European Bakery Supply Inc. v. Toronto (City), 2025 CanLII 62239

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

June 23, 2025

CASE NO.:

OLT-24-000355

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

Applicant and Appellant:

European Bakery Supply Inc.

Subject:

Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description:

To permit two mixed-use residential development towers

Reference Number:

22 232811 STE 09 OZ

Property Address:

321-355 Symington Avenue and 350 Campbell Avenue

Municipality/UT:

Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-24-000355

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-24-000355

OLT Case Name:

European Bakery Supply Inc. v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant:

European Bakery Supply Inc.

Subject:

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

Description:

To permit two mixed-use residential development towers

Reference Number:

23 104503 STE 09 OZ

Property Address:

321-355 Symington Avenue and 350 Campbell Avenue

Municipality/UT:

Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-24-000356

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-24-000355

BEFORE:

M.A. SILLS

Monday, the 23rd

VICE CHAIR

day of June, 2025

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that further to the adjournment of the May 25, 2025 hearing, the Procedural Order, as agreed to between the Parties and attached hereto as Schedule “A”, shall be in force and effect for the purpose of governing the required procedures leading up to and including the hearing, which is now scheduled to commence on October 27, 2025. The Tribunal has set aside 10 days for the hearing.

“Matthew D.J. Bryan”

MATTHEW D.J. BRYAN

REGISTRAR

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.

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 hearing will be held on October 27, 2025 to November 7, 2025, every weekday at 10:00 a.m. by video hearing.

3. The length of the hearing is ten (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 identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 2 (see the sample procedural order for the meaning of these terms).

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/or the Parties consent to the changes, and a Party who asks the Tribunal for changes to the Issues List may have costs awarded against it. An issue can be removed from the Issues List without a formal order of the Tribunal with the consent of all Parties.

6. The order of evidence is 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. Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other Parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.

8. Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including Parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearings Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. 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 Section shall consist of revised plans, drawings, proposed instruments, updated supporting documents and reports on or before Monday July 28, 2025 (91 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence). 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.

10. Notwithstanding Section 5, should the applicant propose a revised proposal in accordance with Section 9, the Parties shall have the right to add, revise, and modify their issues list, provided such modifications to the issues list relate to new issues that arise from the revised proposal, and this revised issues list must be delivered on or before Tuesday August 5, 2025 (83 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence).

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 the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before Monday August 15, 2025 (73 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence) and in accordance with Section 22. 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 proposed to be qualified.

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. Copies of this must be provided as in Section 14. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If the expert witness has prepared any report(s) that he/she/they intends to rely on at the hearing, and which did not form part of the submissions made to the City, such report(s) shall be provided to the other Parties at the same as the delivery of expert witness statements, as in Section 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 Section 14. A Party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in Section 14.

13. 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 Monday August 22, 2025 (66 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence).

14. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Monday August 29, 2025 (59 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence) and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the Parties shall prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and the remaining issues to be addressed at the hearing with the Tribunal’s case coordinator on or before Tuesday September 5, 2025 (52 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence).

15. On or before Friday September 12, 2025 (45 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), the Parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other Parties and to the Tribunal’s case coordinator in accordance with Section 22.

16. On or before Friday September 12, 2025 (45 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), a Participant shall provide copies of their written Participant statement to the other Parties in accordance with Section 22. A Participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless permitted by the Tribunal.

17. On or before Monday September 29, 2025 (28 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), Parties may provide to all other Parties and the Tribunal’s case coordinator a written response to any written evidence in accordance with Section 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.

18. On or before Tuesday October 14, 2025 (13 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), the Parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other Parties in accordance with Section 22. If a model will be used, all Parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

19. On or before Friday October 17, 2025 (10 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), the Parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

20. The Parties shall cooperate to prepare a Joint Document Book which shall be shared with the Tribunal’s case coordinator in accordance with Section 22 on or before Monday October 20, 2025 (7 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence).

21. A Party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other Parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the Party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

22. The Parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Monday October 20, 2025 (7 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), 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 preliminary hearing plan. Any and all witnesses shall be available on the identified date(s), unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal or on consent of Parties. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the preliminary hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

23. All filings shall be submitted electronically to the Tribunal, the Parties, and the Participants (if any). 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. The Parties shall make best efforts to ensure that all documents to be filed with the Tribunal are organized, tabbed and digitally searchable.

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

This Member is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE:

Name of Member:

Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

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.

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE

EVENT

Monday July 28, 2025 (91 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any)

Tuesday August 5, 2025 (83 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

Last date to provide revised issues in response to the filing of a revised proposal by the applicant (if any)

Monday August 15, 2025 (73 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)

Monday August 22, 2025 (66 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

Last date to challenge witnesses or qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence (if necessary)

Monday August 29, 2025 (59 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

Experts meeting prior to this date

Tuesday September 5, 2025 (52 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

Statement of agreed facts filed with the Tribunal

Friday September 12, 2025 (45 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

Exchange of witness statements, summoned witness outlines, expert reports, and participant statements

Monday September 29, 2025 (28 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

Exchange of reply witness statements (if any)

Tuesday October 14, 2025 (13 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

Exchange of visual evidence (if any)

Friday October 17, 2025 (10 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

Parties to advise the Tribunal if any hearing dates can be released

Monday October 20, 2025 (7 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

Finalize joint document book

Monday October 20, 2025 (7 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

Hearing plan filed with the Tribunal

October 27, 2025 to November 7, 2025

Hearing scheduled

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

PARTY NAME

CONTACT AND COUNSEL/REPRESENTATIVE*

City of Toronto

CITY OF TORONTO LEGAL SERVICES Planning and Administrative Tribunal Law Section Metro Hall, 55 John Street, 26th Floor Toronto, ON M5V 3C6

Adrienne deBacker, Solicitor adrienne.debacker@toronto.ca

Cameron McKeich, Solicitor cameron.mckeich@toronto.ca

European Bakery Supply Inc.

McCARTHY TÉTRAULT LLP Suite 5300, TD Bank Tower Box 48, 66 Wellington Street West Toronto, ON M5K 1E6

Michael Foderick, Partner mfoderick@mccarthy.ca

Daniel Angelucci, Associate dangelucci@mccarthy.ca

Royce Dupont Investments Inc., Irving Ungerman Limited, and Karl Ungerman Limited

DAVIES HOWE LLP 425 Adelaide Street West, 10th Floor Toronto, ON M5V 3C1

Mark Flowers, Partner markf@davieshowe.com

Campont Developments Limited

GOODMANS LLP Bay Adelaide Centre 333 Bay Street, Suite 3400 Toronto, ON M5H 2S7

David Bronskill, Partner dbronskill@goodmans.ca

Caroline Jordan, Associate cjordan@goodmans.ca

Perth-Symington-Kingsley Residents’ Association

Emily Shepard*

Mark Macdonald* mark_macdonald6@sympatico.ca

PARTICIPANT NAME

CONTACT

Perth-Dupont Community Garden

Lisa Ridout lisa@lisaridoutjewellery.ca

LIST OF ISSUES

Note: The identification of an issue on this Issues List is intended to provide notice to all Parties that a Party will lead evidence and/or argument on the matter. This identification does not serve as an acknowledgement of relevancy to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing. 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.

CITY OF TORONTO:

SITE SPECIFIC ISSUES

Issue 1 – Height and Massing. Is the development's proposed height and massing, including setbacks, stepbacks, scale, separation distances, streetwall height, density and design appropriate, and does it represent good planning? In particular:

a. Does the proposed height and massing provide for an appropriate scale that fits with the existing and planned context and provide proper transition to the surrounding context?

b. Are the height and massing of the proposal, including the impact on matters such as sky views, privacy, overlook, shadowing, wind, and the streetscape, appropriate?

c. Are the proposed stepbacks at an appropriate height and of an appropriate depth?

d. Does the proposed height and massing conform with the applicable Official Plan policies?

e. Do the height and massing of the proposal have appropriate regard to the applicable City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines?

Issue 2 – Streetscape and Public Realm. Does the proposal provide for an appropriate public realm? In particular:

a. Are the proposed setbacks from the property lines appropriate?

b. Do they provide sufficient open space for landscaping and tree planting?

c. Is the interface with adjacent lands, including the laneway lands, appropriate?

Issue 3 – Urban Forest. Has the proposal demonstrated sufficient soil volumes to support tree planting? More particularly:

a. Does the proposal meet the requirements of the Toronto Green Standard?

b. Does the proposal meet the requirements of City of Toronto By-law 813-20?

c. Is the proposal in keeping with Toronto’s Strategic Forest Management Plan?

Issue 4 – Parkland.

a. Does the proposed development and proposed parkland dedication conform to Section 42 of the Planning Act, Policy 3.2.3 of the City of Toronto Official Plan and Chapter 415 of the Toronto Municipal Code?

b. If on-site parkland dedication is required, are the dedication lands fully unencumbered?

c. If on-site parkland dedication is required, are the dedication lands of an appropriate size, location, and configuration? Does the proposal appropriately limit shadow on existing parkland, in particular on programming that requires adequate access to sunlight (ie community garden, playgrounds if any)?

d. Does the proposed site organization allow for sufficient setbacks between Tower 2 and the proposed parkland dedication?

e. Is the wind impact of the proposed development on the proposed parkland acceptable?

Issue 5 – Servicing. Has the applicant demonstrated that adequate municipal services are in place to support the development, including but not limited to the availability of adequate sanitary sewage capacity, compliance with MECP F-5-5 procedure for combined sewers and the implementation of appropriate stormwater management measures and groundwater management measures?

Issue 6 – Parking and Loading. Has the applicant demonstrated that adequate vehicle parking and loading are in place to support the development? In particular,

a. Is the site circulation and access location appropriate?

b. Can service vehicles, including waste collection vehicles, adequately enter and exit the site in a forward motion?

c. Has adequate parking for all uses including residents, non-residential users, visitors and accessible users been provided?

Issue 7 – Land Use. Has the proposal satisfied the Core Employment designation at 350 Campbell in terms of permitted uses, in accordance with Council-adopted SASP 839? In particular,

a. Has 1,000 square metres of employment gross floor area exclusive of retail been provided?

b. Has a satisfactory revised Rail Safety and Risk Mitigation Report been prepared to support the proposed development and peer reviewed at the cost of the applicant?

c. Has a Compatibility Study been provided to support the proposed employment uses, peer reviewed at the cost of the applicant?

Issue 8 – Noise Assessment. Does the proposed development adequately address and mitigate any noise and vibration issues identified through technical review and has the appropriate land classification under NPC-300 been determined for the site? In particular, has the applicant demonstrated whether or not it is feasible to apply necessary warning clauses and noise mitigation per Class 1 of NPC-300?

Issue 9 – Implementation & Conditions of Approval. If the proposed development is approved in whole or in part, should the Tribunal's Order be withheld until the City Solicitor has confirmed that the following conditions have been met:

a. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has approved SASP 839 under the auspices of OPA 653 and the City’s Municipal Comprehensive Review such that the uses proposed to be accommodated on the 350 Campbell lands are permitted under the in-force land use designation and Official Plan policies, including any site and area specific policies;

b. The proposed development conforms with SASP 839 once approved and or modified by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, in particular with regard to the required amount of non-residential GFA and permission to locate parking, servicing and loading on lands designated Core Employment Areas.

c. the amending by-laws be finalized, in a form and content acceptable to the City Solicitor and Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, in a manner that implements the proposed development,

d. the applicant has satisfied all requests for further information and revisions identified in the Engineering and Construction Services memo to City Planning dated June 14, 2024 including but not limited to, a revised Functional Servicing Report to demonstrate the site can be adequately serviced to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, or the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services has determined whether holding provisions are required in the Zoning By-law Amendment,

e. the owner has made satisfactory arrangements with the City and has entered into the appropriate agreement(s) for the design and construction of any improvements to municipal infrastructure, should it be determined that upgrades and/or road improvements are required to support the development, according to the accepted Engineering Reports and Traffic Impact Study accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, and the General Manager, Transportation Services,

f. the owner has submitted a revised Environmental Noise and Vibration Assessment, such report to be peer reviewed by a third-party consultant on behalf of the City and at the owner's expense, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning; the Report shall determine the appropriate Area Class per Section B9 of NPC-300;

g. any necessary studies, including those related to rail safety, pedestrian level wind impacts, sun shadow, noise and vibration, and compatibility have been completed, and their recommendations addressed to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and,

h. the owner has addressed all outstanding issues raised by Urban Forestry, Tree Protection and Plan Review and a soil volume plan and tree planting plan has been accepted by the Supervisor, Urban Forestry, Tree Protection & Plan Review?

LEGISLATIVE & POLICY TESTS

Issue 10 – Policy Tests. Does the proposed development satisfy the applicable legislative and policy tests? Specifically:

a. Does the proposed development have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections 2 (f), (h), (k), (o), (p), and (r)?

b. Is the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement as required by Section 3(5) of the Planning Act, including but not limited to:

i. Healthy, liveable and safe communities (1.1.1)

ii. Settlement Areas (1.1.3.2)

iii. 1.1.3.3

iv. 1.1.3.4

v. Land Use Compatibility (1.2.6)

vi. Employment (1.3)

vii. Airports, Rail and Marine Facilities (1.6.9)

viii. Implementation and Interpretation (4.6)?

C. Does the proposed development conform or not conflict with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe as required by Section 3(5) of the Planning Act, including but not limited to:

i. Guiding Principles (1.2.1)

ii. Managing Growth (2.2.1)

iii. Employment (2.2.5)

iv. Targets (5.2.6.5)

d. Does the proposed development conform with the applicable policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, including but not limited to:

i. Employment Areas (2.2.4)

ii. The Public Realm (3.1.1)

iii. Built Form (3.1.3)

iv. Built Form – Building Types (3.1.4)

v. Parks and Open Spaces (3.2.3)

vi. Creating a Strong and Diverse Civic Economy (3.5.1)

vii. Rail Facilities, Mitigating Derailment and Public Safety (3.6)

viii. Employment Areas (4.6) and

ix. Mixed-Use Areas (4.5)

e. Does the proposal conform with the policies of OPA 653/SASP 839?

f. Would approval of the proposed development and Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments represent good planning and good urban design? Would it be in the public interest?

ROYCE DUPONT INVESTMENTS INC., IRVING UNGERMAN LIMITED, AND KARL UNGERMAN LIMITED:

1. Will the proposed development, including the proposed built form and site configuration, adversely affect the current use of the adjacent lands at 1502-1504 Dupont Street?

2. Will the proposed development, including the proposed built form and site configuration, adversely affect opportunities for future redevelopment of the adjacent lands at 1502-1504 Dupont Street?

PERTH-SYMINGTON-KINGSLEY RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION:

REDESIGNATION OF THE SITE

1. Is the redesignation of the properties to Mixed Uses Areas consistent with its proposed use? A reduction in commercial / retail space is proposed; does the proposed development provide real and improved opportunities for commercial, retail and/or other public facilities?

2. How does the design proposal for the Mixed Uses Areas of the build conform with the surrounding community in terms of height, density and design?

3. Is the above ground car park abutting the rail line at the north end of the property (350 Campbell) the best use of the land? Why isn’t underground parking being proposed? Does a residential private car park structure meet the intended purpose of Mixed Use Areas?

BUILT FORM AND PUBLIC REALM

4. How does the proposed built form address the lawful use and enjoyment of the abutting properties?

5. How does the proposed development impair the access to sunlight for the abutting homes, businesses, parks, community garden to the west, and general neighbourhood?

6. How does the proposed development interfere with the privacy of the abutting homes and new condo development east-adjacent on Campbell Ave?

7. What will the impact of the proposed development be on noise and light reflection to the neighbouring properties?

8. What is the impact of the development on other environmental issues (heat island, wind tunnel etc.)?

9. How does the proposed development adequately support the needs of the community with larger family sized units (2-3 bedroom units)?

10. How does the proposed development adequately support the goals of building more affordable housing?

11. How does the proposed development provide opportunities for green infrastructure such as stormwater management, green roofs, etc.?

12. How does the proposed development address the tree canopy deficit in the community?

13. How does the proposed development provision for accessibility AODA requirements of the built form?

14. The site resides outside of a Major Transit Station Area and is not designated a Site and Specific Area for intensive / atypical development. At the proposed height, density and design, does the proposed development satisfy the four tests set out in the Planning Act?

RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES TO NEIGHBOURHOOD LAND-OWNERS

15. What is the effect on the proposed development on the approved east-adjacent Campbell Avenue condo development? How will the proposed development be impacted by the inability to extend Campbell Avenue to the north (linking Campbell and Wiltshire north of the rail line)?

16. What is the effect of the proposed development on the existing south-adjacent commercial business? How will the proposed development maintain and/or improve customer and employee access to the existing business (BMO branch)?

17. Is there adequate green space/ amenities at ground level for residents and visitors?

18. How does the proposed development fit within the larger context of the proposed and approved developments in the area? Can the neighbourhood support this development in addition to the 6-7 other proposed / approved / new developments in the immediate vicinity (e.g. Campbell Ave condo,Dupont Mass Timber Lofts, Dupont / Osler mid-rise, Tricon development along Symington / Perth / Kingsley, Galleria Reimagine, Davenport Village)?

COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES

19. What are the current deficits in the surrounding neighbourhood with respect to Community Services and Facilities? How does the proposed development deal with existing and future shortages of community services in the neighbourhood given the increasing densification of the neighbourhood (e.g. childcare, access to public schools, access to community center spaces and programs)?

CONSTRUCTION

20. What will the impact of construction be on the abutting and neighbouring properties? What issues might arise and how will those be addressed? What will the impact of construction noise and debris be on the neighbouring properties and already congested arterial roads (Dupont, Symington)?

21. How will construction of the proposed development impact traffic and parking in the neighbourhood?

22. How will cyclists be protected from construction impacts and increased local and commuter traffic, particularly on Symington Avenue where no bike lane exists?

23. How does the proposed development address safety issues raised during the construction phase?

TRAFFIC

24. Does the traffic study consider the cumulative impact of already approved, under construction, or future developments in the neighbourhood (e.g. Galleria Reimagine, Campbell condo, Dupont Mass Timber Lofts, Tricon Development, Osler / Dupont mid-rise, Davenport Village, etc.)? Given the cumulative effects of these developments, in addition to the current proposal, how does this proposed development address or alleviate the current traffic flow problems at the intersections of Symington/Dupont, Symington/Davenport, Symington/Bloor, Dupont/Annette/Dundas West, Dupont/Lansdowne?

25. How does this proposed development address or alleviate traffic flow on Symington Avenue / Dupont Street / Campbell Avenue / Adrian Avenue?

26. Given the already present traffic flow issues on Dupont and Symington Avenues and surrounding “feeder” residential streets (e.g. Wiltshire, Adrian, Kingsley, Campbell, Wallace), how will this proposed development address safety issues to cyclists, small children, pets and pedestrians due to idling, speeding and increased traffic on these streets?

27. Does the modeling for traffic for this development anticipate the completion of the Tricon Development, the abutting development on Campbell, and Galleria Reimagine? How does the proposed development prepare for significantly increased traffic levels in this area?

28. How will the proposed development address pedestrian access, parking and safety in relation to the residents and businesses that will be located within the new retail space(s)?

29. How will the proposed development address pedestrian access, parking and safety in relation to the residents and businesses that already exist to the south end of the development (e.g. BMO Bank, Boo Radley’s, Junction Triangle Toronto Public Library, new Campbell condo, Piri Piri Plaza, etc.)?

TRANSPORTATION

30. What are the current and future limitations on the public transit system in the Junction Triangle and Carleton Village? How will this proposal support rather than burden the already under-serviced (Dupont Bus) and unreliable (Symington Bus) public transit system in this area?

31. How will this development support the long-term public transit infrastructure impacts of introducing this number of residents into a small area?

PARKING

32. How will the development address or alleviate the significantly stressed permit parking areas on neighbouring residential streets (Adrian, Campbell, Symington, Perth)?

33. The proposal suggests 0 retail parking spaces. How will this proposed development support visitors of the commercial businesses who use cars?

34. Does the parking study consider the cumulative impact of approved but not yet constructed developments in the area? How will this proposed development address or alleviate the increased parking needs within the area given the cumulative effects of already approved buildings and current residents, visitors and business owners?

35. How will this development address concerns of local business owners where customer parking may be further constrained by increased traffic in the area due to this development?

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

Note: Where Parties of like interest have issues in common, they shall make reasonable efforts to coordinate their examinations-in-chief and cross-examinations so as to minimize any duplication or overlap of evidence. The Order of Evidence will be described in greater detail in the Hearing Plan that is filed with the Tribunal.

IN CHIEF:

1. European Bakery Supply Inc.

2. City of Toronto

3. Royce Dupont Investments Inc., Irving Ungerman Limited, and Karl Ungerman Limited

4. Campont Developments Limited

5. Perth-Symington-Kingsley Residents’ Association

REPLY:

1. European Bakery Supply Inc.