David Steele

The appellant appealed the County of Norfolk's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment and the referral of an Aggregate Resources Act licence application for a proposed sand and gravel pit.

The appellant raised concerns regarding noise, dust, and truck traffic impacts on his adjacent residential property.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the applications met all provincial and municipal planning requirements, and that the proposed mitigation measures, including an enhanced berm and tree screening, would adequately address the appellant's concerns.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upheld the Zoning By-law Amendment, and directed the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry to issue the aggregate licence.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the appellant against the county's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment and an Aggregate Resources Act application by the applicant to permit a sand and gravel pit.

The Tribunal granted party status to the county, directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a one-day hearing on the merits.

The appellants appealed the County's approval of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted an accessory residential use on the second floor of an existing commercial marina building located on hazard lands.

The appellants argued the approval was premature and unsafe due to flooding risks.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, accepting the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the amendment, which included a holding provision requiring safe access to be approved by the conservation authority, represented a reasonable compromise consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Official Plan.

The defendant brought a motion to stay the enforcement of foreclosure orders respecting several properties pending his appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The defendant argued he would be rendered homeless and destitute without the stay.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the defendant failed to establish irreparable harm, as his harm was quantifiable in monetary terms and he owned another valuable property.

The court also found the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs, who risked liability and further deterioration of the properties.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The moving party defendant sought to set aside default foreclosure judgments obtained by the plaintiffs in 2014 regarding three properties.

The defendant argued he had an oral agreement with the plaintiffs not to proceed with the actions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendant's evidence of an oral agreement lacked credibility, the motion was not brought with reasonable promptness, and the defendant lacked a plausible excuse for the delay or an arguable defence on the merits.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of creed.

The applicant's union requested to intervene to address its actions regarding the allegations.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was settled and dealt with in another proceeding.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine the respondent's request for dismissal.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

A preliminary hearing was scheduled by teleconference.

The applicant's representative withdrew prior to the hearing.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status and marital status.

The applicant and the respondent both requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the application pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance arbitration process arising from the same facts.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application, noting its general practice to defer when there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and creed against her former employer and her union.

The respondents sought early dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had signed a valid full and final release resolving grievances related to her dismissal, barring the application against the employer.

The Tribunal also found that the application against the union had no reasonable prospect of success as there was no nexus to Code grounds, and it constituted an abuse of process because the issues were or should have been raised in a prior duty of fair representation complaint before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a nurse with a history of substance abuse, resigned after admitting to taking a patient's medication.

She filed a human rights application against her former employer and her union, alleging the employer forced her to resign instead of accommodating her disability, and the union discriminated against her by failing to file a grievance.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application against the union had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the union's decision not to pursue a grievance was based on a non-discriminatory assessment of its likelihood of success, given the applicant's history and admitted conduct.

The application against the union was dismissed.