Administrative Law

This case concerns an application by Luigi Caruso to refer the Chief Firearms Officer's (CFO) decision to revoke his Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) to a provincial court judge, pursuant to section 74(1)(a) of the Firearms Act.

The CFO revoked the PAL based on evidence from a police investigation (Project Ovenus) that suggested Mr. Caruso's involvement in drug and firearm trafficking, improper firearm storage, and gunsmithing, despite his criminal charges being stayed due to unreasonable delay.

The court affirmed that a stay of proceedings is not equivalent to an acquittal for all purposes, especially in the context of public safety assessments under the Firearms Act.

The judge found the CFO's decision to be reasonable, as the evidence, including Mr. Caruso's incriminating statements and the discovery of contraband in his residence's basement, supported the conclusion that he posed a public safety risk.

The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal convened a case management conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The parties requested a subsequent conference to provide an update on a road closing procedure and to continue settlement discussions.

The Tribunal scheduled a further conference and approved revisions to the Procedural Order, including an extension for filing the Issues List.

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment to establish a secondary plan.

A party requested that the scheduling of a hearing be deferred due to alleged jurisdictional issues related to an incomplete environmental assessment and ongoing litigation.

The Tribunal found that the party must bring a formal written motion to determine the jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing on the merits and approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision to permit a residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party and participant status to several individuals and entities on consent.

The Tribunal directed the parties to prepare a draft procedural order and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for April 2022.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 49-storey residential development with retail at-grade on a site containing an existing 30-storey rental apartment building.

The City opposed the development, arguing the height and massing were inappropriate and the unit mix did not meet guidelines.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed infill development promotes efficient use of land, is transit-supportive, accommodates an appropriate mix of uses, and conforms to the Official Plan, Growth Plan, and Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's expert evidence that the height and podium design would not have unacceptable adverse impacts and that the unit mix provided functional family-sized units.

The appellant appealed the Township's passage of a by-law dissolving its electoral ward boundaries to create an at-large voting system.

The appellant argued the decision-making process lacked adequate public consultation and that an at-large system would diminish minority representation, particularly for the local Amish community.

The Tribunal found that the municipality's process was fair and reasonable, noting that the Municipal Act does not require specific public notice or consultation for such by-laws.

Applying the Carter factors, the Tribunal concluded that the by-law provides for more effective representation by improving voter parity across the municipality, and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to approve a site plan application for a car dealership within the statutory timeframe.

The City brought a motion to adjourn the scheduled one-day hearing because the applicant recently disclosed that foundation piles would encroach into lands required for a future road widening.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment on consent, setting a new three-day hearing schedule to allow the City to review the revised drawings and potentially call expert engineering evidence.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the reconstruction of an in-water boathouse and an addition to a sleeping cabin.

The parties had reached a tentative settlement, but the Township Council did not endorse it.

Consequently, the Ontario Land Tribunal scheduled a three-day video hearing on the merits for June 2022.

The appellants appealed the Town of Whitby's approval of a temporary use zoning by-law amendment that permitted an existing rural residential structure to be used as a place of worship for three years.

The appellants raised concerns regarding traffic, parking, and building code compliance.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, accepting uncontested expert evidence that the temporary use was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Greenbelt Plan and applicable Official Plans, and could be safely accommodated by existing infrastructure.

The Tribunal approved the by-law in principle, withholding its final order until a Change of Use Permit is granted.

The appellant appealed the City of London's approval of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments that would permit a 42-unit affordable housing development.

The appellant argued that the neighbourhood was deficient in parkland and that the development should include on-site park dedication.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, accepting the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the development is an appropriate form of intensification, conforms to the Official Plan, and is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal also found that the City's decision to take cash-in-lieu of parkland was appropriate given the small size of the site.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a student residence development.

The parties initially requested a written hearing to present a settlement, but after an 11-month delay in resolving a final issue, the Tribunal converted the matter to a settlement hearing by telephone conference call.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file their settlement materials and planning affidavits in advance of the newly scheduled hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of Guelph's refusal of applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a high-density residential development consisting of 678 dwelling units and a park.

The City argued the proposal was an overdevelopment that did not conform to the Growth Plan or Official Plan, and raised traffic and parking concerns.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, finding that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and represents good land-use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and directed the amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

At a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment for a 14-storey mixed-use building, the Tribunal granted a request by a local resident to convert his Party status to Participant status.

The Tribunal also approved the Procedural Order agreed upon by the parties to govern the upcoming ten-day hearing.

A case management conference was held regarding appeals by RIC (Midland Lane) Inc. for the Town of Midland's failure to make decisions on a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision within the statutory timeframes.

The Tribunal granted party status to ADM Agri-Industries Company on consent.

The parties requested and the Tribunal scheduled a further case management conference for April 2022 and a 25-day hearing on the merits for September and October 2022.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical error in its previous order regarding a minor variance and site plan appeal.

The amendment clarified that the $52,000 cash contribution to the City of Toronto must be made prior to the issuance of Site Plan Approval or further building permits, and that the amount shall be indexed upwardly.

The appellants appealed the City of Mississauga's passing of Zoning By-law No. 0121-2020, which introduced new office zones and permitted uses.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a draft Zoning By-law Amendment to the Tribunal.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement and draft amendment were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and maintained the intent of the applicable official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part to implement the settlement.

Elizabeth Dias initiated two actions in Hamilton Superior Court against the Workplace Safety & Insurance Board/Tribunal and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, similar to previous actions dismissed in Toronto as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The Hamilton actions were referred to the court under Rule 2.1.01(7) for potential dismissal on the same grounds.

Despite being given an opportunity to provide submissions, Dias failed to address the frivolous or vexatious nature of the claims or the lack of jurisdiction against the defendants.

The court adopted prior reasoning that no claim could be made against WSIB or LCBO for unsuccessful workers' compensation claims or workplace injuries, as remedies lie exclusively with WSIB.

The court found the Hamilton actions to be attempts to re-litigate or collaterally attack previous decisions and dismissed them with costs, finding them frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary decision finding him guilty of neglect of duty and discreditable conduct.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred in law by failing to rule on the appellant's motion for a stay of proceedings based on abuse of process.

The Commission determined that the deliberate merging of the internal disciplinary investigation and the criminal investigation, which used regulatory powers to compel evidence for the criminal probe, constituted an egregious abuse of process and a violation of the appellant's Charter rights.

The Commission set aside the Hearing Officer's decision and ordered a stay of proceedings on all counts.

The appellant, a provincial constable, appealed a penalty of 80 hours forfeiture imposed after being found guilty of neglect of duty for failing to properly maintain his police notebooks over a 29-month period.

The appellant argued the hearing officer was biased, misconstrued facts, and imposed a harsh and excessive penalty.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing officer's decision was reasonable, supported by the evidence, and appropriately considered all relevant sentencing factors, including the seriousness of the misconduct and the public interest.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission brought a motion seeking the return of allegedly privileged handwritten notes that were disclosed to the respondent, a member of a Police Services Board, in advance of a disciplinary hearing.

The Commission argued the disclosure was inadvertent.

The panel found that while it had jurisdiction to order the return of improperly disclosed documents under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the notes in question were not protected by solicitor-client privilege.

Furthermore, even if they were privileged, the disclosure was not inadvertent because the Commission admitted it did not have a practice of vetting documents for privilege prior to disclosure.

The motion was dismissed.