Other Tribunals

The Law Society sought an interlocutory suspension of the Licensee's licence due to a significant trust account shortage.

The Licensee requested an adjournment, which the Law Society did not oppose, but it sought an interim interlocutory suspension pending the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for an interim suspension, finding that the threshold for significant risk of harm was not met given the early stage of the investigation, the Licensee's cooperation, and her execution of an undertaking not to practise.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a consent application and two minor variance applications to sever an existing parcel and build a detached duplex dwelling on each new lot.

The Tribunal found that the proposed severance met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and that a plan of subdivision was not necessary.

The Tribunal also found that the requested variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they maintained the general 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 subject to conditions.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the respondent society failed to provide him an opportunity to be heard during a 2022 investigation and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Board found that the applicant was provided an opportunity to be heard through the Internal Complaint Review Panel process.

However, the Board found the respondent failed to provide reasons for concluding its investigation without making greater efforts to contact the applicant.

The respondent was ordered to provide written reasons within 30 days.

The applicant, a unit owner, filed a nuisance application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal against the respondent condominium corporation regarding a request to remove a portable basketball net.

The Tribunal returned the application, noting it lacked jurisdiction under the Condominium Act, 1998 and O. Reg. 179/17, and asked the applicant to identify a relevant provision.

The applicant resubmitted without updating the application.

After the applicant failed to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of an expropriation compensation claim.

The claimant consented to the adjournment.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the motion, vacated the scheduled hearing dates, and directed the parties to confer on new dates and submit a fresh procedural order.

The Tribunal issued an order amending the procedural order on consent of the parties.

The amendments revised the procedural timelines leading up to the hearing and updated the issues list concerning the Planning Act, Provincial Planning Statement, and the Municipality of Brighton Official Plan.

The applicant appealed the City of Brampton Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance to permit an increased driveway width.

The variance was sought to accommodate a third parking space required for two proposed additional residential units.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variance, finding that the amended application was minor and that the settlement proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and represented good planning.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend their Class A commercial driver's licence under s. 47(1)(g) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Registrar alleged the licence was obtained through a bribery scheme involving complicit examiners.

The Tribunal granted a confidentiality order over OPP investigation letters to protect an ongoing criminal investigation.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the Registrar failed to establish sufficient reason for the suspension, as the evidence connecting the appellant to the fraud was sparse and amounted to mere suspicion.

The Registrar's decision to suspend the licence was set aside.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his Class A driver's licence.

The Registrar alleged the licence was obtained through a bribery scheme involving a complicit driver examiner.

The Tribunal granted a confidentiality order over OPP investigation letters to protect an ongoing criminal investigation.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's road test was tainted by the bribery scheme, rendering it inadequate to ensure public safety.

The Registrar's decision to suspend the licence was confirmed.

The appellants appealed a Fleet Limitation Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles under the Highway Traffic Act, which restricted the number of commercial vehicles they could operate due to a poor safety record.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Registrar had reason to believe the appellants would not operate commercial motor vehicles safely, given their high overall violation rates, history of safety-related convictions, and failure to sustain improvements.

The Tribunal confirmed the Fleet Limitation Order, finding it to be a reasonable balance between safety concerns and the appellants' recent remedial actions.

The appellant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to remove three conditions from its liquor licence relating to a rooftop patio.

The conditions were originally imposed following a public interest hearing.

The appellant argued that circumstances had changed because it abandoned all plans to install a rooftop patio and the premises were constructed without roof access.

The Registrar agreed with the removal.

The Tribunal found that the appellant met its burden to prove a change in circumstances and ordered the removal of the conditions.

The appellant brought a motion seeking an extension of time to file an appeal from a Notice of Proposal to refuse his registration as a real estate salesperson.

The statutory 15-day appeal period expired on November 3, 2025, and the appeal was filed 74 days late on January 16, 2026.

Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal found that despite the significant delay caused by the appellant's former counsel, the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal, there was minimal prejudice to the Registrar, and the appeal had some merit given the sparse particulars of alleged academic misconduct in the Notice of Proposal.

The motion for an extension of time was granted.

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

The accused, who has mild intellectual disability and bipolar disorder, experienced a lengthy hospitalization during the reporting year due to medication non-adherence and manic episodes involving aggressive behaviour.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties and the expert evidence of the hospital representative, finding that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

A continuation of the current Detention Order Disposition was deemed necessary and appropriate.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for an accused found unfit to stand trial on charges of committing indecent acts.

The assessing psychiatrist testified that the accused had become fit following medication optimization.

However, the Board rejected this opinion, finding the assessment inadequate and noting defense counsel's inability to meaningfully communicate with the accused.

The Board concluded the accused remained unfit to stand trial and ordered a Detention Order at the hospital, with privileges to live in the community to facilitate housing waitlists.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an 86-year-old accused charged with manslaughter who suffers from progressive dementia.

The Board found the accused permanently unfit to stand trial, as she was unable to understand the proceedings or communicate with counsel.

Relying on expert evidence that her mobility had decreased and she had exhibited no aggressive behaviour for over a year, the Board concluded she no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Board recommended the matter be returned to court to determine whether a stay of proceedings should be ordered.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision confirming that police misconduct complaints were unsubstantiated following her arrests and stayed criminal charges.

The court held that the Director's decision was reviewable on a reasonableness standard and rejected arguments for correctness review based on an alleged implicit declaration of guilt.

The reasons emphasized the distinction between reasonable grounds for arrest or charge and criminal guilt, and confirmed that stayed proceedings not recommenced within one year are deemed never to have commenced under s. 579(2) of the Criminal Code.

The court found no reviewable error in the Director's treatment of the evidentiary record, including the arrest for breach of undertaking.

The application was dismissed without costs.

In a regulatory costs motion arising from appeals concerning horses scratched from scheduled races after a trainer's suspension, the moving parties sought costs on the basis that the regulator had acted unreasonably in bringing a prior motion to dismiss without a hearing.

The Panel held that the threshold for unreasonable conduct under Rule 13.1 is high and that costs should only be awarded in exceptional circumstances, including patently unreasonable conduct or conduct that is frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

Because the regulator had been partially successful on the underlying motion and reasonably advanced a jurisdictional position on the remaining remedy issue, the conduct complained of did not meet that threshold.

The motion for costs was dismissed.

The Law Society brought a discipline application against the respondent lawyer after he pled guilty to criminal charges of assault, mischief, and forcible confinement against his former intimate partner.

The lawyer admitted the underlying conduct and that it constituted conduct unbecoming a licensee.

The Tribunal considered the serious nature of intimate partner violence, the lawyer's lack of prior discipline, and his participation in a Partner Assault Response program.

Emphasizing the need for general deterrence and maintaining public confidence in the legal profession, the Tribunal ordered a three-month suspension and $4,000 in costs.

The College of Veterinarians of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against the Member for professional misconduct relating to the misdiagnosis of a puppy, failure to properly record discussions with the owner, and revising medical records.

The Member admitted to the allegations and the parties presented an Agreed Statement of Facts and a joint submission on penalty.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission, finding the Member's conduct serious and incompatible with professional expectations.

The Member was reprimanded, his license was suspended for two months, and he was ordered to complete remediation and pay $5,000 in costs.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical error in its November 19, 2025 decision.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal amended the decision to insert the attached Schedule A. In all other respects, the original decision remains the same.