Norfolk Development Inc. v. Richmond Hill (City), 2026 CanLII 9727

Ontario Land Tribunal

ISSUE DATE: February 03, 2026

CASE NO.: OLT-25-000568

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

Applicant and Appellant: Norfolk Development Inc.

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

Description: OPA to facilitate a 15-story development containing 344 units

Reference Number: OPA-23-0002

Property Address: 162-182 Norfolk Avenue

Municipality: City of Richmond Hill

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000568

OLT Case Name: Norfolk Development Inc. v. Richmond Hill (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Norfolk Development Inc.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: ZBA to facilitate a 15-story development containing 344 units

Reference Number: ZBLA-23-0003

Property Address: 162-182 Norfolk Avenue

Municipality: City of Richmond Hill

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000569

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000568

OLT Case Name: Norfolk Development Inc. v. Richmond Hill (City)

BEFORE:

CARMINE TUCCI

MEMBER

Thursday, the 11th day of December, 2025

UPON APPEAL having brought by Norfolk Development Inc. regarding the failure of the City of Richmond Hill to make a decision regarding an Application to amend the Official Plan and to amend the City By-law No. 23-0003;

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

AND THE TRIBUNAL at the second CMC, having scheduled a hearing to commence on July 13, 2026, by video conference, ten (10) days have been set aside.

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Procedural Order appended as Attachment 2 shall govern the conduct of this proceeding.

This Member remains available to assist with the case management of this proceeding, subject to the Tribunal’s calendar.

“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/Representative*

Norfolk Development Inc.

Meaghan Barrett / S. Tomasella (in absentia)

City Of Richmond Hill

Carlton Thorne

Canadian National Railway Company

Max Reedijk

Surob Developments Limited

Chioma Oriuwa / J. Evola, S. Leisk (in absentia)

Attachment 2

ISSUE DATE: CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000568; OLT-25-000569

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

Applicant and Appellant: Norfolk Development Inc.

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

Description: OPA to facilitate a 15-story development containing 344 units

Reference Number: OPA-23-0002

Property Address: 162-182 Norfolk Avenue

Municipality: City of Richmond Hill

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000568

OLT Case Name: Norfolk Development Inc. v. Richmond Hill (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Norfolk Development Inc.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: ZBA to facilitate a 15-story development containing 344 units

Reference Number: ZBLA-23-0003

Property Address: 162-182 Norfolk Avenue

Municipality: City of Richmond Hill

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000569

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000568

OLT Case Name: Norfolk Development Inc. v. Richmond Hill (City)

1. The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own motion.

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will begin on Monday July 13, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. at https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/344779885.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 10 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. A summary of deadlines is set out in Attachment 1.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 2.

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. 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.

6. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 4. 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.

7. 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, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.

8. 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.

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. 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, to the other Parties on or before Friday February 13, 2026 (at least 150 days prior to the exchange of expert witness statements per paragraph 14 below). The applicant acknowledges that any revisions to the proposal after that date without the consent of the Parties may be grounds for the Tribunal to adjourn the hearing.

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 will be called. This list must be delivered on or before Thursday April 2, 2026 (at least 102 days prior to the start of the hearing) 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 of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified.

11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Friday April 24, 2026 (at least 80 days prior to the start of the hearing) and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Monday May 4, 2026 (at least 70 days prior to the start of the hearing).

12. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 14 below. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.

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 evidence as in paragraph 14 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.

14. On or before Friday May 15, 2026 (at least 59 days prior to the start of the hearing), 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.

15. On or before Friday May 15, 2026 (at least 59 days prior to the start of the hearing), 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.

16. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before Friday May 29, 2026 (at least 45 days prior to the start of the hearing), in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

17. On or before Monday June 8, 2026 (at least 35 days prior to the start of the hearing) the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

18. On or before Friday June 26, 2026 (at least 17 days prior to the start of the hearing), the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 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 co-ordinator on or before Friday July 3, 2026 (at least 10 days prior to the start of the hearing).

20. 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.

21. 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 before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

22. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Monday July 6, 2026 (at least 7 days prior to the start of the hearing) 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.

23. All filings shall be submitted electronically unless otherwise directed. 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.

24. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

This Member is [not] seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE:

Name of Member:

Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

ATTACHMENT 1

Summary of Deadlines

DATE

EVENT

Friday February 13, 2026 (150 days prior to hearing)

Applicant submission of revised proposal, including all revised plans, drawings, proposed instruments, updated supporting documents and reports

Thursday April 2, 2026 (102 days prior to hearing)

Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)

Friday April 24, 2026 (80 days prior to hearing)

Meeting(s) of expert witnesses in same field prior to this date

Monday May 4, 2026 (70 days prior to hearing)

Agreed Statement(s) of Facts filed with Tribunal

Friday May 15, 2026 (59 days prior to hearing)

Exchange of: Expert Witness Statements; Witness Outlines; Summoned Witness Outlines; and Participant Statements

Friday May 29, 2026 (45 days prior to hearing)

Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)

Monday June 8, 2026 (35 days prior to hearing)

Parties to advise Tribunal if any hearing dates are to be released from the hearing calendar (if any)

Friday June 26, 2026 (17 days prior to hearing)

Exchange of visual evidence (if any)

Friday July 3, 2026 (10 days prior to hearing)

Joint Document Book filed with the Tribunal

Monday July 6, 2026 (7 days prior to hearing)

Hearing Plan filed with the Tribunal

Monday July 13, 2026 – Friday July 24, 2026

Hearing

ATTACHMENT 2

List of Parties and Participants

A. PARTIES

Counsel/Contact Information

City of Richmond Hill

City of Richmond Hill Legal Services 225 East Beaver Creek Road, 8th Floor Richmond Hill ON L4B 3P4 Carlton Thorne E-mail: carlton.thorne@richmondhill.ca Tel: 905-747-6479

Norfolk Development Inc.

Aird & Berlis LLP 181 Bay Street, Suite 1800 Toronto ON M5J 2T9 Sidonia Tomasella Email: stomasella@airdberlis.com Tel: 416.865.4740 Meaghan Barrett Email: mbarrett@airdberlis.com Tel: 416.865.4740

Canadian National Railway Company

Dentons Canada LLP 77 King Street West, Suite 400 Toronto ON M5K 0A1 Max Reedijk Email: max.reedijk@dentons.com Tel: 416-863-4726

Surob Developments Limited

Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP 40 Temperance Street, North Tower, Suite 3200 Toronto ON M5H 0B4 Signe Leisk Email: sleisk@cassels.com Tel: 416-869-5411 Jennifer Evola Email: jevola@cassels.com Tel: 416-860-6753

B. PARTICIPANTS

1. Ronald Birch

Email: Ronald.birch@ainsworth.com Tel: 416-984-9986

2. Yin-Che (Sam) Huang

Email: ycsamh@gmail.com Tel: 416-247-9008

3. Michael Theodores

Email: miketheobiz@aol.com Tel: 905-884-4113

4. Zhou Lei (Alan) Fang

Email: fangzhoulei@gmail.com Tel: 647-878-8266

5. Fengtian (Frank) Xie

Email: xiefrank@gmail.com Tel: 647-675-7053

6. Mary Verikios / Peter and Toula Koromilas

Email: DKoromilas@thebuc.ca Tel: 416-648-4570

ATTACHMENT 3

Issues Lists

NOTE: The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the Tribunal or any Party that the issue is either relevant or appropriate. The identification of an issue on this list by a Party indicates that Party’s intent to lead evidence or argue that the issue is relevant to the proceeding, for the purpose of fairly identifying to the other Parties the case they need to meet and shall not be construed as the Tribunal have jurisdiction over such matters in each circumstance. Accordingly, no Party shall advance an issue not identified on the Issues List without leave of the Tribunal.

City of Richmond Hill

1. Does the development proposal consisting of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments for the subject lands (collectively the “development proposal”) have appropriate regard for the relevant matters of provincial interest enumerated in section 2 of the Planning Act, including the matters set out in subsections 2(f), 2(h), 2(i), 2(j), 2(p), 2(r) and 2(s)?

2. Is the development proposal consistent with the relevant policies of the Provincial Planning Statement (2024) (the “PPS 2024”), in particular, but not limited to, the following policy sections;

a. Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.4;

b. Sections 3.9;

c. Sections 6.1.

3. Does the development proposal conform with and/or maintain the intent and principles of, the City’s Official Plan (the “Plan”), specifically as it relates to those policies governing:

a. Urban Structure framework and intensification hierarchy, including but not necessarily limited to policies under 3.1.3 and Chapter 4;

b. Integrating land uses, including but not necessarily limited to policies under 3.1.4;

c. Building height and density, including but not necessarily limited to the policies under 4.5.1;

d. Urban Design considerations, including but not limited to building separation distances and setbacks, stepbacks, and floor plate sizes, including but not necessarily limited to the policies under 3.4.1;

e. Parkland dedication, including but not necessarily limited to the policies under 3.1.8;

f. Affordable housing, including but not necessarily limited to the policies under 3.1.5;

g. Active transportation, including but not necessarily limited to the policies under 3.5.2;

h. Transportation demand management, including but not necessarily limited to the policies under 3.5.4; and

i. Any other policies related thereto.

4. Does the development proposal have appropriate regard for the Plan as amended by OPA 18.3 and OPA 18.7, including but not necessarily limited to policies with respect to:

a. Urban Structure framework and intensification hierarchy, including but not necessarily limited to policies under 3.1.3 and Chapter 4;

b. Integrating land uses, including but not necessarily limited to policies under 3.1.4;

c. Local Centres and the intended density and built form function, particularly with respect to the Newkirk Local Centre and its Southern Character Area, including but not necessarily limiting to the policies under 4.3.3;

d. Building heights and density, including but not necessarily limited to the policies under 4.3.3.1;

e. Urban Design considerations, including but not limited to building separation distances and setbacks, stepbacks, and floor plate sizes, including but not necessarily limited to the policies under 3.4.1;

f. Parkland dedication, including but not necessarily limited to the policies under 3.1.8;

g. Affordable housing, including but not necessarily limited to the policies under 3.1.5;

h. Active Transportation Connections, including but not necessarily limited to the policies under 4.3.3.3;

i. Carbon emission considerations, including but not necessarily limited to the policies under 3.1.1; and

j. Any other policies related thereto.

5. Does the development proposal represent an overdevelopment of the site, including but not limited to matters concerning the proposed height and density, and with respect to the planned context of the Newkirk Local Centre, particularly within its Southern Character Area?

6. Does the development proposal fit within the character of adjacent and surrounding lands and does it provide appropriate transition?

7. Does the development proposal have appropriate regard for the City-wide Urban Design Guidelines, including, but not limited to, the Guidelines under Section 6.2, 6.5 and 6.6?

8. Does the proposed expansion of Essex Parkette satisfy the requirements of the City’s 2022 Parks Plan and Parkland Dedication By-law 123-22?

9. Has the appropriateness and feasibility of the development proposal been satisfactorily addressed with respect to matters relating to:

a. Access;

b. Waste management (including access, design, and clearances);

c. Parkland dedication;

d. Landscaping and outdoor amenity area;

e. Tree preservation; and,

f. Transportation demand management?

10. Are the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment appropriate, including with respect to whether they sufficiently regulate matters of use, built form, height, density, massing, scale, setbacks, waste management, electric vehicle parking readiness and/or access?

11. In the event that the Tribunal approves the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, in principle, should:

a. the final order respecting the Official Plan Amendment application be withheld until such time as the City advises the Tribunal that the Official Plan Amendment has been finalized to the satisfaction of the City’s Commissioner of Planning and Infrastructure; and,

b. the final order respecting the Zoning By-law Amendment be withheld until such time as the City advises the Tribunal that the draft Zoning By-law Amendment has been finalized to the satisfaction of the City’s Commissioner of Planning and Infrastructure?

12. Is the development proposal in the public interest and does it represent good planning?

Canadian National Railway Company

1. What is the appropriate mitigation for the proposed development to address noise impacts from nearby rail traffic?

2. Is it premature to approve the Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) in the absence of mitigation measures that have been accurately identified?

3. How will any required mitigation measures for the proposed development be secured and enforced?

4. What planning tools and agreements are needed and may be utilized to secure the implementation of recommendations of technical studies and other requirements identified through the review and consideration of the OPA and ZBA?

5. Is the development of residential or other sensitive land uses on the Subject Lands in the proposed OPA and ZBA good planning?

6. If the development of sensitive land uses following the proposed OPA and ZBA is feasible and good planning, should any private agreements, or environmental easements and agreements under the Industrial Mining and Lands Compensation Act be required for the residential development of the Subject Lands?

7. Do the proposed OPA and ZBA have sufficient regard to matters of provincial interest as outlined in Sections 2(h), , (l), (m), (o), (p), and (r) of the Planning Act?

8. Are the proposed OPA and ZBA consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024 (PPS), and specifically policies, 2.3.1.2(b) and (e), 3.1.1, 3.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.4.1, and 3.5?

9. Do the proposed OPA and ZBA conform with the York Region Official Plan, 2022 (November 2022), specifically sections and policies 1.3.2, 1.4.4, 1.4.10, 2.3.3, 2.3.5, 2.3.13(f), 2.3.30, 2.3.46, 4.2.6, 4.3.24, 4.4.19, 4.4.24(u), 6.3.52, 6.3.53, and associated schedules and definitions?

10. Do the proposed OPA and ZBA conform with the City of Richmond Hill Official Plan (2010) (Office Consolidation June 2025), specifically sections and policies, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.1.4.3(c), 3.1.6, 3.1.9.8, 3.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1, 3.5.1.1, 3.5.1.2(a) & (v), 3.5.1.2(c), 3.5.8, 3.5.8.4, 3.5.8.5, 3.5.8.6, 3.5.9, 4.1.2, and associated schedules and definitions?

11. Do the proposed OPA and ZBA have regard to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change’s “Environmental Noise Guideline - Stationary and Transportation Sources - Approval and Planning” (“NPC-300”) and its requirements, including acoustic assessment and feasibility under the Class 1 or Class 4 residential designations, in the context of the role of the Canadian Transportation Agency in addressing noise complaints?

12. Do the proposed OPA and ZBA have regard to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities/Railway Association of Canada Guidelines for New Development in Proximity to Railway Operations (“FCM/RAC Guidelines”)? How should the FCM/RAC Guidelines be applied with respect to the proposed OPA and ZBA?

13. Do the proposed OPA and ZBA have regard to the D1 and D6 Guidelines, respecting land use compatibility, including their applicability to provincial policy and the local and regional Official Plans?

14. Do the proposed OPA and ZBA rely on an appropriate assessment of the transportation noise sources in the area (i.e. all sources and with current data) and the required building component requirements to meet the applicable indoor noise criteria for transportation sources?

15. Do the proposed OPA and ZBA rely on an appropriate assessment of the transportation noise sources in the area (i.e. all sources and with current data) and the required mitigation to meet the applicable guidelines at the outdoor amenity areas?

16. Does the acoustic analysis provide the appropriate mitigation measures for compliance with all Provincial policies, Provincial guidelines, and the FCM/RAC guidelines?

17. Does the acoustic assessment take into consideration the frequency, content and character of the noise sources and the following federal documents:

a) “Guidelines for the Resolution of Complaints Concerning Railway Noise and Vibration”, Canadian Transportation Agency, October, 2008;

b) “Railway Noise Measurement and Reporting Methodology”, Canadian Transportation Agency, August 2011; and

c) “Guidance for Evaluating Human Health Impacts in Environmental Assessment: NOISE”, Health Canada, January 2017?

ATTACHMENT 4

Order of Evidence

NOTE: Where Parties of like interest have issues in common, they shall make reasonable efforts to coordinate their examinations-in-chief and cross-examinations so as to minimize any duplication or overlap of evidence.

1. Norfolk Development Inc.

2. City of Richmond Hill

3. Canadian National Railway Company

4. Norfolk Development Inc. (in reply, if necessary)

66599620.4