Signature Hill Corporation v Toronto (City), 2025 CanLII 74693

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 22, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000044

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

Applicant/Appellant: Signature Hill Corporation Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To facilitate 40-Storey building with 477 residential units. Reference Number: 24 185909 NNY 08 OZ Property Address: 250, 252, 254, 258 Viewmount Avenue Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-25-000044 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000044 OLT Case Name: Signature Hill Corporation v Toronto (City)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Signature Hill Corporation Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To facilitate 40-Storey building with 477 residential units. Reference Number: 24 185909 NNY 08 OZ Property Address: 250, 252, 254, 258 Viewmount Avenue Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-25-000045 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000044

Heard: June 10, 2025, by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Signature Hill Corporation (“Signature Hill/Applicant/Appellant”)	Eileen Costello
City of Toronto	Sara Amini
280 Viewmount Limited Partnership	Joe Hoffman

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY D. CHIPMAN ON JUNE 10, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This was the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) in respect of the Appeals filed by Signature Hill Corporation pursuant to s. 22(7) and s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, (“Act”) on an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) for which no decision was rendered by the City.

2The Tribunal having received notification by email dated May 15, 2025, that the City and Signature Hill, on consent, raised no objections to 280 Viewmount Limited Partnership being granted Party status to these proceedings, the Motion Hearing was converted to a second CMC to discuss the matter moving forward.

3The OPA and ZBA applications seek to permit the development of a 40-storey residential building with 477 residential units on the Subject Lands that are municipally known as 250, 252, 254, 258 Viewmount Avenue in the City.

CMC HEARING

4All Parties stated that they are encouraged by the discussions that have taken place to date and will continue to work toward refining and scoping the issues. Based on the number of witnesses to appear the Tribunal scheduled a two-week merit hearing commencing on Monday, April 13, 2026, at 10 a.m. by video conference.

5The Tribunal has reviewed the revised draft Procedural Order and Issues List (“PO and IL”) and approves it as attached to this Order and Decision as Attachment 1. No changes will be allowed unless agreed to by the Tribunal.

6The Parties are to work with each other on the IL noting that Tribunal-led mediation may potentially reduce the issues in dispute, and therefore may reduce the number of days required for a hearing. The Parties are to advise the Case Coordinator if they would like to avail of mediation.

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/692665589 Access Code: 692-665-589

7Parties 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. Parties and Participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoTo Meeting, or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

8Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: Toll-Free 1(888) 299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The Access Code is indicated above.

9Individuals 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 Video Hearing to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator.

10If the Parties resolve the remaining issues, they are directed to contact the Case Coordinator to secure a date for a settlement hearing.

ORDERS

11THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that 280 Viewmount Limited Partnership is granted Party status to these proceedings.

12THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS its directions in this Decision.

13This Member remains available to assist with the case management of this proceeding, subject to the Tribunal’s calendar.

14No further notice will be given.

“D. Chipman”

D. CHIPMAN 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.

ATTACHMENT 1

ISSUE DATE: July 22, 2025 CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000044, OLT-25-000045

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

Applicant and Appellant: Signature Hill Corporation Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To facilitate 40-Storey building with 477 residential units. Reference Number: 24 185909 NNY 08 OZ Property Address: 250, 252, 254, 258 Viewmount Avenue Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000044 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000044 OLT Case Name: Signature Hill Corporation 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: Signature Hill Corporation Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-Law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To facilitate 40-Storey building with 477 residential units. Reference Number: 24 185909 NNY 08 OZ Property Address: 250, 252, 254, 258 Viewmount Avenue Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000045 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000044 OLT Case Name: Signature Hill Corporation v Toronto (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 Monday, April 13, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. at: Go to: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/692665589, Access Code: 692-665-589 or by phone via the call-in numbers: Toll-Free 1(888) 299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 10 days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible.

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

7. 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 Hearing 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, including all revised plans, drawings, proposed instruments, updated supporting documents and reports which it intends to rely upon, to all the Parties on or before Friday, December 12, 2025 (at least 122 days prior to the start of the hearing). 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. 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 Wednesday, January 7, 2026 and in accordance with paragraph 24 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.

11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Friday, February 6, 2026 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, February 20, 2026 (at least 52 days prior to the start of the hearing).

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 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.

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 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.

14. On or before Friday, March 20, 2026 (at least 24 days prior to the start of the hearing), 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 24 below.

15. On or before Friday, March 20, 2026 (at least 24 days prior to the start of the hearing), a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 24 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

16. On or before Monday, March 30, 2026 (at least 14 days prior to the start of the hearing), the parties shall provide copies of their reply expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 24 below.

17. On or before Thursday, April 2, 2026 (at least 11 days prior to the start of the hearing) the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

18. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Thursday, April 2, 2026 (at least 11 days prior to the start of the hearing).

19. On or before Thursday, April 2, 2026 (at least 11 days prior to the start of the hearing), the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 24 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

20. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence within ten (10) days after the evidence is received and in accordance with paragraph 24 below.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Tuesday, April 7, 2026 (at least 6 days prior to the start of the hearing) 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.

24. All filings shall be submitted electronically. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Rule 7.

25. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness, and except as contemplated in paragraph 13 of this Order. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

This Member is [not] seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE: Name of Member: Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
Friday, December 12, 2025 (122 days prior to hearing)	Deadline to provide revised plans
Wednesday, January 7, 2026 (96 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
Friday, February 6, 2026 (66 days prior to hearing)	Experts meeting prior to this date, if any
Friday, February 20, 2026 (52 days prior to hearing)	Agreed Statement of Facts, if any
Friday, March 20, 2026 (24 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
Tuesday, March 31, 2026 (13 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
Thursday, April 2, 2026 (11 days prior to hearing)	Confirm if reserved hearing dates still required
Thursday, April 2, 2026 (11 days prior to hearing)	Finalize Joint Document Book
Thursday, April 2, 2026 (11 days prior to hearing)	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
Tuesday, April 7, 2026 (6 days prior to hearing)	Hearing Plan filed with the Tribunal
Monday, April 13, 2026	Hearing Commences

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

PARTIES:

1. Signature Hill Corporation Aird & Berlis LLP 181 Bay Street, Suite 1800 Toronto, ON M5J 2T9 Eileen Costello Tel: 416.865.4740 Email: ecostello@airdberlis.com

2. City of Toronto 55 John Street 26th Floor Toronto, ON M5V 3C6 Sara Amini Tel: 416.392.2723 Email: Sara.Amini@toronto.ca Jamie Dexter Tel: 416.394.2799 Email: Jamie.Dexter@toronto.ca

3. 280 Viewmount Limited Partnership Goodmans LLP 333 Bay Street Suite 3400 TD Centre North Tower Toronto, ON M5H 2S7 Joe Hoffman Tel: 416.597.5168 Email: jhoffman@goodmans.ca

PARTICIPANTS:

1. Osmington Gerofsky Development Corp. Kagan Shastri DeMelo Winer Park LLP 188 Avenue Road Toronto, ON M5R 2J1 Jason Park Tel: 416.645.4572 Email: jpark@ksllp.ca

2. Mr. Ori Mandowsky Tel: 416.731.6260 Email: omandowsky@gmail.com

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUES LIST

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 may be discussed prior to, or 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.

A. City of Toronto

General

1. Do the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment represent good planning, good urban design, and are they in the public interest?

Planning Act

2. Do the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendment have regard for the following matters of provincial interest set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, namely the matters in subsections 2(f), (h), (n), (p), (q) and (r)?

Provincial Planning Statement, 2024

3. Are the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with the following policies of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024: 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1.1, 3.2.2, 3.5, 3.6.1, and 6.1.5?

City of Toronto Official Plan

4. Do the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendment conform with the City of Toronto Official Plan in respect of the following Official Plan policies:

a. Structuring Growth in the City: Integrating Land Use and Transportation (2.2.2 and 2.2.9); b. Healthy Neighbourhoods (2.3.1.3, 2.3.1.4 and 2.3.1.7); c. Transportation Change (2.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.4.6, 2.4.7, 2.4.15 (b) and 2.4.22); d. The Public Realm (3.1.1.2 - 3.1.1.3, 3.1.1.6, 3.1.1.11 - 3.1.1.16; e. Built Form (3.1.3.1, 3.1.3.3 - 3.1.3.11, and 3.1.3.13); f. Built Form – Building Types (3.1.4.8 - 3.1.4.12); g. Housing (3.2.1.12); h. The Natural Environment (3.4.1.(d)); i. Apartment Neighbourhoods (4.2.2); j. Holding By-Laws (5.1.2); and k. The Official Plan Guides City Actions (5.3.1)

City of Toronto Guidelines

5. Does the proposal have regard for the Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities (2020)? In particular, does the proposal adequately support the unit size objectives of the Growing Up Guidelines?

6. Does the proposed development have regard for the City of Toronto Tall Building Guidelines? In particular, does the proposed development meet the intent of guidelines 1.1, 1.3, 2.1, 2.6, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.5, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4?

7. Does the proposed development have regard for the Pet Friendly Design Guidelines and Best Practices for New Multi-Unit Buildings?

Site-Specific Issues

8. Is the proposed building configuration and orientation, height, tower floorplate size and massing appropriate?

9. Does the proposed development provide appropriate transition in scale to adjacent nearby Neighbourhoods-designated properties, parks and public realm elements?

10. Does the proposed development, its setbacks, stepbacks, and separation distances preclude the orderly development of adjacent properties on the block?

11. Is the shadow impact from the proposed development acceptable on Brenner Park and neighbouring properties?

12. Is the wind impact of the proposed development acceptable? Does the proposal provide comfortable and safe wind conditions and limit negative wind impacts on the proposed outdoor amenity spaces, building entrances, adjacent public boulevards and Brenner Park?

13. Does the proposed development establish appropriate relationships at grade, including setbacks (both underground and at grade), and the provision of an appropriate pedestrian realm, including contributions to streetscaping, public spaces, and private open spaces?

Trees

14. Does the proposed development prioritize the preservation of existing healthy mature trees? In particular, does the proposal adequately consider the incorporation of existing trees into the development site?

15. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for well-designed landscaped areas and the long-term growth of trees to maturity?

Housing

16. Have satisfactory arrangements been made to comply with Section 3.2.1 of the Official Plan with respect to rental housing demolition and tenant assistance?

Toronto Green Standard

17. Does the proposal meet the requirements of the Toronto Green Standard particularly as it relates to transportation demand management, electric vehicle infrastructure, tree planting, soil volume, stormwater management, and tree planting requirements? In particular, does the proposal meet:

a. EC 1.1; and b. AQ 1.1?

Transportation

18. Does the proposed Transportation Demand Management strategy provide sufficient measures to accommodate the travel generated by the development in accordance with the Official Plan?

19. Is the location of the Type C loading space appropriate?

20. Does the proposed development maximize pedestrian connection within private pedestrian walkways?

21. Does the proposed development prioritize the inclusion of sidewalks, dedicated crossings where warranted, and adequate sidewalk width in the design?

22. Does the proposed development provide pedestrian and cycling connectivity in compliance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and City of Toronto Accessibility Design Guidelines (1.1.8)

Servicing and Infrastructure

23. Has the applicant demonstrated that there is sufficient infrastructure capacity to accommodate the proposed development (including water, sanitary and stormwater) and should a holding (H) symbol be enacted in the final form of the zoning by-law?

Implementation

24. If the Ontario Land Tribunal allows the appeals in whole or in part, should the issuance of any final Order with respect to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment be withheld until such time as the following conditions are satisfied?

a. The final form and content of the draft Official Plan Amendment is to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Executive Director, Development Review; b. the final form and content of the draft Zoning By-law is to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Executive Director, Development Review, which among other matters may include a holding (H) provision, with the enactment of an amending by-law to remove the holding symbol when the following conditions are fulfilled: i) the owner or applicant, at their sole cost and expense has submitted a revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report to demonstrate that the existing sanitary sewer system and watermain and any required improvements to them, have adequate capacity and supply to accommodate the development of the lands to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services; and ii) if the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report are accepted and satisfactory from (i) above require any new municipal infrastructure or upgrades to existing municipal infrastructure to support the development, then either: a) the owner or applicant has secured the design, construction, and provision of financial securities for any new municipal infrastructure, or any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure identified in the accepted Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report and Sanitary Capacity Analysis, to support the development, in a financial secured agreement, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services; or b) the required new municipal infrastructure or upgrades to existing municipal infrastructure to support the development in the accepted and satisfactory Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report and Sanitary Capacity Analysis in (i) above are constructed and operational, all to the satisfaction to the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services; and iii) all necessary approvals or permits arising from (ii)(a) or (ii)(b) above are obtained, where required all to the satisfaction to the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services; iv) the City has received, reviewed, and accepted the updated Transportation Impact Study, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services; c. the owner has arranged a site visit with City Planning staff to confirm existing conditions, including the number of rental dwelling units on the subject property; d. the Owner has provided a legal undertaking to the City, to the satisfaction of the city Solicitor and the chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, to secure the required Tenant Relocation and Assistance Plan pertaining to the existing rental dwelling unit(s) proposed to be demolished; e. the owner has satisfactorily addressed the Transportation Services and Engineering and Construction Services matters in the Engineering and Construction Services Memorandum dated September 19, 2024, and any outstanding issues arising from the ongoing technical review (including provision of acceptable reports and studies), as they relate to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment application, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services and Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services; f. the owner has satisfactorily addressed matters from the Urban Forestry, Tree Protection and Plan Review, Memorandum dated September 17, 2024, or any outstanding issues raised by Urban Forestry arising from the ongoing technical review (including provision of acceptable reports and studies), as they relate to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment application, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Environment, Climate and Forestry; g. the owner has submitted a revised Travel Demand Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the General Manager, Transportation Services; h. the owner has provided a revised wind study including a wind tunnel test, and with mitigation measures secured in the zoning bylaw and site plan to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review; i. the owner has submitted architectural plans reflecting the proposal as approved in whole or in part, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review; j. the owner has, at its sole cost and expense, facilitated the City undertaking a peer review of the submitted Noise and Vibration Assessment, and secured any recommended mitigation measures in the amending by-law, all to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review; and k. the owner has submitted an updated and complete Toronto Green Standard (TGS) Checklist and Statistics Template, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review.

B. 280 Viewmount Limited Partnership

Planning

1. Are the proposed tower setbacks appropriate and do they allow for appropriate tower separation distances in light of the planning applications for towers at 278 – 280 Viewmount Avenue and 262 – 274 Viewmount Avenue?

2. Should the proposed tower siting and setbacks be evaluated on a comprehensive basis considering the surrounding block context to efficiently use lands and optimize the use of infrastructure?

Transportation

3. Is the site access appropriately located and designed?

4. Are the proposed development’s pick-up and drop-off facilities appropriate?

5. Are traffic impacts from the proposed development appropriate and will traffic from the proposed development result in undue queuing on Viewmount Avenue, including adjacent to 278 – 280 Viewmount Avenue potentially blocking vehicular access to the existing and proposed development on these properties?

6. Is the proposed parking supply sufficient to accommodate the anticipated parking demands of the building without any undue off-site impacts?

Servicing

7. Is there sufficient sanitary capacity to support the proposed development? If not, should any Ontario Land Tribunal Order be withheld subject to new municipal infrastructure or upgrades to existing municipal infrastructure being appropriately secured?

8. Should any sanitary servicing solution take into account nearby development applications, including the planning applications for 278 – 280 Viewmount Avenue?

General Matters

9. Does the proposed development represent good planning and is it in the public interest?

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Signature Hill Corporation
2. City of Toronto
3. 280 Viewmount Limited Partnership
4. Signature Hill Corporation (in reply, if necessary)

ATTACHMENT 5 PURPOSE OF THE PROCEDURAL ORDER AND MEANING OF TERMS

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.

64595139.2

64595139.6