Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: September 18, 2025 CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000339, OLT-24-000968

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: 1816985 Ontario Inc. Appellant: Argo Neyagawa Corporation Appellant: Burnhamthorpe/Oakville Holdings Inc Appellant: Sherborne Lodge Developments Limited et al. Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 326 & 45 Description: To facilitate the implementation of the Neyagawa Urban Core Area Reference Number: OPA -326 File No. 42.15.60 Property Address: Neyagawa Urban Core (Neyagawa Boulevard and Burnhamthorpe Road) Municipality/UT: Town of Oakville OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000339 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000339 OLT Case Name: 1816985 Ontario Inc. et al. v Oakville (Town)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Argo Neyagawa Corporation Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit the development of a mixed-use community with a storm water management pond Reference Number: OPA1220.02 Property Address: Part of Lot 20, Concession 2, NDS Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton OLT Case No: OLT-24-000968 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000968 OLT Case Name: Argo Neyagawa Corporation v. Oakville (Town)

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

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Reference Number: Z.1220.02 Property Address: Part of Lot 20, Concession 2, NDS Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton OLT Case No: OLT-24-000969 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000968

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

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision Reference Number: 24T-24001/1220 Property Address: Part of Lot 20, Concession 2, NDS Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton OLT Case No: OLT-24-000970 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000968

Heard: September 10, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
1816985 Ontario Inc. (Westerkirk Capital Inc.)	Andrew Jeanrie, Samuel Judson
Argo Neyagawa Corporation	Meaghan Barrett, Patrick Harrington (in absentia)
Burnhamthorpe/Oakville Holdings Inc.	Jennifer Evola, Adrianna Pilkington (in absentia), Signe Leisk (in absentia)
Sherborne Lodge Developments Limited et al.	Denise Baker, Narmada Gunawardana (in absentia)
Town of Oakville	Nadia Chandra, Andrew Biggart (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY KURTIS SMITH ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The Tribunal held a concurrent Case Management Conference ("CMC") concerning Case No. OLT-25-000339, the Neyagawa Urban Core ("NUC OPA") and OLT-24-000968, the private site-specific appeal by Argo Neyagawa Corporation ("ANC Private Appeal" / "ANC") pertaining to lands in the Town of Oakville ("Town").

2As outlined in the NUC OPA Decision issued on September 2, 2025, and outlined in correspondence from the Town, the purpose of this CMC was to consider the request to have these matters heard together during the previously scheduled February 2026 hearing dates. If granted the Tribunal would then consider:

1. The adjournment request of the previously scheduled Merit Hearing dates for the ANC Private Appeal;
2. The Party Status requests for the ANC Private Appeal; and
3. Review the combined Draft Procedural Order ("DPO") and Issues List (IL").

3The Tribunal granted the request to have these matters heard together on consent of the Parties, as it will assist in an expeditious and cost-effective resolution of both appeals. Resulting from the matters being heard together, the Tribunal adjourned the previously scheduled Merit Hearing dates for the ANC Private Appeals.

4Prior to the commencement of the CMC, the Tribunal received requests by 1816985 Ontario Inc. and Sherborne Lodge Development et al. ("SLD"), being Appellants in the NUC OPA, seeking Party Status in the ANC Private Appeal. The requests are due to the matters being heard together, resulting in common issues pertaining to the overall densities for the NUC OPA and potential overlap relating to proposed location of the transit station.

5ANC and the Town consented to the requests. The Tribunal granted the requests by SLD and 1816985 Ontario Inc., as they have a direct interest in the ANC Private Appeal.

6The Tribunal reviewed and considered the DPO and IL that was provided by the Town. Upon review of the DPO, the Tribunal directed the Town to correct and update the DPO to reflect the decisions made during the CMC.

7Following the conclusion of the CMC, the Tribunal received and reviewed the finalized Procedural Order ("PO") and IL from the Parties on consent. The Tribunal finds that the PO and IL are acceptable and attached the PO, including the IL to this Order. The PO shall govern the proceedings leading up to and including the Hearing of the Merits of both matters. Therefore, the PO and IL Ordered on May 9, 2025, for the ANC Private Appeal is rescinded.

8Lastly, the Town communicated to the Appellants that they are open to mediation. Furthermore, they requested that the Appellants provide them with the specific changes they seek to advance potential resolution of the appeals.

ORDER

9THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. Case No. OLT-24-000968 and OLT-25-000339 be heard together during the previously scheduled hearing dates for OLT-25-000339;
2. Case No. OLT-24-000968 December 2025 and January 2026 hearing dates be adjourned;
3. 1816985 Ontario Inc. and Sherborne Lodge Development et al. are granted Party Status to Case No. OLT-24-000968;
4. The Procedural Order attached as Schedule 1 of this Order shall govern the proceedings leading up to and including the Hearing of the Merits for both matters; and
5. The Procedural Order for OLT-24-000968 issued on May 9, 2025, is hereby rescinded.

"Kurtis Smith"

Kurtis Smith 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

ISSUE DATE: September __, 2025 CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000339, OLT-24-000968

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: 1816985 Ontario Inc. Appellant: Argo Neyagawa Corporation Appellant: Burnhamthorpe/Oakville Holdings Inc Appellant: Sherborne Lodge Developments Limited et al. Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 326 & 45 Description: To facilitate the implementation of the Neyagawa Urban Core Area Reference Number: OPA -326 File No. 42.15.60 Property Address: Neyagawa Urban Core (Neyagawa Boulevard and Burnhamthorpe Road) Municipality/UT: Town of Oakville OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000339 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000339 OLT Case Name: 1816985 Ontario Inc. et al. v.

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

Applicant/Appellant: Argo Neyagawa Corporation Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit the development of a mixed-use community with a storm water management pond Reference Number: OPA1220.02 Property Address: Part of Lot 20, Concession 2, NDS Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton OLT Case No: OLT-24-000968 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000968 OLT Case Name: Argo Neyagawa Corporation v. Oakville (Town)

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

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Reference Number: Z.1220.02 Property Address: Part of Lot 20, Concession 2, NDS Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton OLT Case No: OLT-24-000969 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000968

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

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision Reference Number: 24T-24001/1220 Property Address: Part of Lot 20, Concession 2, NDS Municipality/UT: Oakville/Halton OLT Case No: OLT-24-000970 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000968

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.

2. With respect to the appeals under OLT-24-000968, this Procedural Order replaces the Order previously issued in that proceeding (dated May 9, 2025).

Organization of the Hearing

3. The video hearing will begin on Monday, February 2, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. to Friday, February 27, 2026 (excluding February 16, 2026). The link to the video hearing is as follows:

GoToMeeting: https://meet.goto.com/680885805 Access Code: 680-885-805

4. The parties' initial estimation for the length of hearing of these matters being heard together (not consolidated) is 19 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.

5. The parties and participants previously identified at a case management conference in these proceedings, or that have administratively sought party status with notice to the previously identified parties, are set out in Attachment 2. Unless the Tribunal directs otherwise, a person who wishes to become a party or participant at the hearings who is not listed in Attachment 2 must make the necessary motion to the Tribunal. The Tribunal may refuse to grant such status.

6. The issues to be adjudicated at these hearings are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. There will be no changes to the Issues List unless the Tribunal permits and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

7. The order of evidence in these hearings shall be as set out in Attachment 4 to this Order, with the hearing regarding the Neyagawa Urban Core Official Plan Amendments (CASE NO. OLT-25-000339) proceeding first and immediately followed by the hearing regarding Argo Neyagawa Corporation's site-specific applications for zoning by-law amendments and draft plan of subdivision (CASE NO. OLT-24-000968). 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. The meaning of the terms used in this Procedural Order are identified in Attachment 5.

9. Any person granted status to participate in the hearings should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible. 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.

10. Any person who intends to participate in the hearings, 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

11. If the applicant/appellant (Argo Neyagawa Corporation) in OLT-25-000339 intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing of OLT-24-000968, Argo Neyagawa Corporation shall provide copies of the revised proposal, including any revised plans, drawings, proposed instruments, updated supporting documents and reports, to the other Parties on or before Friday, October 3, 2025. Argo Neyagawa Corporation 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 of OLT-24-000968 and no evidence may be called regarding the revised proposal in the hearing of OLT-25-000339.

12. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of their intended witnesses in the order in which the witnesses will be called during the hearing. This list must be delivered on or before Monday, November 3, 2025, and in accordance with paragraph 25 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must provide a copy of the witness' Curriculum Vitae and detailing the precise area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified.

13. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have at least one experts' meeting, which is to be held on a without prejudice and confidential basis (except insofar as it may be necessary for an expert to seek out recourses or information required for the expert to participate – e.g., consult with other experts or counsel) for the purposes of using best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts' meeting(s) the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Monday, November 24, 2025.

14. 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 25 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.

15. 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 24 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 25 below.

16. On or before Monday, December 1, 2025, 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.

17. On or before Monday, December 1, 2025, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 25 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement unless ordered by the Tribunal.

18. On or before Monday, December 15, 2025, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

19. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before Monday, January 12, 2026 and in accordance with paragraph 25 below.

20. On or before Monday, January 19, 2026, 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.

21. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Friday, January 23, 2026.

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.

23. 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 10 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

24. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Monday, January 26, 2026, with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

25. 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.

26. 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

ATTACHMENT 1 SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
Friday, October 3, 2025	Last day to provide revised proposal, including revised instruments, plans and drawings (if any)
Monday, November 3, 2025	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines, CVs included)
Monday, November 24, 2025	Agreed Statements of Facts and Issues to be filed
Monday, December 1, 2025	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
Monday, December 15, 2025	Deadline to advise OLT of any reductions in hearing time
Monday, January 12, 2026	Exchange of Reply Statements (if any)
Monday, January 19, 2026	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
Friday, January 23, 2026	Finalize & submit Joint Document Book
Monday, January 26, 2026	Hearing Plan filed with the Tribunal
Monday, February 2, 2026	Hearing commences (19 days)

ATTACHMENT 2 LIST OF PARTIES – Neyagawa Urban Core Official Plan Amendments (CASE NO. OLT-25-000339)

Parties

Town of Oakville Nadia Chandra Assistant Town Solicitor 1225 Trafalgar Road Oakville, ON L6H 0H3 Tel: 905-845-6601, Ext. 3912 Email: nadia.chandra@oakville.ca

Andrew Biggart Ritchie Ketcheson Hart & Biggart Barristers & Solicitors 303 - 1 Eva Road Toronto, ON M9C 4Z5 Tel: 416-622-6601 Ext. 1003 Fax: 416-622-4713 Email: abiggart@ritchieketcheson.com

1816985 Ontario Inc. Andrew Jeanrie & Samuel Judson Bennett Jones LLP 3400 One First Canadian Place, P.O. Box 130, Toronto, ON, M5X 1A4 T. 416 777 4814 | F. 416 863 1716 Email: JeanrieA@bennettjones.com judsons@bennettjones.com

Argo Neyagawa Corporation Patrick Harrington & Meaghan Barrett Aird & Berlis LLP Brookfield Place, 181 Bay Street, Suite 1800 Toronto, ON M5J 2T9 Tel: 416-863-1500 Email: pharrington@airdberlis.com mbarrett@airdberlis.com

Burnhamthorpe/Oakville Holdings Inc. Adrianna Pilkington & Signe Leisk & Jennifer Evola Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP 40 Temperance Street Toronto, ON M5H 0B4 Tel: 416 860 6453 Email: apilkington@cassels.com sleisk@cassels.com jevola@cassels.com

Sherborne Lodge Developments Limited et al. Denise Baker & Narmada Gunawardana WeirFoulds Suite 201, 1320 Cornwall Road Oakville, Ontario, Canada. L6J 7W5 T. 416-365-1110 | F. 416-365-1876 Email: dbaker@weirfoulds.com ngunawardana@weirfoulds.com

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS – Argo Neyagawa Corporation (CASE NO. OLT-24-000968)

Parties

Argo Neyagawa Corporation [Applicant/Appellant] Patrick Harrington & Meaghan Barrett Aird & Berlis LLP Brookfield Place, 181 Bay Street, Suite 1800 Toronto, ON M5J 2T9 Tel: 416-863-1500 Email: pharrington@airdberlis.com mbarrett@airdberlis.com

Town of Oakville Nadia Chandra Assistant Town Solicitor 1225 Trafalgar Road Oakville, ON L6H 0H3 Tel: 905-845-6601 Email: nadia.chandra@oakville.ca

Andrew Biggart Ritchie Ketcheson Hart & Biggart Barristers & Solicitors 303 - 1 Eva Road Toronto, ON M9C 4Z5 Tel: 416-622-6601 Ext. 1003 Fax: 416-622-4713 Email: abiggart@ritchieketcheson.com

Burnhamthorpe/Oakville Holdings Inc. Adrianna Pilkington & Signe Leisk & Jennifer Evola Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP 40 Temperance Street Toronto, ON M5H 0B4 Tel: 416 860 6453 Email: apilkington@cassels.com sleisk@cassels.com jevola@cassels.com

1816985 Ontario Inc. Andrew Jeanrie & Samuel Judson Bennett Jones LLP 3400 One First Canadian Place, P.O. Box 130, Toronto, ON, M5X 1A4 T. 416 777 4814 | F. 416 863 1716 Email: JeanrieA@bennettjones.com judsons@bennettjones.com

Sherborne Lodge Developments Limited et al. Denise Baker & Narmada Gunawardana WeirFoulds Suite 201, 1320 Cornwall Road Oakville, Ontario, Canada. L6J 7W5 T. 416-365-1110 | F. 416-365-1876 Email: dbaker@weirfoulds.com ngunawardana@weirfoulds.com

Participants

Parminder Narang Email: parminder.narang@gmail.com

ATTACHMENT 3 ISSUES LIST –

Neyagawa Urban Core Official Plan Amendments (CASE NO. OLT-25-000339)

NOTE: The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the Tribunal or any party that the issue is either relevant or appropriate. The identification of an issue on this list by a party indicates that party's intent to lead evidence or argue that the issue is relevant to the proceeding, for the purpose of fairly identifying to the other parties the case they need to meet. Accordingly, no party shall advance an issue not identified on the Issues List without leave of the Tribunal.

1816985 Ontario Inc.

1.1. Planning Act

Issue 1 1.1.1. Do the provisions of Section 7.6.6.4 of OPA 326 have appropriate regard to the matters of provincial interest in s.2 of the Planning Act, in particular, the promotion of development that is designed to support public transit?

1.2. Provincial Planning Statement

Issue 2 1.2.1. Are the provisions of Section 7.6.6.4 of OPA 326 consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, including but not limited to the following sections? (a) 2.2.1.c) (b) 2.2.1.d) (c) 2.4 (d) 3.3.3

1.3 North Oakville East Secondary Plan

Issue 3 1.3.1 Does OPA 326, specifically Section 7.6.6.4, have appropriate regard for the density and intensification directions and the direction that growth and intensification be promoted in areas well served by transit in the North Oakville East Secondary Plan and do they represent good planning? NOESP policies (still in effect and not modified by OPA 326) include: (a) 7.4.3.a) iii) (b) 7.5.4.g) (c) 7.5.6.e)

1.4 OPA 326

Issue 4 1.4.1 Do the height and density permissions of Section 7.6.6.4 [formerly 7.6.6.3] in OPA 326 inappropriately limit height and density on lands located on, or adjacent to, a transit station servicing a rapid transit route?

Issue 5 1.4.2 Should Section 7.6.6.4 in OPA 326 be amended so that additional height and density be considered if a transit station is required on the lands?

1.5 Site Specific Issues: OPA 326

Issue 6 1.5.1 Should Section 7.6.6.8 of OPA 326 be amended to provide that, in the event of conflict, the North East Oakville Secondary Plan (NOESP) or any successor Secondary Plan governing the Neyagawa Urban Core Area prevails?

Issue 7 1.5.2 Should Section 7.6.6.8 of OPA 326 be amended to provide that, in the event of conflict, any approved site-specific development application prevails?

Argo Neyagawa Corporation

1. Does OPA 326 have appropriate regard to the matters of provincial interest in section 2 of the Planning Act, specifically sections 2(f), 2(p) and 2(q)?
2. Are the policies of OPA 326 consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement ("2024 PPS"), specifically policies:

• 2.2.1 c);
• 2.2.1 d);
• 2.3.1.1;
• 2.3.1.2;
• 2.3.1.4;
• 2.3.1.5;
• 2.4.1.1;
• 2.4.1.2;
• 2.4.1.3 b); and
• 3.3.3.

3. Do the policies of OPA 326 conform with the intent and purpose of the Oakville Official Plan and the North Oakville East Secondary Plan?
4. Are the minimum floor area and location requirements for retail and service commercial uses in section 7.6.6.2 appropriate and do they represent good planning?
5. Is the allocation of retail and service commercial use across the Neyagawa Urban Core area in section 7.6.6.2 reasonable and adequately justifiable? Is the proposed allocation appropriate and good planning?
6. Should the built form restrictions in section 7.6.6.3 and 7.6.6.4 be revised to create greater flexibility?
7. Are the policies relating to infrastructure and urban design in section 7.6.6.3 of OPA 326 overly restrictive?
8. Are the minimum densities in section 7.6.6.4 of OPA 326 appropriate and do they represent good planning?
9. Is the allocation of minimum densities across the Neyagawa Urban Core area in section 7.6.6.4 reasonable and adequately justifiable? Is the proposed allocation appropriate and good planning?
10. Are the mandatory minimum building heights within 50m of the Neyagawa Boulevard and William Halton Parkway in policy 7.6.6.4 d) appropriate and good planning?
11. Is section 7.6.6.7 relating to public realm lands and amenities sufficiently clear about the way the public realm lands and amenities are to be secured and paid for?
12. Is policy 7.7.4.5.f) regarding ownership of open spaces consistent with the Master Parkland Agreement?
13. Does OPA 326 adequately contemplate a scenario in which no 407 transitway station is delivered to the Neyagawa Urban Core area?

Burnhamthorpe/Oakville Holdings Inc. ("BOH")

Official Plan Amendment 326 ("OPA 326")

General

1. Does OPA 326, including policies 7.3.2, 7.5.13, 7.5.16, 7.6.6.1, 7.6.6.2, 7.6.6.3, 7.6.6.3.1, 7.6.6.3.2, 7.6.6.3.3., 7.6.6.3.4, 7.6.6.3, 7.6.6.4, 7.6.6.7, 7.6.6, and the Community Structure and Land Use Plan figures, have appropriate regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections 2(e), (f), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), (p), (q) and (r), and, are such policies and figures consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 ("PPS"), including PPS policies 2.1, 2.2.1, 2.3.1, 2.4.1, 2.8, 2.9.1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.6, 3.9, 6.1.1, 6.1.6, 6.1.7, 6.1.11, 6.1.12, 6.1.13, and 6.2?
2. Does OPA 326, including policies 7.6.6.3.4, 7.6.6.3, 7.6.6.4, and 7.6.6.7, maintain the general intent and purpose of the Oakville Official Plan, including the North Oakville East Secondary Plan?
3. Does OPA 326 represent good planning?

Site-Specific (BOH lands at northeast corner of Neyagawa Boulevard and Burnhamthorpe Road) 4. Does OPA 326 fail to optimize lands use and infrastructure and does it undermine provincial and Town goals, including the provision of housing, achievement of efficient use of land, resources, infrastructure, and public service facilities? 5. Do the policies in OPA 326 prevent optimal area and site planning? Are the BOH lands appropriate for taller buildings and greater density? 6. Are the built form, land use, and design policies of OPA 326, including policies 7.6.6.3.1, 7.6.6.3.3, 7.6.6.3.4, 7.6.6.4, and 7.6.6.7, unnecessarily prescriptive and restrictive and should OPA 326 be modified, including to provide for greater flexibility for the BOH lands? 7. Are the implementation policies in OPA 326, including 7.6.6.8, appropriate for the BOH lands?

This is a draft high-level issues list. Burnhamthorpe reserves its rights to adopt any issues submitted by the other parties to this proceeding and to add any additional issues arising as a result of issues submitted by the other parties to this proceeding.

Sherborne Lodge Developments Limited

OPA 326

1. Are the policies in OPA 326 which apply to Block 5 consistent with the PPS, including but not limited to sections, 2.2.1(b)(1), 2.2.1(b)(2), 2.3.1(3), 2.3.1(4)(5), 2.4.1(3)(c), 6.1(5)?
2. Do the policies in OPA 326 which apply to Block 5 conform to the Region of Halton Official Plan, including but not limited to sections 72, 72.1(3), 77.(5)(f)(iii)?
3. Is policy 7.6.6.2 sufficiently clear to provide policy direction for the implementation of OPA 326 as it applies to Block 5?
4. What is intended by "Interim stand alone retail and service commercial buildings may be permitted" in policy 7.6.6.2(d) particularly in light of 7.6.6.2(b) which permits single use buildings.
5. Are the densities proposed for Block 5 in policies 7.6.6.2(e) and 7.6.6.4 (b) and (c) appropriate?
6. Are the minimum densities proposed for the other Blocks in the Neyagawa Urban Core (NUC) as set out in section 7.6.6.4 reasonable to allow for the appropriate build out of the NUC?
7. Are the schedules to OPA 326 consistent with each other and consistent with the schedule to OPA 45?

OPA 45

1. Is the schedule to OPA 45 consistent with the schedules to OPA 326?

ISSUES LIST – Argo Neyagawa Corporation (CASE NO. OLT-24-000968)

THE TOWN OF OAKVILLE

General

1. Do the proposed amendments to the North Oakville East Secondary Plan and Zoning By-law together with the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision have appropriate regard to matters of provincial interest within Section 2 of the Planning Act, including but not limited to Sections 2 (f), (h), (i), (j), (m), (n), (q) and (r)?
2. Are the applications consistent with the policies of the Provincial Planning Statement (2024) issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act, including but not limited to Chapters 2.1.5, 2.1.6, 2.3.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 2.1.3.4, 2.1.3.5, 2.4.1.2, 2.4.1.3, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.6.1, 3.6.8, 3.9.1(a), 6.1.5, 6.1.6, 6.1.8, 6.1.12, 6.2.1?
3. Do the applications conform to the Region of Halton Official Plan (now a town Official Plan), including but not limited to Sections 58(1.1 and 2),72, 72.1, 76, 77 (5), 79, 82, 82.2, 89(3), 172(6, 9.1), 173(1.2), 173(10)?
4. Do the applications have appropriate regard to the Council-approved official plan policies for the Neyagawa Urban Core Area (OPA 326) including but not limited to a Hwy 407 transit station as presently shown on Figure NOE4 of the North Oakville Ease Secondary Plan, minimum densities, heights and commercial uses?
5. Are the proposed zoning standards appropriate?
6. Is it appropriate to remove the transit station overlay shown on Figure NOE4 of the North Oakville East Secondary Plan in the absence of an in-force and effect Official Plan for the Neyagawa Urban Core Area?
7. Are the proposed uses, densities, heights and built forms appropriate?
8. Does the application provide for a minimum density of 160 residents and jobs combined per hectare density as set out in the Regional Official Plan for Primary Regional Nodes?
9. Does the application provide for the 85:15 proportion of residents and jobs of as set out in the Regional Official Plan for Primary Regional Nodes? Does the proposal satisfactorily respond to the Town/Region Best Planning Estimates for the Neyagawa Urban Core Area and the town as a whole?
10. Do the applications represent good planning and in the public interest?

Transportation 11. Does the proposal protect for transit corridors, rights-of-way, and transit stations to meet current and projected needs as required by the Provincial Planning Statement and the North Oakville East Secondary Plan? 12. Does the proposal appropriately provide for the integration of a Hwy 407 transit station as identified on Figure NOE4 of the North Oakville East Secondary Plan? 13. Does the development proposal satisfactorily address the concerns / issues of the Ministry of Transportation/407 ETR in relation to, but not limited to, stormwater management, the operation of the Highway 407 interchange, impacts on the future 407 Bus Rapid Transit Corridor, lighting requirements and development setbacks? 14. Does the proposed intersection spacing on Neyagawa Boulevard south of the 407/Bronte Road interchange conform with MTO/407ETR intersection spacings? 15. Does the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared by the CGH dated December 2023 satisfactorily address concerns related to but not limited to the proposal, development of the surrounding area, the functionality of William Halton Parkway/Fourth Line roundabout and daylight triangles? 16. Has the TIS addressed future road widenings, intersection improvements/daylight triangles, and transit-supportive infrastructure for Neyagawa Boulevard and William Halton Parkway? 17. Does the proposal satisfactorily address concerns related to regional transportation systems and stormwater management infrastructure? 18. Is the proposed road network appropriate, and will it allow for an acceptable and complete transportation network with sufficient capacity to accommodate development on the site and the adjacent lands including a transit station? 19. Has the proposed development considered the condition of the adjacent municipal road network, and if it has the capability to convey the increase in traffic and population due to the new development?

Commercial Review: Non–Residential Uses 20. Has the proposal appropriately considered the direction from the North Oakville East Commercial Study and include an appropriate amount of retail and service commercial space on the site? 21. Does the Commercial Demand Study prepared by urban Metrics dated March 11, 2023 satisfactorily address the non-residential needs for the northwest corner of Neyagawa Boulevard and William Halton Parkway area?

Stormwater Management 22. Does the proposal as outlined in the applicant's EIR/FSS conform with the North Oakville Creeks Subwatershed Study? 23. Have all stormwater management measures including but not limited to stormwater management ponds, storage pipes, tanks, water quality treatment units, low impact development (LIDs) and groundwater management been satisfactorily addressed? 24. Has the proposal satisfactorily addressed all the stormwater management requirements of the 407ETR Concession Company? 25. Does the SWM strategy, including LID's conform with Town's CLIECA Agreement with the Province (MECP)? 26. Does the proposed development and associated servicing meet the Town of Oakville's standard development practices? 27. Is the use of urban stormwater management ponds appropriate? 28. How will stormwater from the site impact Regional infrastructure on Neyagawa Boulevard and William Halton Parkway? 29. Will the proposal negatively affect downstream watercourses or the Regional storm system and if so how will that be addressed to so there is no negative impact?

Servicing 30. Does the proposal through the submission of a proposed servicing plan within the EIR/FSS satisfactorily address concerns related to the Region approved Area Servicing Plan (ASP)? 31. Has the ASP Addendum been updated to reflect changes in land use and servicing needs? 32. Does the proposal have sufficient servicing allocation to develop the site? Has the Region allocated water and wastewater allocation under the Regional Allocation Program? If there has not been an allocation, then is there a Holding Provision proposed that would be lifted only once sufficient water and wastewater allocation under the Regional Allocation Program? 33. Has a Holding Provision been proposed that would ensure that the servicing extensions have been constructed and operational? 34. Does the FSR align with the proposed ASP Addendum?

Parkland 35. Does the proposal satisfactorily consider the provision of parkland to support the future population?

Urban Design 36. Do the applications meet the urban design policies and guidelines of the Town? 37. Does the proposal appropriately provide sufficient Urban Design direction on matters such as but not limited to:

• appropriate mix of land uses, residential/mixed-use built forms, heights and density;
• block organization and composition;
• future Hwy. 407 transit station;
• streets and circulation network; and,
• parks and open space network.

38. Does the proposal appropriately incorporate a trail along the proposed future transitway as shown in the North Oakville East Secondary Plan?

Noise 39. Does the Environmental Noise Study prepared by Valcoustics Canada dated December 2023 appropriately address all noise matters associated with the proposal?

Adjacent Properties 40. Does the proposal provide satisfactory consideration and appropriate integration of the adjacent properties?

Archaeological 41. Does the proposal appropriately address any and all archaeological matters as cited in the Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of the 2433170 Ontario Inc. property report submitted with the application?

Waste Management 42. Does the proposal appropriately address regional waste management? Does the existing wastewater system have sufficient capacity to support the proposed residential uses? 43. Does the design permit Regional waste collection? 44. Is the appellant required to provide high level revised separate waste management plans for each high-rise building? 45. Is the appellant required to acknowledge, in writing, that the developer will be fully responsible for collection and disposal of all waste until the developer is able to confirm that the development has reached 90% occupancy? 46. Is the appellant required to acknowledge, in writing, they will provide a letter to all tenants/owners within the development which clearly communicates the details of the Waste management system that will be provided by the Developer and when Region collection will begin?

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE (CASE NO. OLT-25-000339)

1. Town of Oakville (Municipality)
2. 1816985 Ontario Inc. (Appellant)
3. Burnhamthorpe/Oakville Holdings Inc. (Appellant)
4. Sherborne Lodge Developments Limited et al. (Appellant)
5. Argo Neyagawa (Appellant)
6. Town of Oakville (Municipality – In Reply (if any))
7. Closing Submissions regarding Neyagawa Urban Core Official Plan Amendments

ORDER OF EVIDENCE FOR ZONING AND DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION PHASE (CASE NO. OLT-24-000968)

1. Argo Neyagawa (Applicant/Appellant)
2. Burnhamthorpe/Oakville Holdings Inc. (Added Party)
3. 1816985 Ontario Inc. (Added Party)
4. Sherborne Lodge Developments Limited et al. (Added Party)
5. Town of Oakville (Municipality – In Response)
6. Argo Neyagawa (Applicant/Appellant – In Reply (if any))
7. Closing Submissions regarding Argo Neyagawa's zoning and draft plan of subdivision applications

ATTACHMENT 5

Meaning of terms used in the Procedural Order:

A party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. An unincorporated group cannot be a party and it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorisation from the party.

NOTE that a person who wishes to become a party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

A participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.

A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.

Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

A witness statement is a short written outline of the person's background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which he or she will discuss ; and a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness' opinions on those issues and the complete reasons supporting their opinions and conclusions and (5) a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert's duty.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person's or group's background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the participant's position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submissions of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports or materials, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.

Additional Information

A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness' evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.

The order of examination of witnesses is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:

• direct examination by the party presenting the witness;
• direct examination by any party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;
• cross-examination by parties of opposite interest;
• re-examination by the party presenting the witness; or
• another order of examination mutually agreed among the parties or directed by the Tribunal.