OMB File No.: PL111184

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF section 43 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.28 Requestors: Alpa Roof Trusses Inc. and Argo Lumber Inc. Subject: Request for Review Municipality: City of Vaughan OMB Case No.: PL111184 OMB File No.: PL111184

RESPONDING RECORD OF THE CITY OF VAUGHAN TO SECTION 43 REQUEST FOR REVIEW

July 14, 2016 BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP Scotia Plaza 40 King Street West Toronto, Ontario M5H 3Y4

Rick F. Coburn Tel.: 416-367-6038 Fax: 416-361-2437 Email: [email protected]

Isaac Tang Tel.: 416-367-6143 Fax: 416-361-2740 Email: [email protected]

Counsel for the City of Vaughan

TO: ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD 655 Bay Street, Suite 1500 Toronto, Ontario M5G 1E5

Mary Ann Hunwicks, Board Secretary Tel: 416-326- 5378 Fax: 416-326-5370 Email: [email protected]

AND TO: FASKEN MARTINEAU DuMOULIN LLP 333 Bay Street, Suite 2400 Bay Adelaide Centre Toronto, Ontario M5H 2T6

W. Thomas Barlow/Sarah J. Turney Tel.: 416-868-3403 Fax: 416-364-7813 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

Counsel for Argo Lumber Inc. and Alpa Roof Trusses Inc.

AND TO: BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP Scotia Plaza 40 King Street West Toronto, Ontario M5H 3Y4

Pitman Patterson Tel.: 416-367-6109 Fax: 416-361-2459 Email: [email protected]

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK Legal Services Branch 17250 Yonge Street Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 6Z1

Frank Santaguida Tel: 905-830-4444 Fax: 905-895-3768 Email: [email protected]

Counsel for the Regional Municipality of York

AND TO: LOOPSTRA NIXON LLP 135 Queens Plate Drive, Suite 600 Toronto, Ontario M9W 6V7

Quinto M. Annibale and Steven Ferri Tel.: 416-746-4710 Fax: 416-746-8319 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

Counsel for CRH Canada Group Inc., 2203012 Ontario Limited and Blair Building Materials Inc.

OMB File No.: PL111184

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF section 43 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.28 Requestors: Alpa Roof Trusses Inc. and Argo Lumber Inc. Subject: Request for Review Municipality: City of Vaughan OMB Case No.: PL111184 OMB File No.: PL111184

INDEX

TAB DESCRIPTION

1. Responding Submissions of the City of Vaughan

2. Affidavit of Steven Dixon, sworn April 21, 2016

TOR01: 6403817: v1 TAB 1 PL111184

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF section 43 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.28 Requestors: Alpa Roof Trusses Inc. and Argo Lumber Inc. Subject: Request for Review Municipality: City of Vaughan OMB Case No.: PL111184 OMB File No.: PL111184

RESPONDING SUBMISSIONS OF THE CITY OF VAUGHAN FOR REQUEST FOR REVIEW UNDER SECTION 43

OVERVIEW OF THE CITY’S RESPONSE

1. Argo Lumber Inc. and Alpa Roof Trusses Inc. (collectively, the “Requestor”) have requested as primary relief that the Chair, pursuant to Section 43 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act, rescind that part of the Decision and Order of the Board dated August 8, 2013 in Case No. PL111184 (the “Partial Approval Order”) that reads as follows:

AND THE BOARD FURTHER ORDERS that in respect of Appeals 118, 129, 130 and 131, no land budget argument including, without limitation, s. 2.1.3.2(b), will be raised by any current or future appellant, party or participant, the City or the Region to preclude a change in the proposed residential designation of the lands that are the subject of those appeals (the “Scoping Provision”).

2. The Requestor seeks, in the alternative, an Order of the Board directing that a motion be heard to review the Board’s decision with respect to the Scoping Provision.

3. The Requestor has not requested that the Board order a rehearing with respect to the Board’s decision (although presumably such an order may be requested if the request for a motion to review is granted).

4. The City of Vaughan (the “City”) respectfully requests that the Board deny the relief sought by the Requestor as set out above.

5. The City submits that the Requestor has failed to meet the relevant tests under Rules 115 and 115.01 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure for obtaining an order granting a motion for review of the Board’s decision respecting the Scoping Provision. Accordingly, the request must be dismissed.

6. The City further submits that the primary relief requested by the Requestor cannot be granted under Rule 115 and 115.01. Such relief may only be granted under Rule 118, if and when a rehearing is granted, and if the Board Member or panel conducting the rehearing deems such relief appropriate.

7. In sum, the City requests that the Chair refuse to exercise his discretion to grant the relief sought and dismiss the Request for Review.

BACKGROUND

Background of the VOP 2010 and the Appeals

8. The Vaughan Official Plan, 2010 (“VOP 2010”) was adopted by City Council on September 7, 2010. It contains policies that direct when, where and how land use changes can occur to 2031. The VOP 2010 is the result of an extensive three-year public consultation and review process in respect of the City’s Growth Management Strategy that began in 2008. The VOP 2010 also represents the City’s response to the five year official plan review and provincial plan conformity exercise under the Planning Act (the “Act”).

Affidavit of Steven Dixon sworn April 21, 2016 (“Dixon Affidavit”) at para 4, Responding Record of the City of Vaughan (“City’s Responding Record”), Tab 2.

9. Over 157 appeals to date have been filed against the VOP 2010. Given the large number of appeals, the City has expended significant public resources to manage and address the appeals, in accordance with the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure and directions. The steps taken by the City include:

(a) reviewing the appeal letters to understand the concerns raised by the appellants;

(b) organizing the appeals by common interests;

(c) meeting with appellants to try to resolve and/or scope their issues without a hearing;

(d) attending six mediation sessions;

(e) attending over 19 pre-hearing conferences; and

(f) responding to or attending numerous motions and hearings at the Board.

Dixon Affidavit at paras 6-7, City’s Responding Record, Tab 2. Note that certain numbers have been updated since the Dixon Affidavit was sworn (April 28, 2016) as a matter of public record.

10. The above efforts have been made increasingly difficult by the growing number of appeals filed to the VOP 2010, the most recent appeal having been filed on June 16, 2016.

Dixon Affidavit at para 8, City’s Responding Record, Tab 2. Note that the date of the latest appeal filed has been updated since the Dixon Affidavit was sworn (April 28, 2016) as a matter of public record.

2

11. Holcim (Canada) Inc. (now CRH Canada Group Inc.), 2203012 Ontario Limited and Blair Building Materials Inc. (collectively, the “Appellants”) own lands in a triangular- shaped area located north of McNaughton Road, east of Keele Street, south of Teston Road, and west of the former Keele Valley Landfill Site in the City of Vaughan (the “Triangle Lands”). The Requestor’s lands are located immediately south of the lands owned by the Appellants and are also within the Triangle Lands.

Affidavit of Debra Kakaria, sworn November 17, 2015 (“Kakaria Affidavit”) at para 7 and Exhibit ‘D’, Appellants’ Responding Record.

12. The VOP 2010, as adopted by City Council, proposed to convert the Triangle Lands from employment to residential uses. The Appellants appealed the VOP 2010 to retain the employment designation of the Triangle Lands. The Appellants’ appeals are identified as Appeal Nos. 129, 130 and 131 (the “Appeals”). The Appeals were filed by the Appellants on or about July 19, 2013. The Appeals challenged, among other things, the City’s growth management policies and key land use schedules on a City-wide basis.

Dixon Affidavit at paras 12-14, City’s Responding Record, Tab 2.

13. The Requestor did not appeal the VOP 2010. Approximately 7 weeks after the filing of the Appeals (and after the issuance of the Partial Approval Order containing the Scoping Provision), on or about September 10, 2013 (Order issued October 3, 2013), the Requestor requested and obtained party status in connection with the Appeals.

Dixon Affidavit at para 6, City’s Responding Record, Tab 2.

The City’s Process of Scoping Appeals Leading to the Partial Approval Order Containing the Scoping Provision

14. The VOP 2010 hearing is a Growth Plan hearing. These hearings typically involve multiple parties, numerous issues and changes to official plan policies that may affect pending planning applications. The Board has issued practice directions for such hearings, recognizing that the nature of these hearings demands a fair, cost-effective and efficient process to ensure that appeals are resolved in a timely manner.

Ontario Municipal Board Practice Directions for Growth Plan Hearings, Joint Brief of Authorities of the Region and the City (“Joint Brief of Authorities”), Tab 5.

15. The first pre-hearing conference was held with respect to the VOP 2010 in November 2012. Since that date, the City has continued to meet, discuss and correspond with parties in an attempt to scope the appeals to specific policies and/or to specific sites in the City. This ongoing process allowed the City to identify parts of the VOP 2010 that were no longer being challenged on a City-wide basis.

Dixon Affidavit at paras 9-10, City’s Responding Record, Tab 2.

16. After lengthy consultations with numerous parties to identify parts of the VOP 2010 that were no longer at issue, the City brought a motion for partial approval returnable on July 23, 2013. One of the parts of the VOP 2010 that the City sought to approve was the

3

growth management policies, including sections 2.1.32 b) and g) of the VOP 2010, held under appeal by the Appellants.

Dixon Affidavit at para 15 and 16, City’s Responding Record, Tab 2.

17. The Appellants initially challenged the City’s motion for partial approval. The Appellants were concerned about the approval of the City’s growth management policies and land use schedules on a City-wide basis. Ultimately, the Appellants agreed to scope the Appeals on the condition that the Scoping Provision is included in the Partial Approval Order. The effect of reaching agreement with respect to the Partial Approval Order was that substantial parts of the VOP 2010 were approved.

Affidavit of Quinto Annibale, sworn April 22, 2016 (“Annibale Affidavit”) at paras 4-7, Appellants’ Responding Record.

Dixon Affidavit at para. 17, City’s Responding Record, Tab 2.

18. The Partial Approval Order was issued on August 8, 2013. The Partial Approval Order represents a significant step forward in the VOP 2010 hearing process. The Partial Approval Order brought into force and effect all of Chapters 1 and 7 and various parts of Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 of the VOP 2010. In addition, 16 of the 17 schedules to the VOP 2010 were approved on a City-wide basis, including the key land use schedules (Schedule 1, “Urban Structure” and Schedule 13, “Land Use”).

Partial Approval Order issued on August 8, 2013, Joint Brief of Authorities, Tab 6.

19. From the City’s perspective, the scoping of the Appeals was instrumental in achieving at least three important planning objectives in this process: (1) approving the growth management policies, (2) allowing the approval of the majority of the land use schedules, which solidified the vast majority of the City’s lands to be used for residential or employment purposes, and (3) narrowing the scope of the issues before the Board respecting the Appeals at a future hearing.

Dixon Affidavit at para 18, City’s Responding Record, Tab 2.

CITY’S RESPONDING SUBMISSIONS TO THE REQUEST FOR REVIEW

20. It is well-established that the Requestor must establish a “convincing and compelling case” in order to be granted a motion to review and that the threshold for establishing a “convincing and compelling case” for Section 43 review is a very high bar. The Board considers a compelling case one that is “so attractive as to be overpowering and irresistible.”

Aurora 2C West Landowners Group Inc. v. Aurora (Town) (2012), 72 O.M.B.R. 88 at para 10, Joint Brief of Authorities, Tab 14.

Citizens Coalition of Greater Fort Erie v. Niagara (Regional Municipality), [2013] O.M.B.D. No. 450, 11 M.P.L.R. (5th) 157, 77 O.M.B.R. 76 (“Citizens Coalition”) at para 47, Joint Brief of Authorities, Tab 10.

4

21. Pursuant to Rule 115.01 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Chair may exercise his discretion and grant a request and order either a rehearing of the proceeding or a motion to review the decision only if the Chair is satisfied that the request for review raises a convincing and compelling case that the Board (emphasis added):

(a) acted outside its jurisdiction;

(b) violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness, including those against bias;

(c) made an error of law or fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision;

(d) heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and would have affected the result; or

(e) should consider evidence which was not available at the time of the hearing, but that is credible and could have affected the result.

Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 115.01, Joint Brief of Authorities, Tab 4.

22. The Request for Review is ostensibly based on clauses (a), (b) and (e) of Rule 115.01; viz. that the Board: (a) acted outside its jurisdiction; (b) violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness; or (e) should consider evidence which was not available at the time of the hearing but is credible and could have affected the result.

23. The Requestor has failed to establish a convincing and compelling case in respect of any of the criteria for the granting of an order for a motion for review (or a rehearing) set out in clauses (a) to (e) of Rule 115.01. The Request for Review must therefore be denied.

There Is No New Evidence Adduced by the Requestor for the Board to Consider

24. Notwithstanding that the Requestor refers to Rule 115.01 (e) in its reasons for request, the Requestor has failed to indicate that there is any new evidence which was not available to the Board at the July 23, 2013 hearing when the Board heard the partial approval motion.

25. It appears that if the Request for Review is ultimately granted and the Scoping Provision is rescinded, the Requestor wishes to make an argument based on a specific piece of information or material (namely, a background report prepared by Hemson Consulting Ltd. entitled, “Housing Analysis and Employment Land Needs” (2010) (the “Hemson Report”)) that was available to Council when it adopted the VOP 2010 in September 2010. The Hemson Report existed at the time the Board made its decision on July 23, 2013 and therefore is not “new evidence”.

Request for Review at para (f), Request Record at Tab 1.

26. The only new facts that the Requestor references as arising after the Board’s decision with respect to the Scoping Provision is that the Requestor itself became a party and that

5

the Appellants reached a settlement with the City. These facts do not constitute “new evidence” within the meaning of Rule 115.01 for the following reasons:

(a) Settlements of appeals in Growth Plan hearings are normal practice. Many site specific settlements result in changes to land use designations. Finality would never be achieved if an agreement reached by some of the parties allowed a new party to challenge prior Board Orders through a Section 43 review on the grounds that the Board should consider this information as “new evidence”.

(b) Even if an agreement between the City and the Appellants constituted “new evidence”, there is no evidence that such “new evidence” could have affected the result of the Board decision.

(c) All parties, including the Board, would have been aware of the Appellants’ position as reflected in the Appeals and that new parties might come forward in the event of an ultimate hearing. Indeed, the Scoping Provision itself speaks prospectively, anticipating that circumstances relating to the Appeals could change and that new parties might be added. The emergence of the Requestor is not “new evidence” for the Board to consider under Rule 115.01.

27. Finally, the City observes that the Requestor also invites the Board to consider “submissions” which were not available at the time of the hearing, but that are credible and could have affected the result. Only evidence, and not submissions, falls under the scope of Rule 115.01 (e).

There Is No Evidence of Prejudice to the Requestor

28. The Requestor also appears to raise the issue of prejudice as a separate ground for review. Prejudice is not one of the enumerated criteria under Rule 115.01. Moreover, the allegation of prejudice to the Requestor is not supported by the affidavit evidence filed by the Requestor. The Requestor’s lands are currently designated and zoned for industrial use and the Requestor has filed no application or submitted other evidence that a change in use is intended. On the other hand, there would be severe prejudice to the City if the ultimate relief sought by the Requestor were granted, as set out in Mr. Dixon’s affidavit. This prejudice is discussed in paragraphs 61 to 64 of the City’s Responding Submissions.

Dixon Affidavit at para 19, City’s Responding Record, Tab 2.

The Board Did Not Act Outside Its Jurisdiction

29. The Requestor asserts that the Board acted outside its jurisdiction by fettering its discretion and decision-making power, citing section 2.1 of the Act. This argument is incoherent and without substance. The Scoping Provision merely limits the arguments that an appellant, party or participant may raise with respect to the Appeals. The Scoping Provision does not purport to limit the Board’s discretion or decision-making power in any way.

Request for Review at para (x), Request Record at Tab 1.

6

30. Moreover, there is nothing in the Scoping Provision that would preclude a party from placing before the Board all supporting information and material that was considered by Council in making its decision to adopt the VOP 2010, including the Hemson Report, or preclude the Board from having regard to such material. The Scoping Provision only limits the parties from raising land budget arguments to preclude a change in the proposed residential designation for the Triangle Lands.

31. Section 2.1 states:

2.1 When an approval authority or the Municipal Board makes a decision under this Act that relates to a planning matter, it shall have regard to,

(a) any decision that is made under this Act by a municipal council or by an approval authority and relates to the same planning matter; and

(b) any supporting information and material that the municipal council or approval authority considered in making the decision described in clause (a).

Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 2.1, Joint Brief of Authorities, Tab 1.

Section 2.1 Does Not Limit the Board’s Powers to Scope the Issues for a Hearing

32. While the Board must have regard to supporting information and material that council considered in making its decision, s. 2.1 of the Act does not require the Board to hear submissions from the parties on each and every piece of supporting information or material put before council. Indeed, if s. 2.1 of the Act meant that the Board must hear submissions from the parties on all supporting information and material put before Council, scoping would be futile and case management would cease to have any effective meaning. Parties could ignore procedural orders with impunity. This interpretation would be particularly unworkable for Growth Plan hearings such as this one, where numerous background reports, including inter alia the Hemson Report, were considered by City Council in making its decision to adopt the VOP 2010 in September 2010.

33. The Requestor’s interpretation of s. 2.1 of the Act is also contrary to the Board’s recognition that scoping is a necessary process in Growth Plan hearings. Not only is there a duty on parties to scope their appeals, the Board has the authority to make demands for scoping on any party appearing before it.

Decision from OMB Case Nos. PL101128, PL101233, PL101237 and PL101238 issued June 22, 2012 at pp. 6-7, Joint Brief of Authorities, Tab 20.

34. Finally, the Requestor’s interpretation of s. 2.1 of the Act undermines the Board’s authority to control its own process. This interpretation conflicts with the broad powers granted to the Board under the Ontario Municipal Board Act, including Sections 35, 36 and 37:

7

35. The Board, as to all matters within its jurisdiction under this Act, has authority to hear and determine all questions of law or of fact.

36. The Board has exclusive jurisdiction in all cases and in respect of all matters in which jurisdiction is conferred on it by this Act or by any other general or special Act.

37. The Board has jurisdiction and power,

(a) to hear and determine all applications made, proceedings instituted and matters brought before it under this Act or any other general or special Act and for such purpose to make such orders, rules and regulations, give such directions, issue such certificates and otherwise do and perform all such acts, matters, deeds and things, as may be necessary or incidental to the exercise of the powers conferred upon the Board under such Act;

(b) to perform such other functions and duties as are now or hereafter conferred upon or assigned to the Board by statute or under statutory authority;

(c) to order and require or forbid, forthwith or within any specified time and in any manner prescribed by the Board, the doing of any act, matter or thing or the omission or abstention from doing or continuance of any act, matter or thing, which any person, firm, company, corporation or municipality is or may be required to do or omit to be done or to abstain from doing or continuing under this or any other general or special Act, or under any order of the Board or any regulation, rule, by-law or direction made or given under any such Act or order or under any agreement entered into by such person, firm, company, corporation or municipality;

(d) to make, give or issue or refuse to make, give or issue any order, directions, regulation, rule, permission, approval, certificate or direction, which it has power to make, give or issue.

(e) despite the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, to hold hearings or other proceedings by a conference telephone call or any other electronic or automated means, subject to any rules made by the Board under section 91 regulating their use.

Ontario Municipal Board Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.28, s. 35, 36 and 37, Joint Brief of Authorities, Tab 3.

35. The powers granted to the Board have been interpreted broadly and allow it to be the master of its own procedures. Such procedures include determining the scope of issues, procedures to be followed and policy choices to be made and applied in order to arrive at a sound planning decision.

8

Shell Canada Products Ltd. v. Richmond Hill (Town), [2006] O.M.B.D. No. 209 at para 17, Joint Brief of Authorities, Tab 21.

The Requestor Fails to Establish Any Coherent Connection Between Section 2.1 of the Act and the Matters Before the Board

36. The Requestor fails to provide any evidence to substantiate that the Hemson Report would be relevant to a hearing on the merits of this case, that a land budget argument would be relevant, or that a land budget argument even exists to be made on the basis of the Hemson Report.

37. The evidence put forward in support of the request in this regard is contained in paragraph 14 of Mr. Mason’s affidavit:

From a planning perspective, the ability of the City to meet its residential land inventory targets is a relevant factor for the Board to consider when it decides whether the proposed Settlement represents good land use planning. If, for example, the City's decision to reverse its 2010 adopted Official Plan position, without addressing the findings in the Hemson report, results in a shortfall in the City's residential land inventory, that fact should be known to the Board. These land budget issues, together with compatibility matters, were addressed in the Hemson Study that was before Council when it passed the City of Vaughan's Official Plan (2010), and are relevant planning considerations in the context of the proposed Settlement. [Emphasis added]

Request for Review at para (ff), Request Record at Tab 1.

Affidavit of Roy Mason, sworn April 13, 2016 at para 14, Request Record at Tab 2.

38. With respect, Mr. Mason’s general perspective on what a relevant factor may be for the Board to consider, followed by a hypothetical statement with an unsubstantiated premise, is not evidence capable of satisfying the convincing and compelling test for granting a Section 43 review.

39. The Requestor has failed to substantiate through the evidence filed with the request how one piece of information (namely, the Hemson Report) is relevant to the merits of this case. This is fatal to the request. As noted by the Board in Citizens Coalition, “a request cannot be found to be convincing and compelling if, to arrive at the destination sought by the requesting party, the Board is left to fill in gaps or make assumptions.”

Citizens Coalition at para 48, Joint Brief of Authorities, Tab 10.

The Requestor Also Misinterprets the “Have Regard To” Test Under Section 2.1

40. The Requestor submits that “in order for the Board to properly discharge its duties under the Act, the Board must scrutinize Council’s decision by allowing the parties to make

9

submissions and lead evidence on land budget issues so that the Board can properly consider the Hemson Report …”

Request for Review at para (bb), Request Record at Tab 1.

41. The Requestor fails to provide any authority for the proposition that a duty to have regard implies a duty to allow parties to make submissions. Moreover, the Requestor fails to provide any evidence to substantiate the bare assertion that the Board would be unable to properly consider the Hemson Report as part of the record as a result of the Scoping Provision.

42. The Requestor also fails to direct the Board’s attention to the leading case with respect to s. 2.1 of the Act. The leading case that considers the scope of the Board’s obligation under s. 2.1 is Ottawa (City) v. Minto Communities Inc., where the Divisional Court states:

In my view, the Board's obligation is better articulated in paragraph 30 of the Keswick Sutherland decision quoted above. The words "have regard to" do not by themselves suggest more than minimal deference to the decision of Municipal Council. However, in the context of the Planning Act, and balancing the public interest mandates of both the Board and the municipality, I would agree with Member Stefanko in Keswick Sutherland that the Board has an obligation to at least scrutinize and carefully consider the Council decision, as well as the information and material that was before Council. [Emphasis added]

Ottawa (City) v. Minto Communities Inc., [2009] O.J. No. 4913 313 D.L.R. (4th) 419 at para 33, Joint Brief of Authorities, Tab 17.

43. The obligation for “minimal deference” and to “scrutinize and carefully consider” applies not only to council’s decision, but to the supporting information and material before council. It is clear that this duty to review is not a high bar and would be subject to considerations of relevance in any event. The legislative framework of the Act clearly allows parties to appeal a decision of a council and that the Board may overturn that decision. Notwithstanding the Board’s obligation to have regard to the information before council, it is incumbent on the Board to retain its independent decision making authority with respect to matters before it. Part of this independent decision making authority includes determining the arguments and issues that parties may raise, as the Board did in this case when it issued the Partial Approval Order including the Scoping Provision.

Keswick Sutherland School Inc. v. Halton (Municipality), [2009] O.M.B.D. No. 618, 63 O.M.B.R. 227 at para 30, Joint Brief of Authorities, Tab 18.

10

The Board Did Not Violate the Rules of Natural Justice or Procedural Fairness

44. The principles of natural justice and procedural fairness refer to procedures that must be met before it can be said that a statutory decision maker has acted fairly and thus intra vires. In general, where no written rules of procedure exist in the statute or regulations, a tribunal may choose the procedure best suited to the task at hand, provided that all parties are treated fairly.

Guy Régimbald, Canadian Administrative Law, 2d ed at pp. 9-10, Joint Brief of Authorities, Tab 22.

45. A Section 43 request will not be found to be convincing and compelling if, following submissions, the Board is unable to identify which natural justice or procedural fairness rules or rights have been violated, or what was procedurally prejudicial.

Citizens Coalition at para 48, Joint Brief of Authorities, Tab 10.

The Requestor’s Right to be Heard Is Subject to Procedural Requirements Including Scoping

46. The Requestor has failed to establish a clear and compelling case that its right to be heard is being infringed, or that any such infringement (if it exists) is contrary to the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness.

47. The Requestor asserts that in order for the Board to make a full and fair decision, it must allow the presentation and consideration of land budget evidence – “[t]o do so otherwise takes away the Requestor’s right to be heard ....” This is tantamount to saying that a party has a right to be heard on any issue it chooses to raise at a hearing. Accepting the Requestor’s interpretation would mean that an approved Issues List, which necessarily limits the types of issues that will be raised at a hearing, amounts to a breach of natural justice or procedural fairness.

Request for Review at para (dd), Request Record at Tab 1.

48. The right to be heard does not mean the right to be heard on all things. This right must be considered in light of other rights, duties and obligations which exist in the context of a large, multi-party proceeding with a multiplicity of potential issues and overlapping interests.

49. In this case, the matter presently before the Board for a hearing is the resolution of the Appeals, and more specifically, the appropriate land use policies and designations for the Triangle Lands. The Requestor’s right to be heard is subject to and conditioned by:

(a) directions issued by the Board in prior Board Orders and decisions, including the Partial Approval Order;

(b) the Procedural Order for the Appeals, including the Issues List; and

(c) the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

11

50. The Requestor baldly states that the Scoping Provision “seriously and materially impacts the Requestor’s legal rights before the Board”. However no evidence (other than a generalized assertion followed by the hypothetical posed by Mr. Mason in paragraph 14 of his affidavit) is advanced to support this assertion.

Request for Review at para (ff), Request Record at Tab 1.

There Are No Valid or Well-Founded Reasons to Threaten the Finality of the Partial Approval Order

51. The first pre-hearing conference took place on November 14, 2012. By the third pre- hearing conference, 122 appeals to the VOP 2010 have been filed. The Requestor chose not to file an appeal and only sought party status in connection with the Appeals. The Requestor was presumably aware of the substance of the Appeals, and was also aware of, or ought to have been aware of, prior Board Orders including the Partial Approval Order containing the Scoping Provision which relate specifically to the Appeals, since its party status was granted in connection to the Appeals.

52. The Partial Approval Order was issued on August 8, 2013, approximately one month before the date the Requestor was granted party status. The Request for Review is dated May 13, 2016, almost three years since the Partial Approval Order was issued. No explanation has been given in the Request for Review of this lengthy delay.

53. The Requestor claims that it did not have an opportunity to address the Board on the Scoping Provision because it was not a party to the proceedings at the time the Partial Approval Order was approved. However, even after the Requestor was granted party status, it expressed no concerns with the Scoping Provision. On November 17, 2015 the Appellants served a motion record supporting a change in the residential designation to all parties including the Requestor. If the Requestor was truly concerned that the Scoping Provision would “seriously and materially” impact its legal rights before the Board, it should have made a Request for Review at that time. Instead, the Requestor waited almost half a year later before filing the Request for Review. Again, no explanation has been provided of this delay.

Request for Review at para (u), Request Record at Tab 1.

54. Rule 113(c) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure states:

113. The Board will not consider a request for review:

(c) the request is filed 30 days after the date of the Board’s written decision unless the Chair determines that there is a valid and well-founded reason to extend this time.

Rule 113(c), Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, Joint Brief of Authorities, Tab 4.

12

55. The onus rests on the Requestor to explain such a lengthy delay in view of the legislative intent that a Board decision ought to bring some finality to the matter and the right of parties to rely on that finality.

North Barrie Developments Ltd. v. Barrie (City), [1999] O.M.B.D. No. 439, 5 M.P.L.R. (3d) 44 at paras 6 and 12, Joint Brief of Authorities, Tab 15.

56. As the record shows, the Requestor has not provided any reasons, well-founded or otherwise, to extend the 30 day limitation period in the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Absent valid or well-founded reasons, the Chair should refuse to extend the time to consider a request for review.

57. The right of parties to rely on the finality of the Partial Approval Order, including the Scoping Provision, is particularly important in this case. As noted earlier, the Partial Approval Order represented a significant step in moving the VOP 2010 appeal process forward. Without the Scoping Provision, the Appellants would not have consented to the motion for partial approval.

Annibale Affidavit at paras 7 and 11, Appellants’ Responding Record.

The Requestor Still Has the Right to Participate in the Appellants’ Hearing and Argue Its Case for Residential Development on the Merits

58. The Triangle Lands (including the lands owned by the Requestor) are currently being used for industrial purposes. The existing uses include a concrete batching plant, asphalt plant, recycling depot, auto repair garage, lumber yard and self-storage facilities.

Kakaria Affidavit at paras 8-9, Appellants’ Responding Record.

59. The issues identified in the approved Issues List for the hearing of the Appeals include:

Issue 3: Are the current policies in the VOP 2010 adequate to address compatibility issues with existing and proposed land uses in the Employment Triangle or do the Proposed Amendments better address compatibility issues?

Issue 4: If the Employment Triangle is designated as set out in the Proposed Amendments, should policies be added to the VOP 2010 to contemplate and support a future re-designation of the Employment Triangle, or parts thereof, to residential in addition to those already Proposed?

Attachment “A” to Decision and Order from OMB Case No. PL111184 issued June 9, 2016, Joint Brief of Authorities, Tab 8.

60. Land use compatibility issues and the merits of policies to contemplate and support a future re-designation of the Triangle Lands, or parts thereof, to residential use are before the Board for adjudication. The Requestor has provided no evidence that its inability to

13

raise a land budget argument impedes its ability to put forward a case with respect to the appropriate designation of its lands on a site-specific basis.

There is No Evidence of Prejudice to the Requestor If Request for Review is Denied, but Extreme Prejudice to the City if Request for Review is Granted

61. The Requestor has provided no evidence supporting its allegation of prejudice if the Request for Review is denied. Mr. Mason’s affidavit is silent on this issue.

62. The Requestor’s lands are currently designated as “Prestige Industrial” or “Industrial” in the in-force official plan through OPA 332. In its Request for Review, the Requestor submits that “[t]he Settlement, if permitted, would cause serious prejudice to the Requestor by impairing the value and development potential of its lands”. Loss of land value is not a relevant planning consideration when the Board assesses whether a decision represents good planning. The designation sought by the Appellants clearly would not impair the existing uses.

Kakaria Affidavit at para 12, Appellants’ Responding Record.

Request for Review at para (j), Request Record at Tab 1.

Spring Village Inc. v. Waterloo (City), [2009] O.M.B.D. No. 582, 62 O.M.B.R. 401 at para 14, Request Record at Tab 6.

63. By contrast, there would be substantial prejudice to the City if the Request for Review is granted. The scoping of Appeals was instrumental in the achievement of the Partial Approval Order. If the ultimate relief sought by the Requestor (i.e. allowing the Requestor to raise land budget arguments) was granted, the City would be severely prejudiced since:

(a) it would likely result in other parties to the VOP 2010 seeking party status in the Appeals on the basis that they may potentially be affected by a land budget argument;

(b) it would put into question any certainty with respect to the approval of the growth management policies, the land budget and land use designations on a City-wide basis, potentially affecting the interests of numerous parties; and

(c) it may result in a hearing of undetermined length, size and complexity with respect to the Appeals.

Dixon Affidavit at para 19, City’s Responding Record, Tab 2.

64. Granting the Request for Review may also undermine the City’s (and the Board’s) ability to manage Growth Plan hearings in the future. Parties may be reluctant to scope their appeals and consent to partial approvals if there was a risk that a future party could, by a Request for Review, undo the scoping exercise that provided the assurance that certain issues will not be raised at a future hearing.

14

STATUTORY AND OTHER GROUNDS

65. Section 2.1 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.

66. Sections 35, 36, 37, 43 and 91 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.28, as amended.

67. Rules 3-6, 97 and 110-119 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

68. Such further and other grounds as the City may advise and the Board permits.

THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE will be relied upon by the City:

69. Affidavit of Steven Dixon, sworn April 21, 2016, contained in Exhibit “M-2”, the Responding Motion Record of the City filed in response to the Requestor’s motion returnable on April 28, 2016.

70. Affidavit of Quinto Annibale, sworn April 22, 2016, contained in Exhibit “M-4”, the Appellants’ Responding Motion Record filed in response to the Requestor’s motion returnable on April 28, 2016.

71. Affidavit of Debra Kakaria, sworn November 17, 2015, contained in Exhibit “91-1A”, the Appellants’ Motion Record filed for the Appellants’ motion returnable on December 2, 2015 (since adjourned).

72. Affidavit of Roy Mason, sworn April 13, 2016, contained in Exhibit “M-1”, the Motion Record of the Requestor filed for the Requestor’s motion returnable on April 28, 2016.

73. Request for Relief and Responding Submissions filed by the parties with the Board.

74. Such further and other materials as counsel may advise and the Board permits.

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Scotia Plaza 40 King Street West Toronto, ON M5H 3Y4

Rick Coburn Tel: 416-367-6038 Fax: 416-361-2437 Email: [email protected]

Isaac Tang Tel: 416-367-6143 Fax: 416-361-2740 Email: [email protected]

Counsel for the City of Vaughan

15

TO: Ontario Municipal Board 655 Bay Street, Suite 1500 Toronto ON, M5G 1E5

Attn: Mary Ann Hunwicks, Board Secretary Tel: 416-326- 5378 Fax: 416-326-5370 Email: [email protected]

AND Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP TO: 333 Bay Street, Suite 2400 Bay Adelaide Centre Toronto ON, M5H 2T6

W. Thomas Barlow Tel: 416-868-3403 Fax: 416-364-7813 Email: [email protected]

Sarah Jane Turney Tel: 416-865-4542 Fax: 416-364-7813 Email: [email protected]

Counsel for Argo Lumber Inc. and Alpa Roof Trustees Inc.

16

AND Borden Ladner Gervais LLP TO: Scotia Plaza 40 King Street West Toronto, ON M5H 3Y4

Pitman Patterson Tel: 416-367-6109 Fax: 416-361-2459 Email: [email protected]

The Regional Municipality of York 17250 Yonge Street, 4th Floor Newmarket, ON L3Y 6Z1

Frank Santaguida Tel: 905-830-4444 ext. 71459 Fax: (905) 895-3768 Email: [email protected]

Counsel for the Regional Municipality of York

AND Loopstra Nixon LLP TO: 135 Queen Plate Drive, Suite 600 Toronto ON M9W 6V7

Quinto M. Annibale Tel: 416-746-4710 Fax: 416-746-8319 Email: [email protected]

Steven Ferri Tel: 416-748-4752 Fax: 416-746-8319 Email: [email protected]

Counsel for CRH Canada Group Inc. (Appellant No. 129), 2203012 Ontario Limited (Appellant No. 130) and Blair Building Materials Inc. (Appellant No. 131)

17

PL111184 IN THE MATTER OF section 43 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.28 Requestors: Alpa Roof Trusses Inc. and Argo Lumber Inc. Subject: Request for Review Municipality: City of Vaughan OMB Case No.: PL111184 OMB File No.: PL111184

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD

RESPONDING SUBMISSIONS OF THE CITY OF VAUGHAN FOR REQUEST FOR REVIEW UNDER SECTION 43

BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP Lawyers, Patent & Trade-mark Agents Scotia Plaza 40 King Street West Toronto, ON M5H 3Y4

Rick F. Coburn (LSUC #30604O) 416-367-6038 – Tel. 416-361-2437 – Fax [email protected]

Isaac Tang (LSUC #60631G) 416-367-6143 – Tel. 416-361-2740 – Fax [email protected]

Lawyers for The City of Vaughan

TAB 2 OMB File No.: PL111184

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD Commission des affaires municipals de l’Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF a proceeding commenced under subsection 17(40) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended

Appellants: 1042710OntarioLimited Appellants: 1191621OntarioInc. Appellants: 1529749OntarioInc. Appellants: 1541677OntarioInc.andOthers Subject: Failure of the Regional Municipality of York to announcea decision respecting the proposed new Official Plan for the City of Vaughan Municipality: CityofVaughan OMBCaseNo.: PL111184 OMBFileNo.: PL111184

AFFIDAVIT OF STEVEN DIXON Sworn April 21, 2016

(Motion by ARGO LUMBER INC. and ALPA ROOF TRUSSES INC., returnable April 28, 2016)

I, STEVEN DIXON, of the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:

1. I am a Senior Planner in the Policy Planning and Environmental Sustainability Department of the City of Vaughan (the “City”). I am a Registered Professional Planner and a member of the Canadian Institute of Planners. I have several years of professional planning experience and have been qualified before the Ontario Municipal Board (the “OMB” or “Board”) to give expert evidence in land use planning on numerous occasions. Where I express an opinion on matters deposed in this Affidavit, it constitutes my professional land use planning opinion on those matters unless otherwise stated.

2. I have been and continue to be directly involved in discussions with City staff and various appellants and parties to these proceedings and act as the lead planner coordinating the approval of the Vaughan Official Plan (the “Plan” or “VOP 2010”). As

1 such, I have knowledge of the matters herein deposed. Where I do not have personal knowledge, I have stated the source of my information and verily believe it to be true.

3. A copy of my current curriculum vitae is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” to this Affidavit. A copy of my Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B”.

The VOP 2010 and Challenges in Case Management

4. I have been directly involved in matters respecting the VOP 2010 since its initial adoption by City Council on September 7, 2010. The VOP 2010 sets out the City’s vision for land use and development to the year 2031. The VOP 2010 is the result of an extensive three-year public consultation and review process in respect of the City’s Growth Management Strategy, also known as “Vaughan Tomorrow” that began in 2008.

5. Council subsequently modified the VOP 2010 on September 27, 2011, March 20, 2012 and April 17, 2012. Regional Council endorsed the VOP 2010 with modifications on June 28, 2012, but did not approve the VOP 2010 within the statutory period under by the Planning Act.

6. As a result of Regional Council’s non-decision, 157 appeals to date have been filed against the VOP 2010. Three appeals, Appeals No. 129, 130 and 131 (the “Appeals”), were filed by Holcim (Canada) Inc., 2203012 Ontario Limited and Blair Building Materials Inc. (collectively, the “Appellants”), which I will describe in further detail in this Affidavit. Argo Lumber Inc. and Alpa Roof Trusses Inc. (the “Moving Parties”) have not filed an appeal; however, the Moving Parties were granted party status in connection with the Appeals by Order of the Board issued October 3, 2013. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is copy of this Order.

7. Given the number of appeals to the VOP 2010, the City has expended significant public resources to attempt to manage and address the appeals. These resources include:

(a) reviewing the appeal letters to understand the concerns raised by the appellants; (b) organizing the appeals by common interests; (c) meeting with appellants to try to resolve and/or scope their issues without a hearing;

2 (d) attending six mediation sessions (November 2013, January and November 2014, and April, June and October 2015); (e) attending 19 pre-hearing conferences; and (f) responding to or attending numerous motions and hearings at the Board.

8. The above tasks are made increasingly difficult by the growing number of appeals filed to the VOP 2010, the most recent appeal having been filed on March 22, 2016. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a chart prepared by City planning staff summarizing the status of the appeals.

9. To manage the large number of appeals, at the first pre-hearing conference on November 14, 2012, the City through its counsel requested that the Board set a deadline when appellants and parties must indicate the particular policies they wish to challenge. The City also asked that the Board direct that appellants and parties identify whether their appeals are in relation to specific land holdings or not. In response to the City’s request, the Board set a deadline of January 7, 2013 when this information must be provided to the City. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the Board’s Order issued on December 18, 2012 for the first pre-hearing conference.

10. Since November 2012, City staff and counsel have continued to meet, discuss and correspond with the parties in an attempt to scope the appeals and identify specific sections of the VOP 2010 that are at issue. Through this process the City and parties have also determined whether appeals are related to a specific property or area. This ongoing process of scoping of issues and scoping of appeals has allowed the City to identify parts of the VOP 2010 that were not being challenged on a City-wide basis and that were subsequently brought forward to the Board for approval.

The Appellants’ Interest in the VOP 2010

11. The Appellants constitute three owners of four individual parcels of land known municipally as 10351, 10431 and 10445, 10475 Keele Street, in the City of Vaughan and are collectively referred to as the Maple Industrial Landowners Group (“MILG”). These parcels are located within a larger triangular-shaped area hosting primarily industrial uses located north of McNaughton Road, east of Keele Street, south of Teston Road, and west of the former Keele Valley Landfill Site (the “Triangle Lands”). The Triangle Lands are within the City’s built boundary. Exhibit “C” to the Affidavit of Debra Kakaria,

3 sworn November 17, 2015 and forming part of the Appellants’ Motion Record dated November 17, 2015, shows the location of the Triangle Lands and the four parcels of land owned by the Appellants.

12. On July 19, 2013, the Appellants filed Appeal Nos. 129, 130 and 131 to the VOP 2010 (the “Appeals”). Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “F” is a copy of the appeal letters. I note that Appeal No. 118, which was filed jointly by MILG and referred to in the Moving Parties’ Notice of Motion, has since been withdrawn. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “G” is a copy of the withdrawal letter for Appeal No. 118.

13. The appeal letters filed by the Appellants are virtually identical. From my review of the policies initially held under appeal by the Appellants, the Appellants objected to the re- designation of the Triangle Lands from an employment to a residential designation. Sections 2.1.3.2 b) and g) of the VOP 2010 were among the list of policies being held under appeal on a City-wide basis. These policies, which refer to the City’s growth management for residential intensification and employment lands, state:

It is the policy of Council:

2.1.3.2 To address the City’s main land-use planning challenges and to manage future growth by:

b. directing a minimum of 29,300 residential units through intensification within the built boundary;

g. ensuring a sufficient supply of employment lands are maintained to support economic growth;

14. Accordingly, the Appellants originally challenged the City’s growth management policies, insofar as they pertain to residential intensification and the supply of employment lands as part of their opposition to the re-designation of lands from an employment designation to a residential designation.

4 The City’s Motion for Partial Approval and the Board’s Order to Scope

15. On July 23, 2013, after lengthy consultations with numerous parties to identify parts of the VOP 2010 that were no longer at issue, the City brought a motion for approval of parts of the VOP 2010 (the “Partial Approval Motion”).

16. One of the parts of the VOP 2010 that the City sought to approve was the growth management policies, including Sections 2.1.3.2 b) and g), held under appeal by the Appellants on a City-wide basis.

17. Ultimately, the Appeals and the appeals of numerous other appellants were scoped, such that Sections 2.1.3.2 b) and g), and other policies and schedules of the VOP 2010 were able to be approved. In its order issued on August 8, 2013 granting partial approval of the VOP 2010, the Board dealt specifically with the scoping of the Appeals, as follows:

AND THE BOARD FURTHER ORDERS that in respect of Appeals 118, 129, 130 and 131 no land budget argument including, without limitation s.2.1.3.2(b), will be raised by any current or future appellant, party or participant, the City or the Region to preclude a change in the proposed residential designation of the lands that are the subject of those appeals.

Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “H” is a copy of the Order of the Board dated August 8, 2013 that includes the above order (the “Order to Scope”).

Prejudice to the Cityif Relief Sought by the Moving Parties is Granted

18. In my opinion, the scoping of the Appeals was instrumental in achieving at least three important planning objectives that are critical in the VOP 2010 approval process:

(i) it allowed for the approval of the City-wide growth management policies that the Appellants had originally held under appeal, including Sections 2.1.3.2 b) and g);

(ii) it allowedfor the approval of the majority of Schedule 13 “LandUse” to the VOP 2010, which solidified the vast majority of City lands to be used for residential or employment purposes; and

5

Steven J. Dixon, BES, MES, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Senior Planner

EDUCATION Master of Environment and Sustainability, University of Western Ontario, 2010 Bachelor of Environmental Studies, Honours Planning, University of Waterloo, 2008

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Member, Canadian Institute of Planners Registered Professional Planner, Ontario Professional Planners Institute

EMPLOYMENT City of Vaughan 2014 – Present Senior Planner - OMB, Policy Planning & Environmental Sustainability  Coordinate the resolution of appeals to the Vaughan Official Plan  Provide expert evidence and testimony before the Ontario Municipal Board  Responsible for interpreting official plan policies and providing expert planning opinion to landowners, developers and consultants  Responsible for the review, creation and modification of official plan and secondary plan policies, where necessary, to ensure that the appropriate policy foundation is provided to maintain the vision for the City of Vaughan and protect the public interest while addressing individual landowner concerns

2011 – 2014 Planner, Policy Planning & Environmental Sustainability  Coordinated the resolution of appeals to the Vaughan Official Plan  Researched, reviewed and evaluated planning applications and appellant submissions with a view to upholding the City’s policies and standards  Responsible for interpreting official plan policies and providing expert planning opinion to landowners, developers and consultants on planning matters  Coordinated block plan applications  Conducted land use analyses and recommendations for Official Plan review  Facilitated public visioning workshops and other consultation meetings as part of the secondary plan process

Town of Caledon 2010 – 2011 Intermediate Planner, Policy Planning Department  Responsible for reviewing and drafting policies to assist with the completion of the Town’s new official plan, particularly with respect to sustainable development tools and initiatives  Provided planning advice, policy interpretation and recommendations through the development review process  Developed a Draft Sustainability Checklist as part of the Official Plan implementation exercise

Monteith Brown Planning Consultants 2008 – 2009 Planner  Responsible for the development of municipal master plans through comprehensive needs assessments, feasibility reports, and public consultation  Responsible for researching, analyzing and interpreting planning law, policy and pertinent municipal documents in preparation for Ontario Municipal Board hearings

Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l’Ontario

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF EXPERT’S DUTY

Case Number Municipality PL111184 City of Vaughan

1. My name is Steven Dixon. I live at the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario.

2. I have been engaged by or on behalf of the City of Vaughan to provide evidence in relation to the above-noted Board proceeding.

3. I acknowledge that it is my duty to provide evidence in relation to this proceeding as follows:

a. to provide opinion evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan;

b. to provide opinion evidence that is related only to matters that are within my area of expertise; and

c. to provide such additional assistance as the Board may reasonably require, to determine a matter in issue.

4. I acknowledge that the duty referred to above prevails over any obligation which I may owe to any party by whom or on whose behalf I am engaged.

Date: April 21, 2016 …………………………………………. Steven Dixon, MCIP, RPP

ISSUE DATE:

October 3, 2013 PL111184

Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l’Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF subsection 17(40) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: 1042710 Ontario Limited Appellant: 1191621 Ontario Inc. Appellant: 1529749 Ontario Inc. Appellant: 1541677 Ontario Inc.; and others Subject: Failure to announce a decision respecting Proposed Official Plan Amendment Municipality: City of Vaughan OMB Case No.: PL111184 OMB File No.: PL111184

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel*/Agent

See Attachment 1 for Parties.

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JASON CHEE-HING ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

[1] At this pre-hearing conference (“PHC”), the Board dealt with a number of matters including the granting of participant and party status to various entities, settlement motions and the setting of dates for a number of hearing events into these appeals to the Vaughan Official Plan (“OP”) 2010.

[2] Vaughan (“City”) provided a status update on appeals filed to date and a progress report on the City’s discussions with all parties. Scoping of the appellants’ submissions are ongoing, as are the settlement discussions. To date, there have been 12 settlements and two withdrawals of appeals leaving the number of outstanding appeals at 118. Ms. Storto, counsel for the City, noted that these appeals represent the largest number for a Growth Plan to date in Ontario.

- 2 - PL111184

APPELLANT AND PARTY REQUESTS

[3] The Brownridge Ratepayers Association (“BRA”) has been granted participant standing at these proceedings. It has been the intent of the BRA to seek party status at these proceedings. The BRA is not an incorporated entity and the Board cannot at this time consider its request. Mr. Racco, spokesperson for the BRA advised the Board that it is in the process of incorporation. Upon incorporation, if it is still the desire of the BRA to seek party status at these proceedings, then it must do so by way of a formal motion seeking party status, in accordance with the Board’s procedures. A number of appellants continue to raise objections to the BRA seeking party status.

[4] Appeals No. 129, 130 and 131 are confirmed by the Board (refer to Attachment 1). Quinto Annibale, counsel for the appellants, will undertake to file a notice of withdrawal of appeal letter for Appeal No. 118.

[5] The Board granted party standing to Agro Lumber Inc. and Alpa Roof Trusses Inc. in connection with Appeals No. 129-131. These entities own lands adjacent to the lands that are the subject of Appeals No. 129-131.

[6] Dorian Place Residents is an appellant in these proceedings (Appeal No. 123). This appellant will provide its scoped appeal to the City no later than September 21, 2013.

[7] The Board granted party status to Canadian National Railway (“CNR”) in connection with the appeal of Casertano Development Corporation and Sandra Mammone (“Casertano”) (Appeal No. 45). The CNR yards are in close proximity to the Casertano lands and noise impact is an issue. Mr. Heisey, counsel for CNR, has agreed to request party status to the Casertano site-specific appeal before this Board at a separate hearing (PL110419).

SETTLEMENT MOTIONS AND BOARD ORDERS

[8] Motions for settlements were heard by the Board. The motions were uncontested. Affidavit planning evidence for each settlement with the City was included in the individual motion filings.

1. Appeal No. 100 – Woodbridge Farmers Co. Ltd./1510904 Ontario Inc./1693144 Ontario Inc. - 3 - PL111184

 This is a site-specific appeal with respect to a combined parcel of land of 12 ha on the east side of Highway 50 and north of Highway 7. The appellants concerns relate to the current commercial mixed use designation of the lands and the proposed location of a service node. The City is prepared to amend the affected policies in the new OP to address these concerns (Exhibit 18).

 The Board orders that the appeal is allowed in part and amends Volume 2 of the Vaughan OP 2010 as shown in Schedule “B” of Exhibit 18.

2. Appeal No. 132 - K & K Holdings Limited (“K & K”)

 The Board grants party status to K & K Holdings Limited. K & K is the registered owner of a 17-acre parcel at the north-west corner of Keele Street and Kirby Street. The subject lands, until adoption of the new Vaughan OP, remain subject to OPA No. 600 which permits the consideration of industrial uses through a Special Policy Area provision. The City is prepared to modify Policy 13.19 in Volume 2 of the new Vaughan OP to recognize existing approved planning permissions.

 The Board orders that the appeal is allowed in part and amends Volume 2 of the Vaughan OP 2010 as shown in Schedule “A” of the motion record (Exhibit 20).

3. Appeal No. 46 – Vaughan 400 North Landowners Group Inc.

 The Landowners Group collectively owns lands in the Jane Street and Weston Road area. The new OP contains a map (Figure 5) that incorrectly designates the south-western portion of the lands for employment rather than residential uses. The City has now corrected this error.

 The Board orders that the appeal is allowed in part and amends the new Vaughan OP to show a modified Figure 5, referred to in policy 2.2.4.

4. Appeal No. 46 – Danlauton Holdings Inc.

 The appellant owns lands on the east side of Highway 50. The subject lands are part of Block 66(W). The Appellant is also a participating landowner in the Block 66 West Landowners Group Inc. appeal (Appeal No. 125). This settlement motion is a partial resolution of the Danlauton appeals. It involves the realignment of - 4 - PL111184

a north/south collector road. The City has indicated its acceptance of the amendment of Schedules 1, 2, and 3 to adjust this road alignment as shown in Schedule “B” of Danlauton’s motion record (Exhibit 22).

 The Board orders that the appeal is allowed in part and amends Schedules 1, 2, and 3 of the West Vaughan Employment Area Secondary Plan being part of the new OP as shown in Schedule “B” of the motion record. The Board will withhold its order pending receipt of the revised schedules from the City.

5. Appeal No. 125 - Block 66 West Landowners Group Inc.

 Block 66 owns approximately 122 ha of land in the northern part of the City bounded by Major Mackenzie Drive, Highway 50, Nashville Road and the hydro corridor. The northern portion of the subject lands are affected by the province’s GTA West Transportation Corridor Protection Area.

 Minutes of Settlement have been executed among Block 66, the province, the Region, and the City with respect to a Temporary Use Policy (Exhibit 25). The minutes of settlement was achieved through Board-led mediation.

 Block 66 seeks an order allowing its appeal in part for the purpose of modifying the West Vaughan Employment Area Secondary Plan as set out in Exhibit “F” – Temporary Use Policy. Exhibit “F” forms part of the motion materials (Exhibit 24).

 The Board orders that the appeal is allowed in part and modifies the West Vaughan Employment Area Secondary Plan being part of the new OP as set out in Exhibit “F” of the motion materials (Exhibit 24).

FUTURE HEARING AND MEDIATION DATES

[9] Mediation dates (the week of October 25, 2013) have been set for the appeals within the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre (“VMC”) secondary plan area.

[10] The next PHC is set down for December 2, 2013, commencing at 10 a.m. to be held at:

- 5 - PL111184

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

[11] The appellants will further scope their appeal submissions as required and submit to the City no later than September 30, 2013.

[12] A motion hearing date has been set for January 20, 2014, commencing at 10 a.m. to be held at the Vaughan City Hall.

[13] The City will bring a motion to dismiss the appeal of Blue Sky Entertainment Corp. (Appeal No. 126) without a hearing. The City will file its motion materials no later than December 4, 2013. Blue Sky Entertainment Corp. will file its response to motion materials no later than December 18, 2013.

[14] The first hearing date for City-wide appeals has been set down for February 3, 2014, for one week commencing at 10 a.m. to be held at the Vaughan City Hall. The intent of this first set of hearings will be to deal with appeals involving City–wide issues that could be dealt with in short order. The City will identify which policies of the Vaughan OP will be addressed at this hearing. The City will provide the proposed policy language to the appellants by October 18, 2013. The City and the appellants will meet to discuss alternate policy language (if any) and any policies that will be exempt for the first set of hearings in February of 2014. The City will advise the Board of the status of these meetings at the next PHC.

[15] The City will inform the parties and participants of the venue by e-mail. No further notice of these hearing events is required.

[16] This panel of the Board will continue with the case management of these appeals. This panel of the Board is not seized of the motion hearing or the main hearings into these appeals.

“Jason Chee-Hing”

JASON CHEE-HING MEMBER

- 6 - PL111184

ATTACHMENT 1

Parties Appeal No. Representative

1042710 Ontario Ltd. 1 Patricia A. Foran & Briardown Estates Inc. 33 Patrick Harrington Amar Transport Inc. 81

Highway 7 Langstaff GP Ltd. 2 Kim Beckman & Susan Rosenthal Highway 7 Langstaff GP Ltd. 22 Longyard Properties Inc. 23

Solmar Inc. 3 Michael Melling, Jason Lewis Tesmar Holdings Inc. 4 & Katarzyna Sliwa 1668872 Ontario Inc. 5 77 Woodstream Inc. 25 Block 40/47 Developers Group Inc. 28 York Major Holdings Inc. 55 1539253 Ontario Inc. 68 Celebration Estates Inc. 96 Block 66 West Landowners Group Inc. 125

2264319 Ontario Inc. 6 Ira T. Kagan Block 41-28E Developments Limited, 35 Block 41-28W Developments Ltd., 1212765 Ontario Ltd., and 1212763 Ontario Ltd. 7040 Yonge Holdings Ltd., and 38 72 Steeles Holdings Ltd. 2 Steeles Avenue West Ltd. 39 Auto Complex Ltd. 40 Castlepoint Huntington Ltd. 49 Salz & Son Ltd. 51

Haulover Investments Ltd. 7 Jeffrey Streisfield David and Kathy Lundell 42 Portside Developments (Kipling) Inc. 116 Mario Tedesco and Fifthshire Homes 117

Baif Developments Limited 8 Roslyn Houser & Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd. 9 Jennifer Drake Wal-Mart Canada Corp. 10 First Vaughan Investments Inc., 72 Ruland Properties Inc., and Skyrange Investments Inc. Calloway REIT (Sevenbridge) Inc. 73

TDL Group Corp. 11 Denise Baker McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Ltd. 12 - 7 - PL111184

A&W Food Services of Canada Inc. 13 Wendy’s Restaurants of Canada Inc. 14 Ontario Restaurant Hotel & Motel 15 Association

West Rutherford Properties Ltd. 16 Bruce C. Ketcheson Ozner Corporation 17

836115 Ontario Inc. 18 Barry Horosko & Caterina Facciolo 1191621 Ontario Inc. 19 Granite Real Estate Inc. (formerly MI) 20 1834375 Ontario Ltd. 29 1834371 Ontario Ltd. 30 Delisle Properties Ltd. 34 1541677 Ontario Inc. 43 Novagal Development Inc. 52 2159645 Ontario Ltd. (Liberty) 56 Kau and Associates L.P. 74 Centre Street Properties Inc. 78 Vogue Investments Ltd. 79 Nine-Ten West Ltd. 80 Cedarbrook Residential 103 Trimax on Islington Avenue 104 Allegra on Woodstream Inc. 112 588701 Ontario Limited 124

Eugene and Lillian Iacobelli 21 Quinto M. Annibale & Steven Ferri Hollywood Princess Convention and 50 Banquet Centre Ltd. MCN (Pine Valley) Inc. 57 785345 Ont. Ltd and I & M Pandolfo 59 Holdings Kirbywest Ltd. 66 Royal 7 Developments Limited 84 Mr. Antonio Di Benedetto 109 Maple Industrial Landowners Group 118 Blue Sky Entertainment Corp. 126 Holcim (Canada) Inc. 129 2203012 Ontario Limited 130 Blair Building Materials Inc. 131

Blackwood Realty Fund I Limited 24 Jeffrey L. Davies & Aaron I. Platt Partnership Lucia Milani and Rizmi Holdings Ltd. 62 H&L Title Inc. and Ledbury Investments 75 Ltd.

- 8 - PL111184

RioCan Holdings Inc. (Coulter’s Mills 31 Joel D. Farber Marketplace) RioCan Holdings Inc.(Springfarm 32 Marketplace) Riotrin Properties (Langstaff) Inc. 36 SRF Vaughan Property Inc., and SRF Vaughan Property II Inc. Riotrin Properties (Vaughan) Inc., 48 Riotrin Properties (Vaughan2) Inc., and Riotrin Properties (Vaughan3) Inc. RioCan Holdings Inc. (Centre Street 82 Corridor)

Ms. Ronni Rosenberg 37 Amber Stewart

Canadian Petroleum Products 41 N. Jane Pepino Institute Imperial Oil Ltd. 71

Home Depot Holdings Inc. 44 Steven A. Zakem Granite Real Estate Inc., and 110 Magna International Inc.

Casertano Development Corporation and 45 Mary Flynn-Guglietti & Sandra Mammone Annik Forristal Danlauton Holdings Ltd. 46 1529749 Ontario Inc. (the “Torgan Group”) 47 Suncor Energy Products Partnership 54 1885135 Ontario Ltd. 85 2157160 Ontario Inc. 99 Woodbridge Farmers Co. Ltd / 1510904 100 Ontario Ltd. / 1510905 Ontario Ltd. 1693143 Ontario Inc. / 1693144 Ontario Inc. 101

Estate of Gladys Smith 58 Robert Miller & Vanessa Bacher Palmerston Properties Limited 122

2090396 Ontario Ltd. 60 Mark R. Flowers Arthur Fisch & 1096818 Ontario Inc. 61

Teefy Developments Inc. 63 Chris Barnett & Alexis Alyea

281187 Ontario Ltd. 64 Gerard C. Borean L-Star Developments Group 65 Kipco Lands Development Inc. 86 Lanada Investments Limited 87 Market Lane Holdings Limited 88 Gold Park (Woodbridge) Inc. 89 Mrs. Anna Greco 90 - 9 - PL111184

Luigi Bros. Paving Company Ltd. 91 Mr. Silvio Di Giammarino 94 1034933 Ontario Ltd. 120 Bellaterre Corporation 121 Luigi Bros. Paving Company Ltd. 128 (Maplecrete)

Blue Water Ranch Development Inc. 67 Christopher J. Tanzola Dorian Place Residents 123

Berkley Commercial (Jane) Inc. 119 Daniel Artenosi

2058258 Ontario Ltd. 69 Christopher J. Williams & (Forest Green Homes) Andrea Skinner

Royal Group Inc. 70 Robert J. Gray

Ms. Traci Shatz 76 Aynsley L. Anderson

Langvalley Holdings 77 Nicholas T. Macos K & K Holdings Limited 132

Anland Developments Inc. 83 Jason Gabriele

United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. 92 Tim Bermingham

Camelot on 7 Inc. and Elia Breda 93 Paul R. Bottos

Weston Downs Ratepayers Association 95 Nadia Magarelli & Rose Savage

Mr. Alex and Mrs. Michelle Marrero 102 Alan Heisey

2117969 Ontario Inc. 106 John Alati & Alexander Suriano Midvale Estates Ltd. 107 Potestas Properties Inc. 108 Covenant Chapel 115

Bentall Kennedy (Canada) LP 111 Patrick Duffy & Maggie Chien

Monica Murad 127 Michael Simaan

- 10 - PL111184

Parties Party No. Representative

Region of York A Pitman Patterson, Gabriel Szobel & Frank Santaguida

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing B Kenneth G. Hare & J. Flynn Paquin

Toronto and Region Conservation C June Little Authority

PERLS Inc. D Bruce McMinn

UPS Canada E Tim Bermingham

611428 Ontario Ltd. F David Bronskill & Nick Staubitz

York Region District School Board H Jessica Peake

FCHT Holdings (Ont) Corp I Steven A. Zakem Magna International Inc. and Granite J Real Estate Inc.

CNR K Alan Heisey Alex & Michelle Marrero L

Vaughan 400 Landowners Group Inc. N Michael Melling, Jason Lewis & Katarzyna Sliwa

1233389 Ontario Inc. O Alan Heisey

Sustainable Vaughan P Stephen Roberts

RioCan Holdings Inc. Q Joel Farber

Participants No. Representative

Block 27 Landowners’ Group ii Michael Melling & Katarzyna Sliwa

Antonio DiBenedetto iii

Other Representative

Agro Lumber Inc. Sarah Turney Alpa Roof Trusses Inc.

Vaughan Official Plan (VOP) 2010 – APPEAL SUMMARY PL111184

157 APPEALS

RESOLVED MAPLE VAUGHAN OTHER SITE- VMC 54 APPEALS INDUSTRIAL MILLS SPECIFIC 26* APPEALS (PL140839) #2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,18, ISSUE 25* APPEALS 19, 20, 22, 23,24, 25,26, 27,31, # 1, 10a, 30, 50, 59, 72, 8 APPEALS 35, 36, 37, 41,44, 49,53, 54,55, 73, 84, 91, 106, 107,108, # 9, 10b&c, 21, 46,47, 48,52, 58, 71, 74, 76,81, 85,86, 88,90, 3 APPEALS 109, 111, 114, 119, 120, # 4, 34, 45,64, 75,83, 110, 57, 62, 65, 66,95, 98,115, 117, 92, 94, 96, 100, 101,102,104, 128, 135, 136, 137, 139, 121, 138, 141, 148, 149,150, # 129, 130 & 131 143, 145, 146 & 147 142 112, 113, 118, 122, 123,124, 151, 152, 153, 154 & 155 126, 132, 134 & 144

PARKLAND CENTRE STREET OTHER RESOLVED 18 City-wide APPEALS (save and except parkland 6 APPEALS dedication policy section 7.3.3) (of over 40 APPEALS overall) DEVELOPMENT # 60,61,78,79,82 &105 4 APPEALS 18 city-wide appeals include: APPLICATIONS (parkland only: 43, 56, 80, 103); # 43, 56, 80, 103 (in Centre Street: 60, 61,78 & 79); 23 APPEALS (in VMC: 30, 72 & 73); YONGE-STEELES (in Vaughan Mills: 34); # 3, 16, 17,28, 29,32, 33, 63, 67, 68, 69, 70, 77, 87, (in Yonge-Steeles: 38, 39, 51); 88, 89, 93, 97,99, 116, 125, 127 & 140 (in Other Development Applications: 29, 9 APPEALS 40); and # 7, 38, 39,40, 42,51, 133, 153, 156 & (in Other Site-Specific: 42) 157

* Appeal 10 is counted in both the VMC and Other Site-Specific categories as the appeal applies to more than one site. Therefore, the sum of all categories is one greater than the total number of appeals. FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY

ISSUE DATE: December 18, 2012 PL111184

Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l’Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF subsection 17(40) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Appellant: 1042710 Ontario Limited (aka Royal Centre) Appellant: 1191621 Ontario Inc. Appellant: 1529749 Ontario Inc. Appellant: 1541677 Ontario Inc.; and others Subject: Failure to announce a decision respecting proposed New Official Plan of the Regional Municipality of York for the City of Vaughan Municipality: City of Vaughan OMB Case No.: PL111184 OMB File No.: PL111184

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel

See Parties and Participants listed on Attachment “1”

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. W. LEE AND J. E. SNIEZEK ON NOVEMBER 14, 2012 AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

[1] This is the first pre-hearing conference (PHC) of these proceedings.

[2] Attachment “1” attached hereto is the list of parties and participants whose status has been confirmed by this panel.

[3] Sustainable Vaughan has been conferred party status. Depending on the particular circumstances, its status may be re-visited as a result of a challenge by any party or parties to this proceeding.

[4] At the urging of the City of Vaughan, the Board sets a deadline of January 7, 2013, so that all appellants and parties shall indicate to the City the particular policies they wish to challenge. The Board directs a delineation of specific policies under challenge; specifically, whether it is a challenge in relation to specific land holding(s) or not. - 2 - PL111184

[5] The Board expects fine-tuned scoping efforts to be undertaken forthwith.

[6] In order to set an end date for all appeals, the Board sets the deadline of December 21, 2012, for all appellants to register their appeals with the Region of York.

[7] The Board sets the next PHC for February 4 and 5 commencing at 10 a.m. in a place to be determined by the City. The City will inform the parties and participants about the location of the next PHC via e-mail.

[8] Based upon the uncontested testimony of Roy McQuillin, the Board finds that the North Kleinberg-Nashville Secondary Plan conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, is consistent with the policies in the Provincial Policy Statement and represents “good planning”.

ORDER

[9] The Board orders that the unappealed sections of the Vaughan Official Plan known as the North Keinburg-Nashville Secondary Plan, is hereby approved.

[10] These Members are not seized.

“S. W. Lee”

S. W. LEE EXECUTIVE VICE CHAIR

“J. E. Sniezek”

J. E. SNIEZEK MEMBER - 3 - PL111184

ATTACHMENT “1” PL111184

PARTIES COUNSEL*/AGENT

1042710 Ontario Limited aka Royal P. Foran* and P. Harrington* Centre

Highway 27 Langstaff GP Limited S. Rosenthal*

Solmar Inc. M. Melling* and R. Kehar*

Tesmar Holdings Inc. M. Melling* and R. Kehar*

Royal Pine Homes M. Melling* and R. Kehar*

Haulover Investments Ltd. J. Streisfield*

Baif Developments Limited M. Stewart*

Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd. M. Stewart*

Wal-Mart Canada Corp. M. Stewart*

TDL Group Corp. M. Polowin*

McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada M. Polowin* Limited

A & W Food Services of Canada Inc. M. Polowin*

Wendy’s Restaurants of Canada Inc. M. Polowin*

Ontario Restaurant Hotel & Motel M. Polowin* Association

West Rutherford Properties Ltd. B. Ketcheson*

Ozner Corporation (South) B. Ketcheson*

836115 Ontario Inc. B. Horosko* and C. Facciolo*

1191621 Ontario Inc. B. Horosko* and C. Facciolo* - 4 - PL111184

MI Developments Inc. B. Horosko* and C. Facciolo*

Eugene and Lillian Iacobelli Q. Annibale* and S. Ferri*

Helmhorst Investments Ltd. S. Rosenthal*

Blackwood Realty Fund I Limited A. Platt* Partnership

77 Woodstream Inc. M. Melling and R. Kehar

Roybridge Holdings Limited, Vaughan S. Rogers* West II Limited and Squire Ridge Investments Limited

Adidas Canada Limited, 2029832 S. Rogers* Ontario Inc. and Conair Consumers Products Inc.

Block 40/47 Developers Group M. Melling* and R. Kehar*

1834375 Ontario Limited B. Horosko* and C. Facciolo*

1834371 Ontario Limited B. Horosko* and C. Facciolo*

RioCan Holdings Inc. - Coulters Mills J. Farber*

RioCan Holdings Inc. - Springfarm J. Farber* Marketplace

Briardown Estates Inc. P. Harrington*

Delise Properties Limited B. Horosko* and C. Facciolo*

Block 41-28E Developments Ltd., I. Kagan* Block 41-28W Developments Ltd., 1212765 Ontario Ltd. and 1212763 Ontario Ltd.

2107683 Ontario Ltd., RioCan PS Inc. J. Farber* & SRF Vaughan Property Inc.

- 5 - PL111184

Ronni Rosenberg A. Stewart*

7040 Yonge Street Holdings Limited & I. Kagan* 72 Steeles Holdings Limited

2 Steeles Avenue West Ltd. I. Kagan*

Auto Complex Limited I. Kagan*

Canadian Petroleum Products Institute J. Pepino*

David & Kathy Lundell J. Streisfield*

1541677 Ontario Inc. B. Horosko* and C. Facciolo*

Casertano Development Corporation M. Flynn-Guglietti* and Sandra Mammone

Danlauton Holdings Ltd. M. Flynn-Guglietti*

1529749 Ontario Inc. (the “Torgan M. Flynn-Guglietti* Group”)

Riotrin Colossus Centre - Riotrin J. Farber* Properties (Vaughan) (Vaughan2) (Vaughan3) Inc.

Castlepoint Huntington Limited I. Kagan*

Hollywood Princess Convention and Q. Annibale* and S. Ferri* Banquet Centre Ltd.

Salz & Son Limited I. Kagan*

Novagal Development Inc. B. Horosko* and C. Facciolo*

165 Pine Grove Investments Inc. J. Smuskowitz* and A. Brown*

Suncor Energy Products Partnership

York Major Holdings Inc. M. Melling & R. Kehar

2159645 Ontario Ltd. M. Flynn-Guglietti - 6 - PL111184

MCN (Pine Valley) Inc. Q. Annibale* and S. Ferri*

Estate of Gladys Smith P. Smith and R. Miller*

785345 Ontario Inc. and I & M Q. Annibale* Pandolfo Holdings

2090396 Ontario Limited M. Flowers* and R. Kehar*

Arthur Fisch and 1096818 Ontario Inc. M. Flowers* and R. Kehar*

Lucia Milani and Rizmi Holdings Ltd. J. Davies* and A. Platt*

Teefy Developments Inc. C. Barnett*

281187 Ontario Ltd. G. Borean*

L-Star Developments Group G. Borean*

Kirbywest Ltd. Q. Annibale* and S. Ferri*

Blue Water Ranch Development Inc. D. Artenosi*

1539253 Ontario Inc. M. Melling* and R. Kehar*

2058258 Ontario Ltd. (Forest Green A. Skinner*, C. Williams* and G. Homes) Biswaine*

Royal Group, Inc. R. Gray*

Imperial Oil Ltd. J. Pepino*

Kau and Associates L.P. B. Horosko* and C. Facciolo*

Calloway REIT (Sevenbridge) Inc. M. Stewart*

First Vaughan Investments Inc., Ruland Properties Inc., Skyrange Investments Inc.

H&L Title Inc. and Ledbury Investments J. Davies* and A. Platt* Ltd. - 7 - PL111184

Ms.Traci Shatz T. Shatz

Centre Street Properties Inc. B. Horosko* and C. Facciolo*

Vogue Investments Ltd. B. Horosko* and C. Facciolo*

Nine-Ten West B. Horosko* and C. Facciolo*

Other

Region of York G. Szobel* and P. Patterson*

UPS T. Bermingham* Ministry of Municipal Affairs and K. Hare* and M. Christie Housing

City of Brampton D. Waters

TRCA J. Little

611428 Ontario Limited D. Bronskill* and N. Staubitz*

1539253 Ontario Inc. R. Kehar* and M. Melling*

Block 27 Landowners Group R. Kehar* and M. Melling*

Vaughan 400 Landowners Group R. Kehar* and M. Melling*

Canadian National Railway A. Heisey*

Alex & Michelle Marrero A. Heisey*

Perls Incorporated B. McMinn

Ivanhoe Cambridge J. Davies*

Miguel Burgos

York Catholic District School Board P. C. Williams* and C. Hyde

York Region District School Board J. Peake

- 8 - PL111184

Anland Developments M. Casale

Home Depot Holding Inc. S. Zakem*

Granite Real Estate Inc. S. Zakem*

Amar Transport P. Harrington*

Lanada Investments Inc. G. Borean*

G. Greco G. Borean*

1233389 Ontario Inc. P. Stewart

FCHT Holdings (Ontario) Corporation S. Zakem*

Sustainable Vaughan S. Roberts

Americo Ferrari

Market Casa Holdings Inc. G. Borean*

Joe DeLeo

Gold Park (Woodbridge) Inc. G. Borean*

ISSUE DATE:

August 08, 2013 PL111184

Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l’Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF subsection 17(40) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: 1042710 Ontario Limited Appellant: 1191621 Ontario Inc. Appellant: 1529749 Ontario Inc. Appellant: 1541677 Ontario Inc., and others Subject: Failure to announce a decision respecting Proposed New Official Plan Amendment Municipality: City of Vaughan OMB Case No.: PL111184 OMB File No.: PL111184

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel*/Agent

See Attachment 1

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JASON CHEE-HING ON July 23, 2013 AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

[1] At this hearing the Board dealt with a motion brought by the City of Vaughan (“City”) which sought an Order approving portions of the Vaughan’s Official Plan (“OP”) 2010 save and except those policies and land use schedules which remain under appeal on an area or site specific basis.

[2] The Board also addressed other matters relating to the request for party status by the Brownridge Ratepayers Association (“BRA”) and other entities.

[3] The number of appeals against the Vaughan OP 2010 has risen to 132.

[4] Bruce Engel and Claudia Storto, solicitors for the City gave submissions on its motion. The motion was not contested and involved extensive discussions among the Appellants/Parties. The Board was satisfied with the grounds for the motion and granted - 2 - PL111184 the motion to bring the portions of the OP not under appeal into force. The Board’s Order which is effective as of July 23, 2013 is provided as Attachment 2.

[5] With respect to the appeals filed since the last pre-hearing conference (“PHC”), the City reserves the right to challenge the appellants’ status and the validity of these appeals (Appeals No. 123-128, 132). With respect to Appeals No. 129-131, Quinto Annibale, solicitor for these appellants requested the Board to officially recognize their status as Appellants. The Board will wait until the appeal letters are received by its administrative staff.

[6] At the last PHC held on May 28, 2013, in response to the BRA’s request for party status, the Board directed Mario Racco, spokesperson for the BRA to provide in writing a clear statement of its position and whether its concerns extend to the site-specific appeals and if so which ones. At the last PHC, counsel for a number of Appellants expressed concerns over the grounds for BRA’s request as it related to their client’s appeals.

[7] Upon review of the BRA’s written statement of its position and the responses by counsel for some Appellants, the Board determined that at this time, it is premature to determine the status of the BRA. Mr. Rocco in his email correspondence dated June 13, 2013 indicated concerns not only within the boundaries of the BRA but also general concerns relating to a casino and s. 37 (Planning Act) benefits within the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre (“VMC”) area. The VMC is not within the BRA’s defined boundaries. Many appellants particularly those within the VMC remain opposed to the BRA’s request for party status.

[8] The Board provided the BRA with a further opportunity to provide more detailed reasons for its request for party status and directed Mr. Racco to provide a written submission by August 19, 2013. Any written responses to the BRA’s submission are to be made no later than August 28, 2013. The Board will review the BRA’s request at the next PHC to be held on Tuesday, September 10, 2013 at 10 a.m. at:

Multipurpose Room City of Vaughan 2141 Major Mackenzie Drive Vaughan ON L6A 1T1 - 3 - PL111184

[9] The Board granted party status to Maria Pandolfo, Yolanda Pandolfo, Laura Pandolfo, Guiseppe Pandolfo, and Cathy Campione. These individuals own lands located within Blocks 40/47 which are the subject of an appeal (Appeal 28) by the Block 40/47 Developers Group Inc. The request for party status is in connection with this appeal.

ORDER

[10] The Board orders that those portions of the Vaughan OP 2010 not under appeal as set out in Attachment 2 are approved and effective as of July 23, 2013.

[11] This panel of the Board will continue with the case management of these appeals.

“Jason Chee-Hing”

JASON CHEE-HING MEMBER - 4 - PL111184

Attachment 1

Appellants Appeal No. Representative

1042710 Ontario Ltd. 1 Patricia A. Foran

Briardown Estates Inc. 33 Patrick Harrington Amar Transport Inc. 81

Highway 27 Langstaff GP Ltd. 2 Kim Beckman, Susan Rosenthal Highway 27 Langstaff GP Ltd. 22 & Jason Lewis Longyard Properties Inc. 23 Lucia Milani and Rizmi Holdings Ltd. 62

Solmar Inc. 3 Michael Melling & Jason Lewis Tesmar Holdings Inc. 4 Block 40/47 Developers Group Inc. 28 1539253 Ontario Inc. 68 Celebration Estates Inc. 96 Block 66 West Landowners Group Inc. 125

Block 41-28E Developments Limited, 35 Ira T. Kagan Block 41-28W Developments Ltd., 1212765 Ontario Inc. and 1213763 Ontario Ltd. 7040 Yonge Holdings Ltd. and 38 72 Steeles Holdings Ltd. 2 Steeles Avenue West Ltd. 39 Auto Complex Ltd. 40 Salz & Son Ltd. 51

Haulover Investments Ltd. 7 Jeffrey Streisfield David and Kathy Lundell 42 Portside Developments (Kipling) Inc. 116 Mario Tedesco (Fifthshire Homes Ltd.) 117

Baif Developments Limited 8 Roslyn Houser, Michael Stewart & Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd. 9 Jennifer Drake Wal-Mart Canada Corp. 10 First Vaughan Investments Inc., 72 Ruland Properties Inc. and Skyrange Investments Inc. Calloway REIT (Sevenbridge) Inc. 73

- 5 - PL111184

TDL Group Corp. 11 Michael S. Polowin & Denise Baker McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Ltd. 12 A&W Food Services of Canada Inc. 13 Wendy's Restaurants of Canada Inc. 14 Ontario Restaurant Hotel & Motel 15 Association

West Rutherford Properties Ltd. 16 Bruce C. Ketcheson Ozner Corporation 17

836115 Ontario Inc. 18 Barry Horosko & Caterina Facciolo 1191621 Ontario Inc. 19 Granite Real Estate Inc. (formerly MI) 20 1834375 Ontario Ltd. 29 1834371 Ontario Ltd. 30 Delisle Properties Ltd. 34 1541677 Ontario Inc. 43 Novagal Development Inc. 52 2159645 Ontario Ltd. (Liberty) 56 Centre Street Properties Inc. 78 Vogue Investments Ltd. 79 Nine-Ten West Ltd. 80 Cedarbrook Residential 103 Trimax on Islington Avenue 104 Allegra on Woodstream Inc. 112 588701 Ontario Limited 124

Eugene and Lillian Iacobelli 21 Quinto M. Annibale & Steven Ferri Hollywood Princess Convention and 50 Banquet Centre Ltd. MCN (Pine Valley) Inc. 57 785345 Ont. Ltd and I & M Pandolfo 59 Holdings Kirbywest Ltd. 66 Royal 7 Developments Limited 84 Mr. Antonio Di Benedetto 109 Maple Industrial Landowners Group 118 Blue Sky Entertainment Corp. 126 Holcim (Canada) Inc. 129 2203012 Ontario Limited 130 - 6 - PL111184

Blair Building Materials Inc. 131

Blackwood Realty Fund I Limited 24 Jeffrey L. Davies & Aaron I. Platt Partnership H&L Title Inc. & Ledbury Investments Ltd. 75

Roybridge Holdings Ltd., Vaughan West II 26 Susan D. Rogers Ltd. and Squire Ridge Investment Ltd. Adidas Canada Ltd., 2029832 Ontario Inc. 27 and Conair Consumers Products Inc. John Duca 113

RioCan Holdings Inc. (Coulter's Mills 31 Joel D. Farber Marketplace) RioCan Holdings Inc. (Springfarm 32 Marketplace) Riotrin Properties (Vaughan) Inc., 48 Riotrin Properties (Vaughan2) Inc. and Riotrin Properties (Vaughan3) Inc. RioCan Holdings Inc. (Centre Street 82 Corridor)

Ms. Ronni Rosenberg 37 Amber Stewart

Canadian Fuels Association 41 N. Jane Pepino Imperial Oil Ltd. 71

Home Depot Holdings Inc. 44 Steven A. Zakem Granite Real Estate Inc. and 110 Magna International Inc.

Casertano Development Corporation 45 Mary Flynn-Guglietti & Annik and Sandra Mammone Forristal Danlauton Holdings Ltd. 46 1529749 Ontario Inc. (the "Torgan Group") 47 Suncor Energy Products Partnership 54 CST Canada Co. 85 2157160 Ontario Inc. 99 Woodbridge Farmers Co. Ltd. / 1510904 100 Ontario Ltd. / 1510905 Ontario Ltd. 1693143 Ontario Inc. / 1693144 Ontario 101 Inc.

165 Pine Grove Investments Inc. 53 Adam J. Brown & Jessica - 7 - PL111184

1525233 Ontario Inc. 97 Smuskowitz Overriver Holdings Ltd. 98

Palmerston Properties Limited 122 Robert Miller

2090396 Ontario Ltd. 60 Mark R. Flowers Arthur Fisch & 1096818 Ontario Inc. 61

Teefy Developments Inc. 63 Chris Barnett & Alexis Alyea

281187 Ontario Ltd. 64 Gerard C. Borean L-Star Developments Group 65 Kipco Lands Development Inc. 86 Lanada Investments Limited 87 Market Lane Holdings Limited 88 Gold Park (Woodbridge) Inc. 89 Mrs. Anna Greco 90 Luigi Bros. Paving Company Ltd. 91 Mr. Silvio Di Giammarino 94 1034933 Ontario Ltd. 120 Belleterra Corporation 121 Luigi Bros. Paving Company Ltd. 128

Blue Water Ranch Development Inc. 67 Christopher J. Tanzola

Berkley Commercial (Jane) Inc. 119 Daniel Artenosi

2058258 Ontario Ltd. (Forest Green 69 Christopher J. Williams & Andrea Homes) Skinner

Royal Group Inc. 70 Robert J. Gray

Ms. Traci Shatz 76 Aynsley L. Anderson

Langvalley Holdings 77 Nicholas T. Macos K & K Holdings Limited 132

Anland Developments Inc. 83 Jason Gabriele

United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. 92 Tim Bermingham

- 8 - PL111184

Camelot on 7 Inc. and Elia Breda 93 Paul R. Bottos

Weston Downs Ratepayers Association 95 Nadia Magarelli & Rose Savage

Mr. Alex and Mrs. Michelle Marrero 102 Alan Heisey

PERLS Inc. 105 Bruce McMinn

2117969 Ontario Inc. 106 John Alati & Alexander Suriano Midvale Estates Ltd. 107 Potestas Properties Inc. 108 Covenant Chapel 115

Bentall Kennedy (Canada) LP 111 James Harbell, Patrick Duffy & Maggie Chien

Toromont Industries Ltd. 114 Michael Arbutina & Michael Miller

Dorian Place Landowners 123 Carmine Marando

Monica Murad 127 Micheal Simaan

Parties Party No. Representative

Region of York A Pitman Patterson, Gabriel Szobel & Frank Santaguida

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing B Kenneth G. Hare & J. Flynn Paquin

Toronto and Region Conservation C June Little Authority

611428 Ontario Ltd. F David Bronskill & Nick Staubitz

York Region Catholic District School G Peter C. Williams Board

York Region District School Board H Jessica Peake

FCHT Holdings (Ont) Corp I Steven A. Zakem

CNR K Alan Heisey - 9 - PL111184

Ivanhoe Cambridge Inc. M Jeffrey L. Davies

Vaughan 400 North Landowners Group N Michael Melling & Jason Lewis Inc.

1233389 Ontario Inc. O Alan Heisey

Sustainable Vaughan P Stephen Roberts

Brownridge Ratepayers Association R Mario Racco (party status not yet determined)

Joseph and Teresa Marando S Carmine Marando

Velmar Centre Property Ltd. T Michael Melling & Jason Lewis

Participants No. Representative

City of Brampton i Roberto Zuech & David Waters

Block 27 Landowners' Group ii Michael Melling & Jason Lewis

Americo Ferrari iv

Ellen Schacter v Crown Hts Coop Housing

- 10 - PL111184

Attachment 2

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF subsection 17(40) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: 1042710 Ontario Limited Appellant: 1191621 Ontario Inc. Appellant: 1529749 Ontario Inc. Appellant: 1541677 Ontario Inc. and others Subject: Failure to announce a decision respecting the proposed new Official Plan of the Regional Municipality for York for the City of Vaughan Municipality: City of Vaughan OMB Case No.: PL111184 OMB File No.: PL111184

Appellants:

See Schedule A.

B E F O R E:

J. Chee-Hing ) ) Tuesday, the 23rd day of July, 2013 )

THESE MATTERS having come on for a public hearing,

THE BOARD ORDERS that in accordance with the provisions of section 17(50) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, in respect of the City of Vaughan Official Plan (2010) (the “Plan”), as adopted by the City Vaughan (the “City”) on September 7, 2010 subject to Council modifications on September 27, 2011, March 20, 2012 and April 17, 2012 and as modified and endorsed by the Regional Municipality of York (the “Region”) on June 28, 2012, and filed as Exhibit 5 in these proceedings, those portions of the Plan as set out in Schedule “B” attached to and forming part of this Order are hereby approved, save and except those policies and land use schedules set out in Schedule “C”, which shall remain under appeal on a site-specific or area-specific basis as indicated. - 11 - PL111184

AND THE BOARD ORDERS that the partial approval of the Plan shall be strictly without prejudice to, and shall not have the effect of limiting, (a) the rights of a party to seek to modify, delete or add to the unapproved policies, schedule, maps, figures definitions, tables and associated text in the Plan, or (b) the jurisdiction of the Board to consider and approve modifications, deletions or additions to the unapproved policies, schedules, maps, figures, definitions, tables and associated text in the Plan on a general, area-specific or site-specific basis, as the case may be, provided that the parties shall be bound by the commitments made by them to scope their issues to a site specific or area specific basis.

AND THE BOARD FURTHER ORDERS that the scoping of appeals to a specific site or area, as shown on Schedule “C”, is without prejudice to the positions taken by the parties to those appeals so that if those appeals proceed to a hearing, either on their own or as may be consolidated with other site specific appeals, the City will not take the position that the Board ought not to approve site-specific or area-specific modifications to the affected policies, schedules, maps, figures, definitions, tables and associated text on the basis that they deviate from or are inconsistent with such policies, schedules, maps, figures, definitions, tables and associated text on a City-wide basis (or as approved in respect of other lands which are subject to the same policies, schedules, maps, figures, definitions, tables and associated text). However, this does not affect the City’s right to assert that the approved policies, schedules, maps, figures, definitions, tables and associated text should be applied to the specific sites or areas without modification on the basis that they constitute good planning.

Notwithstanding the above, the Board hereby retains jurisdiction to consider and approve modifications to any policies, schedules, maps, figures, definitions, tables and associated text approved herein, as may be appropriate to dispose of any of the outstanding appeals before the Board.

AND THE BOARD FURTHER ORDERS that the partial approval shall not apply to the extent of the Parkway Belt West Lands designations in Schedules 1 and 13, as they relate to: (1) the area bounded by Highway 407 to the north, Martin Grove Road to the west, the railway line to the south, and a line joining the northern and southern portions of Kipling Avenue to the east, and (2) the area bounded by Highway 7 to the north, Highway 407 to the south and east, and the railway line to the west. In these areas, the extent of the Parkway Belt West Lands designations remains before the Board, such that the boundaries of the designations may be altered as the Board deems appropriate.

AND THE BOARD FURTHER ORDERS that in respect of Appeals 118, 129, 130 and 131 no land budget argument including, without limitation s. 2.1.3.2(b), will be raised by any current or future appellant, party or participant, the City or the Region to preclude a change in the proposed residential designation of the lands that are the subject of those appeals. - 12 - PL111184

AND THE BOARD FURTHER ORDERS that the Pending Appeals filed in respect of the Plan, as depicted on Schedule “C” hereto, shall be determined through the hearing process or as otherwise consented to by the parties and approved by the Board.

AND THE BOARD FURTHER ORDERS that it may be spoken to in the event any matter or matters should arise in the connection with the implementation of this Order, including disputes over whether Schedule “C” hereto appropriately identifies the ambit of an appeal.

SECRETARY - 13 - PL111184

SCHEDULE A

PL111184

Appell ants Appeal No. Representative

1042710 Ontario Ltd. 1 Patricia A. Foran

Briardown Estates Inc. 33 Patrick Harrington Amar Transport Inc. 81

Highway 27 Langstaff GP Ltd. 2 Kim Beckman, Susan Rosenthal Highway 27 Langstaff GP Ltd. 22 & Jason Lewis Longyard Properties Inc. 23 Lucia Milani and Rizmi Holdings Ltd. 62

Solmar Inc. 3 Michael Melling & Jason Lewis Tesmar Holdings Inc. 4 Block 40/47 Developers Group Inc. 28 1539253 Ontario Inc. 68 Celebration Estates Inc. 96 Block 66 West Landowners Group Inc. 125

Block 41-28E Developments Limited, 35 Ira T. Kagan Block 41-28W Developments Ltd., 1212765 Ontario Inc. and 1213763 Ontario Ltd. 7040 Yonge Holdings Ltd. and 38 72 Steeles Holdings Ltd. 2 Steeles Avenue West Ltd. 39 Auto Complex Ltd. 40 Salz & Son Ltd. 51

Haulover Investments Ltd. 7 Jeffrey Streisfield David and Kathy Lundell 42 Portside Developments (Kipling) Inc. 116 Mario Tedesco (Fifthshire Homes Ltd.) 117

Baif Developments Limited 8 Roslyn Houser, Michael Stewart & Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd. 9 Jennifer Drake Wal-Mart Canada Corp. 10 First Vaughan Investments Inc., 72 Ruland Properties Inc. and

- 14 - PL111184

Skyrange Investments Inc. Calloway REIT (Sevenbridge) Inc. 73

TDL Group Corp. 11 Michael S. Polowin & Denise Baker McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Ltd. 12 A&W Food Services of Canada Inc. 13 Wendy's Restaurants of Canada Inc. 14 Ontario Restaurant Hotel & Motel 15 Association

West Rutherford Properties Ltd. 16 Bruce C. Ketcheson Ozner Corporation 17

836115 Ontario Inc. 18 Barry Horosko & Caterina Facciolo 1191621 Ontario Inc. 19 Granite Real Estate Inc. (formerly MI) 20 1834375 Ontario Ltd. 29 1834371 Ontario Ltd. 30 Delisle Properties Ltd. 34 1541677 Ontario Inc. 43 Novagal Development Inc. 52 2159645 Ontario Ltd. (Liberty) 56 Centre Street Properties Inc. 78 Vogue Investments Ltd. 79 Nine-Ten West Ltd. 80 Cedarbrook Residential 103 Trimax on Islington Avenue 104 Allegra on Woodstream Inc. 112 588701 Ontario Limited 124

Eugene and Lillian Iacobelli 21 Quinto M. Annibale & Steven Ferri Hollywood Princess Convention and 50 Banquet Centre Ltd. MCN (Pine Valley) Inc. 57 785345 Ont. Ltd and I & M Pandolfo 59 Holdings Kirbywest Ltd. 66 Royal 7 Developments Limited 84 Mr. Antonio Di Benedetto 109 Maple Industrial Landowners Group 118 Blue Sky Entertainment Corp. 126 - 15 - PL111184

Holcim (Canada) Inc. 129 2203012 Ontario Limited 130 Blair Building Materials Inc. 131

Blackwood Realty Fund I Limited 24 Jeffrey L. Davies & Aaron I. Platt Partnership H&L Title Inc. & Ledbury Investments Ltd. 75

Roybridge Holdings Ltd., Vaughan West II 26 Susan D. Rogers Ltd. and Squire Ridge Investment Ltd. Adidas Canada Ltd., 2029832 Ontario Inc. 27 and Conair Consumers Products Inc. John Duca 113

RioCan Holdings Inc. (Coulter's Mills 31 Joel D. Farber Marketplace) RioCan Holdings Inc. (Springfarm 32 Marketplace) Riotrin Properties (Vaughan) Inc., 48 Riotrin Properties (Vaughan2) Inc. and Riotrin Properties (Vaughan3) Inc. RioCan Holdings Inc. (Centre Street 82 Corridor)

Ms. Ronni Rosenberg 37 Amber Stewart

Canadian Fuels Association 41 N. Jane Pepino Imperial Oil Ltd. 71

Home Depot Holdings Inc. 44 Steven A. Zakem Granite Real Estate Inc. and 110 Magna International Inc.

Casertano Development Corporation 45 Mary Flynn-Guglietti & Annik and Sandra Mammone Forristal Danlauton Holdings Ltd. 46 1529749 Ontario Inc. (the "Torgan Group") 47 Suncor Energy Products Partnership 54 CST Canada Co. 85 2157160 Ontario Inc. 99 Woodbridge Farmers Co. Ltd. / 1510904 100 Ontario Ltd. / 1510905 Ontario Ltd. 1693143 Ontario Inc. / 1693144 Ontario 101 Inc.

- 16 - PL111184

165 Pine Grove Investments Inc. 53 Adam J. Brown & Jessica 1525233 Ontario Inc. 97 Smuskowitz Overriver Holdings Ltd. 98

Palmerston Properties Limited 122 Robert Miller

2090396 Ontario Ltd. 60 Mark R. Flowers Arthur Fisch & 1096818 Ontario Inc. 61

Teefy Developments Inc. 63 Chris Barnett & Alexis Alyea

281187 Ontario Ltd. 64 Gerard C. Borean L-Star Developments Group 65 Kipco Lands Development Inc. 86 Lanada Investments Limited 87 Market Lane Holdings Limited 88 Gold Park (Woodbridge) Inc. 89 Mrs. Anna Greco 90 Luigi Bros. Paving Company Ltd. 91 Mr. Silvio Di Giammarino 94 1034933 Ontario Ltd. 120 Belleterra Corporation 121 Luigi Bros. Paving Company Ltd. 128

Blue Water Ranch Development Inc. 67 Christopher J. Tanzola

Berkley Commercial (Jane) Inc. 119 Daniel Artenosi

2058258 Ontario Ltd. (Forest Green 69 Christopher J. Williams & Andrea Homes) Skinner

Royal Group Inc. 70 Robert J. Gray

Ms. Traci Shatz 76 Aynsley L. Anderson

Langvalley Holdings 77 Nicholas T. Macos K & K Holdings Limited 132

Anland Developments Inc. 83 Jason Gabriele

- 17 - PL111184

United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. 92 Tim Bermingham

Camelot on 7 Inc. and Elia Breda 93 Paul R. Bottos

Weston Downs Ratepayers Association 95 Nadia Magarelli & Rose Savage

Mr. Alex and Mrs. Michelle Marrero 102 Alan Heisey

PERLS Inc. 105 Bruce McMinn

2117969 Ontario Inc. 106 John Alati & Alexander Suriano Midvale Estates Ltd. 107 Potestas Properties Inc. 108 Covenant Chapel 115

Bentall Kennedy (Canada) LP 111 James Harbell, Patrick Duffy & Maggie Chien

Toromont Industries Ltd. 114 Michael Arbutina & Michael Miller

Dorian Place Landowners 123 Carmine Marando

Monica Murad 127 Micheal Simaan

Parties Party No. Representative

Region of York A Pitman Patterson, Gabriel Szobel & Frank Santaguida

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing B Kenneth G. Hare & J. Flynn Paquin

Toronto and Region Conservation C June Little Authority

611428 Ontario Ltd. F David Bronskill & Nick Staubitz

York Region Catholic District School G Peter C. Williams Board

York Region District School Board H Jessica Peake

FCHT Holdings (Ont) Corp I Steven A. Zakem - 18 - PL111184

CNR K Alan Heisey

Ivanhoe Cambridge Inc. M Jeffrey L. Davies

Vaughan 400 North Landowners Group N Michael Melling & Jason Lewis Inc.

1233389 Ontario Inc. O Alan Heisey

Sustainable Vaughan P Stephen Roberts

Brownridge Ratepayers Association R Mario Racco (party status not yet determined)

Joseph and Teresa Marando S Carmine Marando

Velmar Centre Property Ltd. T Michael Melling & Jason Lewis

Participants No. Representative

City of Brampton i Roberto Zuech & David Waters

Block 27 Landowners' Group ii Michael Melling & Jason Lewis

Americo Ferrari iv

Ellen Schacter v Crown Hts Coop Housing

 - 19 - PL111184

- 20 - PL111184

- 21 - PL111184

- 22 - PL111184

- 23 - PL111184

- 24 - PL111184

- 25 - PL111184

- 26 - PL111184

OMB File No.: PL111184

ARGO LUMBER INC. AND ALPA ROOF TRUSSES INC. and THE CITY OF VAUGHAN

MovingParties Respondent

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF A PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER SUBSECTION 17(40) OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, AS AMENDED

AFFIDAVIT OF STEVEN DIXON Sworn April 21, 2016

BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP Barristers and Solicitors Scotia Plaza, 40 King Street West Toronto, Ontario M5H 3Y4

Rick F. Coburn LSUC #30604O Tel: (416) 367-6038 Fax: (416) 361-2437

Isaac Tang LSUC #60631G Tel: (416) 367-6143 Fax: (416) 361-2740

Lawyers for the Respondent

OMB File No.: PL111184

ARGO LUMBER INC. AND ALPA ROOF TRUSSES INC. and THE CITY OF VAUGHAN

Requestors Respondent ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 43 OF THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD ACT, R.S.O. 1990, C. O.28

RESPONDING RECORD OF THE CITY OF VAUGHAN TO SECTION 43 REQUEST FOR REVIEW

BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP Barristers and Solicitors Scotia Plaza, 40 King Street West Toronto, Ontario M5H 3Y4

Rick F. Coburn Tel: (416) 367-6038 Fax: (416) 361-2437 Email: [email protected]

Isaac Tang Tel: (416) 367-6143 Fax: (416) 361-2740 Email: [email protected]

Lawyers for the City of Vaughan