Andrew Burton

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Glen Williams Estates Inc. against the Town of Halton Hills for failing to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan amendment, Zoning By-law amendment, and a Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Region of Halton and the Credit Valley Conservation Authority, and participant status to two local citizens' groups.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for March 13, 2023, to allow time for further application submissions and potential mediation.

The defendants in a drug and proceeds offence case sought standing to challenge search warrants under the Charter.

The court dismissed the application for standing for all defendants except one (Taylor Brennan, whose charges were later stayed), finding that they failed to prove a sufficient connection to the searched properties to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy on a balance of probabilities.

The decision reiterates that the onus is on the defendant to prove standing and discusses the application of the Edwards factors and the normative vs. categorical approach to Charter standing.

The Crown brought a motion under s. 771 of the Criminal Code for forfeiture of amounts pledged in a release order after the accused failed to appear in court.

The accused and his main sureties had written down the wrong return date, but the accused surrendered four days later.

The court found that while the sureties acted properly in remedying the failure, they did not act with due diligence to prevent it.

Given the serious nature of the original charges, the court ordered a partial forfeiture of $1,000 each from the accused and the two main sureties.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The respondent requested the CMC because the claimant failed to comply with the procedural order regarding document production.

The Tribunal found that the matter was not ready to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal cancelled the scheduled March 2022 hearing, set a new hearing date for September 2022, and scheduled a further CMC for March 2022 to review the revised procedural order.

The respondent's request for costs was reserved to the member hearing the matter on its merits.

The respondent requested an urgent Case Management Conference after the claimant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Procedural Order regarding the exchange of expert reports and witness statements.

The claimant indicated a need for further document production to update its business losses due to ongoing construction, contrary to its earlier position that losses had crystallized.

The Tribunal ordered the claimant to produce the additional documents by a specified date, allowed the respondent time to review them, and deferred further scheduling and costs to the next Case Management Conference.

The Milton Phase 4 (West) Landowners Group Inc. and the Milton P4 Trafalgar Landowners Group Inc. (collectively MP4) brought a motion for party status in appeals concerning the Town of Halton Hills' Official Plan Amendment No. 32.

MP4 argued that the Regional Municipality of Halton's Natural Heritage System policies, which were modified in OPA 32, would affect their lands in the Town of Milton.

The Town of Halton Hills and the Region opposed the motion, arguing that MP4's lands were physically distant, they had not participated in the public process, and their addition would unnecessarily complicate the proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that MP4 did not have a direct interest in the proceeding, their presence was not necessary, and adding them would not be in the public interest.

The offender pleaded guilty to trafficking 2.5 kilograms of cocaine and 517 grams of fentanyl.

The Crown sought a sentence of 12 to 13 years, while the defence sought 2 years.

The court found that the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, significant rehabilitation efforts, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic constituted exceptional circumstances.

The court sentenced the offender to 4 years' incarceration, departing from the usual range of 8 to 12 years for such offences.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against his young daughter between April 2016 and January 2017.

The trial proceeded in stages, with the first stage addressing admissibility of the complainant's out-of-court statements under section 715.1 of the Criminal Code and the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The Crown's case relied on the complainant's video-recorded statement to police, her testimony at trial, her statements during play therapy, and her initial spontaneous utterance to her mother.

The defendant's defence was that the complainant had initiated inappropriate sexual contact while he slept and that others, including the complainant's mother and grandfather, were responsible for any sexual abuse or exposure to sexual material.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and compelling, rejected the defendant's narrative, and convicted him on both charges.

The applicants sought a declaration that a proposed municipal fee for a fill permit was an illegal tax, and a mandamus order compelling the respondent municipality to issue the permit.

The municipality had refused to issue the permit until a fill agreement and fill management plan were finalized, which included resolving several outstanding technical and environmental issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding that the applicants did not yet have a clear legal right to the permit and the municipality was not under an obligation to issue it while significant issues remained unresolved.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against his young daughter between April 2016 and January 2017.

The trial proceeded in three stages.

This decision addresses Stage 1, which involved a voir dire concerning the admissibility of three out-of-court statements by the complainant: an initial utterance to her mother and neighbour, statements and actions during play therapy with a social worker, and a video-recorded statement to police.

The Crown sought to admit these statements under the principled exception to the hearsay rule and section 715.1 of the Criminal Code.

The court ruled all three statements admissible, finding both necessity and threshold reliability were established.

A second prehearing was held regarding Dufferin Aggregates' proposed extension of the Acton Quarry.

On consent of all parties, the Joint Board deferred consideration of the Permit to take Water and Environmental Compliance Approval to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, pursuant to s. 5(3) of the Consolidated Hearings Act.

The Board also varied the procedural schedule for serving and filing expert witness statements and related materials.

Reasons for sentence following jury convictions for multiple sexual offences against a child aged 7 to 8, and two assaults by one offender.

The court held that denunciation, deterrence, and separation from society had to predominate in sentencing adult offenders who sexually abused a vulnerable child in a position of trust.

Applying the appellate authorities on child sexual abuse sentencing and the pre-sentence custody credit framework from Summers, the court imposed a 6-year global sentence on one offender with 1.5:1 credit, and a maximum reformatory sentence on the co-offender with 1:1 credit.

Ancillary DNA, weapons, s. 161, and sexual offender registration orders were also made.

The accused were jointly charged with multiple sexual offences and assault against a child.

Prior to trial, the accused brought an application to exclude testimony from a neighbour who overheard a statement suggesting the child was being "pimped out to pedophiles".

The defence argued the statement was irrelevant and highly prejudicial, relying on jurisprudence excluding speculative overheard utterances where probative value is minimal.

The court distinguished those authorities, finding the statement had contextual value as narrative evidence explaining the police investigation and supporting the Crown’s allegation of a sexualized environment surrounding the child.

The probative value was not outweighed by prejudice.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm following an altercation in a high school bathroom.

The accused claimed she acted in self-defence, asserting that the victim was about to assault her and she struck preemptively.

The Crown presented evidence from three witnesses indicating the accused attacked the victim from behind without provocation, causing a broken nose requiring two surgeries, blackened eyes, and swollen cheeks.

The court found the accused's testimony not credible and determined that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused assaulted the victim without lawful justification under sections 34 or 37 of the Criminal Code.

The accused was found guilty.

The Crown brought an application under s. 486.2(1) of the Criminal Code seeking an order that a child complainant testify from a room outside the courtroom via closed‑circuit television with only a support person present.

The accused consented to testimony by closed‑circuit television but argued that counsel should be physically present in the room and that cross‑examination occur face‑to‑face with the child.

The court held that the positioning of participants during testimony is within the trial judge’s discretion and must promote the truth‑seeking function of the trial while ensuring fairness.

Relying on Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence recognizing the need to protect child complainants from intimidation and trauma, the court concluded that placing multiple lawyers in close proximity to the child would risk undermining the reliability and completeness of the child’s evidence.

The Crown’s application was therefore granted and the child was permitted to testify from a separate room accompanied only by a support person.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding a secondary plan.

The proposed appeal challenged the OMB's findings that active parkland and developer-dedicated parklands are not permitted in 'protected countryside' areas under the Greenbelt Plan, and its approval of a municipal policy to acquire such lands at minimal or no cost.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the OMB's determinations involved the interpretation of policy statements rather than questions of law, and were therefore not subject to appeal.