Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: January 23, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000774
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Pem (Eglinton) GP Inc.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: To permit the development of a 40-storey residential building, and more
Reference Number: 22 203483 NNY 15 OZ
Property Address: 849 Eglinton Avenue E
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No: OLT-24-000774
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000774
OLT Case Name: Pem (Eglinton) GP Inc. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Pem (Eglinton) GP Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit the development of a 40-storey residential building, and more
Reference Number: 22 160403 NNY 15 OZ
Property Address: 849 Eglinton Avenue E
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No: OLT-24-000775
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Pem (Eglinton) GP Inc.
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Description: To permit the development of a 40-storey residential building, and more
Reference Number: 22 162079 NNY 15 SB
Property Address: 849 Eglinton Avenue E
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No: OLT-24-000776
Heard: January 13, 2025, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Pem (Eglinton) GP Inc.
N. Ast D. Artenosi
City of Toronto
J. Dexter S. O’Connor
Leaside Junction Inc.
A. Benedetti
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY P. TOMILIN ON JANUARY 13, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) in the matter of an Appeal by Pem (Eglinton) GP Inc. (“Appellant”) arising from a non-decision concerning an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications to permit the development of a 40-storey residential building, 21-storey mixed-use building, six-storey office building, and Publicly Accessible Privately Owned Space and an east-west private road at 849 Eglinton Avenue East (“subject property”), in the City of Toronto.
2The Tribunal received the Affidavit of Service and marked it as Exhibit 1.
PARTY STATUS REQUEST
3Prior to the CMC, the Tribunal received one Party Status request from Leaside Junction Inc., the owner of adjacent lands. The statutory Parties raised no concerns with the request. The Tribunal granted Party Status to Leaside Junction Inc.
PARTICIPANT STATUS REQUESTS
4Samuel Nouet submitted Participant Status request along with Participant statement prior to the CMC. His concerns pertain to the large scale of the proposed development, its effect on the loss of sunlight, shadowing, wind patterns, privacy, and views.
5At the CMC, the Tribunal received another Participant Status request by a local resident’s association represented by Geoff Kettle. The Parties did not object to the request. The Tribunal directed Mr. Kettle to file a Participant Status and to submit Issues List by Wednesday, January 16, 2025.
6The Tribunal granted Participant Status to:
Samuel Nouet
Geoff Kettle
MEDIATION
7The Tribunal reminds the Parties that should they reach a point where a Tribunal-led mediation will be of assistance, they may request a mediation assessment through the assigned Case Coordinator.
CMC, HEARING, PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST
8Prior to the CMC, the Tribunal received a copy of the Draft Procedural Order (“DPO”). Given that there is an additional Participant, the Tribunal directed the Parties to submit a revised copy of the DPO with Issues List on or before Monday, January 20, 2025.
9Prior to the CMC, the Parties requested to set dates for a second CMC and for a 15-day Hearing.
10Second CMC is scheduled to take place on Thursday, June 26, 2025.
Thursday, June 26, 2025 at 10 a.m. (1-day CMC Hearing) GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/765631861 Access code: 765-631-861 Audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9391 or (toll-free) 1-888-455-1389 Audio-only access code: 765-631-861
11A 14-day Hearing is scheduled to commence on Monday, January 19, 2026 to Friday, February 6, 2026.
Monday, January 19, 2026 at 10 a.m. (14-day Merit Hearing) GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/344779885 Access code: 344-779-885 Audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (toll-free) 1-888-299-1889 Audio-only access code: 344-779-885
12Parties and/or Participants and/or Observers are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before it begins to test their video and audio connections.
13Parties 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 GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html
14Persons 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.
15Individuals 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.
16The Tribunal is now in receipt of the completed DPO. The Tribunal has reviewed and now approves the PO appended as Schedule 1 to this Decision.
ORDER
17The Tribunal directives above are so ordered.
18This Member is not seized.
19There will be no further notice.
“P. Tomilin”
P. TOMILIN
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
Schedule 1
ISSUE DATE: CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000774
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Pem (Eglinton) GP Inc.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: To permit the development of a 40-storey residential building, and more
Reference Number.: 22 203483 NNY 15 OZ
Property Address: 849 Eglinton Avenue E Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000774
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000774
OLT Case Name: Pem (Eglinton) GP Inc. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Pem (Eglinton) GP Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit the development of a 40-storey residential building, and more
Reference Number.: 22 160403 NNY 15OZ
Property Address: 849 Eglinton Avenue E
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000775
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000774
OLT Case Name: Pem (Eglinton) GP Inc. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Pem (Eglinton) GP Inc.
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Description: To permit the development of a 40-storey residential building, and more
Reference Number.: 22 162079 NNY 15 SB
Property Address: 849 Eglinton Avenue E
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000776
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000774
OLT Case Name: Pem (Eglinton) GP Inc. v. Toronto (City)
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
- The video hearing will begin on January 19, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. at:
GoTo Meeting: [details to be confirmed]
The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 14 days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues, where possible. The procedural order deadlines are generally found in Attachment 1.
The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 2 to this Order (see the sample procedural order for the meaning of these terms).
The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.
The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 4 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.
Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – 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 at (https://olt.gov.on.ca/).
Requirements Before the Hearing
If the applicant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing, the applicant shall provide copies of the revised proposal to the other Parties which for the purposes of this paragraph shall consist of revised architectural plans and proposed instruments, on or before Friday August 22, 2025. The applicant acknowledges that any revisions to the proposal after that date without the consent of the parties may be grounds for a request to adjourn 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 Friday August 1, 2025, and in accordance with paragraph 23 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified. Any challenges to the witness, including qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence in the area of expertise proposed shall be made by motion in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules and notice of same must be served on the other Parties on or before Friday August 15, 2025.
Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Tuesday October 21, 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 Friday October 31, 2025.
An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 14 below. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.
Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence as in paragraph 14 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 14 below.
On or before Thursday November 20, 2025, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator in accordance with paragraph 23 below.
On or before Thursday November 20, 2025 a participant shall provide copies of their participant statement to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator in accordance with paragraph 23 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 Monday December 15, 2025, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.
On or before Friday December 19, 2025, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.
Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence within fourteen (14) calendar days after the evidence is received, on Thursday December 4, 2025 and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.
The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Monday January 5, 2026.
A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.
A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal on or before Monday January 12, 2026 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 Friday January 9, 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 to the Tribunal, the parties and participants (if any). The Tribunal will be provided a hard copy of documents and materials in advance of the hearing event as soon as practicable should it request same. 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.
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.
The purpose of this procedural order and the meaning of the terms used in this procedural order are set out in Attachment 5.
This Member is [not] seized.
So orders the Tribunal.
BEFORE:
Member Pavel Tomilin ) Date
TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR
ATTACHMENT 1
Summary of Dates
| DATE | EVENT |
|---|---|
| August 22, 2025 (150 days prior to hearing) | Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including revised plans and draft instruments (if any) |
| August 1, 2025 | Exchange of witness lists |
| August 15, 2025 (2 weeks after witness lists) | Last Date to challenge witnesses |
| October 21, 2025 (90 days prior to hearing) | Experts meeting(s) prior to this date |
| October 31, 2025 (80 days prior to hearing) | Deadline to File any Agreed Statement(s) of Facts |
| November 20, 2025 (60 days prior to hearing) | Exchange of witness statements and experts reports, participant statements (if any), and summoned witness outlines (if any) |
| December 4, 2025 (14 days after exchange of witness statements) | Exchange of reply witness statements (if any) |
| December 15, 2025 (35 days prior to hearing) | Parties to advise if any hearing dates can be released |
| December 19, 2025 (30 days prior to hearing) | Exchange of visual evidence (if any) |
| January 5, 2026 (15 days prior to hearing) | Filing of Joint Document Book |
| January 9, 2026 (10 days prior to hearing) | Filing of hearing plan |
| January 19, 2026 | Hearing commences (14 days) |
ATTACHMENT 2
List of Parties & Participants
Parties
Pem (Eglinton) GP Inc. Overland LLP 5255 Yonge Street, Suite 1101 Toronto, ON M2N 6P4 Daniel Artenosi / Natalie Ast 416.669.4366 / 416.730.0387 dartenosi@overlandllp.ca / nast@overlandllp.ca
City Of Toronto City of Toronto Legal Services 55 John Street, 26th Floor, Metro Hall Toronto, ON M5V 3C6 Sarah O’Connor / Jamie Dexter sarah.oconnor@toronto.ca / jamie.dexter@toronto.ca
Leaside Junction Inc. Goodmans LLP Bay Adelaide Centre 333 Bay Street, Suite 3400 Toronto, ON M5H 2S7 Anne Benedetti abenedetti@goodmans.ca
Participants
Samuel Nouet Sam.nouet@gmail.com
Leaside Residents Association gkettel@gmail.com
ATTACHMENT 3
NOTE: The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the OLT or any Party that such issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is either appropriate or relevant to the determination of the OLT at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the OLT at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing. 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 OLT having jurisdiction over such matters in each circumstance. Accordingly, no Party shall advance an issue not identified on the Issues List without leave of the OLT.
City of Toronto
PROVINCIAL STATUTORY & POLICY REQUIREMENTS
Do the proposed development and the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments have regard for the matters of provincial interest as set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, and in particular Sections 2(e), 2(f), 2(h), and 2(r)?
Would the approval of the proposed development and the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments have regard for the decisions of City Council as required by Section 2.1 of the Planning Act?
Provincial Planning Statement (2024)
- Is the proposed development and the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with the PPS (2024) with respect to Strategic Growth Areas in Section 2.4, Land Use Compatibility in Section 3.5, and servicing and infrastructure in Section 3.6?
CITY OF TORONTO OFFICIAL PLAN
Do the proposed development and the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments conform to the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan with respect to The Public Realm (3.1.1), Built Form (3.1.3), Mixed Use Areas (4.5), and Employment Areas (4.6)?
Do the proposed development and the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments appropriately respond to and achieve the intent and purpose of the policies of the Laird in Focus OPA 450 (Site and Area Specific Policy 568), and in particular Policies 3.6, 3.7, 7.3, 9.1, 9.4, 9.6, and 9.7?
Guidelines
- Does the proposed development appropriately respond to and meet the intent and purpose of the Laird in Focus Urban Design Guidelines, and in particular the performance standards 3.2 Parks and Open Space, 3.4.1 (Area A), 5.1.1 (Area A), 5.1.3 (Area A), and 5.1.4 (Area A)?
Site-Specific Issues
- Does the proposed development represent good land use planning and urban design, having regard to matters such as its fit within the existing and planned built form context, with regard to its massing, setbacks, height, and stepbacks including:
i. the appropriateness of a 3-metre setback along Vanderhoof Avenue;
ii. the appropriateness of the increased streetwall height along Vanderhoof Avenue;
iii. the appropriateness of the proposed stepback at the 6th floor above grade along Vanderhoof Avenue;
iv. the relationships at grade, including provision of an appropriate pedestrian realm, streetscaping, and contributions to public space and if they are established;
v. the appropriateness of the proposed building and angular plane projections; and
vi. the transition of the building height down as you move further from the LRT station as well as the overall height of the highest proposed tower?
Site Servicing
Does the existing and planned municipal infrastructure have adequate capacity to service the proposed development for stormwater management, sanitary flow, and water supply demand?
Should a Holding Provision (“H”) be imposed until such time as the required infrastructure comes online and is fully operational as determined by the Chief Engineer & Executive Director and/or appropriate agreement(s) are entered into with the City for the design and construction of any improvements to the municipal infrastructure to support this development, according to the functional servicing report accepted by the Chief Engineer & Executive Director of Engineering and Construction Services?
Transportation Services
Does the proposed development address the traffic and parking needs required for the site and the local road network?
Is the proposed parking supply for both vehicles and bicycles appropriate for this site?
Is the proposed location of the ‘Type C’ loading space located on the southern driveway appropriate for this site?
Does the proposed development appropriately address loading and solid waste requirements?
Public Interest and Good Planning
- Are the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Draft Plan of Subdivision good planning and in the public interest?
Implementation and Pre-Conditions
- In the event the proposed development is approved in whole or in part, what conditions would be appropriate, and should the Tribunal Order be withheld until the City Solicitor has indicated that the following conditions have been satisfied?
i. The final form and content of the draft Official Plan and Zoning By-law and Draft Plan of Subdivision conditions are satisfactory to the City Solicitor, and Executive Director, Development Review;
ii. The owner has satisfactorily addressed the Engineering and Construction Services matters in the Engineering and Construction Services Memorandum dated May 7, 2024, or as may be updated, in response to further submissions filed by the Owner, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer;
iii. The owner has submitted a revised Traffic Impact Assessment acceptable to the Executive Director, Development Review and the General Manager, Transportation Services and that such matters arising from such study have been secured if required;
iv. The owner has satisfactorily addressed the Urban Forestry matters in the Urban Forestry Memorandum dated August 9, 2022, or as may be updated, in response to further submissions filed by the Owner, all to the satisfaction of the Supervisor, Tree Protection & Plan Review;
v. Peer reviews have been completed for the following Reports, which Reports shall be submitted by the Owner to the City, and which Reports shall be at the expense of the owner: i) an Environmental Noise and Vibration Assessment Report; and ii) an Air Quality, Dust and Odour Assessment Report; and any recommended mitigation measures have been included in the subdivision conditions and/or Site Plan, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review;
vi. The owner has made revisions to meet the Toronto Green Standard requirements to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review.
vii. Should it be determined that upgrades are required to the infrastructure to support the development according to the accepted Functional Servicing Report and/or the Traffic Impact Study, a Holding provision (H) be included in the final form of the site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment, including entering into appropriate agreement(s) with the City for required mitigation, as well as the design and construction of any improvements to the municipal infrastructure and the provision of financial securities to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and General Manager, Transportation Services.
Leaside Junction Inc.
Do the applications have appropriate regard to matters of Provincial interest in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections (f), (n) and (r)?
Are the applications consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024), including sections 2.2, 2.3.1.1 – 2.3.1.3, 2.4, 3.2.1, 3.7 and 6.2.?
Do the applications conform with the City of Toronto Official Plan, including policies 2.2.4, 2.2.5, 3.1.1 (Public Realm), 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 (Built Form), 4.5 (Mixed Use Areas) and 4.6 (Employment Areas)?
Do the applications have appropriate regard for, and appropriately implement, the intent and purpose of the policies of Laird in Focus OPA 450 (Site and Area Specific Policy 568)?
Do the applications have appropriate regard for, and appropriately implement, the Laird in Focus Urban Design Guidelines
Do the applications have appropriate regard for, and appropriately implement, the Tall Building Design Guidelines?
Does the configuration, location and massing of the proposed development provide for an appropriate relationship to the lands located immediately to the west?
Is the location, alignment, and design of the proposed north south public road on the west frontage of the development (Don Avon Drive) appropriate and does it represent good planning?
Does the proposed development inappropriately limit the potential future redevelopment of the lands located immediately to the west?
If approved by the Tribunal, what are appropriate pre-conditions to the issuance of a final order? Is the form and content of each of the proposed official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision appropriate?
ATTACHMENT 4
Order of Evidence
- Pem (Eglinton) GP Inc.
- City of Toronto
- Leaside Junction Inc.
- Pem (Eglinton) GP Inc. (in reply, if necessary)
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.