Beth Turner

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of family status after the respondent municipality refused to grant her an administrative exemption to build a front yard parking space.

The applicant claimed she needed a larger vehicle to accommodate three children and that the existing rear parking space was too narrow.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that municipal officials have no statutory authority under the Planning Act to grant zoning exemptions outside the formal minor variance or by-law amendment processes, and that requiring the applicant to follow these standard procedures did not violate the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in contracts and employment.

A summary hearing by teleconference was scheduled to address whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference, despite being contacted directly by Tribunal staff with the correct dial-in information.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's non-attendance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin.

He claimed that as an English-speaking candidate for a dispatcher position, he was required to take a French language competency test, while not all French-speaking candidates were required to take an English test.

The respondent municipality requested dismissal of the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the allegations amounted to a complaint about unfair treatment regarding language requirements rather than discrimination based on ethnic origin, as the applicant failed to establish a link between the language testing requirement and his ethnic origin.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of family status after the respondent City required her to apply for a minor variance to permit front pad parking for her large vehicle.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the application on preliminary jurisdictional grounds and remove the individual respondents.

The Tribunal declined to deal with the jurisdictional issues as a preliminary matter, deferring them to the merits hearing, but granted the request to remove the individual respondents as their personal conduct was not a central issue.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision dismissing its appeal against the City of Ottawa's Official Plan Amendment (OPA 77) without a hearing.

The applicant argued the OMB erred by reviewing evidence on the motion to dismiss, akin to a summary judgment motion, rather than assuming the facts in the notice of appeal were true.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding the OMB's procedure was reasonable and necessary to screen out appeals with no chance of success.

The court also found no error in the OMB's conclusion that the applicant's environmental and storm water management concerns could not form a land use planning basis to refuse OPA 77 at this stage.