Andrew Porter

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Concord Adex Inc. against the City of Toronto's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a 64-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted party status to several entities without objection.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for April 13, 2026, to allow time for discussions and the preparation of a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent of the parties to govern the proceedings leading up to and including a 21-day hearing scheduled to commence on June 3, 2024.

The hearing concerns appeals of the City of Toronto's Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 183 and By-law No. 235-2-16, which designates the Historic Yonge Street Heritage Conservation District and Plan.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 183 and the Historic Yonge Street Heritage Conservation District.

The Tribunal scheduled a further CMC for July 2023 to allow the City to finalize a revised HCD plan and for parties to scope issues.

The Tribunal declined to schedule a merits hearing, finding it premature.

A request by a new property owner to assume a withdrawn appeal was deferred, with a scheduled motion date vacated on consent of the parties.

The College of Optometrists of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against the respondent for failing to diagnose, monitor, record, and refer a patient with an iris nevus that was later diagnosed as an iris melanoma.

The respondent pled guilty to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the respondent committed professional misconduct and ordered a reprimand, a practice coaching program, and $7,500 in costs.

The College alleged that the members committed professional misconduct by charging an excessive fee for a traditional Chinese medicine remedy containing rhinoceros horn and by engaging in conduct unbecoming a practitioner.

The members admitted to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee accepted the agreed statement of facts and found the members guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a two-month suspension (which could be remitted upon completion of coursework), a public reprimand, and $4,000 in costs.

The member faced allegations of professional misconduct, including using the unauthorized designation of Registered Massage Therapist, issuing a receipt in her son's name, failing to maintain proper patient records, and improperly storing used acupuncture needles.

The member admitted to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering an 8-month suspension (reducible to 4 months upon completing conditions), a reprimand, practice conditions, and costs of $2,500.

The respondent requested to defer the hearing of the merits of a human rights application pending the conclusion of its application for judicial review of a previous interim decision.

The Tribunal denied the request, applying the principle that administrative proceedings should not be fragmented or delayed by judicial review applications absent exceptional circumstances.

The hearing was ordered to proceed as scheduled.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application following the conclusion of proceedings before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The respondents opposed the reactivation and requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code on the basis that the HPARB proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application and ordered a preliminary hearing by conference call to hear oral submissions on the section 45.1 dismissal request.

The respondents requested to dismiss or defer the human rights application on the basis that the facts and issues were currently before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way of proceeding, as concurrent proceedings dealing with the same issues raise the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the HPARB proceeding.