Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 09, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000782
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: 2691893 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: To permit the development of a mixed use building
Reference Number: UHOPA-25-009
Property Address: 442, 450, 454 and 462 Wilson Street East
Municipality/UT: City of Hamilton
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000782
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000782
OLT Case Name: 2691893 Ontario Inc. v. Hamilton (City)
Heard: March 23, 2026 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
2691893 Ontario Inc.
Ira Kagan Sarah Kagan
City of Hamilton
Patrick MacDonald
Dan and Rita Faulkner
Meredith Baker
DECISION DELIVERED BY KURTIS SMITH AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This was the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held in relation to the appeal filed by 2691893 Ontario Inc. (“Appellant”) against the failure of the Council of the City of Hamilton (“City”) to make a decision on the application to amend the official plan to permit a maximum building height of seven stories on the Subject Lands municipally known as 442, 450, 454, and 462 Wilson Street East in the City (“Subject Lands”). The first CMC Decision, issued on February 05, 2026, outlines the proposed development and background to this matter and need not be repeated.
2Dan and Rita Faulkner (“Faulkners”) were granted Party Status at the first CMC.
3The purpose of this CMC was for the Tribunal to review the Draft Procedural Order (“DPO”) and Issue List (“IL”), and to schedule the hearing of the merits.
PROCEDURAL ORDER NOTE DISPUTE
4In advance to the CMC, the Appellant provided the Tribunal with the DPO, communicating that it was provided on consent except for the inclusion of “Note 1”:
Note 1: Where two or more parties raise the same technical issue, they can co-ordinate and rely upon a qualified independent expert but must call expert evidence in support of that technical issue. Where a single party alone raises a technical issue then that party must call technical evidence in support of that issue from a qualified independent expert.
5The City took no position on this dispute.
Position of Faulkners
6Ms. Baker, Council for Faulkners, objected to the inclusion of Note 1, submitting that:
I. the sample Procedural Order (“PO”) does not include the note;
II. note 1 does not accurately summarize the case law for Parties; the law is more nuanced than this, and referring to two cases:
i. North End Neighbours v. Hamilton (City), 2017 CanLII 19974 (ON LPAT), https://canlii.ca/t/h35gh (“North End Neighbours”).
- Ms. Baker directed the Tribunal’s attention to paragraph 32:
[…] Often, and in the course of its hearings in the Province's municipalities, the Board hears from parties and participants who appear without the benefit of counsel, planners, experts witnesses and frequently, without planning evidence.... but they should not be discouraged from stating their cases to their best of their abilities in the absence of experts and legal representation." This observation reflects the experience a view of the Review Panel.
ii. Abbotts v Blue Mountains (Town), 2023 CanLII 56712 (ON LT), https://canlii.ca/t/jxwfp (“Abbotts”).
- Ms. Baker Directed the Tribunal to a number of paragraphs (“paras.”) within this decision; however, the Tribunal looks specifically to para. 50 and 51:
[50] The failure of a party to call an expert witness is not demonstrative of misconduct warranting costs, as the Applicant argues. "Failing to provide evidence" is indeed one of the examples set out in subparagraph "e" of Rule 23.9, but this failure must be determined to be improper, and unreasonable or in bad faith and the seriousness of this failure are specific to the facts of each case. In this instance the Decision of the Tribunal addressed the transportation engineering, roadway and servicing issues. The Applicant (and the Town) were required within the hearing de novo to satisfy the Tribunal as to these matters under the Planning Act. Mr. Russell, on behalf of the Residents Group, appeared to have addressed engineering and transportation matters from the standpoint of land use planning and not on a technical basis. The Residents Group had the opportunity, as a Party granted status, to cross examine and test the veracity of the testimony of the expert witnesses.
[51] There is no evidence before the Tribunal that would persuade it that the conduct of the Residents Group in advocating their position on all such transportation or engineering issues, without an expert witness, was frivolous or unreasonable. Their conduct in this respect does not, in the Tribunal's finding, present as disrespectful of the Tribunal or its processes. To the contrary, the Tribunal finds that objectively, the Residents Group participated in the planning approval and decision-making process in a manner expected in such circumstances.
III. Parties do not need to call experts for technical issues on an IL, as they can cross-examinate or “deal” with technical matters through their own land use planning witness through policy conformity.
Position of Appellant
7Mr. Kagan, Counsel for the Appellant, submitted:
I. the sample PO is a sample, and it is not followed “to the letter”, and that alterations, including the inclusion of notes, is a regular occurrence.
II. Note 1 has been included in several POs that he has been involved with/worked on, including the approved PO related to this property as described in the first CMC decision.
III. The Parties are aware of the discipline of the witnesses they intend to call on – originally, the Faulkners planned to call on a land use planner, lay witness, and transportation expert; since then, Faulkners have removed the transportation issues from the IL and no longer intend to call a transportation expert.
IV. He (Mr. Kagan) is not aware of any technical issues. However, he explained/posited that Note 1 is intended to direct Parties to call a technical witness, either jointly with another Party or individually if a Party raises a technical issue. The note prohibits a Party from not calling a technical witness to support a technical issue they included on the IL or , then or relying on another Party to do so, such as the City. Mr. Kagan further outlined that the Appellant would then be required to call a technical witness to provide expert opinion about why there is no issue or call a land use planning expert to review a technical reports conclusion and state its conformity.
V. Mr. Kagan does not understand the relevance of the North End Neighbours as it is a motion to dismiss and as such is much different when compared to whether or not to include a note in a PO. Further stating that the witness called was a land use planner which is not a technical witness. Similarly, Mr. Kagan stated that Abbotts pertains to a cost motion and has no relevance.
Response from Faulkners
8In response to Mr. Kagan’s submissions, Ms. Baker stated:
I. She has not had a Note of this nature included in an approved PO that she has been part of. Furthermore, that while searching through previously approved POs, seven POs were found that include Note 1 and involved Counsel from the Appellant’s firm.
II. Note 1 may not be relevant in the proceedings as she has not been alerted to any technical issues.
9Ms. Baker concluded that Note 1 is not appropriate and should be removed.
Tribunal's Findings
10The Tribunal considered all the submissions before the Tribunal related to the inclusion or removal of Note 1 in the DPO.
11The Tribunal reviewed the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) pertaining to role and obligations of a Parties:
8.1 Role and Obligations of a Party Subject to Rule 8.2 below, a person conferred party status to a proceeding before the Tribunal shall participate fully in the proceeding, and by way of example may (emphasis added):
A. Identify issues arising from a notice(s) of appeal for the approval of the Tribunal;
B. Bring or respond to any motion in the proceeding;
C. Receive copies of all documents and supporting information exchanged, relied upon or filed in connection with any hearing event conducted in the proceeding;
D. Present opening and closing submissions at the hearing;
E. Present and examine witnesses and cross-examine witnesses not of like interest;
F. Claim costs or be subject to a costs award when ordered by the Tribunal; and
G. Request a review of the Tribunal’s decision or order as set out in Rule 25.
12Firstly, the Tribunal concurs with Mr. Kagan that the sample PO is the foundation for the development of a DPO and that modification to it is a regular occurrence. However, the Tribunal is persuaded by Ms. Baker’s submissions, case law, and Rules, and finds that Note 1 is not appropriate as: (1) the Rules of Practice and Procedure do not direct that Parties must call a witness in support of an issue; (2) Note 1 forces a Party to present their case in a prescribed manner; and (3) a Party may “cross examine and test the veracity of the testimony of the expert witnesses” (Abbotts). Therefore, Note 1 is removed from the PO and Note 2 is re-numbered and attached as Schedule 1.
MERIT HEARING SCHEDULED
13The Parties requested that a 15-day Hearing be scheduled for March of 2027.
14Due to the Hearing schedule and statutory holidays falling in the latter part of the month, the Tribunal has scheduled a 14-day merit hearing to proceed from Tuesday, March 2, 2027 through Friday, March 19, 2027, beginning at 10 a.m. each day.
15Parties and Participants 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://global.gotomeeting.com/join/344779885
Access code: 344-779-885
16Parties and Participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoTo Meeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html
17Persons 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) 497-9373 or (Toll Free) 1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 344-779-885.
18Individuals 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.
19As 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.
ORDER
20THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that a hearing of the merits (“Merit Hearing”) has been scheduled for 14 days and will commence on Tuesday, March 2, 2027, at 10:00 am, by video hearing, as set out above in this Decision.
21AND, THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that the Procedural Order included as Schedule 1 of this Decision shall govern the proceedings leading up to and including the Merit Hearing on this matter.
“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
CASE NO: OLT-25-000782
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 2691823 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Reference Number: UHOPA-25-009
Description: To permit the development of a mixed use building
Property Address: 442, 450, 454, and 462 Wilson Street East
Municipality/ UT: City of Hamilton
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000782
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000782
OLT Case Name: 2691893 Ontario Inc. v Hamilton (City)
PROCEDURAL ORDER
The Tribunal orders that:
- 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
- The Merit Hearing The Merit Hearing will commence by video on Tuesday, March 2, 2027 at 10:00 a.m. at:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/344779885
Access code: 344-779-885
Audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (Toll-Free) 1-888-299-1889
Audio-only access code: 344-779-885
The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 14 days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlement on issues where possible.
The parties and participants (see the Attachment 1 for the meaning of these terms) are listed in Attachment 2 to this Order.
The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. Except for scoping or removing issues, there will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits it. A party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.
The order of evidence shall be as listed 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 consent or by Order of the Tribunal.
Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address and email address and the phone number as soon as possible.
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.
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
If the Applicant/Appellant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing (different than initially applied for with the municipality), the Applicant/Appellant shall provide details of the revised proposal, including revised plans and drawings, draft official plan and zoning by-law amendments, and supporting materials to the other parties on or before Friday, September 3, 2026 unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. If the Applicant/Appellant provides a revised proposal, the other parties shall have the right to revise their Issues Lists. Subject to reasonable notice to the other parties, revisions to the proposal which seek to settle or narrow issues, after this date, are also permitted.
A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal, the other parties and to the City Clerk a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered by Friday, October 2, 2026, and in accordance with paragraph 23 below. For expert witnesses, a party is to include a copy of the curriculum vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified. Any challenges to the qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence in the area of expertise proposed should 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 Friday, October 16, 2026.
Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Friday, October 30, 2026, and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting each group of witnesses in the same field shall prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues identifying areas of agreement, dispute and the Issues that will be addressed at the hearing. All documents exchanged and discussions held between expert witnesses are on a without prejudice basis, with the exception of the Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues which becomes part of the record when it has been signed by the experts. The Statement(s) of Agreed Facts and Issues will be filed with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Friday, December 4, 2026.
An expert witness shall prepare an Expert Witness Statement that shall include: an acknowledgement of expert’s duty form, the area(s) of expertise, 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 14 below. Instead of an Expert 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.
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 and his or her area of expertise, as in item 13 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 14 below.
On or before Monday, January 15, 2027, 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 paragraph 23 below.
On or before Monday, January 15, 2027, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.
On or before Friday, February 5, 2027, the parties shall provide copies of Reply Witness Statements, if any, to the other parties and the OLT case-co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.
On or before Tuesday, February 16, 2027, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence[1] to all of the other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below. If a model is proposed to be used the Tribunal must be notified before the hearing. All parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.
The parties shall cooperate to prepare a Joint Document Book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Tuesday, February 16, 2027. The Document Book will be electronic in format and include page numbering and electronic tabs. Any party wishing to have a hard copy will be responsible for printing its own copy. While the Applicant/Appellant will prepare the Joint Document Book, each party is required to send the Applicant/Appellant those document which are unique to their Witness Statements and Reply Witness Statements and which the Applicant/Appellant would thus not otherwise have in its possession.
Any documents which may be used by a party in cross examination of an opposing party’s witness may be password protected and only become accessible to the Tribunal and the other parties if it is introduced as evidence at the hearing. Any such documents shall be provided to the Tribunal and all other parties in advance of their intended use.
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.
A party who provides the written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have that witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the Tribunal and the parties are notified at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.
The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Friday, February 19, 2027 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.
All filings shall be electronic and in hard copy. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic filing 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.
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.
A summary of the various filing dates is contained in Attachment 5.
This Member is not seized.
ATTACHMENT 1
Meaning of Terms used in the Procedural Order
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. If an unincorporated group wishes to become a party, 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 eb 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 the witness’ opinions on those issues; and a list of reports 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 for the opinions and (5) a list of reports 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 agree 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.
ATTACHMENT 2
PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS
Parties
- 2691823 Ontario Inc.
Ira T. Kagan and Sarah R. Kagan
Kagan Shastri DeMelo Winer Park LLP
188 Avenue Road
Toronto, ON., M5R 2J1
Tel: 416.368.2100 x226 / 243
ikagan@ksllp.ca / skagan@ksllp.ca
- City of Hamilton
Patrick MacDonald
71 Main Street West
Hamilton, ON., L8P 4Y5 Tel: (905) 546-2424 ext. 4708
3 Daniel & Rita Faulkner (Creations Art Gallery and Framing)
Meredith Baker
TMA Law
25 Main Street West, Suite 2010
Hamilton, ON, L8P 1H1
Tel: (289) 674-8168
Participants
- Rowen Baker (Ancaster Village Heritage Community (AVHC)
28 Academy Street
Ancaster, ON, L9G 2X9
Tel : 905- 515- 2149
- Andrea MacArthur
66 Brookdale Drive
Ancaster, ON, L9G 2Y5
Tel: 905-648-7158
- Bob and Sandy Maton
330 Lodor Street
Ancaster, ON, L9G 2Z2
Tel: 905- 304- 0932
- Alexa & Anuka Jayatunge
20 Lorne Ave
Ancaster, ON, L9G 2X7
Tel: 226- 898- 4604
- Brad Davis 336 Clarendon Dr
Ancaster, ON, L9G 2Y8
Tel: 905- 973- 5215
- Cynthia Watson
338 Lodor Street
Ancaster, ON, L9G 2Z2
Tel: 289-339-7075
- Catherine Neville
445 Lodor Street
Ancaster, ON, L9G 4X3
Tel: 647- 973- 2244
- Darren Earl
490 Orton Ave
Ancaster, ON, L9G 4M8
Tel: 226- 750- 4534
- Dianne Auty
451 Lodor Street
Ancaster, ON, L9G 4X3
Tel: 905- 744- 8512
- Harry Skinner
49 Hatton Drive
Ancaster, ON, L9G 2H5
Tel: 289-925-7755
- Jennifer Davis
87 St. Margaret Road
Hamilton, ON, L9G 2L1
Tel: 905-648-5215
- Jim Enos
Tel: 905- 902- 6307
No address provided
- John Sibley
8- 71 Sulphur Springs Road
Ancaster, ON, L9G 1L8
Tel: 416- 509- 2615
- Julie Palmese
186 Lloyminn Ave
Ancaster, ON, L9G 1H9
Tel: 905- 975- 6933
- Lori Dale
81 Hill Crest
Ancaster, ON, L9G 3A2
Tel: 905- 869- 8978
- Matt Coultes
110 Charterhouse Crescent
Ancaster, ON, L9G 4E5
Tel: 905- 906- 4573
- Patricia Cole- Stever / Paul Stever
15 Millcreek Court
Ancaster, ON, L9G 4Z3
Tel: 905- 520- 9667 / 289- 407- 9129
Pcs553@hotmail.com / paul.stever@gmail.com
- Richard Parasandalo
31 Rousseaux St
Ancaster, ON, L9G 2W6
Tel: 289-237-1264
- Wendi Van Exan
Tel: 289- 260- 7251
No address provided
- Margaret MacMillan
311 Golf Links Road
Hamilton, ON, L9G 2N6
Tel: 905- 646- 4964
- Rosa Beraldo
61 Rousseaux St.
Hamilton, ON, L9G 2W6
Tel: 905-981-0647
- Ruth Queroub
289 Lloyminn Ave
Hamilton, ON, L9G 4C4
Tel: 416-809-9155
26 Sarah Flis
67 Brookdale Dr.
Ancaster, ON, L9G 2T4
Tel: 905-515-3695
27 Aimee Frketich
No address provided
ATTACHMENT 3
ISSUES LIST Note 1: The identification of an issue does not mean that all parties agree that such issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing.
City of Hamilton Issues
Building Height
Does the proposal conform to the policies of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan (“UHOP”), Ancaster Wilson Street Secondary Plan (“Secondary Plan”) and Ancaster Wilson Street Secondary Plan Urban Design Guidelines (“Guidelines”) with respect to building height, regarding:
Urban Structure and “Mixed Use – Medium Density”, policies of the UHOP, specifically policies, E.2.3.3.8, E.2.3.3.11, E.2.3.3.12, E.2.3.3.18, E.2.7.7, E.4.6.18, E.4.6.20, and E.4.6.24?
Residential Intensification policies of the UHOP, specifically B.2.4.1.4 b), and d)?
Urban Design policies of the UHOP, specifically B.3.3.2.3, B.3.3.3.3, B.3.3.3.4, and B.3.3.3.5?
Secondary Plan policies specifically B.2.8.2, B.2.8.3, B.2.8.5 c), B.2.8.6.1 c), d) and e), B.2.8.8.5 a) and d), B.2.8.12.1 a), d) and e)? and,
Guidelines specifically guideline, 2.1, 3.1.4, 3.1, 3.1.4.1 and 3.1.4.2
Built Form, Massing and Streetscape Character
Does the proposal conform to the policies of the UHOP and Secondary Plan with respect to Built Form, Massing and Streetscape Character, specifically:
Urban Structure and “Mixed Use – Medium Density” Designation policies of the UHOP, specifically E.2.3.3.8, E.2.3.3.11, E.2.3.3.12, E.2.7.7, E.4.6.18, and E.4.6.20?
Residential Intensification policies of the UHOP, specifically B.2.4.1.4 b) and d)?
Urban Design policies of the UHOP, specifically B.3.3.2.3, B.3.3.2.4, B.3.3.2.6, B.3.3.2.8, B.3.3.2.10, B.3.3.3.3, and B.3.3.3.5?
Secondary Plan policies, specifically B.2.8.2, B.2.8.3, B.2.8.5 c), B.2.8.6.1 B.2.8.8.5 a) and d), and B.2.8.12.1 a), d) and e)? and,
Guidelines specifically guideline, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1.4 and 3.1.4.3?
Privacy Overlook
- Does the proposal conform to the policies of the UHOP respecting Privacy and Overlook Impacts, specifically policies, E.4.6.24, B.2.3.3.18 and B.3.3.3.2 b)?
Natural Heritage
Does the proposal conform to the policies of the UHOP and Guidelines, respecting Tree Protection, specifically:
Residential Intensification policies of the UHOP, specifically policies B.2.4.1.4 g) and B.2.4.1.4 k)? and,
Natural Heritage Systems policies of the UHOP, specifically policy, C.2.11.1, C.2.11.4 and C.2.11.5?
Infrastructure
Does the proposal conform to the policies of the UHOP respecting Infrastructure Servicing, specifically:
Residential Intensification policies of the UHOP, specifically policy, B.2.4.1.4 f)? and;
Infrastructure policies of the UHOP, specifically policies C.5.3.13 and C.5.3.17?
Official Plan Amendment
- Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment represent good planning and is it in the public interest?
Daniel & Rita Faulkner Issues List
- Does the proposed amendment have sufficient regard to matters of provincial interest listed in Section 2 of the Planning Act, in particular:
a. Subsection (p) the appropriate location of growth and development;
b. Subsection (r) the promotion of built form that,
i. is well-designed,
ii. encourages a sense of place, and
iii. provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant.
- What is the appropriate regard to be had for the decision(s) of the municipal council and any information and material that council received and/or considered as required by Section 2.1 of the Planning Act?
PROVINCIAL PLANNING STATEMENT, 2024 (“PPS”)
- Is the proposed amendment consistent with the PPS, including but not limited to:
a. 2.1 Planning for People and Homes
b. 2.2 Housing
c. 2.3.1 General Policies for Settlement Areas
d. 2.4.1 General Policies for Strategic Growth Areas
e. 6.1 General Policies for Implementation and Interpretation (6.1.5, 6.1.6, 6.1.7)
URBAN HAMILTON OFFICIAL PLAN
- Does the proposed amendment maintain the general intent and purpose of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, including but not limited to:
A. Volume 1:
a. Chapter B – Communities:
i. Residential Intensification (2.4)
ii. General Residential Intensification Policies (2.4.1)
iii. Facilitating Residential Intensification (2.4.4, 2.4.5)
iv. Urban Design Goals (3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.5, 3.3.1.8)
v. General Policies and Principles (3.3.2.1)
vi. Built Form (3.3.3)
vii. Gateways (3.3.4)
viii. General Cultural Heritage Policies for Urban Areas (3.4.3.1, 3.4.3.2, 3.4.3.3, 3.4.3.6)
b. Chapter E – Urban Systems and Designations:
i. Goals (1.0)
ii. Urban Structure (2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.3.3)
iii. Commercial and Mixed Use Designations (4.0, 4.2.12, 4.3, 4.6)
c. Part F: Implementation
i. 1.1.1 - Official Plan
ii. 1.1.3 to 1.1.5 – Official Plan Amendments
iii. 1.5 Zoning By-law
iv. 1.19 Complete Application Requirements and Formal Consultation
v. 29.5 Glossary
B. Volume 2:
a. Ancaster Wilson Street Secondary Plan
i. Purpose (B.2.8.1)
ii. Vision (B2.8.2)
iii. Development Concept (2.8.3)
iv. Principles (2.8.4)
v. Objectives (2.8.5)
vi. Ancaster Community Node (2.8.6)
vii. Commercial and Mixed Use Designations (2.8.8, 2.8.8.4, 2.8.8.5)
viii. Urban Design Policies (2.8.12)
Does the proposed amendment represent an appropriate level of density and intensification for the subject lands, and does the proposed density and intensification maintain the general intent and purpose of the City’s urban structure as implemented through the Urban Hamilton Official Plan?
Does the proposed development have appropriate consideration for the Ancaster: Wilson Street Secondary Plan Area Urban Design Guidelines?
SITE SPECIFIC MATTERS
Does the proposed amendment facilitate a development that is compatible with surrounding lands from a land use and built form perspective?
Does the proposed amendment have adverse impacts on the neighbouring lands municipally known as 436 Wilson Street East?
Does the proposed amendment provide an appropriate planning framework to guide the development of the subject lands in a manner that represents good land use planning and is in the public interest? In addition, what site-specific provisions are required?
PUBLIC INTEREST
- Does the proposed amendment represent good land use planning and is it in the public interest?
ATTACHMENT 4
ORDER OF EVIDENCE
2691893 Ontario Inc.
City of Hamilton
Daniel & Rita Faulkner (Creations Art Gallery and Framing)
2691893 Ontario Inc. (in reply)
ATTACHMENT 5
Summary of Filing Dates
EVENT
DATE
1st Case Management Conference
Friday, January 30. 2026
2nd Case Management Conference
Monday, March 23, 2026
Applicant’s deadline to revise development
Friday, September 3, 2026
Parties to exchange their List of Witnesses
Friday, October 2, 2026
Parties to Challenge Witness
Friday, October 16, 2026
Deadline for Expert Meeting
Friday, October 30, 2026
Parties to file statement of Agreed Facts and Issues
Friday, December 4, 2026
Parties to exchange their Witness and Expert Witness Statements
Participants to provide their Participant Statements
Monday, January 15, 2027
Parties to exchange their Reply Witness Statements
Friday, February 5, 2027
Parties to File Joint Document Book
Tuesday, February 16, 2027
Parties to exchange their Visual Evidence
Tuesday, February 16, 2027
Parties to File Preliminary Hearing Plan
Friday, February 19, 2027
Hearing commences
Tuesday, March 2, 2027
1Visual evidence should be of a general nature, such as air photos, enlarged versions of maps already in the public realm. The Visual Evidence exchange date is not an opportunity to provide substantive new evidence late (i.e. effectively a late Witness Statement). For example, the NEC’s issues, in particular, deal with visual impact of the proposed development on the Niagara Escarpment and, accordingly, the Witness Statements and reports filed in respect of those issues must be adequate to respond to those issues; new evidence or a response to the Issues cannot be left to the Visual Evidence exchange date. This direction binds all parties respecting all issues.