Bovaird West Holdings Inc. v. Brampton (City), 2025 CanLII 88220

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 28, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000723

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

Applicant and Appellant: Bovaird West Holdings Inc.

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

Description: To permit the development of the Subject Lands from the existing vacant land to high-density mixed-use development

Reference Number: OZS-2023-0039

Property Address: Part of Block 2 on Plan 43M-1927, being Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 11 on Plan 43R-40331

Municipality/UT: Brampton/Peel

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000723

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000723

OLT Case Name: Bovaird West Holdings Inc. v. Brampton (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Bovaird West Holdings Inc.

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision

Description: To permit the development of the Subject Lands from the existing vacant land to high-density mixed-use development

Reference Number: OZS-2023-0039

Property Address: Part of Block 2 on Plan 43M-1927, being Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 11 on Plan 43R-40331

Municipality/UT: Brampton/Peel

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000724

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000723

OLT Case Name: Bovaird West Holdings Inc. v. Brampton (City)

Heard: April 2, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Bovaird West Holdings Inc. (“Applicant/Appellant”)

Jonathan Cheng Patrick Duffy

City of Brampton (“City”)

Bruce Engell

Canadian National Railway Company (“CN”)

Isaiah Banach Jessica Jakubowski

Menkes Creditview Inc. (“Menkes”)

Justine Reyes Michael Cara

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY SHARON L. DIONNE ON APRIL 2, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This is the Tribunal’s Decision and Order stemming from a second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) in respect of appeals filed by the Applicant/Appellant, on the failure of the City to make decisions on planning applications for an amendment to the City’s Zoning By-law and a proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision (“Appeals”). The affected lands are vacant and known as Part of Block 2 on Plan 43M-1927, being Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 11 on Plan 43R-40331, in the City (“Subject Property”).

2At the time of the first CMC on October 2, 2024, the Tribunal granted Party status to CN and Menkes, without objection. As noted in the Tribunal’s Order dated October 9, 2024, such status was granted on the basis that they both have a direct interest in the Appeals and can assist the Tribunal in adjudicating the matters before it.

3Additionally, at the first CMC, the Tribunal scheduled a Hearing on the merits of the Appeals for a period of nine days, to commence in May 2025. At that time, although the Tribunal had before it a draft Procedural Order (“PO”), absent an Issues List (“IL”), there was no reason to doubt that a draft IL would be submitted to the Tribunal on consent of the Parties, along with the PO for the review and approval of the Tribunal by October 11, 2024. Subsequently, the Parties sought, and the Tribunal granted, an extension to the timing for the submission of the PO and IL to later in October 2024.

4The Parties come before the Tribunal in this second CMC with the IL still in dispute, and with a request to postpone the scheduled Hearing.

DISPUTED ISSUES

5The Applicant/Appellant takes issue with CN’s proposed issues, and more particularly, whether the specific policies in the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”), Region of Peel Official Plan, and City Official Plan identified by CN are relevant in the Appeals.

6The Tribunal reviewed the written submissions filed in advance of the CMC, including the following:

• Written submission filed on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant under cover of February 4, 2025, with two attachments:

• Attachment 1 – A PDF markup of CN’s issues, indicating the policy pinpoints the Applicant/Appellant seeks to have deleted; and

• Attachment 2 – A Word document table that provides the text of the policies identified by CN as being at issue, grouped by topic; and

• Written submissions filed on behalf of CN under cover of March 28, 2025, including a letter dated March 28, 2025, with various attachments, including:

• Attachment 1 – Affidavit of CN’s Land Use Planner, Mr. Chad B. John-Baptiste;

• Attachment 2 – Revised form of CN’s issues;

• Attachment 3 – Email from Jessica Jakubowski to Leann Situ dated Feb 4, 2025 in response to the Applicant/Appellant’s position re: CN’s issues;

• Attachment 4 – 840966 Ontario Ltd. (David Harris) v. Peel (Region), 2007 CarswellOnt 2252; and

• Attachment 5 – Carlyle Development Corp. v. Baldwin (Township), 2017 CarswellOnt 7658.

7The Tribunal advised the Parties that the Member had reviewed the written submissions in advance of the CMC, and that the Member recognized Mr. John-Baptiste as a land use planner, however the Tribunal did not specifically qualify Mr. John-Baptiste as an “expert” in this CMC.

8The Tribunal heard full oral submissions by Counsel for each of the Applicant/Appellant and CN. Counsel for the City took no position but did advise the Tribunal that the City is very close to a resolution of their issues with the Applicant/Appellant. Menkes took no position on the disputed issues.

9The Tribunal intentionally does not set out the nature of the disagreement on the specific proposed policies in issue themselves in this Decision. Suffice it to say, the arguments of the Parties can be summarized as differences of opinion or position as to whether certain PPS 2024 and Official Plan policies are relevant to the Appeals.

10After considering the submissions, the Tribunal ruled that the proposed issues in dispute all pertain to the interpretation of, and opinions on, certain land use planning policies, be they policies in the PPS 2024 or the Official Plans of the Region and the City, and the relevancy of such policies, interpretation and opinions, and further, that all of those policies being land use planning policies are within the purview of the Tribunal to adjudicate in the context of the Appeals.

11The Tribunal’s determination as to how these specific policies may or may not be relevant, and whether such policies ought to or not possibly be applied to the planning applications, is appropriately and properly to be made in the context of the Hearing on the merits of the Appeals. Such a Hearing will afford a fair and just opportunity for each of the Parties to present their submissions, call their witnesses to provide independent expert opinion on the land use planning policies, and to cross-exam the witnesses of the opposing Parties.

12While the Tribunal heard that the Parties are continuing discussions and that there may be some narrowing of the breadth of issues between some Parties, the Appeals of the planning applications remain before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is reluctant to strike or scope specific land use planning issues that any one Party may want included on the draft IL in this CMC.

13The Tribunal, after having heard and considered the submissions, finds that the proposed issues could be relevant, and that CN could include all of their issues on the IL, as they are set out in Attachment 2 of CN’s written submissions. As noted above, the Hearing is an appropriate forum within which the Tribunal can adjudicate on the question as to whether CN’s issues are relevant or not.

14The Tribunal directed that the Parties submit an updated PO and IL for review and approval of the Tribunal.

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

15The Tribunal was advised that the Parties have been engaged in without prejudice discussions to find some resolution to, and scoping of, the issues between them, and that in order to provide more time for such discussions, the Parties are requesting that the Tribunal grant an adjournment of the nine-day Hearing previously scheduled to commence on May 20, 2025, and that the Tribunal re-schedule it for a five-day Hearing in the summer of 2025. The Tribunal granted this request.

NEXT STEPS

16The Hearing has been re-scheduled, for a period of five days, to commence on Monday, July 21, 2025, at 10 a.m. by Video Hearing.

17Parties, 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:

GoTo Meeting: https://meet.goto.com/278736685

Access code: 278-736-685

18Parties 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

19Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to it by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: +1-647-497-9391 or (toll-free) +1-888-455-1389. The access code is: 278-736-685.

20Individuals 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.

21The Tribunal directed the Parties to deliver a revised PO and IL in accordance with the directions above. The Tribunal has received the revised PO on consent of the Parties, and it has been reviewed and appended to this Decision as Schedule 1.

ORDER

22THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

a. A Hearing is scheduled to proceed during the period of Monday, July 21, 2025 to Friday, July 25, 2025 (Five-day Merit Hearing); and

b. The Hearing shall be governed by the Procedural Order appended as Schedule 1.

“Sharon L. Dionne”

SHARON L. Dionne

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

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

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

SCHEDULE 1

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000723

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

Applicant and Appellant: Bovaird West Holdings Inc.

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

Description: To permit the development of the Subject Lands from the existing vacant land to high-density mixed-use development

Reference Number: OZS-2023-0039

Property Address: Part of Block 2 on Plan 43M-1927, being Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 11 on Plan 43R-40331

Municipality/UT: Brampton/Peel

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000723

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000723

OLT Case Name: Bovaird West Holdings Inc. v. Brampton (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Bovaird West Holdings Inc.

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision

Description: To permit the development of the Subject Lands from the existing vacant land to high-density mixed-use development

Reference Number: OZS-2023-0039

Property Address: Part of Block 2 on Plan 43M-1927, being Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 11 on Plan 43R-40331

Municipality/UT: Brampton/Peel

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000724

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000723

OLT Case Name: Bovaird West Holdings Inc. v. Brampton (City)

PROCEDURAL ORDER

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

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will begin on Monday, July 21, 2025 in accordance with the following links:

GoTo Meeting: https://meet.goto.com/278736685

Access code: 278-736-685

Audio-only telephone line: +1-647-497-9391 or (toll-free) +1-888-455-1389

Access code: 278-736-685

3. The length of the hearing will be 5 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 procedural order deadlines are generally found in Attachment 1.

5. Parties and Participants identified at the Case Management Conference are listed in Attachment 2 to this Order.

6. The Issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3 to this Order. 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.

7. The order of evidence is 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.

8. Any person intending to participate in the hearing shall provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal. Any such person who retains a representative must advise the other Parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number.

9. Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including Parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website (https://olt.gov.on.ca/tribunals/lpat/).

Requirements Before the Hearing

10. Expert witnesses in the same discipline(s) shall have at least one meeting on or before Monday, May 12, 2025, to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. The experts shall prepare a list of any agreed facts and the remaining issues to be addressed at the hearing and provide this list to all of the Parties and the Tribunal on or before Wednesday, May 21, 2025, if this meeting takes place and if agreement is reached.

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, April 28, 2025. For expert witnesses, a Party is to identify the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed 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 Monday, May 5, 2025.

12. If the Appellant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing, the Appellant shall provide copies of the revised proposal, including all revised plans, drawings, studies, reports and proposed instruments to be relied upon, to the other Parties by no later than Monday, May 5, 2025. The Appellant 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.

13. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing, the acknowledgement of expert's duty and curriculum vitae. 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 this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony. For greater certainty, each expert witness statement must comply with the minimum content requirements specified in Rule 7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. If the expert witness has prepared any report(s) that he/she 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.

14. On or before Monday, June 9, 2025, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and/or expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with Section 24 below.

15. On or before Monday June 9, 2025, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with Section 24 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement.

16. 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.

17. On or before Monday, June 23, 2025, the Parties may provide to all other Parties a written response to any written evidence.

18. On or before Monday, June 16, 2025, the Parties shall advise the Tribunal of whether any hearings dates scheduled for this matter may be released from the Tribunal's calendar. This request may only be made on consent of all of the Parties. If no hearing dates are intended to be released from the Tribunal's calendar, no Party is required to advise the Tribunal anything further in that regard.

19. On or before Tuesday, July 8, 2025, the Parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other Parties. The Tribunal and all Parties shall be notified if a model will be used, all Parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the scheduled commencement of the hearing.

20. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. Such a motion shall be in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rule 10, which requires that the moving Party provide copies of the motion to all other Parties at least fifteen (15) days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

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

22. On or before Monday, July 14, 2025, the Parties shall prepare and file a detailed Work Plan that identifies the following, at a minimum: the identified Parties participating in the Hearing Event, preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the date a witness is intended to attend the Tribunal, the identified witness name/expertise, and the approximate time allotted for Examination in Chief, Cross Examination and any re-examination (if any) (the “Work Plan”). The Work Plan should be adhered to guide the Hearing Event to the best ability of all the Parties, and any and all witnesses shall be available on the identified date(s), unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the Work Plan throughout the Hearing Event.

23. The Parties shall prepare a Joint Document Book on or before Monday, July 14, 2025, and which one (1) hard copy will be filed with the Tribunal as soon as practicable in advance of the Hearing, if required by the Tribunal. All Parties must be served with the Joint Document Book in paper or an accessible electronic format in accordance with Section 24.

24. All filing of documents and materials shall be electronic 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, if required by the Tribunal. 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. All documents to be filed with the Tribunal shall be organized, tabbed and digitally searchable and such materials will be filed in accordance with directions contained in the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, dated July 2, 2020, or as may be amended. Section 24 applies regardless if the hearing event is in-person or electronic.

25. 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.

26. The Tribunal may conduct mediation on consent of all Parties, on consent of those Parties who wish to participate in mediation, or if the Tribunal sees fit.

27. 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.

ATTACHMENT 1 SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE

EVENT

Monday, April 28, 2025

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

Monday, May 5, 2025

Last date to challenge identification of expert witness

Monday May 5, 2025

Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans, drawings, studies, reports and the proposed instruments to be relied upon at the hearing (if any)

Monday, May 12, 2025

Deadline for Experts’ Meeting to be held

Wednesday, May 21, 2025

Agreed Statement of Facts

Monday, June 9, 2025

Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements

Monday, June 16, 2025

Parties to advise Tribunal if any hearing dates are to be released from the hearing calendar (if any)

Monday, June 23, 2025

Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)

Tuesday, July 8, 2025

Exchange of visual evidence (if any)

Monday, July 14, 2025

Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal

Monday, July 14, 2025

Finalize Joint Document Book

Monday, July 21, 2025

Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

A. PARTIES

*Counsel/Agent

Bovaird West Holdings Inc.

Patrick Duffy Stikeman Elliott LLP 5300 Commerce Court West 199 Bay Street Toronto, ON M5L 1B9 E-mail: pduffy@stikeman.com Tel.: 416-869 5257

Jonathan Cheng Stikeman Elliott LLP 5300 Commerce Court West 199 Bay Street Toronto, ON M5L 1B9 E-mail: jcheng@stikeman.com Tel.: 416-869-6807

City of Brampton

Bruce Engell WeirFoulds LLP 65 Wellington Street West Suite 4100 P.O. Box 35, TD Bank Tower Toronto, ON M5K 1B7 E-mail: bengell@weirfoulds.com Tel.: 416-365-1110

Menkes Creditview Inc.

Michael Cara Overland LLP 5255 Yonge Street, Suite 1101 Toronto, ON M2N 6P4 E-mail: mcara@overlandllp.ca Tel.: 647-389-1515

Canadian National Railway Company

Isaiah Banach Dentons Canada LLP 77 King Street West, Suite 400 Toronto, ON M5K 0A1 E-mail: isaiah.banach@dentons.com Tel.: 416-863-4501

Jessica Jakubowski Dentons Canada LLP 77 King Street West, Suite 400 Toronto, ON M5K 0A1 E-mail: jessica.jakubowski@dentons.com Tel.: 437-223-6814

B. PARTICIPANTS

None.

ATTACHMENT 3 ISSUES LIST

NOTE: The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the Tribunal or any Party that the issue, or the manner in which it is expressed, is either appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing. The extent to which an issue is appropriate or relevant to the determination of the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing.

ISSUES LIST OF THE CITY OF BRAMPTON

Planning Policies:

1. Do the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and Plan of Subdivision applications (“Applications”) have appropriate regard to the matters of provincial interest as outlined in sections 2(a), (f), (h), (h.1), (i), (j), (k), (p), (q), (r) of the Planning Act?

2. Does the proposed Plan of Subdivision have appropriate regard for the matters set out in section 51(24) of the Planning Act, and specifically subsections 51(24) (a), (b), (c), (i), (m)?

3. Are the Applications consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024, including but not limited to policies 2.1.6, 2.2.1, 2.3.1.1, 2.4.1.2, 2.4.2.2, 3.9.1?

4. Do the Applications conform with the Region of Peel Official Plan April 2022, including but not limited to policies 5.4.1, 5.4.8, 5.4.11, 5.4.18.1, 5.4.18.2, 5.4.18.4, 5.4.18.5, 5.4.18.6, 5.4.18.8, 5.4.18.11, 5.6.2, 5.6.3, 5.6.4, 5.6.17.1, 5.6.17.2, 5.6.17.3, 5.6.19.1, 5.6.19.5, 6.5.2?

5. Do the Applications conform with the City of Brampton Official Plan, 2006, September 2020 consolidation, including but not limited to policies 3.2.1.1, 3.2.4, 3.2.5.1.1, 3.2.5.1.3, 4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.3, 4.2.1.6, 4.2.1.8, 4.5.2.8, 4.5.2.9, 4.5.4.19, 4.5.4.21, 4.5.4.22, 4.5.4.31, 4.6.15.1.2, 4.7.1.1, 4.7.1.2, 4.7.2.1, 4.11.2.1.1, 4.11.2.1.2, 4.11.2.3.4, 4.11.3.1.2, 4.11.3.3.1, 4.11.3.3.3, 4.11.3.3.4, 4.11.3.4.1, 5.6.2?

6. Do the Applications conform with the Brampton Plan 2023, including but not limited to policies 2.1.2.1, 2.1.2.2, 2.1.2.3, 2.1.2.20, 2.1.2.29, 2.2.2, 2.2.3.4, 2.2.3.5, 2.2.3.11, 2.2.3.12, 2.2.4.18, 3.1.1.7, 3.1.1.11, 3.1.1.20, 3.1.1.30, 3.1.1.33, 3.1.1.34, 3.1.1.35, 3.1.1.55, 3.3.1.6, 3.4.2.22, 3.4.3.10, 3.5.1.35, 3.5.1.38, 3.5.2.26, 3.5.2.27, 5.12.11, 5.12.12—to the extent the Brampton Plan 2023 is applicable to the Applications?

7. Do the Applications conform with the City of Brampton’s Secondary Plan Area 44 Fletchers Meadow Secondary Plan, as amended, including but not limited to policies 3.1.2, 3.2.10, 3.2.11, 5.4.5, 6.3?

Urban Design:

8. Is the proposed built form (specifically the proposed distribution of heights and the proposed location of the buildings) appropriate?

• If ‘not’, then what is the appropriate distribution of heights and the proposed location of the buildings?

9. Is the proposed development compatible with the adjacent land uses?

10. Will the proposed development create undue negative impact on the surrounding community?

11. Has the appellant submitted a satisfactory Urban Design Brief and Sun Shadow Study to the City?

• If ‘not’, then is it appropriate to approve the Applications?

• If ‘not’, then is it appropriate to include a Holding (H) provision in the Zoning By-law Amendment until the Urban Design Brief and Sun Shadow Study to support the proposal have been completed and updated to the Ontario Land Tribunal’s satisfaction?

• If ‘yes’, then what is the appropriate wording for the Holding (H) provision?

POPS:

12. Is the proposed configuration, location/orientation, including frontage, of POPS appropriate?

a. If it not appropriate, then what is the appropriate configuration, location/orientation of the proposed POPS?

Traffic:

13. Is the proposed internal road network appropriate?

a. If it is not appropriate, then what changes are required?

14. Will the proposed internal road network cause adverse impacts, including but not limited to safety and operational issues?

15. Are the proposed daylight triangles appropriate and have they been appropriate depicted on the draft Plan of Subdivision?

a. If not, what changes are required?

16. Has a satisfactory Traffic Impact Study (the “TIS”) been provided to the City?

a. If ‘not’, then is it appropriate to approve the Applications?

b. If ‘not’, then is it appropriate to include a Holding (H) provision in the Zoning By-law Amendment until the TIS to support the proposal been completed and updated to the Ontario Land Tribunal’s satisfaction?

i. If ‘yes’, then what is the appropriate wording for the Holding (H) provision?

Engineering:

17. Has the servicing of the proposed development been adequately addressed?

• If ‘not’, then is it appropriate to approve the Applications?

18. Has a satisfactory functional servicing and stormwater management report (the “FSR”) been provided to the City?

a. If ‘not’, then is it appropriate to approve the Applications?

b. If ‘not’, then is it appropriate to include a Holding (H) provision in the Zoning By-law Amendment until an FSR has been completed and updated to the Ontario Land Tribunal’s satisfaction?

i. If ‘yes’, then what is the appropriate wording for the Holding (H) provision?

Form of the ZBA and draft Plan of Subdivision:

19. Is the form of the draft plan of subdivision appropriate?

20. Is it appropriate to rezone the lands from “Commercial Three-Special Section 3526” to a new zone category as proposed?

a. If ‘not’, then is it appropriate to approve the Applications?

b. If ‘not’, then what are the appropriate amendments?

21. Does the proposed draft Zoning By-law Amendment include all of the requirements and restrictions to facilitate the proposed development?

a. If ‘not’, then what should be the appropriate amendments?

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

a. If ‘yes’, then are the City’s proposed draft plan approval conditions appropriate?

i. If ‘not’, then what should be the appropriate amendments to the draft plan approval conditions?

ISSUES LIST OF MENKES CREDITVIEW INC.

1. Does the proposed configuration of the street network have appropriate regard for existing property boundaries and encumbrances?

2. Does the design of the street network have appropriate regard for existing and proposed grading conditions on neighbouring lands?

3. Is a phasing plan needed for the subject site? How will phasing impact the design and configuration of vehicular access points?

4. Will the proposed development result in unacceptable adverse impact to the redevelopment of 15 and 25 Lagerfeld Drive, including in relation to new streets and connections that are proposed by the applicant?

ISSUES LIST OF CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY

1. What is the appropriate mitigation for the proposed development to address noise impacts?

2. Is it premature to approve the Zoning Bylaw Amendment (“ZBA”) and Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”) in the absence of mitigation measures that have been accurately identified?

3. How will any required mitigation measures for the proposed development be secured?

4. What planning tools and agreements are needed to secure the implementation of recommendations from technical studies and other requirements identified through the review and consideration of the ZBA and DPS?

5. Do the proposed ZBA and DPS have sufficient regard to matters of provincial interest as outlined in Sections 2(f), (h), (m), (o), and (r) (i) and (iii) of the Planning Act?

6. Do the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and Draft Plan Conditions have sufficient regard to Section 51(24) (a), (b), (c), (d), and Section 51(25) of the Planning Act at it relates to CN’s concerns?

Provincial Planning Statement

1. Are the proposed ZBA, DPS, and Draft Plan Conditions consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS), policies 2.1.6 (c), 2.3.1.2 (b) and (e), 2.4.1.2, 2.4.1.3 (a), 2.4.3.1, 2.8.1.1 (e), 2.8.2.2, 2.8.2.3(a) and (e), 2.8.2.4, 3.1.1, 3.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.4.1, and 6.1.11?

Peel Region Official Plan

2. Do the proposed ZBA, DPS, and Draft Plan Conditions conform with the Peel Region Official Plan, 2022, specifically, objectives and policies 1.7.1, 1.7.5, 3.7.4, 5.3.3, 5.4.5, 5.4.8, 5.4.9, 5.4.16, 5.4.18.2, 5.6.8, 5.6.9, 5.6.16, 5.6.17.4, 5.6.17.5, 5.6.17.8, 5.6.17.9, 5.8.6, 5.10.4, 5.10.5, 5.10.21, 5.10.28, 5.10.34.5, 5.10.34.8, 5.10.34.9.b, 5.10.34.27, 5.10.34.28, 5.10.34.33, 5.10.34.37, 5.10.34.40, 5.10.34.48, 5.10.36.4, 5.10.38, 5.10.39.1,.3, .9, and .10?

2006 Brampton Official Plan

3. Do the proposed ZBA, DPS, and Draft Plan Conditions conform with the 2006 Brampton Official Plan (Office Consolidation September 2020), specifically sections, objectives and policies 2.3 (c), 2.4.2 (e), 2.4.3 (b), 3.1 (specifically, the 1st bullet point in the transportation heading that speaks to transportation and efficient movement of goods and services), 3.2.1 (vi), 4.5.1(ix), 4.5.1.3, 4.5.1.5, 4.5.4.27, 4.5.8.3, 4.5.10.1, 4.5.10.2, 4.6.13.2, 4.6.13.3, 4.6.15, 4.6.15.1.1-1.6, 4.6.15.1.18-1.24 (except for .20 and .21), 4.11.3.4.1, and 5.6.1?

Fletchers Meadow Secondary Plan

1. Do the proposed ZBA, DPS and Draft Plan Conditions conform with the Fletchers Meadow Secondary Plan (February 2013), specifically sections and policies 3.2.10, 3.2.11, 5.4.4, 5.4.5, and 5.4.6? Do the proposed ZBA, DPS and Draft Plan Conditions conform with the Sub-Area 44-1: Block Plan Area of Fletchers Meadow Secondary Plan, specifically sections and policies 4.0 (VIII), 5.7, 5.8, 5.17 (III)?

2. Do the proposed ZBA and DPS have to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities/Railway Association of Canada Guidelines for New Development in Proximity to Railway Operations (“FCM/RAC Guidelines”)? How should the FCM/RAC Guidelines be applied?

3. Do the proposed ZBA and DPS have regard to the D1 and D6 Guidelines, including their applicability with provincial policy and the local and regional Official Plans?

4. Should the acoustic assessment take into consideration the frequency content/character of the noise sources and the following federal documents:

a. “Guidelines for the Resolution of Complaints Concerning Railway Noise and Vibration”, Canadian Transportation Agency, October, 2008; and

b. “Railway Noise Measurement and Reporting Methodology”, Canadian Transportation Agency, August 2011.

5. Does the acoustic analysis properly determine the sound level due to the transportation sources, including rail noise, in accordance with the MECP guidelines?

6. Does the acoustic analysis provide the appropriate mitigation measures for compliance with the MECP guidelines and the RAC/FCM guidelines?

7. Do the proposed ZBA and DPS have regard to NPC-300 and its requirements, including acoustic assessment and feasibility in the context of the role of the Canadian Transportation Agency in addressing noise complaints?

8. Do the proposed ZBA and DPS rely on an appropriate assessment of the transportation noise sources in the area (i.e. all sources and with current data) and the required building component requirements to meet the applicable indoor noise criteria for transportation sources?

9. Do the proposed ZBA and DPS rely on an appropriate assessment of the transportation noise sources in the area (i.e. all sources and with current data) and the required mitigation to meet the applicable guidelines at the outdoor amenity areas?

ATTACHMENT 4 ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Bovaird West Holdings Inc.

2. City of Brampton

3. Menkes Creditview Inc.

4. Canadian National Railway Company

5. Bovaird West Holdings Inc., in reply (if any)

ATTACHMENT 5

Additional Information

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.

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.