4 total
Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference to allow experts to continue settlement discussions.
The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to address inadequate sewage works and prevent the discharge of contaminants from the subject property.
At a Case Management Conference, the parties requested an adjournment to allow their respective experts to continue productive discussions towards a long-term plan for the property.
The Tribunal granted the request on consent and scheduled a further Case Management Conference.
Procedural Order and Issues List approved for appeal of environmental Director's Order.
The appellants appealed a Director's Order issued by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks regarding sewage works.
Following a case management conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a five-day video hearing on the merits.
The Tribunal also determined the order of evidence, directing the appellants to present their case first.
Tribunal grants partial stay of Director's environmental order on consent pending appeal.
The appellants appealed a Director's Order regarding sewage works at a decommissioned industrial site intended for redevelopment.
The parties reached a settlement on the appellants' motion for an interim stay.
The Tribunal ordered that specific items of the Director's Order be stayed pending the disposition of the appeal on its merits, while other items remain in effect, and scheduled a Case Management Conference.
The accused was acquitted of sexual assault and criminal harassment due to reasonable doubt.
The defendant, Raby Shahin, was charged with three counts of sexual assault, one count of forcible confinement, and one count of criminal harassment.
The trial focused on the credibility and reliability of the complainant (P.B.) and the defendant.
The court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony regarding her relationship with the defendant, her voluntary contact with him, and the details of the alleged assaults, particularly concerning where she was sleeping during two alleged incidents.
The court also noted the complainant's evasiveness and argumentative demeanor during cross-examination.
While acknowledging that post-assault conduct should not lead to adverse inferences based on stereotypes, the court found the complainant's attempts to distance herself from the defendant not credible.
Conversely, the defendant's testimony was found to be generally forthright, despite some confusion regarding evidence extraction.
Ultimately, the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal on all counts.
