Administrative Law

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 28-storey residential building.

Following a public hearing, the Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent of the parties.

The order establishes the organization of the hearing, pre-hearing requirements, and the final issues list.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a proposed five-storey residential rental building.

The applicant requested additional time to complete a resubmission aimed at resolving the City's concerns.

With the City's consent, the Tribunal scheduled a subsequent Case Management Conference for March 2022 and directed the parties to file a Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality for failing to make decisions on a proposed Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List for the upcoming two-day video hearing.

The claimants sought compensation for the market value of land taken by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for a light rail transit project, as well as disturbance damages and injurious affection for business losses.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to establish a procedural timetable and schedule the hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to adhere to the agreed-upon timetable and scheduled a nine-day hearing to commence on November 7, 2022.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Waterloo's Official Plan, zoning by-law amendments, and draft plans of subdivision.

The City withdrew its motion to geographically scope the Official Plan appeal.

The Tribunal approved a draft Procedural Order on consent of the parties, scheduling a 20-day video hearing for October 2022 and setting out the procedural requirements, including the exchange of draft conditions and expert witness meetings.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a 2017 expropriation of part of the claimants' lands for the realignment of Highway 6.

The claimants sought the Ministry's final design plans and the scheduling of a second CMC.

The Ministry indicated it was awaiting reports from its planner and appraiser.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC for February 22, 2022, and directed the Ministry to provide status updates on the final design plans, construction schedule, and expert reports.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals by Losani Homes concerning properties in the Town of Grimsby.

The appeals relate to Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, as well as heritage demolition refusals and notices of intention to designate under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Tribunal granted party status to Burgess Heritage Group Inc. and participant status to several individuals.

The Tribunal deferred the issue of consolidating the appeals, directed the parties to finalize a draft Procedural Order, and scheduled a 10-day merit hearing as well as a second Case Management Conference.

The appellant trust appealed from a summary judgment motion dismissal regarding a reassessment of provincial income tax under the Ontario Income Tax Act for the 2007 taxation year.

The central issue was whether waiver form T2029, a prescribed form under the federal Income Tax Act, operated to waive the limitation period for reassessing Ontario income tax.

The appellant argued that T2029 had never been prescribed for Ontario purposes and that government advice calling into question its prescription status prevented the waiver from operating.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, holding that section 48(15) of the Ontario Act deems any form purporting to be prescribed by the Provincial Minister to be a prescribed form unless called into question by the Provincial Minister.

The court found that T2029 clearly purports to be a prescribed form and had not been called into question by the appropriate authority.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated February 6, 2017, challenging the Board's addition of a "24-hour-a-day" supervision requirement to a community accommodation condition.

The appellant contended this requirement was not part of the joint submission made at the hearing.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in the appeal, determining that the hearing transcript clearly showed counsel for the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health had proposed a housing clause specifically including 24-hour staff supervision, which the appellant's counsel had supported.

The Board's disposition therefore accepted the parties' joint submission rather than departing from it.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Appellant, a police officer, appealed a finding of misconduct and a penalty of dismissal arising from a 2004 traffic stop and drug seizure.

The Hearing Officer had found the Appellant guilty of neglect of duty based largely on hearsay utterances from a disgraced former officer and circumstantial evidence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer committed numerous errors of law, including admitting highly unreliable and prejudicial hearsay evidence, shifting the burden of proof onto the Appellant, making irreconcilable findings of fact, and improperly using his own police experience to fill gaps in the evidentiary record.

The finding of misconduct was quashed, rendering the penalty moot.

The Port Hope Police Services Board applied under section 40 of the Police Services Act for consent to terminate six civilian communicators in order to outsource communications and dispatch services to the Owen Sound Police Service.

After a public meeting and review of the proposed dispatching agreement, the Commission found that the outsourcing would continue to provide adequate and effective police services for Port Hope while addressing financial pressures.

The Commission consented to the application, ordering that any outstanding severance issues be submitted to arbitration if not resolved within 90 days.

Two police officers appealed a finding of misconduct for making an unlawful or unnecessary arrest without good and sufficient cause.

The officers had arrested a driver leaving a laneway near a suspected drug dealer's residence without observing any drug transaction or confirming the driver's identity.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's reasons were adequate in the administrative law context and that the officers lacked objective reasonable and probable grounds to make the arrest.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of forfeiture of five days' pay for conducting unauthorized CPIC searches on an individual involved in a domestic relationship with the officer's friend.

The officer argued that the Hearing Officer erred by refusing to order the disclosure of a 2007 investigation file regarding similar CPIC searches for which the officer was cleared.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the strict criminal disclosure standards from Stinchcombe do not apply to administrative police discipline hearings, and that the disclosure provided was sufficient to allow the officer to know the case to be met.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of demotion imposed by a Hearing Officer.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer was biased, the prosecutor was unfair, and that it was fundamentally unfair to proceed with the hearing in his absence while he was on long-term disability.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of bias or prosecutorial unfairness.

The Commission held that the Hearing Officer was legally correct to request medical information to substantiate the need for further adjournments and acted reasonably in proceeding in the appellant's absence after numerous delays and a persistent lack of cooperation.

The penalty of demotion was upheld as reasonable.

The appellant police officer pled guilty to discreditable conduct after being convicted of impaired driving while off duty.

A joint submission proposed a forfeiture of 100 hours, but the Hearing Officer rejected it and imposed a 15-month demotion.

On appeal, the Commission found no reasonable apprehension of bias in the Hearing Officer's decision to reject the joint submission or his reference to public opinion.

However, the Commission found the 15-month demotion was harsh and excessive, as the Hearing Officer failed to distinguish the appellant's circumstances from more serious cases and placed too much weight on general deterrence.

The penalty was varied to a 9-month demotion.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for deceit and discreditable conduct, as well as the penalty of a six-month demotion, arising from his failure to properly investigate a fellow officer's possession of potentially stolen property.

The appellant argued the hearing officer misapprehended evidence and provided deficient reasons.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer's conclusions were reasonable, supported by the evidence, and that the penalty fell within the acceptable range of outcomes.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary conviction and penalty for unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority.

The officer had arrested a motorist for breach of the peace during a traffic stop after the motorist became agitated and argumentative.

The Hearing Officer found that the officer lacked reasonable grounds for the arrest, as the motorist's behaviour did not pose an imminent risk of harm or breach of the peace.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied the reasonableness standard of review, upheld the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and credibility, and affirmed the penalty of forfeiture of 24 hours of work.

The appellant, a police sergeant, brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence on his appeal of a discreditable conduct finding and demotion penalty.

The appellant argued the evidence, though chronologically available at the time of the hearing, was functionally unavailable because he was on long-term disability and did not participate.

The Commission applied the Palmer test and dismissed the motion, finding the first branch was not met because the evidence could have been adduced at the hearing.

The issue of whether the hearing officer erred in proceeding in the appellant's absence was deferred to the main appeal.

This is a preliminary motion ruling on appeals of Compliance Audit Committee decisions to order compliance audits of election campaign finances.

The appellants sought to have the appeals conducted as hearings de novo, while the respondents and the Committee argued the appeals should be limited to a review of the record.

The court determined that absent a clear statutory mandate to the contrary, appeals must take the form of a review of the record rather than de novo hearings.

The court rejected arguments that deficiencies in the record, the Committee's failure to provide reasons, or the prematurity of the audit application warranted a de novo hearing format.

An elector applied to the Compliance Audit Committee for a compliance audit of four municipal election candidates' campaign finances, alleging various contraventions of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.

The Committee dismissed the application.

On appeal, the court considered the appropriate standard of review, the meaning of "reasonable grounds," and whether the candidates had contravened the Act.

The court found that the Committee was entitled to deference as an expert body and applied a reasonableness standard.

The court upheld the Committee's decision, finding no reasonable grounds to believe the candidates had contravened the Act, as they had promptly returned improper contributions upon becoming aware of them and any filing errors were unintentional and did not materially affect the public's ability to review campaign finances.