Other Tribunals

The Appellant requested an adjournment of a Toronto Local Appeal Body hearing on the morning of the scheduled date because their counsel was suffering from a debilitating flu and had lost his voice.

The Tribunal considered Rule 23.3 of the Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Noting that the opposing party present did not object and actually wished counsel a quick recovery, the Tribunal found the grounds for an adjournment were met.

The hearing was rescheduled to a mutually agreeable date.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against the Member for professional misconduct.

The Member pleaded no contest to allegations that he drugged and sexually assaulted a former student at his home in 2002.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional, and unbecoming conduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered that the Member be reprimanded and that his Certificate of Qualification and Registration be immediately revoked, finding the conduct abhorrent and a gross violation of trust.

The appellant appealed the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector's decision to keep a tiger cub and a spotted hyena in its care and applied for their return.

The animals were removed due to concerns about their diet, enclosures, daily routines, and social groupings.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals were in distress due to inadequate care and that the appellant's proposed changes were insufficient to meet the species-specific needs of the animals.

The appeal and application for return were dismissed.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's handling of his child's case, including kinship placements and lack of reasons for decisions.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matter was currently before the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Board found that the substantive issues raised by the applicant were essentially the same as those before the court, centering on reunification and placement.

As the matter was before the court, section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 barred the Board from reviewing the application.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Town of Grimsby Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit a sunroom addition with reduced interior side yard and rear yard setbacks.

Prior to the hearing, the parties agreed to revised variance parameters.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised variances met the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the revised variances were authorized, subject to obtaining approval from the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Ottawa's failure to make decisions on official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision applications, the Tribunal granted party status to two neighbouring property owners.

The Tribunal also directed that the related appeals be heard together and established a timeline for the parties to finalize the Issues List and Procedural Order ahead of the next Case Management Conference.

The Appellant brought a motion for costs against the Municipality and a private respondent, seeking 75% of his legal expenses on a substantial indemnity basis, alleging unreasonable and vexatious conduct.

The private respondent also sought costs of the motion.

The Tribunal dismissed both requests, finding that the conduct complained of—including the municipality's initial refusal without reasons, pursuit of allegedly irrelevant issues, failure to settle, and a recusal request—did not meet the high threshold required for a costs award.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an order on consent of the parties to amend the procedural timelines established in a previous procedural order.

The dates for exchanging witness statements, expert reports, participant statements, and reply witness statements were extended in preparation for the hearing scheduled to commence on April 20, 2026.

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) brought a motion to strike three issues proposed by the appellant for an upcoming hearing regarding a development permit application.

The issues challenged whether the subject property was within TRCA's jurisdiction and whether the proposed development was within 'hazardous lands' or a 'river or stream valley'.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that these issues had already been litigated and decided by the Superior Court of Justice in a related Building Code Act appeal.

Allowing the issues to proceed would create the potential for a conflicting decision and amount to an impermissible collateral attack on the Court's decision.

The Municipality of Thames Centre and the County of Middlesex brought an uncontested motion for directions to approve certain modifications to Official Plan Amendment No. 27 (OPA 27).

The modifications resolved the appeal by Fred Jamieson regarding Additional Residential Units and re-designated specific lands from Agricultural to Rural Industrial.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the modifications were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 and represented good planning.

The Tribunal approved the modifications and brought into effect the policies not subject to the remaining appeal by Sifton Properties Limited, which was adjourned sine die.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an order approving a revised Issue List on consent of the parties, replacing the original list attached to the Procedural Order issued on October 17, 2025.

The matter involves appeals under the Planning Act regarding a proposed 10-storey mixed-use building in Niagara Falls.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the City of Welland's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and neglect to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment.

The amendments seek to permit three high-rise residential buildings and two stacked townhouse blocks.

The Tribunal granted party status to a residents' group and participant status to two individuals.

A seven-day merit hearing was scheduled for October 2026, and a Procedural Order was approved to govern the proceedings.

The appellant filed a request for review of a previous Ontario Land Tribunal decision that dismissed their appeal of City-initiated amendments to a zoning by-law.

The Chair determined that the request met the threshold under Rule 25.7 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure to warrant a review.

The Tribunal ordered that the previous decision be set aside and rescinded, and directed that the appeal be re-heard by a differently constituted panel.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on a charge of aggravated assault after stabbing his father.

At the initial disposition hearing before the Ontario Review Board, the hospital, Crown, and accused jointly recommended a detention order.

The Board accepted the clinical evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety but is responding well to treatment.

The Board ordered the accused detained in a General Forensic Unit at Ontario Shores with specified privileges.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for two counts of attempted murder and one count of assault after stabbing his mother and sister.

At his annual review hearing, the Ontario Review Board considered whether he remained a significant threat to public safety.

Relying on expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused's limited insight into his schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder, combined with his stated intention to stop medication if released, meant he remained a significant threat.

The Board ordered the continuation of his Detention Order at the hospital as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

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

The index offence involved a severe, unprovoked stabbing committed while the accused was experiencing substance-induced psychosis.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his severe, long-standing substance use disorder and vulnerability to psychosis if he relapses.

However, noting his complete remission, full-time employment, and positive community reintegration, the Board agreed with the joint submission and expert evidence that a conditional discharge is the least onerous and least restrictive disposition necessary to protect the public.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault due to schizophrenia, was reviewed by the Ontario Review Board.

The Board proceeded in the accused's absence.

Based on the joint position of the parties and the hospital's evidence, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered that the accused remain detained at the General Forensic Service at CAMH, with privileges up to residing in approved community accommodation, as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

Following a finding of professional misconduct regarding syndicated mortgage transactions, the Law Society Tribunal considered the issue of costs.

The Law Society sought $60,000 in costs, while the respondent lawyer argued for $25,000.

The Tribunal reviewed the principles of costs awards in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing that while the profession should not bear all costs, reductions are appropriate to recognize cooperative conduct that shortens proceedings.

Given the lawyer's extensive cooperation, including agreeing to a comprehensive agreed statement of facts, the Tribunal reduced the costs award to $25,000.

The owner of an apartment building requested a review of a TLAB decision that dismissed an appeal and refused minor variances to convert ground-floor storage lockers into two residential units.

The owner argued the TLAB acted outside its jurisdiction by considering the loss of tenant storage lockers and other operational factors, which are governed by the Residential Tenancies Act.

The TLAB review dismissed the request, finding that the original member acted within their jurisdiction by considering the broader public interest and the impact of the proposal on the existing building and tenants when applying the four tests under the Planning Act.

The College of Veterinarians of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations against a member regarding his care of a Great Dane.

The Discipline Committee found the member committed professional misconduct by failing to reassess the dog after diagnostic testing, failing to adequately monitor and treat the dog, failing to communicate with the owner, and failing to maintain proper records.

Following the merits decision, the member retained counsel and entered into a joint submission on penalty, predicated on his undertaking to permanently resign from the profession.

The Committee accepted the joint submission, finding it protected the public interest and obviated the need for further penalty orders.