Administrative Law

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal challenging the appointment of honorary officers to the respondent condominium corporation's board of directors.

The applicant argued the tribunal had jurisdiction under its expanded powers to hear disputes regarding nuisances, annoyances, or disruptions set out in the governing documents.

The tribunal dismissed the application, finding that disputes concerning board governance and election practices do not constitute nuisances under section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998, and therefore fall outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant sought to have three Permits to Take Water issued to Goodyear Farm Ltd. revoked under section 61(1) of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding that section 61(1) provides for a review by the Minister, not the Tribunal, and therefore the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a pre-hearing conference regarding an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind farm.

The Tribunal granted presenter and participant status to several individuals and entities.

The Tribunal also issued procedural directions, including deadlines for document exchange and scheduling the hearing dates, while excluding certain issues from the scope of the hearing.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to take actions regarding a wood waste landfill and leachate management systems.

During telephone conference calls, the parties agreed to schedule a pre-hearing conference and consented to minor amendments to the Director's Order to clarify the requirements for constructed surface flow wetlands.

The Tribunal ordered the scheduling of the pre-hearing conference and amended the Director's Order accordingly.

The City of Thunder Bay and Robert Whiteside appealed an amended Permit to Take Water issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.

The Tribunal held telephone conference calls to address the status of the appeals and scheduling.

The Tribunal dismissed Mr. Whiteside's appeal for lack of jurisdiction but granted his request for Party status, and scheduled a pre-hearing conference and a motion regarding the Director's jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit application to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new one.

At a pre-hearing conference, the appellant raised concerns regarding the proposed development's water source and its potential impact on a shared artesian well.

The Hearing Panel determined that a requested property boundary fence was not an appropriate issue for the appeal.

The Panel issued procedural directions and scheduled the hearing dates.

The appellant appealed a Director's decision confirming a Provincial Officer's Order that required the cessation of demolition waste deposition and the removal of all waste from the site.

The appellant brought a motion for a stay of the Director's decision pending the appeal.

The Environmental Review Tribunal refused the request for a stay and dismissed the motion, with reasons to follow.

The appellant appealed conditions of a Permit to Take Water issued for its golf course, which required the installation of nested bedrock monitoring wells.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement agreement to amend the permit conditions, requiring the conversion of an existing well into a multi-level observation well and shortening the permit duration to two years to gather data.

The Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the purpose of the Ontario Water Resources Act and in the public interest, ordered the Director to issue the amended permit, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order regarding contamination associated with a former manufactured gas plant site.

The parties requested a further adjournment of the appeals to allow for continued discussions and the implementation of work plans.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it fair and reasonable as progress was being made and there was no immediate threat to human health or the environment.

The appellants appealed a municipal order requiring them to pay costs for the clean-up of an environmental spill.

Parallel civil and by-law proceedings were also ongoing.

The appellants sought an adjournment of the Tribunal appeal pending their motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court regarding a stay of the proceedings.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal granted the adjournment to preserve the integrity of the process and avoid overlapping litigation.

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding appeals of a Niagara Escarpment Commission decision to conditionally approve a development permit for a secondary dwelling.

The parties agreed on a timeframe for scheduling the hearing and requested a continuation of the pre-hearing conference to discuss possible resolution of issues.

The Hearing Officer scheduled the hearing, document disclosure dates, and a continuation of the pre-hearing conference.

The appellants sought to appeal a Provincial Officer's Order issued under the Environmental Protection Act.

The Director requested the appeals be dismissed without a hearing, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the appellants failed to request a review of the order by the Director within the statutory seven-day limit.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that under s. 140 of the Act, an appeal only lies from a Director's order.

Since no review was requested, no Director's order was made or deemed made.

The appeals were dismissed pursuant to Rule 119 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

At a pre-hearing conference regarding an appeal of the Director's refusal to issue an Environmental Compliance Approval for a hauled sewage disposal site, the Tribunal considered requests for party and participant status.

The Township of Algonquin Highlands was granted party status.

Several individuals and a property owners' association were granted participant status, while one individual's request was deferred as she intended to be a witness.

The Tribunal also set a schedule for mediation and the hearing.

A municipality sought an order requiring demolition of a waterfront structure constructed on Lake Rosseau, asserting that the respondent had built a boathouse with living accommodations in violation of zoning and planning by-laws.

The respondent argued the structure was a water aerodrome registered with Transport Canada and therefore immune from municipal regulation under the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity.

The court examined the chronology of events, the respondent’s intentions, and the actual use and design of the structure.

It concluded the aerodrome registration was an attempt to circumvent municipal zoning restrictions and that the structure functioned as a boathouse rather than an aeronautical facility.

The court held that municipal planning and zoning laws applied and ordered demolition of the structure.

The appellant, a standardbred owner and veterinarian, appealed a Judges' Ruling fining him $1,000 for being partially responsible for a positive test result for the Class 4 drug Dipyrone on a racehorse.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the $1,000 fine.

The Commission also imposed an additional $1,000 penalty under subsection 11(8) of the Racing Commission Act, 2000, finding that the request for the hearing was frivolous.

Standardbred licensee David Boughton appealed a decision of the Standardbred Industry Board of Appeal upholding a three-day driving suspension and a change in the order of finish for a violation of Rule 22.05(a).

The Ontario Racing Commission allowed the appeal, overturning the suspension and restoring the original order of finish.

The appellant, a standardbred driver/trainer, appealed a ruling that placed his horse 4th from 3rd in a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel heard evidence and dismissed the appeal by a majority, providing oral reasons for both the majority and minority decisions.

Standardbred owner and trainer Peter Poulos appealed a one-year suspension and $5,000 fine imposed after his horse tested positive for caffeine and related substances.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal but varied the penalty, imposing a one-year suspension of his trainer's licence and upholding the $5,000 fine.

The respondent appeared before the Ontario Racing Commission regarding the suspension of his licence under the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

The Commission ordered the continuation of the suspension until the respondent provides proof of successful completion of a treatment program.

Upon reinstatement, the licence will be subject to conditions including mandatory drug testing and abstinence from controlled substances.

Emilio Davison appeared before the Ontario Racing Commission seeking reinstatement of his thoroughbred licence.

The Chair reinstated his licence subject to several conditions, including completion of a rehabilitation program, regular progress reports, weekly urine testing at his own expense, mandatory testing by the ORC drug testing unit, and abstention from all non-prescription drugs.