Arlen Sternberg

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination because accessible seating for Toronto Blue Jays games could not be purchased online in 2016.

The respondents subsequently changed their policy to allow online purchases and brought a request to dismiss the applications as moot.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applications were not moot because the policy change did not address the alleged past discrimination and the applicant had not received the remedies sought, including public interest remedies and monetary compensation.

The applicant in a disability discrimination case requested wide-ranging production of documents from the respondents regarding complaints and lawsuits about fraudulent purchases of accessible seating tickets.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it disproportionate to the one-day hearing scheduled and noting that the information could be elicited through cross-examination.

The Association for the Protection of Amherst Island appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval to Windlectric Inc. for a 26-turbine wind facility on Amherst Island.

The Appellant argued the project would cause serious harm to human health from turbine and concrete batch plant emissions, and serious and irreversible harm to animal life, specifically Bobolink, raptors/owls, bats, and Blanding's turtles.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to meet the statutory onus under the Environmental Protection Act to prove that the project would cause serious harm to human health or serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.

The appeal was dismissed and the Director's decision was confirmed.

The Appellant appealed the Director's decision to issue a renewable energy approval for a wind project.

Due to the complexity of the hearing and numerous motions, the statutory six-month deadline for disposition was approaching.

The Tribunal ordered an adjournment on its own initiative, with the consent of the Appellant and Director, to allow sufficient time to deliberate and write its decision.

The Environmental Review Tribunal ordered an adjournment of the hearing regarding the Renewable Energy Approval for the Amherst Island Wind Project for a period of 19 days.

The date of deemed confirmation of the approval was extended accordingly.

The appellant appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for a 10-megawatt wind facility.

The appellant argued that the project would cause serious harm to human health due to noise, water contamination, and fire risks, and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment, specifically the Oak Ridges Moraine and species at risk birds.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to adduce sufficient evidence to meet the statutory tests under the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal accepted the expert evidence of the approval holder and the Director that the project posed a low risk to water resources and that compensation habitat would adequately mitigate impacts on bird species.

The appeal was dismissed and the Director's decision was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for a 9-turbine wind facility on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The appellant argued the project would cause serious harm to human health due to noise, shadow flicker, and safety risks, and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment, including groundwater and bird species at risk.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to meet its onus of proving the statutory tests under the Environmental Protection Act, relying on the expert evidence provided by the approval holder.

The appeal was dismissed and the Director's decision confirmed.

The appellants appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

One appellant subsequently proposed to withdraw its appeal with the consent of all parties.

The Environmental Review Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and dismissed that appeal.

The Tribunal also granted participant status to an environmental coalition in the remaining appeal and issued procedural directions for the hearing.

The appellant, a chicken processing facility, appealed a decision of the provincial chicken farming regulator denying its request for 286,553 kilograms of calculated base.

The appellant argued it had the closest connection to historical inter-provincial chicken supply purchases made by a former processor, and was therefore entitled to the calculated base under the regulator's policy.

The Tribunal found that the appellant was not a licensed processor with a calculated base at the time of the regulatory re-basing, and therefore did not qualify for the allocation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a ruling that retroactively suspended his horse and ordered the redistribution of purse monies following a confirmed positive test for Darbepoetin-alpha (DPO/EPO).

The Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the 90-day ineligibility rule cannot be applied retroactively and must commence on the date the Commission receives official notice of the positive test result.

As the appellant had already served a de facto suspension by agreeing not to race the horse, no further penalty was imposed and the purse monies were not required to be redistributed.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a decision of the Ontario Racing Commission Judges denying his horse entries at Mohawk for failing to sign the Woodbine Entertainment Group's Application for Access Rights.

The Judges had ruled that he must comply with track rules to enter horses.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel dismissed the appeal, with reasons to follow.

The Ontario Racing Commission reviewed applications from Flamboro Downs and Windsor Raceway for their 2007 live and simulcast race dates.

Despite opposition from the Ontario Harness Horse Association, which sought to maintain the previous year's number of live race dates, the Commission approved Flamboro Downs for 225 live race dates and Windsor Raceway for 111 live race dates, along with 364 simulcast days for both.

The Commission directed both tracks to provide detailed strategic marketing and business plans to address declining revenues and customer service issues.

The Ontario Racing Commission heard applications from three racetracks for 2007 live and intertrack race dates.

The Commission first denied the Ontario Harness Horse Association's application for party status, finding it was not directly affected by the racing schedule.

The Commission approved New Hiawatha Horse Park's application for 52 live race dates and 364 intertrack dates, subject to conditions regarding its tax appeals.

However, the Commission declined to approve the applications for Windsor Raceway and Flamboro Downs, finding their proposed substantial reductions in race dates were not in the public interest or the best interests of racing, and directed both tracks to file fresh applications with additional race dates.

Windsor Raceway Inc. applied to the Ontario Racing Commission for 125 live race dates and 364 simulcast dates for the 2006 season.

The Ontario Harness Horse Association made submissions advocating for more summer racing dates.

The Commission conditionally approved the application, ordering the applicant to submit a revised schedule adding a minimum of six live race dates to address concerns about the reduction in racing opportunities.

The Ontario Racing Commission reconvened a hearing regarding an application by Windsor Raceway Inc. for 2006 race dates.

The Commission had previously approved 125 race dates conditional upon the addition of a minimum of six days.

The applicant submitted a revised application for six additional dates, which the Commission approved, bringing the total to 131 approved race dates for Windsor Raceway.

Windsor Raceway applied for 124 live race dates for the 2005 calendar year, following two previously deficient applications.

The Ontario Harness Horse Association opposed the reduction, arguing for a return to the 153 dates approved in 2003 and 2004.

The Commission criticized both parties for focusing on self-interest rather than the public interest.

The Commission ultimately approved a schedule resulting in 131 live dates and 1,965 live racing opportunities, emphasizing the need to resume racing and consider the broader public interest.

The applicant, a licensed standardbred trainer, sought to have the Ontario Racing Commission review and rescind a trespass notice issued by the respondent racetrack operator, which excluded him from racing at its facilities following an equine drug violation.

The Commission first determined it had jurisdiction to review the exercise of the racetrack's private property rights where the issue primarily involved horse racing and the public interest.

On the merits, the Commission found that the racetrack's decision to exclude the trainer was a reasonable exercise of its property rights aimed at protecting the integrity of its racing product and business interests.

The Commission declined to modify the trespass notice and dismissed the trainer's request for reinstatement.

The appellant, a veterinarian, appealed a decision of the Executive Director suspending him for two years and fining him $20,000 for violations of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

At the commencement of the appeal hearing, the appellant brought motions requesting that the Commission Chair and another Commissioner recuse themselves from the panel.

The panel granted the motion for the Chair to recuse herself, dismissed the motion regarding the other Commissioner, and ordered that the hearing be rescheduled with the Vice Chair presiding.

The applicant requested a hearing after his nominations for several horse racing events were rejected by the Woodbine Entertainment Group for being postmarked after the deadline.

The applicant argued that the delay was due to a snowstorm and postal issues.

The Ontario Racing Commission found it had jurisdiction to hear the matter but declined to waive the breach of the postmark rule, emphasizing the need for objectivity and certainty in the nomination process.

The nominations were not accepted.

Following a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, the Ontario Racing Commission convened a hearing to consider applications by ten horsemen seeking orders to permit them to enter horses and access Sudbury Downs Raceway.

The applicants had previously been excluded by Sudbury Downs under the Trespass to Property Act following their participation in boycotts organized by the Ontario Harness Horse Association.

The Commission found that while some applicants had engaged in disruptive conduct in the past, the public interest favoured allowing them to return to racing.

The Commission ordered that two applicants be granted full access, while the remaining eight be granted access subject to specific time limitations and conditions regarding future conduct.