Administrative Law

Ms. Davies, found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and aggravated assault, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition that continued her detention order and refused a cannabis exemption.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's finding that she continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

However, the court found the Board's refusal to grant the cannabis exemption unreasonable, as it conflated "substances" with "cannabis" and lacked sufficient evidence directly linking cannabis use to a significant public safety risk in a controlled hospital environment.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a rehearing on the cannabis exemption.

The appellant, found Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) for assault, mischief, and probation breach, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) decision to continue his detention.

The ORB had found he still posed a significant threat due to schizophrenia and substance use disorder, despite no recent assaultive behaviour, because of his inability to manage distress and potential for volatility.

The appellant sought an absolute or conditional discharge, or a new hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's assessment of significant risk and its decision not to grant a conditional discharge were reasonable, supported by the evidence, and met the standard of review.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of misconduct (neglect of duty and deceit) and the penalty of dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer.

The misconduct arose from the appellant's failure to properly investigate a suspected impaired driver and his subsequent false explanations to his supervisor and Professional Standards Bureau.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer did not misapprehend the expert evidence, drew reasonable inferences from the facts, and appropriately weighed the dispositional factors in imposing the penalty of dismissal.

The applicant police officer's appeal of a misconduct finding was previously dismissed by the Commission for failure to perfect the appeal.

The applicant subsequently filed a Notice of Constitutional Question challenging the dismissal.

The Commission held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Notice because its prior decision was a final order, rendering the Commission functus officio.

The Commission noted it has no statutory power to reconsider its decisions and that a Notice of Constitutional Question cannot initiate a new proceeding.

The applicant's proper remedy is to seek judicial review.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's finding of misconduct and penalty of demotion.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal because the appellant failed to perfect it by obtaining the necessary transcripts of the disciplinary hearing.

Despite multiple pre-hearing conferences and directions from the Commission, the appellant failed to provide the transcripts or establish that the audio recordings were incapable of transcription.

The Commission found that the appellant had not shown a bona fide intention to pursue the appeal diligently.

The respondent's motion was granted, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the City of Guelph's passing of a by-law to alter its six wards, arguing that the new boundaries failed to provide effective representation by population and unnecessarily divided neighbourhoods.

The City defended the by-law, relying on the extensive review process and recommendations of its expert consultants.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the by-law achieved relative population parity, respected communities of interest and natural boundaries, and was strongly endorsed by the community.

The Tribunal deferred to the reasonable decision of the elected municipal council.

The claimant sought $150,000 in damages for injurious affection, alleging business losses due to the temporary closure of an intersection during the construction of the Rt.

Hon. Herb Gray Parkway.

Following a period of inactivity and missed status hearings, the Tribunal convened a status hearing at the mutual request of the parties.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day video hearing for April 2022 and issued procedural directions for the exchange of witness statements and a joint document book.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to consider a proposed settlement of appeals by McMaster University against the City of Hamilton's Development Charges By-laws.

The parties agreed to amend the 2019 DC By-law to implement a statutory exemption for university development under the Ministry of Training, Colleges, and Universities Act.

Finding the proposed amendment fair and reasonable, the Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendment.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan and various Official Plan Amendments.

The Tribunal granted a motion for disclosure, allowing information pertaining to servicing capacity to be entered into evidence at the upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal denied a request by certain appellants to postpone dealing with the Lindsay urban boundary issue, directing that the hearing proceed as originally scheduled.

Finally, the Tribunal approved the modified Official Plan Schedules A-2, A-4, and A-5, and finalized the Procedural Order for the Phase 2 hearing.

The applicants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of their applications for consent to sever and minor variances to subdivide a residential property into two parcels.

The proposal involved retaining an existing dwelling on one parcel and constructing a new three-storey dwelling on the other, requiring variances for side yard setbacks, eaves projection, and a front-facing garage.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and that the consent applications satisfied the criteria under sections 51(24) and 53(1).

The appeals were allowed, provisional consents were granted subject to conditions, and the variances were authorized.

The applicant appealed the City of Woodstock's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to rezone a property from R1 to R2 to permit a converted dwelling with a basement apartment.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, preferring the evidence of the applicant's planner that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the County Official Plan, and represented good planning by providing sensitive residential intensification without adverse impacts on the neighbourhood.

The City of Windsor brought a motion for security for costs in the amount of $100,000 against the claimant, whose leasehold interest was expropriated in 1999.

The City argued the claimant was an inactive corporation with insufficient assets to pay a potential costs award.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the claimant had a prima facie case supported by three expert reports (including one from the City's own expert) indicating a leasehold advantage.

The Tribunal also found that the City's delay in bringing the motion until shortly before the hearing was prejudicial to the claimant, and that ordering security for costs could unjustly prevent a meritorious claim from proceeding.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit a mixed-use development at 2400-2444 Yonge Street.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement for a revised proposal featuring 27-storey and 21-storey residential towers, a commercial podium incorporating heritage facades, and a new public park.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised 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 in part, approving the planning instruments in principle, and withheld its final order pending the satisfaction of conditions imposed by City Council.

The applicant appealed the City of Brampton's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and plan of subdivision to permit a 200-unit townhouse development.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development makes efficient use of vacant lands, protects adjacent wetlands, and conforms to provincial and municipal planning policies.

The appeal was allowed in part and the zoning by-law was amended, with the final order withheld pending the fulfillment of settlement conditions.

The appellant appealed a site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment and a consent application intended to facilitate the development of a long-term care facility.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and entered into multiple agreements.

The appellant withdrew its appeal against the Zoning By-law Amendment, and the parties jointly recommended a revised condition of consent.

Relying on uncontested land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the consent satisfied all statutory criteria, allowed the consent appeal in part, and authorized the provisional consent subject to the amended condition.

The appellants appealed the City of Hamilton's Urban Hamilton Official Plan Amendment No. 17 and the Fruitland-Winona Secondary Plan regarding the identification of natural heritage and hydrologic features on their lands.

The parties reached a settlement proposing modifications to the policies and land use designations, supported by uncontroverted ecological and planning evidence.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the proposed modifications were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a development charge of $924,705.00 for a self-storage facility.

The parties narrowed the issue to whether a self-storage facility is an 'industrial development' under the City's Development Charges By-law.

The Tribunal issued directions for the filing of written submissions and scheduled a one-day video hearing for oral submissions.

The applicant sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for a metal recycling facility, raising concerns about noise and air emissions from a metal shredder.

The applicant argued that the decision was unreasonable because an acoustic audit should have been required prior to issuance, the ECA conflicted with the Fire Code, and the facility was not authorized under municipal planning requirements.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case that the Director's decision was unreasonable.

The Tribunal held that the Director properly considered the applicable regulatory and policy requirements, that requiring an acoustic audit after the ECA's issuance was consistent with Ministry practice, and that the Director was not required to resolve Fire Code or municipal planning issues before issuing the ECA.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's refusal to enact an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendments to permit the continued use of a two-storey residential building as a commercial medical office.

Following a 2018 hearing, the Tribunal issued a decision approving the applications but did not withhold its final order pending the City's internal review of the draft instruments.

The parties subsequently reached a consensus on minor technical revisions to the instruments, including limiting the permitted gross floor area to 585 square metres.

Based on the uncontested affidavit evidence of a professional planner, the Tribunal amended its previous order to approve the final Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendments, finding the changes respected principles of good planning.

The applicant appealed a school board's decision to expel her 13-year-old daughter for cyberbullying.

The student had created fake Facebook accounts to impersonate another student and send death threats.

The Child and Family Services Review Board upheld the expulsion, finding that although the conduct occurred off school property, it severely impacted the school climate.

The Board rejected arguments that the student's Central Auditory Processing Difficulty prevented her from understanding the consequences of her actions, concluding the conduct was premeditated and the expulsion was justified.