Daniell F. Bartley

The appellant appealed an order striking his statement of claim and dismissing his action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, agreeing that the pleaded facts did not establish a breach of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, nor did they provide a basis for a civil cause of action against the City.

The appeal on costs was also dismissed, with the Court finding the original costs order reasonable.

The appellant corporation sought to demolish a heritage-designated building it owned.

The City of Hamilton rejected the application and sent written notice of rejection to the sole director of the corporation at his residential address rather than to the corporation's registered address.

The appellant argued that the notice was improperly served under section 67(1)(b) of the Ontario Heritage Act, which requires service to the "last known address" of the person.

The appellant contended that the failure to serve at the registered address meant the municipality failed to comply with the statutory service requirement, triggering a deeming provision that would constitute deemed consent to the demolition application.

The application judge found that the city had taken positive steps to give notice and that the notice was actually received by the sole directing mind of the corporation.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision on the unique facts of the case.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

A summary hearing was scheduled, and notice was provided to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing and provided no explanation for his absence.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicants, a family with six children, alleged that the City of Hamilton's by-law restricting curbside garbage collection to one container per household discriminated against them on the basis of family status.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the Code does not protect against the financial consequences of greater consumption of municipal services by larger families.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, as the policy did not constitute substantive discrimination.