Other Tribunals

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for the boarding costs of lambs born in care after the appellant's animals were removed.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the first invoice accurately reflected boarding fees, but the second invoice appeared to reflect animal care costs rather than boarding fees.

The Board varied the Statement of Account, reducing the total amount payable from $1,639.63 to $1,261.08.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA#2) for $7,232.13 issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for the boarding costs of a dog removed from his care.

The Board found that the costs were actually incurred and reasonable.

However, considering the appellant's financial circumstances, including his reliance on social assistance and limited ability to pay, the Board exercised its discretion to vary the SOA by 50%, reducing the amount owed to $3,616.06.

The expropriating authority sought to expropriate temporary and permanent easements over the owners' properties to facilitate a road widening and bus rapid transit project.

The owners requested a Hearing of Necessity under the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal found that the proposed permanent easement for a hydro pole and the temporary easements for construction access and grading were fair, sound, and reasonably necessary to achieve the expropriating authority's objectives.

The Tribunal recommended that the temporary easements include a fixed expiry date and specific details regarding permitted uses to provide certainty to the owners.

The Tribunal also recommended that the expropriating authority pay $200 in costs to each of the participating owners.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a residential development.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent developer on consent.

The Tribunal scheduled a 14-day hearing and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

During the mediation stage, the applicant requested to withdraw the case, to which the respondent agreed.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal without prejudice, ordered the parties to bear their own costs, and closed the case.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to convert a commercial space into a third residential unit within an existing building.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal and authorized the variances.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposal represents gentle intensification, fits the physical character of the neighbourhood, and meets the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on an application for an Official Plan Amendment within the statutory timeframe.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties jointly requested that the matter be adjourned sine die as they were in active discussions and it was premature to schedule a merit hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request and adjourned the appeal sine die.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan amendment and refusal to amend the Zoning By-law to permit a residential development.

The Ontario Land Tribunal previously allowed the appeals in part and withheld its final Order pending the fulfillment of certain conditions.

Having been advised that the conditions were satisfied, the Tribunal issued its final Order amending the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appellant sought relief in a horse racing licence appeal arising from a standardbred racing ruling involving a TCO2 violation and related suspension, access prohibition, disqualification, and monetary penalty.

The panel addressed a registrar-requested adjournment of the scheduled appeal hearing and a related request to extend an earlier stay.

On consent, the panel granted the adjournment and extended the stay on condition that the hearing proceed no later than May 22, 2026.

The applicant foster parent sought a review of the respondent society's decision to remove a child from their care.

The society had provided verbal notification and an undated letter, but failed to provide the mandatory 10 days' written notice with the required statutory references.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found the application eligible for review and ordered the society not to carry out the removal until the review was completed.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding a 1995/1996 custody matter, alleging a society worker fabricated her name in court and is currently Facebook friends with her brother-in-law.

The Board dismissed the application at the eligibility stage.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction to review issues already decided by a court or criminal charges, and that the social media complaint did not relate to a service provided by the society.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a prior decision that confirmed a Statement of Account and dismissed the application for the return of his dog.

The appellant argued procedural unfairness, errors of fact, reliance on false evidence, and sought to introduce new medical evidence.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the request, finding that the appellant had declined additional time for late disclosure, failed to request accommodation, and merely disagreed with the Board's weighing of veterinary evidence.

The Board also found that the allegedly false evidence was not relied upon and the new evidence did not meet the criteria for reconsideration.

The appellant, whose licence to practise law was revoked for serious misconduct, brought a motion for a stay of the revocation order and a publication ban pending his appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the stay motion, finding that while the appeal was not frivolous, there was no irreparable harm since the appellant was already suspended on an interlocutory basis, and the balance of convenience and public interest favoured maintaining the revocation.

The Tribunal also dismissed the motion for a publication ban, applying the Sherman Estate test and concluding that the appellant's privacy interests did not outweigh the fundamental importance of openness in professional regulation.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying a warranty claim for a 'howling' noise in a shower.

Prior to the conciliation inspection, the appellant hired a plumber to install pressure reducing valves to mitigate the noise without authorization from the builder or Tarion.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's unilateral alteration of the plumbing system deprived Tarion of the ability to accurately assess the original condition, thereby voiding the warranty under s. 13(2)(g) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship as he required the vehicle to commute to his job as a truck driver and could not afford alternative transportation.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable alternative to the use of his vehicle and that continued impoundment would result in immediate, significant, and enduring economic and employment hardship.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to the mediation stage.

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal of their wish to withdraw the case.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed, noting that all settlement-related communications remain confidential.

The appellant appealed a Director's order cancelling its Tow Operator and Vehicle Storage Certificates under the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021.

The cancellation was primarily based on an employee recording and sharing a video of a fatal collision scene depicting human remains, along with Highway Traffic Act violations and operating after the cancellation order.

The Tribunal found the appellant and its employees breached the Code of Conduct and contravened the Act.

However, considering the appellant's 35-year history and community support, the Tribunal modified the cancellation to a suspension pending compliance with specific terms and conditions, including implementing policies against recording collision scenes and completing mental health training.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an order amending the procedural timelines in a previously issued Procedural Order, on consent of the parties.

The amendments adjusted the deadlines for the preparation of an Agreed Statement of Facts, the exchange of expert witness statements, and the provision of written responses, leading up to a hearing scheduled for June 8, 2026.

The Registrar brought a motion to remove the appellant's unlicensed representative, Abhinav Yadav, from acting in an appeal regarding a proposal to revoke a cannabis retail operator licence.

The Tribunal found that Yadav's potential dual role as a material witness and advocate would impair the administration of justice.

Furthermore, Yadav had a personal and financial interest in the litigation as the intimate partner of a director of the appellant corporation, meaning he did not qualify for the Law Society's exemption for unlicensed family members providing uncompensated legal services.

The motion was granted and Yadav was removed as representative.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that confirmed the impoundment of her motor vehicle.

The Tribunal had previously found that the appellant was barred from appealing the impoundment on the grounds of exceptional hardship under s. 50.2(4) of the Highway Traffic Act due to a previous impoundment.

The appellant argued the Tribunal made an error of fact and that new evidence showed the impoundment was not legally authorized because the driver's licence suspension was administrative, not Criminal Code-related.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error of fact was made based on the evidence at the original hearing, and that the alleged new evidence could have been obtained previously and would not have altered the outcome.