PEM (Weston) Limited Partnership and PEM (Weston) GP Inc. v. Vaughan (City), 2026 CanLII 28975

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

March 27, 2026

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-25-000288

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

Applicant/Appellant

PEM (Weston Limited Partnership and PEM (Weston) GP Inc.

Subject:

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

Description:

The permit the development of 2 mixed use residential and commercial buildings and 1 residential building

Reference Number:

OP.24.009

Property Address:

3790 Highway 7

Municipality/UT:

Vaughan/York

OLT Case No:

OLT-25-000288

OLT Lead Case No:

OLT-25-000288

OLT Case Name:

PEM (Weston) Limited Partnership and PEM (Weston) GP Inc. v. Vaughan (City)

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.24.021

Property Address:

3790 Highway 7

Municipality/UT:

Vaughan/York

OLT Case No:

OLT-25-000289

OLT Lead Case No:

OLT-25-000288

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:

19T-24V005

Property Address:

3790 Highway 7

Municipality/UT:

Vaughan/York

OLT Case No:

OLT-25-000290

OLT Lead Case No:

OLT-25-000288

Heard:

March 26, 2026, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

PEM (Weston Limited Partnership and PEM (Weston) GP Inc.

Mark Flowers Grace O’Brien

City of Vaughan

Raj Kehar Colin Dougherty

Canadian Tire Properties Inc. and Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited

Adrianna Pilkington Jennifer Evola (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN T. MASTORaS ON march 26, 2026, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This matter is a further Case Management Conference (“CMC”), resulting from appeals under sections 22(7), 34(11) and 51(34) of the Planning Act (“Act”), in the City of Vaughan (“City”), for the City’s failure to adopt the requested Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) application, the refusal or neglect to make a decision, regarding a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) application, and failure to consider a Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”) (together, the “Applications” / “Appeals”).

2The Appeals were submitted by PEM (Weston Limited Partnership and PEM (Weston) GP Inc. (“PEM Weston” / “Appellant”) for lands municipally known as 3790 Highway 7, in the City (“Subject Site”).

3The PEM Weston Applications were submitted to the City in June 2024 and deemed complete on November 25, 2024. The PEM Weston Applications seek to redevelop the lands municipally known as 3790 Highway 7, in northwest quadrant of the Weston and Highway 7 Area (“W7 Area”) in the City, with three high-rise residential/mixed-use buildings containing a total of approximately 1,621 residential units, amenity space and at-grade commercial uses.

4Recently, a Motion for Direction Decision was issued by the Tribunal (“Motion Decision”) (February 17, 2026), which in part, rescheduled the PEM Weston original Merit Hearing date from Monday, March 23, 2026, to Monday, October 26, 2026, for a duration of 10-days.

5The PEM Weston Merit Hearing as scheduled on March 23, 2026, on consent of the City, also included Canadian Tire Properties Inc. and Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited (“Canadian Tire”), as the owner and tenant of the lands municipally known as 3850 Highway 7, Woodbridge. Canadian Tire was granted Party status to the PEM Weston Merit Hearing, uncontested by the City and PEM Weston, for the sole purpose of ensuring appropriate mitigation for noise levels emanating from the Canadian Tire lands. This still remains the case as of today.

STATUS REQUESTS

6A Participant Status Request, from Kingsmoor Developments Inc. (“Kingsmoor”), was received on the same date as the CMC. Kingsmoor is a landowner in the Weston and Highway 7 Area (“W7 Area), for lands municipally known as 177 Whitmore Road, in the City. The Kingsmoor property is located at the southeast corner of Whitmore Road and Highway 7, approximately 615 metres (“m”) west of Weston Road. The Kingsmoor property is a corner lot with an approximate area of 1.16 hectares and has three street frontages of approximately 113 m along Whitmore Road, approximately 73 m along Highway 7, and approximately 67.97 m along Winges Road.

7Kingsmoor is also proposing a development consisting of three mixed-use buildings with heights of 32, 35, and 38-storeys with a shared podium structure of varying heights. The proposal would include 1,172 dwelling units, 885 parking spaces, retail space along the Highway 7 and Whitmore Road frontages, parkland dedication and a privately owned, publicly accessible landscaped courtyard. A Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) of 93,500 square metres (“m²”) of residential gross floor area and 1,520 m² of

non-residential GFA is proposed, resulting in a density of approximately 9.5:1, being the ratio of GFA to the area of the lot (“Kingsmoor Proposal” / “Kingsmoor Appeals”). The inclusion of Kingsmoor as a Participant to the PEM Weston Appeals will assist the Tribunal in adjudicating effectively and completely on the issues in these proceedings.

Kingsmoor committed to filing a Participant statement at the appropriate time and as directed by the Tribunal in any revised procedural order issued for the PEM appeal.

8The Tribunal also notes that the Kingsmoor Appeals were recently scheduled for a Merit Hearing commencing on Tuesday, February 16, 2027 (for nine-days).There were no objections from any of the Parties to this Kingsmoor request, and the Tribunal conferred Participant status to Kingsmoor.

TRIBUNAL DIRECTIONS

9After careful consideration of the submissions from Counsel to the Parties in the course of considering the draft Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List (“IL”), the Tribunal provided some direction regarding final wording of the IL and now accepts and hereby approves the updated Final PO/IL, attached as Schedule A below, on consent of the Parties.

10As of March 30, 2026, all hearing events are governed by the Tribunal’s Artificial Intelligence Practice Direction. This Practice Direction requires a party, participant, or witness to include a declaration within each submitted document if generative AI was used to create or generate content.

11Finally, the Tribunal, as always, is appreciative of the respectful cooperation between Counsel for all of the Parties present and are reminded of the availability of Tribunal-led mediation, at the appropriate time on consent of the Parties.

ORDER

12THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. The Final Procedural Order and Issues List is hereby approved by the Tribunal, which is expected to guide the proceedings related to the Merit Hearing of the PEM Weston Appeals, as scheduled to commence on Monday, October 26, 2026.

2. All other directions in this Decision are so ordered.

13The Member is not seized on this matter, however, is available to assist if anything is required from the Parties.

14There will be no further Notice.

“Steven T. Mastoras”

STEVEN T. MASTORAS

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 A

CASE NO.: OLT-25-000288

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

Applicant/Appellant

PEM (Weston Limited Partnership and PEM (Weston) GP Inc.

Subject:

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

Description:

The permit the development of 2 mixed use residential and commercial buildings and 1 residential building

Reference Number:

OP.24.009

Property Address:

3790 Highway 7

Municipality/UT:

Vaughan/York

OLT Case No:

OLT-25-000288

OLT Lead Case No:

OLT-25-000288

OLT Case Name:

PEM (Weston) Limited Partnership and PEM (Weston) GP Inc. v. Vaughan (City)

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.24.021

Property Address:

3790 Highway 7

Municipality/UT:

Vaughan/York

OLT Case No:

OLT-25-000289

OLT Lead Case No:

OLT-25-000288

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:

19T-24V005

Property Address:

3790 Highway 7

Municipality/UT:

Vaughan/York

OLT Case No:

OLT-25-000290

OLT Lead Case No:

OLT-25-000288

PROCEDURAL ORDER

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

1. The video hearing will begin on Monday, October 26, 2026 at 10:00 A.M. No further notice shall be required.

2. The length of the hearing will be approximately 10 days, scheduled to conclude on November 6, 2026. 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.

3. The parties and participants (see Attachment “4” for the meaning of these terms) identified at the Case Management Conference are listed in Attachment “1” to this Order.

4. The issues for the hearing are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment “2” 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, except if the Issues List is modified on consent of the parties, through mediation or pursuant to a settlement between the parties.

5. The order of evidence for the hearing is listed in Attachment “3” 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.

6. 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. 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.

7. 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.

8. A party, participant, or witness who intends to submit document(s) to the Tribunal must include a declaration within each submitted document if generative AI was used to create or generate content. A declaration is not required if AI was used to merely suggest changes, provide recommendations, or critique content already created by a human who then considered and manually implemented the changes.

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. The parties who intend to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, provided to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they are intended to be called on December 18, 2025. Any changes to the list of witnesses shall be delivered on or before Wednesday, September 2, 2026. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ curriculum vitae and the area(s) of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified.

10. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, and any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 12. 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.

11. 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 anticipated evidence as in paragraph 12. 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 12 below.

12. On or before Friday, September 11, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case coordinator and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

13. On or before Friday, September 11, 2026, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the parties and the OLT case coordinator in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

14. Expert witnesses in the same field may have an additional experts’ meeting prior to Monday, September 21, 2026, to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting, a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues shall be prepared by the witnesses and filed with the OLT case coordinator on or before Monday, September 28, 2026.

15. On or before Monday, October 5, 2026, the parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case coordinator a written response to any written evidence in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

16. On or before Friday, October 9, 2026, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

17. On or before Tuesday, October 13, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties and the OLT case coordinator in accordance with paragraph 22 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

18. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case coordinator on or before Tuesday, October 13, 2026.

19. 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.

20. A party who provides a witness’ written evidence or expert witness statement 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 prior to the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

21. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Monday, October 19, 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.

22. All filings shall be electronic and, if requested by the Tribunal, also in hard copy. 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 Rule 7.

23. 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.

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE

EVENT

Wednesday, September 2, 2026

Parties to provide Revised Witness Lists, if applicable

Friday, September 11, 2026

Exchange of Witness Statements, summonsed witness outlines and Participant Statements

Monday, September 21, 2026

Phase 2 Meeting of Expert Witnesses

Monday, September 28, 2026

Parties to file Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues

Monday, October 5, 2026

Exchange of Reply Witness Statements

Friday, October 9, 2026

Parties to advise OLT if all scheduled hearing days are required

Tuesday, October 13, 2026

Joint Document Book to be filed

Tuesday, October 13, 2026

Exchange of Visual Evidence

Monday, October 19, 2026

Parties to file Hearing Plan

Monday, October 26, 2026

Hearing commences

Attachment 1

LIST OF PARTIES / PARTICIPANTS

Parties

1. PEM (Weston) Limited Partnership and PEM (Weston) GP Inc.

Mark Flowers and Grace O’Brien

Davies Howe LLP

The Tenth Floor

425 Adelaide Street West

Toronto, ON M5V 3C1

Email: markf@davieshowe.com / graceo@davieshowe.com

Tel: 416-263-4513 / 416-263-4507

2. City of Vaughan

Raj Kehar WeirFoulds LLP Suite 201, 1320 Cornwall Road Oakville, ON L6J 7W5

Email: rkehar@weirfoulds.com

Tel: 416-947-5051

Colin Dougherty, Legal Counsel

City of Vaughan 2141 Major Mackenzie Drive Vaughan, ON L6A 1T1

Email: colin.dougherty@vaughan.ca

Tel: 905-832-2281, ext. 8571

3. Canadian Tire Properties Inc. and Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited

Adrianna Pilkington / Jennifer Evola

Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP

Suite 3200, Bay Adelaide Centre – North Tower

40 Temperance Street

Toronto, ON M5H 0B4

Email: apilkington@cassels.com

Tel: 416-860-6453

Participant

1. KINGSMOOR DEVELOPMENTS INC.

Paul M. DeMelo

Kagan Shastri DeMelo Winer Park LLP

188 Avenue Road

Toronto, ON M5R 2J1

Email: pdemelo@ksllp.ca

Tel: 437-780-3435

Attachment 2

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 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 and shall not be construed as the Tribunal 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 Tribunal.

Issues List of City of Vaughan

Planning Act

1. Do the proposed Official Plan, Zoning By-law Amendment, draft plan of subdivision and the development it permits (the “Proposed Development”) have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest as set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including (f), (h), (i), (k), (l), (m), (n), (o), (p), (q) and (r)?

2. Does the draft plan of subdivision application have regard for the criteria set out in subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act, in particular 51(24) (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (i) and (k)?

Provincial Planning Statement

3. Is the Proposed Development consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024) including but not limited to Sections 2.1.6, 2.2.1c), 2.3.1.2b) c) d), 2.3.1.3, 2.3.1.4, 2.3.1.6, 2.4.1.3.a) b), 3.1.1c) and 3.6.1?

Region of York Official Plan

4. Is the Proposed Development in conformity with or otherwise meet the intent and goals of the Region of York Official Plan (2022), including but not limited to Sections 2.3.2, 4.1.3, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.9 4.4.10, 4.4.11, 4.4.25, 4.4.35, 4.4.36, 4.4.38, 6.1.3,6.4.3, and Appendix 2, and Maps 1, 1A, 1B, 9A, 10, and 11?

City of Vaughan Official Plan 2010

5. Does the Proposed Development conform with or otherwise meet the intent and goals of the policies of the City of Vaughan Official Plan, including but not limited to: Sections 1.5 – Goal 8, 2.1.1.1, 2.1.3.2, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.1.2, 2.2.5, 4.2.1, 4.2.1.32, 4.2.2.13, 4.2.3, 4.2.3.1, 4.2.3.2, 4.2.3.3, 4.3.2.2, 4.3.3, 4.3.3.6, 4.3.3.7, 5.1.1.3b & d, 5.1.2.2, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 7.2.3.4, 7.3.2, 7.5.1, 7.5.1.1, 7.5.1.4b,8.1.1.6, 8.1.1.7, 9.1, 9.1.1, 9.1.1.1, 9.1.1.10, 9.1.2, 9.1.2.1, 9.1.2.7, 9.1.2.9, 9.2, 9.2.1.12, 9.2.2.6, 9.2.3.6, 10.1.1, 10.1.1.1, 10.1.1.3, 10.1.1.4, 10.1.1.5, 10.1.1.6, 10.1.1.8, 10.1.1.9, 10.1.1.10, 10.1.1.11 10.1.1.12, 10.1.1.13, 10.1.1.14, 10.1.1.25 10.1.2.5, 10.1.2.6, 10.1.2.8, and 10.1.2.20, 10.1.2.28, 10.1.2.29, 10.1.2.30, 10.1.2.31, 10.1.2.32 10.1.3.4, 10.1.3.6, 10.2.1.1, 10.2.1.5, 10.2.1.8, and Figure 6; and Schedules 1, 1A, 1C, 9, 10, 13, and 14A?

Prematurity

6. Is the Proposed Development premature in the absence of an in-effect Weston 7 Secondary Plan?

Vaughan Official Plan 2025 & Weston 7 Secondary Plan

7. Does the Proposed Development have regard for the adopted Vaughan Official Plan 2025 and the adopted Weston 7 Secondary Plan?

Good Planning

8. Does the Proposed Development represent good planning and is it in the public interest?

Land Use Compatibility and Built Form

9. Is the proposed building height, building form, massing, scale, and siting, stepbacks, intensification and density appropriate, considering the Subject Site, the policy context, and the character of the surrounding lands?

10. Does the Proposed Development provide sufficient space for landscaping and open space on the site?

11. Does the Proposed Development establish an appropriate relationship to the public realm, its abutting properties and lands within its vicinity including the low-rise community to the north?

12. Would the Proposed Development result in adverse impacts on surrounding lands due to the existing and/or planned land uses in the vicinity of the Subject Site as it relates to vehicular access and shadow impacts? Does the proposed development preclude the appropriate development of adjacent lands?

13. Are the shadow impacts of the proposed development appropriate? Have the shadow impacts of the Proposed Development been adequately limited?

14. Does the Proposed Development propose a sufficient amount of commercial space? Does the Proposed Development reflect the objective of implementing mixed use development?

15. Does the Proposed Development have regard to the Design Priorities set in the City-Wide Urban Design Guidelines (2018), in particular 4.3.1, 5.2 including 5.2.2, 5.2.4b, 5.2.6a, 5.2.6g, 5.2.7 and 5.2.11, 5.3.6, 5.3.7 and 5.3.8?

16. Does the Proposed Development have regard to the City-Wide Urban Design Guidelines (2018) including but not limited to Performance Standard No. 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.2 (continued), 5.2.5, 5.2.6, 5.2.8, 5.3.2, 5.3.7, 6.2.1, 6.2.3, 6.2.5, 6.2.8, 7.2.1?

Transportation and Parking

17. From a transportation perspective, are the proposed accesses and internal site layout for the Proposed Development appropriate?

18. Is the Proposed Development’s supply of vehicular parking appropriate and encourage the use of sustainable transportation options?

19. Are the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures proposed acceptable and adequate to encourage the use of sustainable transportation options?

20. Does the Proposed Development implement the Tribunal’s findings from the Phase 1 Transportation Hearing (the “Phase 1 Decision”), if the Phase 1 Decision is available and applicable, from a transportation perspective?

Servicing

21. Is it appropriate that the Owner front-end finance and construct or contribute its proportionate share of the cost(s) associated with implementing the recommended municipal servicing infrastructure improvements identified in the Weston Road and Highway 7 Secondary Plan Area Functional Servicing Strategy Report to accommodate ultimate build-out of the Weston Road and Highway 7 Secondary Plan Area, including specifically as it relates to wastewater servicing, per the conclusions and recommendations of the City’s Integrated Urban Water Master Plan Class Environmental Assessment, to the satisfaction of the City?

22. Having regard to the current and emerging planning context, including the Council adopted Weston and 7 Secondary Plan, is the Proposed Development appropriate from an area-wide servicing perspective?

23. Is there sufficient existing municipal infrastructure capacity to service the Proposed Development with water, sewer and stormwater management facilities? If not, are appropriate improvements proposed by the Owner?

24. Has a satisfactory Functional Servicing and Storm Water Management Report been provided to address the storm and sanitary sewer servicing needs of the Proposed Development?

Noise

25. Does the Proposed Development appropriately address land use compatibility issues related to Noise in accordance with the D-6 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines?

26. Does the Proposed Development have regard to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, Environmental Noise Guideline Publication NPC-300 Guidelines?

Parks

27. Does the Proposed Development provide public parkland for the proposed community?

28. Will the Proposed Development impede any future recommendations or plans for the parks system in the Weston 7 Secondary Plan area that are outlined in the adopted Weston 7 Secondary Plan?

29. Does the Proposed Privately-Owned Public Space comply with Section 7.3 of VOP 2010 and the City’s applicable parkland dedication by-law (currently By-law 168-2022)?

30. Has a satisfactory Facility Fit Plan been submitted for the Privately-Owned Public Space which accommodates active and passive park facilities to support the needs of future residents?

Implementation

31. In the event that the Tribunal allows the appeals in whole or in part, what are the appropriate subdivision conditions from the City that should be imposed on any draft plan approval of the plan of subdivision? What, if any, conditions needed to be added arising from the Phase 1 Decision if available and applicable?

32. In the event that the Tribunal allows the appeals in whole or in part, should the Proposed Development be subject to Holding Provisions (“H”) to require, among other things, the recommended conditions set out in Attachment 12 of the City staff report dated September 30, 2025? What, if any, “H” conditions need to be added arising from the Phase 1 Decision if available and applicable?

Form & Content of Amendments

33. Is the form and content of the draft Official Plan Amendment and the draft Zoning By-law Amendment to By-law 001-2021 appropriate? Does it address the findings of the Phase 1 Decision if available and applicable? If not, should the Tribunal’s Final Order be withheld pending the City’s satisfaction regarding the form and content of the draft instruments and to ensure it implements the findings of the Phase 1 Decision if available and applicable?

34. In the event that the Tribunal allows the appeals in whole or in part, should the OLT’s Order on the draft plan of subdivision be withheld pending finalization of the draft plan of subdivision conditions from the City and all commenting agencies?

35. Should the OLT direct that final approval of the subdivision plan be delegated back to the City pursuant to subsection 51 (56.1) of the Planning Act?

Issues List of Canadian Tire Properties Inc. and Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited

36. Has the proposed development been designed, sited, and/or oriented to minimize and mitigate against potential noise and vibration issues that may arise from the Canadian Tire lands?

37. Does the proposal to designate the subject property as a Class 4 Area adequately minimize and mitigate against potential noise and vibration issues that may arise from the Canadian Tire lands?

Issues List of PEM (Weston) Limited Partnership and PEM (Weston) GP Inc.

38. What relevance, if any, should the adopted Vaughan Official Plan 2025 and the adopted Weston 7 Secondary Plan have in this proceeding?

39. If the draft plan of subdivision is to be approved, what are the appropriate conditions of approval?

Attachment 3

Order of Evidence

1. PEM (Weston) Limited Partnership and PEM (Weston) GP Inc.

2. City of Vaughan

3. Canadian Tire Properties Inc. and Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited

4. Reply of PEM (Weston) Limited Partnership and PEM (Weston) GP Inc. (if any)

Attachment 4

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.