7 total
Board cancels consent decision issued without the agreement of all parties to the appeal.
The moving party municipality requested a review of a Board decision that settled property assessment appeals based on minutes of settlement executed only by the assessed companies and the assessment corporation.
The municipality, a party to the appeals, had not consented to the settlement.
The Board found that it lacked jurisdiction to issue a consent decision without the agreement of all parties.
The request for review was granted, the previous decision was cancelled, and the appeals were reinstated for a hearing.
Unsuccessful appellant in municipal election compliance audit appeal spared costs as a public-interest litigant.
Following the dismissal of her appeal regarding municipal election compliance audits, the appellant argued she should not be liable for costs because she was a public-interest litigant.
The respondents sought costs, alleging the appellant targeted them for private reasons related to a local development dispute.
The court found that the appellant was a public-interest litigant who brought the applications in good faith to address matters of public importance regarding campaign finances.
The court dismissed the respondents' claim for costs and ordered all parties to bear their own costs.
Compliance audit properly refused despite technical Form 4 breaches.
An elector appealed decisions refusing to order compliance audits of municipal election campaign finances under the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.
The applications alleged that candidates received excessive contributions from associated corporations and filed incomplete financial disclosure forms (Form 4).
The court held that receiving excessive contributions is not itself a contravention of the Act provided the candidate returns the funds as soon as possible after becoming aware of the violation.
Although several candidates technically contravened the Act by improperly completing Form 4, the compliance audit committee retained discretion whether to order an audit.
Given that the excessive contributions had already been returned and no further information was likely to emerge, it was reasonable to refuse an audit.
Appeal from LAT's refusal to extend time to challenge motor vehicle dealer licence revocation dismissed.
The appellant appealed a decision of the License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) denying him an extension of time to request a hearing regarding the Registrar's proposal to revoke his motor vehicle dealer registration.
The appellant had missed the 15-day deadline by three days.
The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the LAT's decision, finding that the LAT reasonably applied the Frey v. Macdonald factors, including the lack of a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the absence of a reasonable explanation for the delay, and the lack of merit to the appeal.
Judicial review dismissed; City Council not required to hold second hearing before refusing license renewal.
The applicant sought judicial review to quash a decision by the City of Brampton's City Council refusing to renew its body rub parlour license.
The applicant argued that City Council breached procedural fairness by not holding a second hearing after the Licensing Committee recommended granting the license.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that under the Municipal Act, 2001, City Council had only delegated the power to make recommendations to the Licensing Committee, and thus was not required to hold a second hearing.
The court also held that City Council's decision to refuse the license was reasonable given the premises' non-compliance with zoning by-laws and the City's cap on adult entertainment establishments.
Driving with an unbuckled child passenger is a strict liability offence permitting a due diligence defence.
The respondent was charged under s. 106(6) of the Highway Traffic Act for driving with a child passenger who was not wearing a seat belt.
The trial judge convicted the respondent, finding the offence to be one of absolute liability.
The summary conviction appeal judge allowed the appeal, holding that it was a strict liability offence and remitted the matter for consideration of a due diligence defence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal, applying the Sault Ste.
Marie framework to conclude that the offence is one of strict liability, allowing for a defence of due diligence.
Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed where applicant conceded no collective agreement basis for grievance existed.
The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union after it refused to file a grievance regarding his final layoff.
The union had previously assisted the applicant with two prior layoffs, resulting in his recall.
For the final layoff, the union concluded there was a genuine shortage of work and no basis in the collective agreement to grieve.
The Board dismissed the application, noting the applicant conceded there was no collective agreement basis for a grievance, making it impossible to find the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.
