary Plan?

13. Does the development proposal satisfactorily address the concerns / issues of the Ministry of Transportation/407 ETR in relation to, but not limited to, stormwater management, the operation of the Highway 407 interchange, impacts on the future 407 Bus Rapid Transit Corridor, lighting requirements and development setbacks?

14. Does the proposed intersection spacing on Neyagawa Boulevard south of the 407/Bronte Road interchange conform with MTO/407ETR intersection spacings?

15. Does the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared by the CGH dated December 2023 satisfactorily address concerns related to but not limited to the proposal, development of the surrounding area, the functionality of William Halton Parkway/Fourth Line roundabout and daylight triangles?

16. Has the TIS addressed future road widenings, intersection improvements/daylight triangles, and transit-supportive infrastructure for Neyagawa Boulevard and William Halton Parkway?

17. Does the proposal satisfactorily address concerns related to regional transportation systems and stormwater management infrastructure?

18. Is the proposed road network appropriate, and will it allow for an acceptable and complete transportation network with sufficient capacity to accommodate development on the site and the adjacent lands including a transit station?

19. Has the proposed development considered the condition of the adjacent municipal road network, and if it has the capability to convey the increase in traffic and population due to the new development?

Commercial Review: Non–Residential Uses

20. Has the proposal appropriately considered the direction from the North Oakville East Commercial Study and include an appropriate amount of retail and service commercial space on the site?

21. Does the Commercial Demand Study prepared by urban Metrics dated March 11, 2023 satisfactorily address the non-residential needs for the northwest corner of Neyagawa Boulevard and William Halton Parkway area?

Stormwater Management

22. Does the proposal as outlined in the applicant’s EIR/FSS conform with the North Oakville Creeks Subwatershed Study?

23. Have all stormwater management measures including but not limited to stormwater management ponds, storage pipes, tanks, water quality treatment units, low impact development (LIDs) and groundwater management been satisfactorily addressed?

24. Has the proposal satisfactorily addressed all the stormwater management requirements of the 407ETR Concession Company?

25. Does the SWM strategy, including LID’s conform with Town’s CLIECA Agreement with the Province (MECP)?

26. Does the proposed development and associated servicing meet the Town of Oakville’s standard development practices?

27. Is the use of urban stormwater management ponds appropriate?

28. How will stormwater from the site impact Regional infrastructure on Neyagawa Boulevard and William Halton Parkway?

29. Will the proposal negatively affect downstream watercourses or the Regional storm system and if so how will that be addressed to so there is no negative impact?

Servicing

30. Does the proposal through the submission of a proposed servicing plan within the EIR/FSS satisfactorily address concerns related to the Region approved Area Servicing Plan (ASP)?

31. Has the ASP Addendum been updated to reflect changes in land use and servicing needs?

32. Does the proposal have sufficient servicing allocation to develop the site? Has the Region allocated water and wastewater allocation under the Regional Allocation Program? If there has not been an allocation, then is there a Holding Provision proposed that would be lifted only once sufficient water and wastewater allocation under the Regional Allocation Program?

33. Has a Holding Provision been proposed that would ensure that the servicing extensions have been constructed and operational?

34. Does the FSR align with the proposed ASP Addendum?

Parkland

35. Does the proposal satisfactorily consider the provision of parkland to support the future population?

Urban Design

36. Do the applications meet the urban design policies and guidelines of the Town?

37. Does the proposal appropriately provide sufficient Urban Design direction on matters such as but not limited to:

• appropriate mix of land uses, residential/mixed-use built forms, heights and density;
• block organization and composition;
• future Hwy. 407 transit station;
• streets and circulation network; and,
• parks and open space network.

38. Does the proposal appropriately incorporate a trail along the proposed future transitway as shown in the North Oakville East Secondary Plan?

Noise

39. Does the Environmental Noise Study prepared by Valcoustics Canada dated December 2023 appropriately address all noise matters associated with the proposal?

Adjacent Properties

40. Does the proposal provide satisfactory consideration and appropriate integration of the adjacent properties?

Archaeological

41. Does the proposal appropriately address any and all archaeological matters as cited in the Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of the 2433170 Ontario Inc. property report submitted with the application?

Waste Management

42. Does the proposal appropriately address regional waste management? Does the existing wastewater system have sufficient capacity to support the proposed residential uses?

43. Does the design permit Regional waste collection?

44. Is the appellant required to provide high level revised separate waste management plans for each high-rise building?

45. Is the appellant required to acknowledge, in writing, that the developer will be fully responsible for collection and disposal of all waste until the developer is able to confirm that the development has reached 90% occupancy?

46. Is the appellant required to acknowledge, in writing, they will provide a letter to all tenants/owners within the development which clearly communicates the details of the Waste management system that will be provided by the Developer and when Region collection will begin?

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Argo Neyagawa (Applicant/Appellant).
2. Burnhamthorpe/Oakville Holdings Inc. (Added Party).
3. Town of Oakville (Municipality – In Response)
4. Argo Neyagawa (Applicant/Appellant – In Reply (if any)).

ATTACHMENT 5

Meaning of terms used in the Procedural Order:

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

NOTE that a person who wishes to become a party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

A participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.

A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.

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

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

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

An expert witness statement should include his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons supporting their opinions and conclusions and (5) a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the participant’s position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submissions of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports or materials, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.

Additional Information

A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.

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

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

64240976.1