3 total
Appeal of $2.8M expropriation award dismissed; LPAT's copying of submissions did not breach natural justice.
The City of Windsor appealed a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) decision awarding the respondents approximately $2.8 million in compensation for expropriated lands and injurious affection.
The City argued the LPAT breached natural justice by copying the respondents' submissions and erred in its treatment of Provincial Policy Statements (PPS) regarding environmentally sensitive lands.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the extent of copying did not rebut the presumption of independent decision-making.
The Court also found no palpable and overriding errors in the LPAT's factual findings regarding the impact of the PPS on the lands' development potential, the valuation of the properties, or the award of interest.
Leave to appeal OMB decision denied; Board's interpretation of its procedural rules regarding reopening hearings was reasonable.
The applicant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) which allowed the respondent developer to amend conditions of a 1996 zoning approval for a trailer park.
The applicant argued the OMB failed to properly apply Rule 106 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure by not reopening the entire hearing after 20 years had passed.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the OMB's interpretation of its own procedural rules was reasonable, the decision was based on evidence, and the matter did not raise a question of law of sufficient general or public importance.
A construction contractor was convicted under the OHSA's general duty clause for failing to protect workers positioned in a danger zone during pile driving.
A construction contractor was charged with two counts under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following an accident on October 28, 2009, where a worker was struck by a falling steel beam (soldier pile) that broke free from its tack weld during a vibratory hammer operation.
The first count alleged failure to ensure adequate bracing under Ontario Regulations 213/91.
The second count alleged failure to take every reasonable precaution for worker protection under section 25(2)(h) of the OHSA.
The court dismissed the first count but convicted on the second count, finding that while the multiple-pile welding method was lawful and industry-accepted, the employer failed to take reasonable precautions by positioning workers in a danger zone without proper risk assessment or safety measures.