Other Tribunals

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent condominium corporation failed to enforce rules regarding quiet enjoyment due to loud banging and stomping noises.

Before any submissions or evidence were provided in Stage 3, the applicant requested to withdraw the case.

The respondent did not object.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed.

The appellants appealed a municipal by-law designating their property as having cultural heritage value under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Tribunal evaluated whether the property, a mid-19th century vernacular wood frame house, met the prescribed criteria under O. Reg. 9/06.

The Tribunal found the property met three criteria: it is a rare and representative example of a Gothic Revival Ontario Cottage, it displays a high degree of artistic merit, and it has contextual value due to its historical links to the area's agricultural roots.

The appeal was allowed in part only to amend the by-law to reflect these specific findings, and otherwise dismissed.

The appellants appealed the municipality's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 12-unit townhouse development on a property currently containing a single-detached dwelling.

The municipality argued the applications were premature due to an ongoing Heritage Conservation District study and that the proposal represented overdevelopment.

The Tribunal found that the applications were not premature, as no heritage freeze by-law had been enacted.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals on planning grounds, finding that while the site was suitable for some intensification, the proposed density was approximately 70% higher than permitted and would cause unacceptable privacy and overlook impacts on adjacent properties.

The appellant requested a four-year extension to the lapsing date for clearing conditions of draft plans of subdivision.

The municipality supported the extension.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the request, extending the lapsing date to June 6, 2030.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and a legal non-conforming use application to permit a biosolid storage facility in existing wastewater lagoons on a property in a prime agricultural area.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed use was neither an agriculture-related use nor a permitted non-agricultural use under the Provincial Policy Statement, relying on the Prime Agricultural Area Guidelines.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant could not rely on legal non-conforming use because the previous owner's use of the lagoons for its own wastewater treatment had ceased in 2017.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation for injurious affection and business losses under the Expropriations Act arising from a road reconstruction project.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent, scheduling a four-day video hearing to commence on March 1, 2027, and setting out the timetable for pre-hearing steps including discoveries, mediation, and exchange of expert reports.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for various violent offences.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and panic disorder, had made significant progress in hospital but remained vulnerable to stress and rapid decompensation.

Relying on uncontroverted expert evidence, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to limited insight and a history of treatment-resistant illness.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order to ensure a safe and structured transition to complex care housing when available.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for serious driving offences resulting in death, suffers from treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

The Board accepted uncontroverted expert evidence that the accused lacks insight, requires supervision for medication adherence, and would pose a significant risk of serious harm if granted an absolute discharge.

The Board concluded the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory review hearing for a dual status offender who was found not guilty by reason of insanity for attempted murder and kidnapping, and later convicted of escaping lawful custody and sexual assault with a weapon.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to recent institutional misconduct, including physical altercations and sexually inappropriate behaviour.

The Board ordered his continued detention at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, should his federal incarceration cease, and extended the time for his next review to 24 months.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for multiple assaults, was subject to an annual review by the Ontario Review Board.

The accused requested international travel privileges to make a pilgrimage to Mecca.

The hospital and the Attorney General opposed the request, citing the accused's recent behavioural dysregulation, inability to successfully complete overnight passes, and reliance on family members who struggled to enforce hospital rules and medication compliance.

The Board found that the accused continues to present a significant threat to public safety and concluded that international travel was premature.

The detention order was renewed on the existing terms.

The accused, previously found unfit to stand trial on a charge of attempted murder, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual review.

The Board heard evidence from her attending psychiatrist that she continues to struggle with cognitive deficits and emotional regulation, but that her symptoms may be related to complex trauma rather than a permanent intellectual disability.

The Board found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial, but declined to find her permanently unfit.

The Board ordered that the current detention disposition at the hospital remains necessary and appropriate, with privileges to live in approved accommodation in Ontario.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for robbery, was living in a transitional community house.

Due to escalating interpersonal conflicts and verbal aggression towards staff and vulnerable co-residents, the hospital readmitted him to the secure forensic unit after his alternative independent housing fell through.

A mandatory restriction of liberty hearing was held.

The Ontario Review Board found that the hospital's decision to readmit the accused was necessary and appropriate.

The restriction was the least intrusive option available to manage the risk of serious psychological harm to others and maintain public safety until alternative community housing could be secured.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for mischief and failing to comply with a release order.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, substance use disorder, and an acquired brain injury, had been living in the community under a detention order.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to the risk of rapid decompensation and violence if he relapses into substance use.

The Board ordered a continuation of the detention disposition but removed the abstain and residential treatment clauses and reduced reporting requirements to assess his internal motivation to maintain abstinence.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible, was living in an approved group home but left without permission.

Due to a lack of available beds in less secure units, the hospital admitted him to a secure forensic assessment unit and denied him all privileges based on a blanket hospital policy.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to determine if this restriction of liberty was justified.

The Board found that while the initial admission was justified due to the lack of housing, the ongoing denial of privileges based on a rigid policy rather than an individualized assessment was an unjustified restriction of liberty.

The Board ordered the hospital to transfer the accused to a unit where he could access his privileges.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm.

The accused, who has schizophrenia, had been living in a long-term care home and demonstrated improved behaviour and medication adherence, though he continued to experience residual symptoms.

The Board accepted the joint submission that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to public safety, noting his stable living situation, the involvement of a specialized geriatric mental health team, and the availability of the Mental Health Act if future decompensation occurred.

An absolute discharge was granted.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for break and enter with intent, is currently detained at a forensic mental health centre.

The parties presented a joint submission that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and that the current detention disposition should continue.

The Board accepted the joint submission, noting the accused's history of violence, substance abuse, and need for a high level of structure and supervision to maintain recent improvements and prevent decompensation.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and other offences.

The accused, who has a history of substance-induced psychosis, had transitioned to less structured housing and remained stable on medication.

The hospital recommended continuing the detention disposition with reduced reporting requirements.

The Board agreed, finding the accused remained a significant threat to public safety and required ongoing support and supervision before independent living or a conditional discharge could be considered.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for assault, was subject to a detention disposition at a psychiatric hospital.

The hospital significantly restricted his indirectly supervised community privileges after he exhibited intimidating behaviour toward a clinician and engaged in a pattern of inappropriate sexual and interpersonal conduct.

The Ontario Review Board held a restriction of liberty hearing and found that the increased restrictions were necessary and appropriate to manage his risk while the treatment team worked to address his behaviours.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for breaking and entering and sexual assault.

At the initial Ontario Review Board hearing, the accused was absent and his whereabouts were unknown.

The Board found that the accused, who suffers from Schizoaffective Disorder and Cannabis Use Disorder, represents a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his nonadherence to treatment, ongoing substance use, and recent escalating behaviour involving a knife.

The Board ordered a detention order with discretionary privileges, requiring immediate hospital admission.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for various offences including robbery with a weapon, was subject to an annual review and a Restriction of Liberty (ROL) hearing.

After a period of residing in the community, the accused's mental status decompensated following a reduction in antipsychotic medication and a return to substance use, leading to her readmission to the hospital.

The Ontario Review Board found that the readmission was warranted and the least restrictive option available.

The Board concluded that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of her Detention Order, with the addition of a clause requiring her to abstain from alcohol and other substances.