Cynthia Barbara Kuehl

The registrant brought a motion to adjourn her discipline hearing regarding allegations of professional misconduct for failing to comply with a previous discipline order.

She sought the adjournment to bring a motion to vary the previous order, citing impecuniosity and an inability to comply.

The College opposed the adjournment.

The Discipline Committee granted the adjournment, finding no risk to the public as the registrant's certificate of registration was cancelled, no prejudice to the College, and that the short delay was appropriate given her new pro bono counsel's oversight.

The Ontario College of Pharmacists brought a motion for vulnerable witness accommodations for the complainant in a discipline hearing involving allegations of sexual misconduct against a pharmacist.

The College requested that the complainant be permitted to testify behind a physical screen so she would not have to see the registrant, while allowing the registrant to view her testimony via video transmission.

The registrant did not oppose the motion.

The Discipline Committee found that the complainant met the definition of a vulnerable witness under its Rules of Procedure and that the requested accommodations were necessary to obtain a full and candid account of the matter without prejudicing the registrant.

The motion was granted.

The Registrant brought a motion requesting that his upcoming discipline hearing be held in-person rather than by videoconference.

The College did not oppose the motion on the basis of efficiency, given the lengthy procedural history and the fact that the main witness would require an interpreter for extensive testimony.

The Discipline Committee found that while the Registrant did not meet the threshold of significant prejudice required to prohibit an electronic hearing, fairness and efficiency considerations warranted exercising its discretion to order an in-person hearing.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered an appeal by 100 Bloor Street West Corporation regarding the calculation of realty taxes and a substantial indemnity costs award in a commercial lease dispute with Barry’s Bootcamp Canada Inc. The court upheld the motion judge’s decision requiring the landlord to use a single, consistent method for calculating realty taxes attributable to both the leased premises and the building’s parking garage, rejecting the landlord’s attempt to “mix-and-match” calculation methods.

However, the court allowed the appeal on costs, finding the original award excessive and reducing it to $300,000 plus disbursements.

The decision clarifies the contractual interpretation of lease provisions granting discretion to landlords and the principles governing costs in complex commercial litigation.

The applicants sought leave to appeal decisions of the Assessment Review Board that applied issue estoppel to dismiss their property tax assessment appeals.

The applicants attempted to re-open the 2016 valuation of their land based on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their profitability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal, holding that subsequent market changes to business results do not constitute a change in the 'state and condition' of the land and are not a valid basis to re-open an assessment.

The Appellant brought a motion to withdraw its appeals of omitted assessments made under s. 33 of the Assessment Act for the 2018 to 2020 taxation years.

The City of Kitchener opposed the withdrawal, arguing it had provided notice of its intent to seek a higher assessment.

The Assessment Review Board found that the City had provided valid notice of its intent to seek a higher assessment, precluding the Appellant from withdrawing the appeals as of right under Rule 27.

The Board also denied the Appellant leave to withdraw under Rule 29, finding that the City had put forward a reasonable case for a higher assessment and would be prejudiced if denied a hearing after participating fully in the proceedings.

The appellants, a family, sued a hospital and medical professionals for medical malpractice after their son suffered a severe brain injury at birth.

The trial judge discharged the jury mid-trial and then dismissed the action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario found that the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for discharging the jury, which is a fundamental right.

The reasons were conclusory, did not explain which comments were prejudicial, or why corrective instructions would be insufficient.

The appellate court could not meaningfully review the decision.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered.

The defendant municipality brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff former city councillor's statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The plaintiff had sued for constructive dismissal, alleging she was forced to resign due to workplace harassment by another councillor.

The court found that under municipal law and the statutory framework, an elected city councillor is not an employee of the municipality.

Consequently, the employment-based claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were struck, with leave granted to amend the pleadings.

The appellant property owner appealed the assessments of its regional shopping centre for the 2021 to 2023 taxation years, arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a change in circumstances requiring a new valuation day.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appeals based on issue estoppel, arguing the valuation day remained January 1, 2016, as determined in a prior appeal proceeding for the same property.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that the Assessment Act does not require an annual redetermination of current value and that the applicable valuation day remained January 1, 2016.

The Board applied issue estoppel, precluding the appellant from re-litigating the property's current value, and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant, a community development corporation, appealed a decision dismissing its application for a declaration that it was a 'local board' under the Municipal Affairs Act and thus exempt from property taxation under the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court upheld the application judge's decision, applying the ejusdem generis principle of statutory interpretation.

The court found that the appellant did not provide core municipal services similar to the entities specifically listed in the definition of 'local board'.

The appeal was dismissed.

In a property assessment appeal concerning 11 ONroute Service Centres, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion seeking disclosure of lease and income information from the appellants.

The motion was filed after the deadlines prescribed in the applicable Schedules of Events.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that MPAC was outside the prescribed timelines and failed to establish exceptional circumstances to warrant an extension.

The Board noted that MPAC and other municipalities had identified the need for the information well before the deadlines but failed to bring a timely motion.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax classification of lands used for gravel pit operations.

The Board had classified more of the licensed land as 'industrial' rather than 'residential', interpreting the relevant regulation to include lands used for activities integral to extraction, such as processing, stockpiling, and movement of machinery.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board correctly interpreted the legislation in a manner consistent with the operational realities of mining and properly applied the statutory classification day based on the land's function.

Several property owners and tenants applied for property tax relief under s. 357(1)(d)(ii) of the Municipal Act, arguing that COVID-19 pandemic restrictions 'damaged' their income-producing properties by rendering them substantially unusable.

The Assessment Review Board held a motion to determine the preliminary legal interpretation of the provision.

The Board found that the word 'damage' in the statute requires physical damage to a building, applying the ejusdem generis maxim to restrict the phrase 'or otherwise' to physical causes like the listed 'fire' and 'demolition'.

The Board concluded that 'damage' does not include 'legislative damage' caused by government restrictions on business operations.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation brought a motion to prevent a proposed witness from acting as an expert witness in property assessment appeals, arguing the witness had acted as an advocate for the appellant.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion as premature, noting that under Rule 14(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, a representative cannot act as both an advocate and a witness in a general proceeding without leave of the Board.

Since the appellant had not yet sought leave, it was unnecessary and improper to preemptively bar the witness.

The applicants abandoned their motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body regarding minor variances.

The self-represented respondents sought costs for the abandoned motion under Rule 37.09(3).

The court recognized that self-represented parties may be entitled to costs for work that would ordinarily be done by a lawyer, but found the respondents' claims of $10,000 and $2,000 to be overstated.

The court awarded costs of $2,000 to one respondent and $400 to the other, representing a proportionate amount for their efforts.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision and interim decision of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal in respect to the questions of law identified in the moving parties' factum.

Consistent with the court's usual practice, no reasons were provided for the leave decision.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board which determined that the current value assessment of a landfill site should exclude the value of a facility used to generate electricity from landfill gas.

The appellants argued the facility was a commercial activity, not used exclusively for landfilling activities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the generation of electricity from landfill gas is an environmental control activity required by the site's environmental compliance approval, and thus falls within the definition of landfilling activities under O. Reg. 282/98.

The applicant, a community development corporation, brought an application for a declaration that it is a 'local board' under the Municipal Affairs Act and therefore exempt from municipal property taxation under s. 3(1)(9) of the Assessment Act.

The court applied principles of statutory interpretation, including ejusdem generis, and found that the applicant did not meet the definition of a local board.

The application was dismissed.

The Assessment Review Board issued an amended decision to correct minor errors in its final decision regarding the property assessment of several gravel pits.

Following an interim decision, the parties agreed on revised assessments, classifications, and apportionments for the taxation years 2017 to 2021.

The Board accepted the parties' interpretation of the interim decision, which included classifying specific portions of source ponds and extraction areas as industrial or residential.

The Board ordered that the representative properties be classified and assessed in accordance with the agreed-upon schedules.