5 total
Appeal dismissed; innocent municipality must comply with environmental remediation order despite not causing the contamination.
The City of Kawartha Lakes appealed a decision of the Environmental Review Tribunal upholding a Ministry of the Environment order requiring the City to remediate environmental contamination on its property.
The contamination was caused by a furnace oil leak from an adjacent private property.
The City argued it was an innocent owner and the Tribunal erred by excluding evidence regarding who was at fault for the spill.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's decision to exclude fault evidence was reasonable, as the Environmental Protection Act's primary purpose is environmental protection, and fault-finding is better suited for civil courts.
Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to ongoing civil proceeding on same facts.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in contracts on the basis of race and ethnic origin, stemming from a racial slur and the subsequent cancellation of his emissions testing accreditation.
The applicant had also commenced a civil action against the respondents seeking damages based on the same factual allegations.
The Tribunal found that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code bars an application where a civil proceeding has been commenced seeking remedies for the same alleged Code infringement.
The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Tribunal erred in law regarding former officer's liability for contamination but properly relieved innocent purchaser.
The Director of the Ministry of the Environment appealed a decision of the Environmental Review Tribunal that revoked remedial orders against a former corporate officer (Lee) and an innocent current property owner (Montague) regarding historical contamination.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal regarding Lee, finding the Tribunal erred in law by applying too narrow a test for 'management or control' and failing to consider his liability for waste removal.
The appeal regarding Montague was dismissed, as the Tribunal correctly found she did not cause or permit the discharge and properly exercised its discretion on fairness grounds to relieve her of financial responsibility for the cleanup.
Pension benefits denied as officer's move to new police force deemed continuation of employment under successor employer rules.
The Ontario Pension Board requested a hearing regarding a proposal by the Superintendent of Financial Services to order the Board to pay Victor Burns his full pension benefits retroactive to his retirement from the Ontario Provincial Police.
Mr. Burns had terminated his employment with the OPP and commenced employment with the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services during a period when police services were being transferred between the two entities.
The Tribunal found that Mr. Burns' new employment was in conjunction with the disposition of police services, meaning section 80(3) of the Pension Benefits Act applied.
Consequently, his employment was deemed not to be terminated, and he was not entitled to commence receiving a pension on the date he ceased employment with the OPP.
The Superintendent's proposal was quashed.
Transferred employees deemed not terminated under Pension Benefits Act cannot collect pension while working for successor.
The applicants, former employees of the Ministry of Finance, were transferred to the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation (OPAC) when the Ministry's property assessment functions were transferred.
At the time of the transfer, both applicants were eligible to retire under the 'Factor 80' provisions of their respective pension plans and sought to receive their pension benefits while continuing to work for OPAC.
The Superintendent of Financial Services refused to order the pension plan administrators to pay the benefits, finding that under section 80 of the Pension Benefits Act, the transfer constituted a sale of a business and the applicants' employment was deemed not to have been terminated.
The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's decision, holding that the applicants could not receive pension benefits without actually terminating their employment with the successor employer.
