Heward Studio Investments Inc. v. Toronto (City), 2026 CanLII 58394

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: June 09, 2026 CASE NO.: OLT-26-000196

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

Applicant and Appellant: Heward Studio Investments Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit the redesignation of 65–87 Heward Avenue from Core Employment Areas to Mixed Use Areas and introduce a Site and Area Specific Policy. Reference Number: 25 233722 STE 14 OZ Property Address: 65–87 Heward Avenue Municipality/UT: Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-26-000196 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-26-000196 OLT Case Name: Heward Studio Investments Inc. v. Toronto (City)

BEFORE: N. Eisazadeh, MEMBER Friday, the 29th day of May, 2026

UPON AN APPEAL having been brought by Heward Studio Investments Inc. (“Appellant”) under subsections 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, regarding the failure by the City of Toronto (“City”) to render a decision within the statutory time period on an application for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) seeking a redesignation from Core Employment Area to Mixed Use Area along with a Site and Area Policy related to the minimum Gross Floor Area, in respect of the lands municipally known as 65-87 Heward Avenue (“Subject Lands”);

AND THIS MATTER having come before the Tribunal on Friday, May 29, 2026, by videoconference for a first Case Management Conference (“CMC”), whereby it marked as Exhibit 1 the Affidavit of Service of Ali Ahmed affirmed on May 5, 2026, attesting to proper Notice having been given for this first CMC;

AND THE TRIBUNAL having received one request for Party status from Atura Power (“Atura”) dated May 11, 2026;

AND THE TRIBUNAL having received submissions by Counsel for Atura, that Autra is a corporation operating an electric utility in the local municipality and planning area, and in particular the Portland Energy Centre, being a natural gas-fired combined cycle power generating station located at 470 Unwin Avenue, approximately 750 metres form the Subject Lands, and that Atura therefore seeks Party status to ensure the coordination and compatibility of land uses in proximity to industrial operations, including sensitive uses in proximity to the Portland Energy Centre which produces air emission in accordance with the applicable emissions standards but which may lead to increased potential for conflict between ongoing industrial operations and adjacent uses;

AND THE TRIBUNAL having considered the submissions made on behalf of Atura, the Statutory Parties consenting to the request for Party status, found that there are reasonable grounds for the request and thereby granted Party status to Atura;

AND THE TRIBUNAL having received three further independent requests for Participant status from Matt Middleton and Milan Scekic dated May 6, 2026, respectively, and Sandra Battaglini dated May 19, 2026;

AND THE TRIBUNAL having considered the written requests of Mr. Middleton, Mr. Scekic, and Ms. Battaglini, indicating that each individual, respectively, is an owner and resident of neighbouring lands in the immediate area with a direct interest in the outcome of the requested OPA and these proceedings, and the Statutory Parties not opposed to the requests for Participant status, found that there area reasonable grounds for the requests and thereby granted Participant status to Matt Middleton, Milan Scekic, and Sandra Battaglini, respectively;

AND THE TRIBUNAL having considered the draft Procedural Order inclusive of Issues List and confirmed the Parties’ intention of calling an estimated total of 17 witnesses in the areas of land economics, land use planning, built form, compatibility, air quality, noise pollution, transportation, and cultural heritage, scheduled a 15-day Merits Hearing to proceed on Tuesday, November 17, 2026, through to Thursday, December 10, 2026, the Tribunal NOT sitting on November 23, 24, or 25, 2026, commencing at 10 a.m. each day by videoconference and with the following log-in credentials:

Parties 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://meet.goto.com/357283957

Access code: 357-283-957

Parties 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

Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to it by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9391 or (Toll Free) 1-888-455-1389. The access code is: 357-283-957.

Individuals 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.

As 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.

AND THE TRIBUNAL having confirmed the Parties’ awareness of Tribunal-led mediation;

NOW THEREFORE THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. Party status is granted to Atura Power.

2. Participant status is granted to: a. Matt Middleton; b. Milan Scekic; and c. Sandra Battaglini.

3. The Procedural Order appended as Attachment 2 shall govern the conduct of this proceeding.

4. A 15-day Merits Hearing has been scheduled to proceed commencing at 10 a.m. by videoconference from Tuesday, November 17, 2026, until Thursday December 10, 2026, however the Tribunal will not be sitting on November 23, 24, or 25, 2026.

5. This Member is not seized.

6. There will be no further notice.

“Matthew D.J. Bryan”

MATTHEW D.J. BRYAN REGISTRAR Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: 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.

ATTACHMENT 1

CMC Attendance List

Party Name	Counsel
Heward Studio Investments Inc. (“Appellant”)	Meaghan McDermid
City of Toronto (“City”)	Amrit Sandhu Rachel McVean
Atura Power (“Non-Appellant Party”)	Alice Mihailescu Roberto Aburto (in absentia)

ATTACHMENT 2

Ontario Land Tribunal

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

Applicant/Appellant: Heward Studio Investments Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit the redesignation of 65-87 Heward Avenue from Core Employment Areas to Mixed Use Areas and introduce a Site and Area Specific Policy Reference Number: 25 233722 STE 14 OZ Property Address: 65-87 Heward Avenue Municipality/UT: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-26-000196 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-26-000196 OLT Case Name: Heward Studio Investments Inc. v. Toronto (City)

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 Tuesday, November 17, 2026, starting at 10:00 A.M. The scheduled hearing dates are November 17, 2026 to December 10, 2026. The Tribunal will not sit on November 23, 24 or 25, 2026.

2. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is fifteen (15) days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible. The procedural deadlines are identified in Attachment “1” to this Order.

3. The parties and participants (see Attachment “5” for the meaning of these terms) identified at the Case Management Conference are listed in Attachment “2” to this Order.

4. The issues for the hearing are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment “3” to this Order. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it, 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 “4” to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

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. If the Applicant/Appellant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing, the Applicant/Appellant shall provide copies of the revised proposal, proposed instruments, updated supporting documents and reports which it intends to rely upon, to all the Parties on or before Monday, June 8, 2026. The Applicant/Appellant acknowledges that any revisions to the proposal after that date without the consent of the parties may be raised as grounds for a request to adjourn the hearing by another party.

10. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they are intended to be called. This list must be delivered on or before Monday, July 20, 2026, and in accordance with paragraph 23 below. 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. Any challenges to the witness, including qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence in the area of expertise proposed shall be made by motion in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules and notice of same must be served on the other Parties on or before Monday, August 10, 2026.

11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Wednesday, August 19, 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 filed with the OLT case coordinator on or before Thursday, September 3, 2026.

12. 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 24. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony. For greater certainty, each expert witness statement must comply with the minimum content requirements specified in Rule 7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. If the expert witness has prepared any report(s) that they intend to rely on at the hearing, and which did not form part of the submissions made to the City, such report(s) shall be provided to the other parties at the same as the delivery of expert witness statements, as in paragraph 14 below.

13. 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 14. 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.

14. On or before Tuesday, September 15, 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 24 below.

15. On or before Tuesday, September 15, 2026, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties and the OLT case coordinator in accordance with paragraph 24 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

16. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case coordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before Friday, October 2, 2026, and in accordance with paragraph 24 below.

17. On or before Wednesday, October 28, 2026, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

18. On or before Monday, October 19, 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 24 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

19. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case coordinator on or before Wednesday, October 28, 2026.

20. Any documents which may be used by a party in cross examination of an opposing party’s witness may be password protected and only be accessible to the Tribunal and the other parties if it is introduced as evidence at the hearing, pursuant to the directions provided by the OLT case coordinator. The parties may also introduce documents to be used during cross-examination at the hearing.

21. 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.

22. A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days prior to the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

23. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Tuesday, November 10, 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.

24. 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.

25. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness, and except as contemplated in paragraph 9 of this Order. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

This Member is not seized. So Orders the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
Monday, June 8, 2026	Deadline to provide revised proposal, including all revised reports, and studies (if any)
Monday, July 20, 2026	Parties to exchange lists of witnesses (names, disciplines, CVs and intended order to be called)
Monday, August 10, 2026	Last date to challenge identification of witness
Wednesday, August 19, 2026	Meetings of Expert Witnesses (if any)
Thursday, September 3, 2026	Parties to file Statements of Agreed Facts and Issues (if any)
Tuesday, September 15, 2026	Exchange of Witness Statements, summonsed witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
Friday, October 2, 2026	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
Monday, October 19, 2026	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
Wednesday, October 28, 2026	Parties to advise OLT if all scheduled hearing days are required
Wednesday, October 28, 2026	Joint Document Book to be filed
Tuesday, November 10, 2026	Parties to file hearing plan
Tuesday, November 17, 2026	Hearing commences (15 days) - November 17 to 20, 26 to 27, 30 to December 4, 7 to 10

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES / PARTICIPANTS

PARTIES

1. Heward Studio Investments Inc. Meaghan McDermid and Liam Valgardson Davies Howe LLP The Tenth Floor 425 Adelaide Street West Toronto, ON M5V 3C1 Email: meaghanm@davieshowe.com / liamv@davieshowe.com Tel: 416-263-4514 / 416-263-4517

2. City of Toronto Rachel McVean and Amrit Sandhu City of Toronto, Legal Services Division Metro Hall, 26th Floor 55 John Street Toronto, ON M5V 3C6 Email: rachel.mcvean@toronto.ca / amrit.sandhu@toronto.ca Tel: 416-392-1561 / 416-338-1617

3. Atura Power Roberto Aburto and Alice Mihailescu Dentons Canada LLP 99 Bank Street, Suite 1420 Ottawa, ON K1P 1H4 Email: roberto.aburto@dentons.com / alice.mihailescu@dentons.com Tel: 613-288-2716 / 613-288-2715

PARTICIPANTS

1. Matt Middleton Email: getcreative@gmail.com

2. Milan Scekic Email: shefisshef@gmail.com

3. Sandra Battaglini Email: Sandra.battaglini@gmail.com

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUES LIST

NOTE: The identification of an issue on this Issues List is intended to provide notice to all parties that a party will lead evidence and/or argument on the matter. This identification does not serve as an acknowledgement of relevancy 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.

A party may revise their Issues List until 130 days before the hearing commences in response to any revised proposal submitted pursuant to paragraph 9 of this Procedural Order.

A. HEWARD STUDIO INVESTMENTS INC.

1. Are the subject lands an “area of employment” pursuant to s.1(1) of the Planning Act or an “employment area” as defined in the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024?

2. Is the proposed OPA subject to the policies pertaining to employment conversions in policy 2.8.2.5 of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 and policies 2.2.4.14 to 19 of the City of Toronto Official Plan?

B. CITY OF TORONTO

Planning Act

1. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment have sufficient regard for the matters of provincial interest identified under Section 2 of the Planning Act, including but not limited to Sections 2 (a), (d), (h), (k), (n), (o), and (p)?

Provincial Planning Statement

2. Is the proposed Official Plan Amendment consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024), including but not limited to policies: 2.1.6 (a), 2.3.1.2, 2.8.1.1, 2.8.1.3, 2.8.2.1, 2.8.2.2, 2.8.2.3, 2.8.2.5, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 4.6.1, 4.6.3, and 5.2.5 (a)?

City of Toronto Official Plan

3. Does the proposal conform to the City’s Official Plan, including but not limited to: Section 2.2: 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.4.1 to 2.2.4.19, Section 3.5, policies 3.5.1.1, 3.5.1.2, 3.5.1.3, and Section 4.6?

Site Specific Issues

4. Should the designation of the property known municipally as 65 – 87 Heward Avenue (the “Subject Property”) be redesignated from Core Employment Areas to Mixed Use Areas in the City’s Official Plan?

5. If approved, could the proposal result in any adverse impacts on existing and future operations of nearby employment uses, including with respect to: a. Type and volume of traffic generated by industrial uses, b. Noise, odour and other adverse impacts, b. Protecting the long-term viability of the employment area, and c. Promoting economic competitiveness, long-term economic prosperity and optimizing the long-term availability and use of land in the vicinity of the Subject Property for employment purposes?

6. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment adequately consider and apply the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) D Series Guidelines, including Guideline D 1 (Land Use Compatibility) and Guideline D 6 (Compatibility Between Industrial Facilities and Sensitive Land Uses)?

7. Is the proposed Official Plan Amendment appropriate, good planning and in the public interest?

Implementation

8. If the requested Official Plan Amendment is approved by the Tribunal, in whole or in part, should the Tribunal’s final order be withheld until dual ministerial approval has been obtained pursuant to PPS 2024 Policy 5.2.5?

9. If the requested Official Plan Amendment is approved by the Tribunal, in whole or in part, should the Tribunal’s final order be withheld until it has been advised by the City Solicitor that the following conditions have been met, including but not limited to: a. the final form and content of the draft Official Plan Amendment is to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the City Solicitor; b. submission and acceptance of a Compatibility / Mitigation Study, peer reviewed at the applicant’s expense, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning; and c. Submission and acceptance of a Community Services and Facilities Study, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.

C. ATURA POWER

1. Is the redesignation of the Subject Lands proposed in the OPA compatible with the nearby Portlands Energy Centre?

2. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment (the “OPA”) have regard to matters of provincial interest under section 2 of the Planning Act, including but not limited to: (e) the supply, efficient use and conservation of energy and water; (h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities; (l) the protection of the financial and economic well-being of the Province and its municipalities; (o) the protection of public health and safety; (p) the appropriate location of growth and development; and (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.

3. Is the OPA consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (the “PPS”), including but not limited to: a. 2.3.1.2 b); b. 2.8.1; c. 2.8.2; d. 3.1.1; e. 3.3.1; f. 3.5; and g. 6.2.1.

4. Is the OPA consistent with the general intent and purpose of the City of Toronto Official Plan (the “OP”), including but not limited to: a. 1.3; b. 2.2.4.5 to 2.2.4.10; and c. 2.2.4.14 to 2.2.4.18.

5. Does the proposed OPA have regard for the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) D‑Series Guidelines, including Guideline D‑1 (Land Use Compatibility) and Guideline D‑6 (Compatibility Between Industrial Facilities and Sensitive Land Uses), and their applicability with the PPS and the OP?

6. Does the proposed OPA conflict with Ontario Regulation 419/05, the Ontario Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQC), or the Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), by creating exceedances to the air quality standards for NO2?

7. Does the compatibility and mitigation study appropriately consider the character of facility and emission sources with respect to the D-Series Guidelines industrial categorization?

8. Does the OPA appropriately coordinate and integrate land use planning with infrastructure planning?

9. Does the OPA result in any undue adverse effects on the nearby Portlands Energy Centre?

10. Does the OPA represent good planning and is it in the public interest?

ATTACHMENT 4

Order of Evidence

1. Heward Studio Investments Inc.
2. City of Toronto
3. Atura Power
4. Reply of Heward Studio Investments Inc. (if any)

ATTACHMENT 5

meaning of terms used in the procedural order

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Information

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

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

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