Soneil Markham Inc. v. Brampton (City), 2025 CanLII 46489

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: May 12, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000635

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

Appellant: Soneil Markham Inc.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit the mixed-use development of four 23-storey to 45-storey towers and two 5-storey buildings consisting of 1610 residential units and office and commercial space.

Reference Number: OZS-2023-0003

Property Address: 2 County Court Boulevard (Part of Block 133, Registered Plan 43M-553)

Municipality/UT: Brampton/Peel

OLT Case No: OLT-24-000635

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000635

OLT Case Name: Soneil Markham Inc. v. Brampton (City)

Heard: February 20, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Soneil Markham Inc.	Lee English Isaac Tang (in absentia)
City of Brampton	Eugenia Bashura Steven Ross (in absentia) Bruce Engell (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BITA M. RAJAEE ON FEBRUARY 20, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This event was the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) before the Tribunal with respect to an appeal under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) by Soneil Markham Inc. (“Applicant”) resulting from the failure of the City of Brampton (“City”) to make a decision within the statutory timeframe of the Act on an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”). The ZBA relates to lands located at 2 County Court Boulevard in the City (“Subject Property”).

2The purpose of the ZBA is to allow for a mixed-used development of four 23-storey to 45-storey towers and two five-storey buildings consisting of 1610 residential units as well as office and commercial space.

3A first CMC took place on October 9, 2024, wherein it was determined that no further Notice was required, as Notice was adequately served. The Affidavit of Service sworn by Olivia Hayes on September 9, 2024 was marked as Exhibit 1. Additionally, at the first CMC, Susan Heaton was granted Participant Status.

PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST

4A draft Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List (“IL”) were provided prior to the CMC. At the CMC, the Parties advised that they were still working on refining the issues and would provide a final version subsequent to the CMC. This has now been provided and is ratified by the Tribunal. The PO and IL attached to this Decision will govern the proceedings.

5Of note, with respect to the related matters OLT-23-000609 and OLT-24-000688, discussed in the decision from the first CMC issued on November 5, 2024, the Parties advised at the second CMC that mediation discussions were ongoing and were beginning to crystalize. Thus, some additional time to prepare the final IL would allow the Parties to potentially scope the IL further as a result of decisions made in the related appeals. Additionally, the Parties advised that the timing in the related files influenced the timing proposed for the Hearing in the subject appeal. They requested that the Hearing be considered for March 2026 to allow the other appeals to be completed. A finalization of those appeals would provide a path that would allow this appeal to proceed in a more streamlined fashion.

MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT

6The Tribunal raised the issue of mediation and settlement discussions. The Parties were directed to advise the Tribunal in writing should they reach a settlement with respect to some or all of the issues prior to the Hearing. Should the Parties wish to pursue Tribunal-assisted mediation, they may make a written request to the Tribunal through the Case Coordinator for those services.

MERIT HEARING

7Given the number of Parties, potential issues, and potential witnesses, the Tribunal agreed that a 15-day Merit Hearing would be appropriate. A Hearing has been scheduled to take place commencing on Monday, March 23, 2026 at 10 a.m. to and including Wednesday, April 15, 2026. The Tribunal will not be sitting on April 3, 6, and 7, 2026.

8The Parties and Participants are asked to log in to the Video Hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:

GoToMeeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/519389173

Access code: 519-389-173

9Parties 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

10Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to it by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: 1-888-299-1889 or Toll-Free: +1 (647) 497-9373. The access code is: 519-389-173.

11Individuals 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

12THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS as follows:

a. The Hearing is scheduled as described above in this Decision.

b. The Procedural Order and Issues List attached as Schedule 1 to this Decision shall govern this proceeding.

13This Member is not seized but may be contacted through the Case Coordinator should procedural issues arise.

“Bita M. Rajaee”

BITA M. RAJAEE

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

SCHEDULE 1

CASE NO.: OLT-24-000635

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

Applicant/Appellant: Soneil Markham Inc.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit the mixed-use development of four 23-storey to 45-storey towers and two 5-storey buildings consisting of 1610 residential units and office and commercial space.

Municipality File No.: OZS-2023-0003

Property Address: 2 County Court Boulevard (Part of Block 133, Registered Plan 43M-553)

Municipality/UT: Brampton/Peel

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000635

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000635

OLT Case Name: Soneil Markham Inc. v. Brampton (City)

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 will begin on March 23, 2026 at 10 a.m. The video conference access information is:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/519389173

Access Code: 519-389-173

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 15 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 found in Attachment 1.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 2.

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

6. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 4. 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 purpose of this Procedural Order and the meaning of the terms used in this Procedural Order are set out in Attachment 5.

8. 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.

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. 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 the witnesses will be called on or before October 24, 2025 in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae, a copy of their Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty form and a description of the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified.

11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before December 19, 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 January 23, 2026.

12. 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. 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. On or before February 6, 2026, 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 22 below.

13. Expert witnesses who are under summons, but not paid to produce a report, do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence on or before February 6, 2026. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence on or before February 6, 2026.

14. On or before February 6, 2026, 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.

15. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before February 20, 2026, and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

16. On or before January 30, 2026, the parties shall advise the Tribunal of whether any hearing dates scheduled for this matter may be released from the Tribunal's calendar. This request may only be made on consent of all of the parties. If no hearing dates are intended to be released from the Tribunal's calendar, no party is required to advise the Tribunal anything further in that regard.

17. On or before March 6, 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.

18. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before March 13, 2026.

19. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules.

20. 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 on or before March 6, 2026 that the written evidence is not part of their record.

21. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before March 13, 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.

22. 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 Tribunal’s Rule 7.

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

This Member is not seized.

Attachment 1

Summary of Key Dates

DATE	EVENT
October 24, 2025	Exchange of Witness Lists
December 19, 2025	Experts to meet before this date
January 23, 2026	File Agreed Statement of Facts
January 30, 2026	Advise Tribunal if hearing dates can be released.
February 6, 2026	Exchange Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Experts Reports and Participant Statements
February 20, 2026	Exchange Reply Witness Statements
March 6, 2026	Exchange Visual Evidence
March 6, 2026	Last day to provide notice written evidence is not part of record, if applicable
March 13, 2026	File Joint Document Book
March 13, 2026	File Hearing Plan
March 23, 2026	Hearing Commences

Attachment 2

Parties and Participants

Status	Name	Counsel / Representative
Party (Applicant/Appellant)	Soneil Markham Inc.	Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Isaac Tang itang@blg.com 416-367-6109 Lee English lenglish@blg.com 416-367-6169
Party	The Corporation of the City of Brampton	The Corporation of the City of Brampton Bruce Engell bengell@weirfoulds.com 416-947-5081 Steven Ross Steven.Ross@brampton.ca

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 and shall not be construed as the Tribunal having jurisdiction over such matters in each circumstance. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing.

Pursuant to s. 70.13(2) of the Planning Act, the portions of the Regional Municipality of Peel Official Plan, 2022 that were in effect immediately before July 1, 2024 and that apply in respect of any of the City of Brampton are deemed to constitute an official plan of the City of Brampton, and the Regional Municipality of Peel Official Plan, 2022 remains in effect until the city of Brampton revokes it or amends it to provide otherwise.

Soneil Markham Inc. Issues List

Matters of Provincial Interest

1. Does the Application have regard for matters of provincial interest, including subsections 2(e), (f), (h), (h.1), (j), (k), (l), (p), (q), (r) and (s) of the Planning Act?

Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“2024 PPS”)

2. Is the Application consistent with the 2024 PPS including policies/sections: Chapter 1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.4(a), 2.1.6(a)-(c), 2.2.1(b)-(d), 2.3.1.1, 2.3.1.2(a)-(d), 2.3.1.3, 2.3.1.4, 2.4.1.1, 2.4.1.2(a)-(d), 2.4.1.3(b)-(c) and (e), 2.4.2.2(b), 2.4.2.3 (a)-(b), 2.4.2.6(a)-(c), 2.4.3.1, 2.8.1.1(a)-(e), 2.8.1.3, 2.9.1(a)-(d), 3.1.1(a), 3.1.2(a), 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.4.1(a)-(b),3.6.1(a)-(b), 3.6.2, 3.6.8(a)-(g), 3.9.1(a)-(b),6.1.5, 6.1.6, 6.1.7 and 6.1.12?

Regional Municipality of Peel Official Plan, 2022 (As Approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Amended by Bill 162 - The Official Plan Adjustments Act, 2023) (“2022 ROP”)

3. Does the Application conform to the 2022 ROP, including policies/sections: 1.7.1, 1.7.4, 1.7.5, 2.6.20, 3.7.1, 3.7.2, 3.7.3, 3.7.6, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3.2, 4.3.6, 4.3.8, 4.3.10, 4.3.15, 4.3.16, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3.1, 5.3.3, 5.4, 5.4.1 – 5.4.11, 5.4.18, 5.4.18.1 – 5.4.18.6, 5.4.18.8 - 5.4.18.13, 5.4.18.16, 5.4.18.17, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.3, 5.6.1 – 5.6.5, 5.6.7, 5.6.9, 5.6.11, 5.6.13, 5.6.15, 5.6.17, 5.6.17.1 – 5.6.17.5, 5.6.17.8, 5.6.17.9, 5.6.17.11, 5.6.17.13, 5.6.17.15, 5.6.18, 5.6.18.9, 5.6.18.10, 5.6.19, 5.6.19.1 – 5.6.19.6, 5.6.19.8 - 5.6.19.11, 5.6.19.14, 5.6.19.18, 5.8, 5.8.5, 5.8.10, 5.8.13, 5.8.21, 5.8.34, 5.8.41, 5.8.45, 5.9, 5.9.1, 5.9.5, 5.9.13, 5.9.26, 5.9.27, 5.10, 5.10.2 - 5.10.5, 5.10.7, 5.10.8, 5.10.12 - 5.10.14, 5.10.16, 5.10.19, 5.10.22, 5.10.28, 5.10.34, 5.10.34.5, 5.10.34.9, 5.10.34.11, 5.10.34.15, 5.10.34.16, 5.10.34.19, 5.10.34.22, 5.10.34.40, 5.10.39.1, 5.10.39.3, 6.4.2 – 6.4.6, 6.4.9, 6.5.2, 7.5, 7.5.1, 7.6.1, 7.9.22 – 7.9.24?*

4. Does the Application conform to the intent of the overlays located on 2022 ROP Schedules E-1, E-2, E-3, E-5?

5. Is the ROP consistent with the applicable policies and land use designations of the City of Brampton Official Plan, and the Hurontario-Main Corridor Secondary Plan?

City of Brampton Official Plan, 2006 (September 2020 Consolidation) (“BOP”)

6. Does the Application conform to the BOP, including policies/sections: 2.0, 2.4.1 – 2.4.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.2.1.1, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.4, 3.2.5.1, 3.2.5.1.1 – 3.2.5.1.5, 3.2.6, 3.2.6.1, 3.2.6.3, 3.2.6.4, 3.2.6.6, 3.2.8, 3.2.8.1, 4.2, 4.2.1.2, 4.2.1.6, 4.2.1.8, 4.2.1.9, 4.2.1.14, 4.2.7, 4.2.8.1, 4.2.8.2, 4.2.8.3, 4.3, 4.3.1.3, 4.3.1.6, 4.3.2.8, 4.4.3, 4.4.3.1, 4.4.3.5, 4.4.3.6, 4.4.3.9, 4.4.6, 4.4.6.1(iii), 4.5.2.5, 4.5.2.6, 4.5.2.9, 4.5.3, 4.5.3.2(iii)-(iv), 4.5.3.8, 4.5.3.9, 4.5.3.10, 4.5.4.19, 4.5.4.21, 4.5.4.22, 4.5.4.24, 4.5.10.2, 4.7.2.5, 4.11, 4.11.1, 4.11.1.1, 4.11.1.2, 4.11.2.1.1, 4.11.2.1.2, 4.11.2.3.4, 4.11.2.3.5, 4.11.3.1, 4.11.3.1.1, 4.11.3.1.2, 4.11.3.1.3, 4.11.3.2, 4.11.3.2.1, 4.11.3.2.3, 4.11.3.2.6, 4.11.3.2.7, 4.11.3.3, 4.11.3.3.1 – 4.11.3.3.5, 4.11.3.4, 4.11.3.4.1, 4.11.3.4.4, 4.11.3.4.6, 4.11.3.4.7, 4.11.4.7, 4.11.4.9?

7. Does the Application conform to the intent of the land use designation and/or overlays located on BOP Schedules 1, 2, A, B, B1 and C?

8. Does the Office land use designation of the BOP, which applies to the subject site, permit residential uses and non-residential uses? Are residential, office and retail uses permitted on the subject site?

9. Are BOP Policies 3.2.4.1, 3.2.5.1.1, 3.2.5.1.2, and 3.2.6.2 related to building height and density within Major Transit Station Areas and Gateway Hubs consistent with the 2024 PPS and the 2022 ROP?

Hurontario-Main Corridor Secondary Plan Area 55 (“Secondary Plan”)

10. Does the Application conform to the Secondary Plan, including polices/sections: 1.0, 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.5 4.2.6, 4.2.7, 4.2.8, 5.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.3, 5.3.1(i)-(iii), (v)-(viii), 5.3.3, 5.8.1, 5.8.2, 5.8.3, 5.9.1,5.9.2, 5.9.3(ii)-(v), 5.9.4)i)-(vi), 5.9.6(ii), (iv), (ix), 5.11.1(ii),(iii),(v),(vi),(viii), 5.11.2(i)-(iv), 5.11.4, 5.11.5, 5.11.6(i)-(iii), 5.12, 5.15?

11. Does the Application conform to the intent of the land use designation and/or overlays located on Secondary Plan Schedule SP55(a) and Appendices A, B, C, D, and F?

12. Does the Mixed Use Two land use designation of the Secondary Plan, which applies to the subject site, permit residential uses and non-residential uses? Are residential, office and retail uses permitted on the subject site?

13. Does the Secondary Plan prescribe a specific ratio of residential to non-residential uses, or a maximum permitted residential floor area on a site specific basis?

14. Does the Secondary Plan allow for proposals consisting of densities and/or building heights that are greater than the maximums identified in the Secondary Plan to be permitted without an Official Plan Amendment, subject to the approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment Application?

15. Does the Height Transition Area apply to the entire subject site, or does it only apply to that portion of the subject site immediately abutting Turtlecreek Boulevard that is identified with the Height Transition Area overlay on Schedule 55(a)?

Brampton Plan, 2024, as Approved by the Regional Municipality of Peel (“Brampton Plan”)

16. Does the Application have sufficient regard to the purpose and intent of the Brampton Plan?

General

17. Is the quantum of residential and non-residential uses that is advanced through the Application appropriate?

18. Does the Application, which shall facilitate the comprehensive redevelopment of the subject site for mixed use, transit oriented development in multiple building forms, constitute good land use planning and is it in the public interest?

19. Does the Application appropriately locate the proposed retail and office uses along Hurontario Street and County Court Boulevard?

20. Does the Application propose appropriate development and built form standards?

21. Can technical and detailed design issues including matters of transportation, access, stormwater management, servicing, and landscaping be resolved in the ordinary course of the City’s Site Plan Approval process?

22. Does the Application appropriately plan for the implementation of Metrolinx’s planned streetscape, transportation and transit improvements along Hurontario Street?

23. Does the Application adequately consider the planned 50-55 metres right-of-way width of Hurontario Street, as identified in the BOP? Is it necessary or appropriate to provide a widening of Hurontario Street towards an ultimate right-of-way width of over 50 metres considering that the streetscape, transportation and transit improvements being implemented by Metrolinx to accommodate Light Rail Transit along Hurontario Street can be accommodated within the existing right-of-width?

City of Brampton Issues List

1. Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment application (“Application”) have regard to the matters of provincial interest outlined in sections 2 (f), (k), (l), (r) of the Planning Act?

2. Is the Application consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024, including but not limited to policies 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 (2.4.1.2, 2.4.1.3, 2.4.2), 2.8.1a), b), c), d), 2.8.1.3, 2.8.1.4, 3.5, 3.6.1, 6 (6.1, 6.2) as required by section 3 of the Planning Act?

3. Does the Application conform with the Region of Peel Official Plan April 2022, including but not limited to policies 4.3.16, 5.4.10, 5.6.11, 5.6.19.2, 5.6.19.15, 5.8.15, 5.8.21, 5.8.22, 5.8.26, 5.8.27, 5.8.28, 5.8.42, 5.6.17.9, 5.10.28, 7.9.22-7.9.25?

4. Does the Application conform with the City of Brampton Official Plan, 2006, September 2021 consolidation, including but not limited to policies 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 3.1, 3.2.5.1, 3.2.6.6, 4.2.7 (4.2.7.1), 4.3.1.6, 4.4.3 (4.4.3.1, 4.4.3.2, 4.4.3.4, 4.4.3.5, 4.4.3.6, 4.4.3.7, 4.4.6, 4.11 (4.11.1.1, 4.11.1.2, 4.11.3.1.2, 4.11.3.2.3, 4.11.3.2.6, 4.11.3.2.7, 4.11.3.4, 4.11.4.1, 4.11.4.3, 4.11.4.7), 5.33.1, 5.33.2?

5. Does the Application conform with the City of Brampton’s Hurontario-Main Corridor Secondary Plan Area 55, as amended, including but not limited to policies 4.1, 5.1 (5.1.1, 5.1.2), 5.3.1, 5.3.3, 5.11.1, 5.11.6, 5.12, 5.8, 5.9.3.1, 5.11.4, 5.12.1, 5.15?

6. If applicable, does the Application have sufficient regard to the purpose and intent of the Brampton Plan 2023, including but not limited to policies: 2.1.1 (e) (k) (m) (n), 2.1.2 (a) (c) (f), 2.1.2.2, 2.1.2.5, 2.1.2.7, 2.1.2.11, 2.1.2.14, 2.1.2.15, 2.1.2.17, 2.1.2.18, 2.1.2.20, 2.1.2.21, 2.1.2.28, 2.1.2.29, 2.1.2.31, 2.1.2.32, 2.1.2.33, 2.1.2.34, 2.1.2.35, 2.1.2.36, 2.1.2.37, 2.1.2.38, 2.1.2.39, 2.1.2.40, 2.1.2.42, 2.1.2.44, 2.1.2.45, 2.1.2.47, 2.1.2.48, 2.1.2.50, 2.1.2.51, 2.1.2.52, 2.1.3, 2.2.1, 2.2.3.3, 2.2.3.4, 2.2.3.5 (a) (c), 2.2.3.7, 2.2.3.11, 2.2.3.15, 2.2.3.16, 2.2.4, 2.2.6.2, 2.2.8.2, 2.2.8.3, 2.2.8.4, 2.2.8.11, 2.2.8.12, 2.2.8.13, 2.2.8.14, 2.2.8.17, 2.2.8.18, 2.2.8.19, 3.1.1.7, 3.1.1.8, 3.1.1.9, 3.1.1.10, 3.1.1.11, 3.1.1.13, 3.1.1.14, 3.1.1.30, 3.1.1.32, 3.1.1.33, 3.1.1.34, 3.1.1.35, 3.1.1.39, 3.1.1.40, 3.1.1.42, 3.1.1.51, 3.1.1.52, 3.1.1.53, 3.1.1.54, 3.1.1.55, 3.1.1.56, 3.6.1, 5.3, 5.8 and Chapter 4 Site and Area Specific Policies – Major Transit Station Area Policies - Mixed-Use Employment (Office Mixed-use) – (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) (pages 4-15 and 4-17) and purpose and intent of any new secondary plans?

Land Use

7. Is the proposed amount of office/institutional GFA appropriate? If ‘not’, then is it appropriate to approve the Application?

Development Engineering

8. Has the servicing of the proposed development been adequately addressed? If ‘not’, then is it appropriate to approve the Application?

9. Has a satisfactory functional servicing and stormwater management report (the “FSR”) been provided? If ‘not’, then is it appropriate to include a Holding (H) provision in the Zoning By-law Amendment until the FSR has been updated to the Ontario Land Tribunal’s satisfaction? If ‘yes’, then what is the appropriate wording for the Holding (H) provision?

Urban Design

10. Based on the uses, is the proposed built form (including tower floor plates, setbacks, tower orientation and height) appropriate? If ‘not’, then what is the appropriate built form (including tower floor plates, setbacks, tower orientation and height)?

11. Has the proposed development achieved an appropriate transition in built form with the adjacent lands? If ‘not’, then what built form modifications are necessary to ensure appropriate transition in built form with the adjacent lands?

12. Is the proposed development compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood?

13. Has the appellant submitted a satisfactory Wind Study? If ‘not’, then is it appropriate to approve the Application? If ‘not’, then is it appropriate to include a Holding (H) provision in the Zoning By-law Amendment until a satisfactory Wind Study has been submitted to the Ontario Land Tribunal’s satisfaction? If ‘yes’, then what is the appropriate wording for the Holding (H) provision?

14. If the Tribunal approves this proposal then what is the appropriate new zone?

15. Does the proposed draft Zoning By-law Amendment include all of the requirements and restrictions to facilitate the proposed development? If ‘not’, then what should be the appropriate amendments?

16. Does the proposal constitute good planning and is it in the public interest?

Attachment 4

Order of Evidence

1. Soneil Markham Inc.

2. City of Brampton

3. Soneil Markham Inc., in reply

Attachment 5

Meaning of Terms in Procedural Order

Purpose of the Procedural Order

Case management conferences are scheduled by the Tribunal to organize the hearing. This sample procedural order is provided to identify who may participate in the hearing, the issues in dispute, and the matters that are required to be carried out before the hearing. The attachment to this sample procedural order explains the meaning of a number of terms in the sample procedural order, such as a party or a participant.

The Tribunal recommends that the appellant, municipality, the applicant (if applicable), or those who wish to seek party status in this proceeding, meet, remotely if necessary, to discuss this sample procedural order before the date of the case management conference and try to identify the issues and process they want the Tribunal to order following the conference. The Tribunal will hear submissions on the content of this sample procedural order at the case management conference and issue a procedural order at a later date.

If you are not represented by a lawyer, you should prepare by reviewing the Tribunal’s Video Hearings Guide, and the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), particularly Rule 20, which are available on the Tribunal’s website.

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.