Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
June 11, 2026
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-25-001028
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
SG Berwick Ltd. c/o Stafford Homes Ltd.
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description:
To permit the development of a 49-storey residential building
Reference Number:
25 191657 STE 12 OZ
Property Address:
29, 31, 41, 43, 45 Berwick Avenue
Municipality/UT:
Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.:
OLT-25-001028
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-25-001028
OLT Case Name:
SG Berwick Ltd. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
SG Berwick Ltd. c/o Stafford Homes Ltd.
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description:
To permit the development of a 49-storey residential building
Reference Number:
25 191649 STE 12 SA
Property Address:
29, 31, 41, 43, 45 Berwick Avenue
Municipality/UT:
Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.:
OLT-25-001030
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-25-001028
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 1006, c. 11, Sched. A.
Applicant/Appellant:
SG Berwick Ltd. c/o Stafford Homes Ltd.
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description:
To permit the development of a 49-storey residential building
Reference Number:
25 191657 STE 12 OZ
Property Address:
29, 31, 41, 43, 45 Berwick Avenue
Municipality/UT:
Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.:
OLT-25-001029
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-25-001028
Heard:
June 1, 2026 by video-hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
SG Berwick Ltd.
Sarah Kagan Jason Park (in absentia)
City of Toronto
Marc Hardiejowski Michelle LaFortune
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY n. eisazadeh ON June 1, 2026, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision arises from the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) convened in respect of the appeals filed by SG Berwick Ltd. (“Appellant”) pursuant to ss. 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, and s. 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, as amended, against the City of Toronto (“City”) for non-decisions on the Appellant’s applications for an Official Plan Amendment, a Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan approval, all seeking to facilitate the development of a 49-storey residential building at the lands municipally known as 29, 31, 41, 43, and 45 Berwick Avenue.
2A first CMC was convened on March 11, 2026, before a Tribunal Panel differently constituted, wherein Participant status was granted to 17 separate individuals and entities. At that time the Tribunal acknowledged members of the public in attendance at the event who had requested Participant status but had not completed the necessary paperwork. Accordingly, the Tribunal scheduled the present second CMC, in part, to allow any additional individuals or entities seeking Participant status to submit the appropriate request and attend the hearing event virtually to speak to their request for status.
3The Tribunal received only one additional request form from Mathew Diamond. Mr. Diamond initially submitted a Party Status Request Form, dated May 9, 2026, though by email correspondence to the Tribunal dated May 30, 2026, clarified that his request was actually for Participant status. No corrected Participant Status Request Form was subsequently received by Mr. Diamond, nor was he in attendance at the hearing event. However, Counsel for the Appellant advised her client consented to the Participant status request, and Counsel for the City advised the City had no objection. Accordingly, Participant status was granted to Mr. Diamond, conditional on the submission of a corrected Participant Status Request Form and Participant Statement Form, completed in full by no later than 5 p.m. on Monday, June 15, 2026, failing which Mr. Diamond’s Participant status shall be revoked.
4The Merits Hearing will now proceed with only those Participants identified in the Procedural Order.
5A draft Procedural Order, inclusive of Issues List, was presented to the Tribunal and hearing dates for the Merits Hearing were requested. The Tribunal was advised by the City that the key issues in dispute primarily regard urban design and built form, with secondary issues including transportation, parks planning, and land use planning. Each of the statutory Parties anticipated calling four expert witnesses, totalling eight witnesses for the Merits Hearing. It was agreed that a total of 10 days was anticipated to be required for the Merits Hearing.
6The Tribunal endorsed the draft Procedural Order and Issues List and the anticipated length of the Merits Hearing. A copy of the finalized Procedural Order is appended hereto as Schedule 1.
7A 10-day Merits Hearing was accordingly scheduled to proceed by video on Monday, November 30, 2026 at 10 a.m.
8Parties 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/914098901
Access code: 914-098-901
9Parties 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
10Persons 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: 914-098-901.
11Individuals 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.
12As 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.
13The Parties confirmed they were aware of Tribunal-led Mediation and how to avail themselves of that resource, should they so chose.
ORDER
14THIS TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT Participant status is granted to Mathew Diamond pursuant to the conditions set out at paragraph [3] of this Decision.
15AND THIS TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT a 10-day Merit Hearing has been scheduled as set out above in this Decision.
16This Member is not seized and there shall be no further notice. The balance of case management directives above are so ordered.
“N. Eisazadeh”
n. eisazadeh
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
SCHEDULE 1
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-25-001028
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
SG Berwick Ltd. c/o Stafford Homes Ltd.
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description:
To permit the development of a 49-storey residential building
Reference Number:
25 191657 STE 12 OZ
Property Address:
29, 31, 41, 43, 45 Berwick Avenue
Municipality/UT:
Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.:
OLT-25-001028
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-25-001028
OLT Case Name:
SG Berwick Ltd. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
SG Berwick Ltd. c/o Stafford Homes Ltd.
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description:
To permit the development of a 49-storey residential building
Reference Number:
25 191649 STE 12 SA
Property Address:
29, 31, 41, 43, 45 Berwick Avenue
Municipality/UT:
Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.:
OLT-25-001030
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-25-001028
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 1006, c. 11, Sched. A.
Applicant/Appellant:
SG Berwick Ltd. c/o Stafford Homes Ltd.
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description:
To permit the development of a 49-storey residential building
Reference Number:
25 191657 STE 12 OZ
Property Address:
29, 31, 41, 43, 45 Berwick Avenue
Municipality/UT:
Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.:
OLT-25-001029
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-25-001028
PROCEDURAL ORDER
- The Tribunal may vary or add to these rules at any time, either on request or as it sees fit. It may alter this Order by an oral ruling, or by another written Order.
Organization of the Hearing
The hearing will commence on November 30, 2026 at 10am and will be conducted virtually.
The length of the hearing is estimated to be 10 days and is scheduled to be completed by December 11, 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. The procedural order deadlines are found in Attachment 5.
The parties and participants to the hearing are set out in Attachment 1.
The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 2. Except as contemplated in paragraph 1, 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. An issue can be removed from the issues list without a formal order of the Tribunal with the consent of all Parties.
The order of evidence shall be as set out 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 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 and the other parties 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.
Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearings Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.
Requirements Before the Hearing
If the Applicant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing, the Applicant shall provide copies of the revised proposal, including all revised plans, drawings, proposed instruments, updated supporting documents and reports which it intends to rely upon, to all the Parties on or before Friday, July 3, 2026. The Applicant acknowledges that any revisions to the proposal after that date without the consent of the parties may be grounds for a request to adjourn the hearing.
A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the intended order in which the witnesses will be called during the hearing. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae, their completed Acknowledgements of Expert’s Duty, and the precise area and discipline in which they will seek to be qualified to provide expert testimony. This information must be delivered on or before Monday, August 3, 2026. Any challenge by a Party to the qualifications or expertise of a witness shall be made by motion in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules and notice of same must be served on the other Parties 10 days before the meeting of like experts, set out in paragraph 11.
Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Friday, August 21, 2026 to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Expert meetings and discussions are to be held on a without prejudice and confidential basis. The without prejudice and confidential nature of the discussions includes not being cross-examined or examined, by any party, regarding any statements or positions that may have been made or taken during an expert meeting or discussion. The experts must prepare and file a list of agreed facts and the remaining issues to be addressed at the hearing with the parties and OLT case co-ordinator, no later than Friday, September 11, 2026.
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 section 21. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony. For greater certainty, each expert witness statement must comply with the minimum content requirements specified in Rule 7.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. If the expert witness has prepared any report(s) that he/she intends to rely on at the hearing, and which did not form part of the report(s) (referenced by title and date of report) made to the City, such report(s) shall be provided to the other parties at the same time as the delivery of expert witness statements, as in section 22.
On or before Friday, October 2, 2026 a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.
Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence, as in section 22. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in section 15.
On or before Friday, October 2, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and OLT case co-ordinator.
On or before Friday, October 30, 2026, the parties shall provide any reply witness statements responding to any written evidence received to the other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator.
On or before Friday, November 20, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to the other parties. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.
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 a witness’ evidence to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of the record.
The parties shall prepare and file a hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Monday, November 23, 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.
The parties shall cooperate to prepare and file a Joint Document Book with the Tribunal on or before Monday, November 23, 2026. If a party wants a printed copy of the electronic Document Book for its own use it shall print it themselves at their own cost.
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.
On or before Monday, November 16, 2026 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.
No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness, and except as may be granted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.
The purpose of the Procedural Order and the meaning of the terms used in the Procedural Order are set out in Attachment 4.
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.
This Member is not seized.
So orders the Tribunal.
ATTACHMENT 1
LIST OF PARTIES and participants
Parties
SG Berwick Ltd
KAGAN SHASTRI DeMELO WINER PARK LLP 188 Avenue Road Toronto, ON., M5R 2J1 Jason Park/ Sarah Kagan Tel: 416- 645- 4572 / 416- 368- 2100 x243 jpark@ksllp.ca / skagan@ksllp.ca
City of Toronto
City of Toronto Legal Services Division
Planning & Administrative Tribunal Law
55 John Street, 26th Floor, Metro Hall
Toronto, ON., M5V 3C6
Marc Hardiejowski / Michelle LaFortune
Tel: 416- 392- 4960/ 416-338-0642
marc.hardiejowski@toronto.ca / Michelle.LaFortune@toronto.ca
Participants
Eglinton Park Residents Association
Tom Cohen
416-932- 8566
Oriole Park Association
Richard MacFarlane
416- 484- 4560
South Eglinton Davisville Residents Association
Jeff Latto
416- 435- 3170
Richard MacFarlane
416- 484- 4560
Lynne Morrison
416- 456- 7907
Tina Fedson
647- 469- 0179
Ian Strulovitch
416- 886- 9513
Marc Potin
437- 236- 9121
Myla Moretti
416- 825- 5771
Tamar Sudai
416- 457- 6640
Ahmed El Bedawy
647- 891- 1715
Tae Wook Eum
647- 888- 5525
Yusuf Baykal Bozkurt
Selina Terra
416- 830- 4211
Pantea Rad
416- 489- 2410
John Maddigan
416- 456- 7909
Andrew Vernon- Betts
Mathew Diamond (Granted participant status conditional on filing participant status request within 2 weeks from 2nd CMC)
416-389-3000
ATTACHMENT 2
ISSUES LIST
NOTE: The identification of an issue on this list does not mean that all Parties agree that the issue, or the manner in which it is expressed, is appropriate for or relevant to the proper determination of the appeals. The extent of the appropriateness and/or relevance of the issue may be a matter of evidence and/or argument at the Hearing.
City of Toronto Issues List
Planning Act
- Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest as set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, in particular subsections (h), (j), (p), and (r)?
Provincial Planning Statement (2024)
- Is the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024) pursuant to Section 3(5) of the Planning Act, including Policy 2.4.1.
City of Toronto Official Plan
- Does the proposed development and Zoning By-law conform with the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan with respect to:
a. Structuring Growth in the City: Integrating Land Use and Transportation (Chapter 2.2)
b. Healthy Neighbourhoods (Chapter 2.3.1)
c. The Public Realm (Chapter 3.1.1)
d. Built Form (Chapter 3.1.3)
e. Built Form – Building Types (Chapter 3.1.4)
f. Housing (Chapter 3.2.1)
g. Parks and Open Spaces (Chapter 3.2.3)
h. Neighbourhoods (Chapter 4.1)
i. Apartment Neighbourhoods (Chapter 4.2)
j. Parks and Open Spaces (Chapter 4.3)
Yonge Eglinton Secondary Plan
- Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for Official Plan Amendment 405 – Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan, being Chapter 6, Section 21 of the Official Plan, with respect to the following:
a. Vision Statement (1.1)
b. Goals (1.2)
c. Character Areas (1.3)
d. Area Structure (2)
e. Midtown Transit Station Areas (2.4)
f. Land Use (2.5)
g. Parks and Public Realm (3)
h. Mobility (4)
i. Built Form (5)
j. Housing (7)
k. Make it Happen (Implementation) (9)
l. Interpretation (10)
Guidelines and Standards for the City of Toronto
- Does the proposed development meet the intent and purpose of the following City of Toronto design guidelines:
a. Complete Streets Guidelines
b. Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities
c. Midtown Public Realm Implementation Strategy
d. Tall Building Design Guidelines
e. Pet Friendly Design Guidelines for High Density Communities
f. Streetscape Manual
Site Specific Issues
Are the proposed mix of land uses sufficient to meet the needs of the local community, support the development of sustainable, economically vibrant and complete communities? Do they have regard to the relevant objectives and policies of the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan?
Are the proposed unit mix and sizes appropriate and do they meet the intent and purpose of the Growing Up guidelines?
Are the proposed site organization and built form appropriate, do they conform with applicable policies and do they have appropriate regard to relevant guidelines? More particularly, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing:
a. Are the proposed building height, massing, setbacks, step-backs and street wall height appropriate?
b. Does the proposal achieve an appropriate relationship with the existing and planned context for the site and surrounding sites?
c. Have the driveway accesses been appropriately located and designed to limit pedestrian and vehicle interactions and minimize the impacts on the public realm?
d. Has the loading space and its function been appropriately located and designed to minimize its impact on the public realm, site and surroundings?
e. Have public sidewalks been provided to City standards?
f. Are the shadow impacts from the proposed development acceptable?
g. Are the wind impacts from the proposed development acceptable?
h. Do the proposed built form and setbacks ensure new street tree plantings will have a sufficient amount of space and soil volume to reach maturity?
Does the location and provision of parkland adequately serve the proposed development and the surrounding community, and does it conform with the applicable Official Plan policies, including the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan, respecting parkland dedication?
Does the proposed development represent principles of good planning and urban design?
Is the proposed Official Plan Amendment good planning and in the public interest?
Is the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment good planning and in the public interest?
Implementation
- If the proposed development is approved, in whole or in part, should the Tribunal Order be withheld until the following conditions are satisfied and the Tribunal receives confirmation from the City Solicitor that:
a. The final form and content of the Zoning By-law is satisfactory to the Executive Director, Development Review, and the City Solicitor;
b. The owner makes satisfactory arrangements with Engineering and Construction Services and enters into the appropriate agreement(s) with the City for the design and construction of any improvements to the municipal infrastructure to support this development, according to the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report accepted by the Chief Engineering and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;
c. Should it be determined that upgrades are required to the infrastructure to support the development according to the accepted Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report and/or the Transportation Impact Study, a Holding Provision be included in the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendment, and the Holding Provision not to be lifted until such a time as the owner has made satisfactory arrangements, including entering into appropriate agreement(s) with the City for the design and construction of any improvements to the municipal infrastructure and the provision of financial securities to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, and the General Manager, Transportation Services.
d. The owner has submitted a revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, Servicing Report Groundwater Summary, Foundation Drainage Summary Form, Foundation Drainage Report or addendums (“Engineering Reports”) and Hydrological Review Summary, including all requested revisions, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;
e. The owner has provided a revised Pedestrian Level Wind Study, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review; and
f. The owner has provided a revised Sun and Shadow Study, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review.
ATTACHMENT 3
ORDER OF EVIDENCE
SG Berwick Ltd. c/o Stafford Homes Ltd.
City of Toronto
SG Berwick Ltd. c/o Stafford Homes Ltd. in reply, if necessary
ATTACHMENT 4
Purpose of the Procedural Order and Meaning of Terms
The Tribunal recommends that the parties meet to discuss this sample Order before the Case Management Conference to try to identify the issues and the process that they want the Tribunal to order following the conference. The Tribunal will hear the parties’ comments about the contents of the Order at the conference.
Case Management Conferences usually take place only where the hearing is expected to be long and complicated. If you are not represented by a lawyer, you should prepare by obtaining the Guide to the Ontario Land Tribunal, and the Tribunal’s Rules, from the Tribunal Information Office, 15th Floor, 655 Bay Street, Toronto, M5G 1E5, 416-212-6349, or from the Tribunal’s website at https://olt.gov.on.ca/about-olt/.
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 authorization 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.
ATTACHMENT 5
Summary of Filing Dates
EVENT
DATE
2nd CMC
Monday, June 1, 2026
Deadline for Applicant/ Appellant to file revised plans
Friday, July 3, 2026
Parties to exchange their List of Witnesses
Monday, August 3, 2026
Deadline for Meeting of Like Experts
Friday, August 21, 2026
Deadline to file Agreed Statement of Like Experts
Friday, September 11, 2026
Parties to exchange their Witness and Expert Witness Statements
Participants to provide their Participant Statement
Friday, October 2, 2026
Parties to exchange their Reply Witness Statements
Friday, October 30, 2026
Parties to advise the Tribunal if all of the scheduled hearing dates are still required.
Monday, November 16, 2026
Parties to exchange Visual Evidence
Friday, November 20, 2026
Parties to File Joint Document Book
Parties to File Preliminary Hearing Plan
Monday, November 23, 2026
Hearing commences
Monday, November 30, 2026