Administrative Law

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of a motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act on the grounds of exceptional hardship.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeal because the appellant was not the registered owner of the vehicle.

The appellant's representative claimed the appellant had a power of attorney for the owner but was unable to produce it.

The Tribunal found that only the registered owner has the right to appeal under section 50.2(1) of the Act.

As the appellant was not the owner, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under s. 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act on the grounds of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's husband was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code offence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that there were no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as she had access to public transit, rides from family, and ride-sharing services.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration and an Immediate Temporary Suspension Order (ITSO) issued by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

At a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the appellants' four separate appeals into a single proceeding on consent, noting identical underlying allegations regarding their dealership's financial conduct.

The Tribunal also extended the ITSO until the conclusion of the hearing to protect the public interest and granted an adjournment to facilitate settlement discussions and document exchange.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse his registration as a real estate salesperson.

His registration had previously been revoked in 2022.

At the start of the hearing, the appellant's request for an adjournment was denied, after which he chose to abandon the proceeding.

Proceeding in his absence, the Tribunal found the appellant failed to meet the statutory preconditions under s. 17 of the Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2002 to reapply for registration, as he provided no new evidence or proof of a material change in circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed and the proposal to refuse registration was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' order cancelling its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate and seizing its plates.

The Tribunal found the appellant was related to another carrier whose safety certificate had been suspended in British Columbia, as the other carrier controlled the appellant's operations, truck leases, and insurance.

Given the related carrier's poor safety record and the appellant's own worsening violation rate—including hours of service violations, lack of insurance, and multiple collisions—the Tribunal concluded there was reason to believe the appellant would not operate commercial vehicles safely.

The Registrar's cancellation and seizure order was confirmed.

The City of Hamilton issued a Notice of Intention to Designate the former Royal Connaught Hotel under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Three condominium owners objected to the designation, primarily raising concerns about an ongoing ownership dispute over the building's main lobby and the removal of certain heritage features during redevelopment.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the proceedings without a hearing, finding that the ownership disputes were outside its jurisdiction, which is limited to assessing cultural heritage value or interest.

The Tribunal also found that the City had properly accounted for the building's current state in its heritage assessment.

The Tribunal convened a settlement hearing to address an appeal by Tien De Religion Canada regarding the City of Vaughan's 2010 Official Plan.

The parties agreed to modifications permitting a detached dwelling and agricultural uses on the appellant's property, which is largely bounded by the Humber River.

Based on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modifications consistent with provincial policies and the Regional Official Plan.

The Tribunal approved the modifications, finding them to represent good planning in the public interest.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application within the statutory timeframe.

The application proposed two mixed-use buildings with four towers at 6 Dawes Road.

Following a second Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order, scheduled a 10-day hearing for June 2022, and set a third Case Management Conference for November 2021.

The applicant brought a Motion for Directions under s. 34(10.5) of the Planning Act, seeking a declaration that its zoning by-law amendment application was complete and that the City's requirements for additional studies were unreasonable.

The subject property contains a natural heritage system, including a creek and flood hazard.

The City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority required extensive studies to determine the developable area and assess natural hazards.

The Tribunal found that the City's requirements, as set out in its Official Plan, were reasonable and necessary given the site's conditions.

The motion was dismissed.

The City of Toronto adopted Official Plan Amendment No. 453 (OPA 453) to introduce policies regarding dwelling rooms, affordable housing, and tenant relocation.

Several parties appealed the amendment.

Prior to the hearing, the City and the University of Toronto reached a settlement, and the remaining appellants scoped their appeals to be site-specific.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the amended OPA 453 is consistent with provincial policies and maintains the intent of the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal approved OPA 453, except for two site-specific appeals which remain ongoing.

The applicants sought judicial review of the City of Guelph's decision to replace a one-lane heritage bridge with a two-lane bridge on Niska Road, alleging contravention of section 24 of the Planning Act and non-conformity with the City's Official Plan and Neighbourhood Traffic Management Policy.

The application also alleged bad faith.

The court, applying a reasonableness standard of review, dismissed the application, finding that the City's interpretation and application of its policies were not unreasonable and that the process was carried out according to the rule of law.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's decision to order his surrender to the United States of America pursuant to the Extradition Act.

The applicant, a Mohawk of Akwesasne with Aboriginal heritage, argued that the Minister failed to give proper consideration to Gladue principles and his Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Minister's decision, finding that she had properly considered all relevant factors, including the applicant's Aboriginal background and Gladue principles, and that the applicant's circumstances were distinguishable from prior cases.

The court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found the Minister's decision fell within a range of acceptable outcomes.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed two decisions granting habeas corpus relief to an individual detained on account of an outstanding deportation order.

The applicant had been detained for approximately 25 months on immigration grounds.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision to release the applicant on habeas corpus, finding that the detention was lengthy and of uncertain duration and could no longer be justified as furthering the machinery of immigration control.

However, the Court found that the application judge erred by assuming jurisdiction to supervise any subsequent re-incarceration by immigration authorities.

The Court struck the problematic supervisory clause and provided guidance on appropriate conditions for release in immigration detention cases.

The appellants appealed the Divisional Court's dismissal of their judicial review application challenging three decisions of the Ontario Racing Commission: a Suspension and Freezing Order against the owner, a procedural decision dismissing motions to quash or stay the orders, and a merits decision imposing licence suspensions, account forfeiture, and a fine.

The appellants raised three grounds of appeal: inadequate notice and particulars, loss of jurisdiction due to a panel member's expired term, and inadequate reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the notice was sufficient, the panel member could continue to sit under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, and the reasons were adequate to permit review of the reasonableness of the decision.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of reduction in rank from sergeant to first-class constable for a minimum of one year, imposed after he pled guilty to three counts of discreditable conduct for misappropriating funds from a unit bank account.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer misapprehended evidence regarding his repayment efforts, failed to consider his medical and personal circumstances, and imposed a disproportionate penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed these grounds, finding the Hearing Officer's conclusions reasonable and the penalty within the acceptable range.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal in part to vary the wording of the penalty, finding that making reinstatement conditional on a Unit Commander's recommendation was problematic and lacked clear standards.

The penalty was varied to allow the appellant to participate in the normal promotional process after the one-year demotion.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of a one-year demotion from first-class to second-class constable, imposed after he was found guilty of insubordination and discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved falsely recording an authorized missed lunch break and repeatedly refusing to surrender a personal journal referenced in his memo book.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer reasonably considered the officer's prior disciplinary history, the seriousness of the misconduct, and the principles of progressive discipline in determining the penalty.

The Toronto Police Service brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by a police officer for failing to file within the 30-day limitation period under section 70(1) of the Police Services Act.

The appellant's counsel acknowledged the delay and requested an extension.

The Commission held that the Act does not permit extensions of time for appeals, as the discretion to do so was expressly removed by 1997 amendments.

The motion was granted and the appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant police officers appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct arising from a warrantless entry into a tenant's private residence while responding to a landlord-tenant dispute over unpaid rent.

The appellants argued the Hearing Officer failed to consider their good faith and intentions.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably applied an objective test based on the reasonable expectations of the public, and correctly concluded that the officers' unauthorized entry constituted a trespass that would bring discredit to the police service.

The appellant police officer brought a motion on consent to lift the automatic stay of his penalty of demotion pending his appeal.

The officer had pled guilty to discreditable conduct for unaccounted absences and was demoted for one year with ongoing conditions.

He abandoned his appeal of the demotion but maintained his appeal of the conditions.

The Commission found it had jurisdiction under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to lift the stay and granted the motion, noting that the appeal was not frivolous, the officer sought to serve his demotion immediately to avoid prejudice to future promotion opportunities, and the employer consented.

The Appellant, a police sergeant, pled guilty to discreditable conduct involving time theft and was penalized with a one-year demotion to First Class Constable along with eight conditions for reinstatement.

He appealed the conditions but abandoned the appeal of the demotion, bringing a motion to lift the automatic stay of the demotion so he could begin serving it immediately.

The Respondent supported the motion.

The Commission granted the motion, finding the appeal was not frivolous, the Appellant could be prejudiced by a delay, and lifting the stay would not adversely affect the consideration of the remaining appeal regarding the conditions.