Other Tribunals

The applicant filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a compliance notice incorrectly issued to his unit for alleged garbage disposal violations.

During mediation, the respondent condominium corporation acknowledged the error, confirmed no charges were applied, issued an apology, and agreed to reimburse the tribunal fees.

The applicant sought to proceed to a hearing to obtain an order requiring the respondent to review its enforcement procedures.

The Tribunal dismissed the case, finding that the specific issues giving rise to the dispute had been resolved and that the remaining issue regarding board governance and procedural fairness fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant parent filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding complaints about the respondent children's aid society's communication restrictions and affidavit materials.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 because the issues were currently before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board agreed, finding that the applicant's complaints regarding communication, affidavit corrections, and care providers were not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the respondent children's aid society, alleging the society failed to hear her concerns and failed to provide reasons regarding the closure of two child protection files, a delayed home assessment of the father's residence, and a delayed child interview.

The Board found that the society failed to provide an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons regarding the December 2024 file closure, the delayed home assessment, and the delayed interview.

However, the Board found the society did provide an opportunity to be heard and reasons for the July 2025 file closure.

The application was upheld in part, and the society was ordered to provide detailed written reasons.

The applicant appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal after the Municipality of Chatham-Kent failed to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 9-storey residential apartment building.

The Tribunal found that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Official Plan, and represented good infill intensification.

Based on uncontroverted expert evidence regarding land use planning and traffic impacts, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and approved the zoning by-law amendment.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan Amendment to redevelop the Richard L. Hearn Generating Station into a mixed-use neighbourhood.

At a Case Management Conference, the Toronto Port Authority, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, GFL Environmental Inc., Amrize Canada Inc., and Portlands Energy Centre L.P. sought and were granted party status on consent.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties to finalize a draft Procedural Order and issues list.

The appellant appealed the proposed Official Plan Amendment 42 to the City of Kitchener Official Plan, which sought to permit warehouse use on the subject lands.

Prior to the hearing, the owner of the lands withdrew its request to have a warehouse added as a permitted use.

Pursuant to its authority under section 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered that Amendment No. 42 is not approved.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend their Class G driver's licence for failing to submit a satisfactory medical report.

The Registrar brought a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that a licence suspension under section 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Highway Traffic Act is not an appealable decision under the applicable regulations.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after another driver was caught driving it in contravention of an ignition interlock condition.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence that the vehicle was stolen, as police did not pursue theft charges.

The Tribunal also found the appellant failed to prove there were no alternatives to the impounded vehicle, noting inconsistencies in her testimony regarding public transit and ride-share options.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for attempted murder and other offences.

The hospital, the Attorney General, and the accused all agreed that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety and that a continuation of the Detention Order was necessary and appropriate.

The Board accepted the joint position, noting the accused's progress and compliance with treatment, and ordered the continuation of the Detention Order on a General Forensic Unit with provisions for travel passes.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found unfit to stand trial on charges of failing to comply with a recognizance.

The accused suffers from major neurocognitive disorder, schizoaffective disorder, and expressive aphasia following a stroke.

The Board accepted the joint position of the parties and the hospital's evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to unpredictable and aggressive behaviour stemming from his neurocognitive deficits.

The Board also found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial, as his severe communication barriers prevent him from instructing counsel or conducting a defence.

The Board ordered his continued detention at the forensic hospital.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for uttering threats and carrying a concealed weapon.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorders, had been residing in the community under a detention order.

The Board accepted the joint position of the parties and the hospital's psychiatric evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his guardedness, lack of insight into his medication, and recent incidents of verbal aggression.

The Board maintained the existing detention order with privileges to reside in approved accommodation.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found unfit to stand trial on weapons charges.

The accused's treating physician testified that despite treatment with clozapine, the accused remains unable to discuss the consequences of a trial.

The Board found the accused remains unfit to stand trial and ordered the continuation of a Detention Order at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with privileges to live in the community in approved accommodation.

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

The accused sought a conditional discharge, while the Hospital and Crown jointly recommended maintaining the existing detention order.

The Board accepted the psychiatric evidence that the accused's schizophrenia, combined with his limited insight, guardedness, and lack of participation in structured activities, meant he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board concluded that maintaining the detention order with privileges for approved accommodation was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition necessary to protect the public.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and uttering threats.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and an intellectual disability, had been stable and compliant with medication while residing in supported housing.

The parties jointly submitted that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety and should remain subject to a conditional discharge on existing terms, pending an approved inter-provincial transfer to Alberta.

The Board accepted the joint submission, finding that the accused required continued high-level support and structure to maintain clinical stability and mitigate risk.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault and sexual assault.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been living in transitional housing in the community and remained generally stable and medication compliant.

However, recent incidents of inappropriate public behaviour raised concerns.

The Board accepted the joint position of the parties and the treating psychiatrist that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered that the accused remain subject to a detention order at the hospital with privileges up to and including living in approved accommodation.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for offences including assaulting a police officer.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had made significant progress in the community but continued to lack full insight into his illness and need for support.

The Board accepted the joint position of the parties and the hospital's recommendation, finding that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of his conditional discharge with amended conditions to facilitate a transition to more independent housing while maintaining necessary supervision.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's conditional discharge following a finding of not criminally responsible for robbery.

The accused, diagnosed with Bipolar 1 Disorder, had an exceptional year of psychiatric stability and abstinence while living in the community.

However, the Board accepted the hospital's recommendation that the accused requires additional time under reduced controls before an absolute discharge is appropriate.

The Board found the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge with amended, less restrictive terms.

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

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for several violent offences.

The hospital, Attorney-General, and the accused jointly submitted that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and recommended a continuation of the existing Detention Order.

Relying on uncontroverted expert evidence, the Board found that while the accused has made progress in maintaining sobriety and adhering to his medication regimen, he requires further assessment of his ability to cope with independent living.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for attempted murder, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual review of his conditional discharge.

The Board considered whether he remained a significant threat to public safety.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found the accused remained a significant threat due to treatment-resistant schizophrenia and ongoing issues with medication adherence.

However, acknowledging his 12 years of sobriety, the Board continued the conditional discharge but removed the condition requiring urine and breath samples.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for mischief and an indecent act, was readmitted to the hospital following a decompensation in his mental health triggered by sub-optimal medication and cannabis use.

This readmission constituted a significant increase in the restriction of his liberty, triggering a mandatory hearing under s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code.

The Ontario Review Board found that the hospital's decision to readmit the accused was reasonable, warranted, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive course of action available to manage his risk and stabilize his condition.