Other Tribunals

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board after the respondent children's aid society refused to sign her Special Priority Program housing application and subsequently refused to process her internal complaint.

The Board found that the applicant was seeking a service under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and that the respondent had refused to proceed with the complaint.

However, the Board dismissed the application because the respondent had provided adequate written reasons explaining that it could not sign the housing application as the required information fell outside the scope of its child protection investigation.

The applicant appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal under subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act due to the City of Brantford's refusal or neglect to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application.

The application seeks to facilitate the construction of a 10-storey apartment building containing 90 units.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order, agreed to by the parties, to govern the required procedures leading up to and including a six-day hearing scheduled to commence on July 20, 2026.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals regarding the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a proposed high-rise development, the Tribunal considered requests for party and participant status.

The Tribunal granted party status to two condominium corporations representing adjacent residents, and participant status to two nearby residents.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow parties to prepare a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal received a request on consent to correct a minor technical error in a Final Order issued on January 10, 2024, which approved Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments.

The error inadvertently omitted standard language confirming that historic office, commercial, and retail uses remain permitted on the subject property prior to the removal of the holding symbol.

The Tribunal ordered that the approved amendment to the City's Zoning By-law be replaced with the corrected version.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a comprehensive zoning by-law and a refused consent application for five new residential lots in the Township of Tiny.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several neighbouring property owners but denied it to two individuals whose concerns related to a water pump test not conducted on the subject property.

A 10-day merit hearing was scheduled for November 2026, and the parties were directed to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision to permit an 18-lot subdivision.

The Tribunal previously issued a decision allowing the appeals but withheld its final order pending confirmation that pre-requisite matters were resolved.

Having received confirmation from the municipality that all issues were resolved, the Tribunal issued its final order amending the zoning by-laws and approving the draft plan of subdivision subject to conditions.

The appellant sought compensation from the Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund after a dealer failed to pay out his original vehicle loan upon refinancing, leaving him with two loans for the same vehicle.

The Board of Trustees denied the claim on the basis that the refinancing transaction did not constitute a 'trade' under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the transaction was merely a transfer of a loan to obtain a better interest rate, not a trade involving the buying, selling, leasing, or exchanging of an interest in a motor vehicle.

The Law Society of Ontario brought a professional misconduct application against the respondent lawyer regarding his representation of three immigration clients.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to serve his clients to the standard of a competent lawyer, deposited trust funds into his general account before they were earned, falsified a client's signature on an application, and misled both clients and successor counsel.

The Tribunal rejected the respondent's explanations, finding his credibility significantly impeached by his admitted falsification of documents.

All allegations of professional misconduct were established, and a penalty hearing was directed to be scheduled.

The applicants filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a dispute over the respondent's FOB policy.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the dispute fell outside its jurisdiction under O. Reg. 179/17, as it did not relate to a provision governing pets, parking, vehicles, storage, nuisances, or identification/compensation.

In response, the applicants indicated they no longer wished to pursue the case at the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned pursuant to Rule 19.1(f) of its Rules of Practice.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a hearing to review the restriction of liberty imposed on the accused, who had been found not criminally responsible for various offences.

The accused was readmitted to the hospital after showing signs of decompensation and refusing his medication at his group home.

The Board found that the initial and ongoing restriction of liberty was necessary, appropriate, and the least onerous and least restrictive measure, given the accused's history of rapid decompensation and risk to public safety when non-compliant with medication.

The applicant, a condominium owner, filed a request for core records which the respondent condominium corporation ignored until after the applicant commenced a Tribunal proceeding.

The corporation eventually provided the existing records but revealed that no board meetings had been held for a year, with decisions instead made by email.

The Tribunal found that emails are not adequate records of board decisions and directed the corporation to provide minutes once the email decisions were retroactively approved at a proper meeting.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to pay a $2,000 penalty for its initial unexcused refusal to provide the records, plus $150 in costs.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon.

The accused suffers from treatment-resistant schizophrenia and experiences persistent paranoid delusions about her stepfather, making her family home an unsafe environment.

Despite clinical stability, she refuses therapeutic programming and has housing arrears preventing independent placement.

The Board found she remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of her Detention Order with the deletion of one condition.

The applicants sought a review of the respondent children's aid society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a two-year-old child who had been in their foster care.

The society had removed the child and refused the adoption after the child suffered an unexplained elbow fracture while in the applicants' care, relying on the 'unexplained injury principle'.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the society's decision, finding that the unexplained injury principle was distinguishable because the injury was less severe than in precedent cases, there was evidence of potential third-party intervention by the child's siblings, and the society had no other concerns with the applicants' care.

The Board concluded it was in the child's best interests to proceed with the adoption application given the strong sibling bonds and the applicants' ability to meet the child's needs.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for veterinary care costs incurred after her cat was removed to treat a urinary blockage.

The appellant argued the costs were excessive due to a torn urethra during surgery and claimed an inability to pay.

The Animal Care Review Board found the hospital rates were reasonable and the torn urethra was a known complication, not a veterinarian mistake.

The Board varied the Statement of Account from $6,810.76 to $5,037.99, reflecting a reduction requested by the respondent for a second opinion, and found the appellant failed to prove an inability to pay.

The applicant applied for a licence to practise law and wrote the solicitor exam in November 2021.

The Law Society investigated allegations of widespread cheating on the exam and found that the applicant possessed and used unauthorized cheating materials.

During the investigation, the applicant repeatedly made false and misleading representations denying his involvement.

He later admitted to using the cheating materials and failing to be forthright.

The Tribunal found that the applicant made deliberately false and misleading representations, breaching s 8(2) of By-Law 4, and therefore deemed him not to have met the requirements for a licence, including the good character requirement.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to permit a public inspection centre as a home industry on agricultural lands.

The parties reached a settlement to allow the variance subject to conditions limiting the use to the inspection of fire trucks and prohibiting repairs.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 6324223 Canada Inc. for the Town of New Tecumseth's failure to make a decision on Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval applications for a mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted Party status to Honda Canada Inc. and Honda of Canada Mfg. as adjacent landowners.

The Tribunal declined to consolidate the appeals with a related site-specific appeal of the Town's Comprehensive Zoning By-law, but ordered that they be heard together.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical or typographical error in its previous decision dated May 13, 2026.

The amendment replaced paragraph 6 to clarify the applicant's position regarding private septic system requirements and the scope of the Environmental Assessment.

The appellant appealed the City of Cambridge's Zoning By-law No. 25-014 to permit two industrial warehouse buildings.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment had appropriate regard for provincial interests, was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conformed to official plans, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the by-law in accordance with the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance application to add 14 dwelling units to two existing apartment buildings.

The appellant proposed changes to reduce the variances related to parking spaces.

The Tribunal ruled that the changes were minor and no further notice was required under s. 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act.

Participant status was granted to one individual, and a three-day hearing was scheduled.