Other Tribunals

The applicant condominium owner sought records relating to an insurance claim and a $25,000 chargeback for a grease fire.

The respondent condominium corporation provided some records but withheld others, citing the exemption for contemplated litigation under s. 55(4)(b) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent had provided all records to which the applicant was entitled and reasonably relied on the exemption for the withheld correspondence, given the applicant's explicit threats of litigation.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The registrant admitted to professional misconduct for falsifying an employment letter and forging her employer's signature to support a licensing application in the United Arab Emirates.

The College and the registrant presented a joint submission on penalty, proposing a one-month suspension, a reprimand, and remedial education.

The Tribunal accepted the joint submission, finding it protected the public and did not bring the administration of the professional discipline system into disrepute.

The Law Society brought a summary application alleging the respondent lawyer failed to co-operate with an investigation and failed to maintain required books and records.

Following a spot audit, the investigator requested various trust account records, journals, and reconciliations.

The lawyer provided some documents but failed to produce all requested records despite multiple extensions.

The Tribunal found the lawyer engaged in professional misconduct by failing to promptly and completely respond to the Law Society and by failing to maintain the required books and records.

The lawyer's licence was suspended indefinitely until compliance is achieved, followed by an additional one-month suspension, and he was ordered to pay costs.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to permit the construction of two garden suites on the footprint of an existing garage.

The proposed garden suites would have a gross floor area larger than the existing primary residence on the lot.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, accepting uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal represented good planning, provided gentle intensification on a Major Street, and met the four tests for minor variances under the Planning Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the required procedures leading up to and including the hearing scheduled to commence on November 30, 2026, regarding appeals by 2371933 Ontario Inc. for the failure of the City of Vaughan to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a proposed 42-storey and 45-storey mixed-use residential development.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a 417-unit residential redevelopment.

Following a settlement between the parties, the Tribunal held a hearing in writing.

Relying on the uncontested affidavit evidence of a land use planner, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and in conformity with the Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part, with the draft planning instruments approved in principle and the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of municipal engineering, urban design, and forestry conditions.

The Town of Ajax brought an uncontested motion to adjourn a scheduled multi-day hearing before the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding various planning appeals for a proposed 660-unit residential development.

The Town's counsel requested the adjournment due to an upcoming medical procedure and a scheduling conflict with another hearing.

Finding the request reasonable and noting the lack of opposition from the other parties, the Tribunal granted the motion, abridged the time for service, vacated the April 2026 hearing dates, and scheduled a new five-day video hearing for June 2026.

The appellant developer appealed the City's calculation of development charges for a new residential building, seeking a refund of $153,932.

The appellant argued that a prepayment agreement had been formed through email correspondence with City staff, locking in lower rates from a previous by-law for 270 units.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that no legally binding prepayment agreement existed because the Development Charges By-law requires express Council approval for such agreements, which was never obtained.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the original building permit and associated development charges applied only to the first two buildings, and had no connection to the third building in question.

The applicant appealed the Town of Oakville Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit stacked townhouses.

Prior to the merits hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment on consent to revise its proposal to address the Town's concerns.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it would ensure a fair and expeditious hearing, and scheduled a three-day hearing for May 2026.

The applicants appealed the City of Niagara Falls' refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Vacant Condominium to permit the development of six townhouse dwellings and one semi-detached dwelling.

The parties reached a settlement modifying the proposal to include one semi-detached dwelling instead of two and extending privacy fencing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The appeals were allowed in part, the zoning by-law was amended, and the draft plan was approved subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed under s. 42(10) of the Planning Act regarding the cash-in-lieu fee for parkland paid under protest to the municipality.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal scheduled a five-day merit hearing to commence on August 24, 2026, by videoconference.

The parties were directed to file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The property owners requested a Hearing of Necessity under the Expropriations Act regarding Metrolinx's application to expropriate a temporary easement over a portion of their driveway.

The easement was required to regrade and repave the driveway to tie into a newly constructed sidewalk for the Hazel McCallion LRT project.

The owners argued the expropriation was unnecessary and overly broad.

The Tribunal found that the regrading was required to achieve proper stormwater drainage and access, which could not be accomplished solely through work on the public right-of-way.

The Tribunal concluded the proposed expropriation was fair, sound, and reasonably necessary, but recommended including a fixed two-year expiry date to provide certainty to the owners.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on an official plan amendment application.

The parties disputed the inclusion of a note in the Draft Procedural Order that would require parties raising technical issues to call expert evidence.

The Tribunal agreed with the added parties that the note was inappropriate, as the Rules of Practice and Procedure do not mandate calling an expert witness to support an issue, and parties may rely on cross-examination.

The note was removed, and a 14-day merit hearing was scheduled.

The appellant motor vehicle dealer appealed a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration issued by the Registrar.

The Registrar alleged the appellant breached registration conditions by failing to disclose material facts on Bills of Sale, offering unsupported warranties, and failing to provide a required Letter of Credit.

Furthermore, the Registrar alleged the appellant continued to trade in motor vehicles after its registration expired.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the Registrar met its onus, noting compelling evidence that the appellant's sole director continued to sell vehicles while unregistered despite warnings.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to refuse registration, finding that the appellant's conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle after it was driven by an individual whose licence was subject to an ignition interlock condition.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence in verifying the driver's licence status, as he merely accepted the driver's representation without checking the expiration date or conditions.

However, the Tribunal found that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The appellant, who relied on social assistance and supplemented his income through construction work, demonstrated that he had no reasonable alternative to the vehicle for visiting potential customers and transporting tools.

The Tribunal concluded that the loss of the vehicle would cause immediate, significant, and lasting economic loss, and ordered the Registrar to release the impounded vehicle.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition and a review of a restriction of his liberties.

The accused, who has schizophrenia and substance use disorders, was readmitted to the hospital after his community residence became unviable following his grandmother's death.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his major mental illness, history of substance use, and risk of rapid deterioration if non-adherent to treatment.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current detention order and found the hospital's restriction of liberties to be necessary and appropriate.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for various weapons offences, was conditionally discharged but subsequently readmitted to the hospital on two occasions due to substance use and psychiatric decompensation.

The Ontario Review Board convened a hearing under s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code to review the resulting restrictions of liberty.

Accepting the joint submission of the parties and the unchallenged medical evidence, the Board found that both readmissions were necessary and appropriate to manage the accused's risk to public safety.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for uttering threats and mischief, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for his mandatory annual hearing.

All parties agreed that the current detention order best served his needs and public safety.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the public due to his schizoaffective disorder, history of non-compliance, and rapid decompensation when placed in the community.

The Board accepted the joint submission and maintained the detention order at the hospital.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and breach of probation.

The accused, diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Type, did not attend the hearing.

Relying on the uncontroverted expert evidence of the treating psychiatrist, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, noting a history of rapid decompensation when living in the community without oversight.

The Board ordered a continuation of the Detention Order with an amendment to allow travel passes within Ontario, while the hospital continues to advocate for supported community housing.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for first-degree murder.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been living in a supervised community residence and demonstrating stability, though he continued to experience anxiety and periodic paranoia.

Relying on expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found the accused continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order but amended it to allow indirectly supervised travel passes of up to 14 days to facilitate family visits.