Alyssa Leah Armstrong

The appellant held an aggregate licence on property owned by the respondent.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry decided to transfer the licence to the property owner.

The appellant challenged this at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, arguing it should receive financial compensation.

The Tribunal ruled on a preliminary motion that it lacked jurisdiction to consider financial compensation.

The appellant appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as premature, finding that without a full factual record and substantive decision from the Tribunal, it could not properly review the jurisdictional and policy findings.

The appellant, a registered social service worker, appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding her guilty of professional misconduct for surreptitiously recording a meeting and posting a hyperlink to confidential child protection records online.

She argued the Committee erred because she had been acquitted of criminal and provincial offences arising from the same conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Committee was not bound by the criminal acquittal due to different evidentiary standards and evidence.

The court upheld the Committee's findings that the appellant published identifying information contrary to the Child and Family Services Act and engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.

The penalty, including a six-month suspension, was affirmed.

The appellant sought a declaration that his date of birth is January 1, 1951, rather than November 5, 1955, as recorded in his Iraqi identity documents when he applied for permanent residence in Canada in 1991.

The appellant wished to use the corrected date to apply for Canada Pension Plan benefits.

The Superior Court dismissed the application on three grounds: Ontario was not a proper party, the court lacked jurisdiction, and the appellant failed to prove his true date of birth.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that Ontario had no demonstrated interest in the proceeding and was not a proper party.

However, the court indicated that on a proper record with the correct parties, particularly the Attorney General of Canada, the court may have jurisdiction to grant such declaratory relief.