Gary A. Miller

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a 79-storey mixed-use development after the City failed to make a decision on zoning and site plan applications.

Several neighbouring property owners and condominium corporations requested party status.

Finding that their presence was necessary to adjudicate the issues effectively and that there was no prejudice to the applicant, the Tribunal granted the requests.

The Tribunal also approved the Procedural Order to govern the upcoming merits hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by PR Bloor Street GP Inc. against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment and site plan approval for a 79-storey mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted party status to three residents' and condominium associations and participant status to two other entities.

A 10-day hearing was scheduled for September 2023, and a second Case Management Conference was scheduled for January 2023 to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant challenged pre-appeal detention after conviction for second degree murder under s. 679(3)(c) of the Criminal Code, focusing on whether detention was necessary in the public interest.

The Court clarified that the public-interest analysis balances enforceability and reviewability, with seriousness of offence, public safety, flight risk, and strength of appeal all assessed contextually from the perspective of a reasonable, informed public observer.

It further held that a reviewing panel under s. 680(1) owes deference on factual findings but may intervene for material legal or principled error, or where the decision is clearly unwarranted.

On the facts, negligible safety/flight concerns and clearly arguable grounds made detention clearly unwarranted.

The appeal was allowed, though no further order was made due to mootness.

The Minister of Health and Community Services sought to extend an order granting him custody of the appellant's three children.

The appellant, an indigent parent, was denied legal aid for the custody hearing because the provincial guidelines did not cover custody applications.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the state's removal of a child from parental custody constitutes a serious interference with the psychological integrity of the parent, engaging the right to security of the person under section 7 of the Charter.

The Court concluded that in the circumstances of this case, the appellant's right to a fair hearing required that she be represented by counsel, and the government's failure to provide state-funded counsel violated section 7.

The infringement was not saved by section 1.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder after shooting a highway patrol officer.

At trial, he admitted to the killing but raised the defence of insanity.

The Crown adduced evidence that the appellant was a suspect in a New York murder to explain his flight, and Crown counsel made highly prejudicial remarks about a defence psychiatric expert during the address to the jury.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the presumption of sanity in s. 16(4) of the Criminal Code infringes s. 11(d) of the Charter, it is saved by s. 1.

However, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial because the trial judge's failure to comment on Crown counsel's prejudicial remarks in the jury charge constituted an error of law that could not be cured by the proviso.

The appellants were charged in separate informations with hunting with a light contrary to the New Brunswick Game Act.

A third person was charged in a separate information with obstructing police officers.

By consent, all three defendants were tried together and the appellants were convicted.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that a trial judge is without jurisdiction to try together separate informations or indictments, even with the consent of the parties.

The appeal was allowed and new trials were ordered.

The appellants appealed decisions regarding the enforcement of non-criminal federal statutes, specifically the Fisheries Act and the Narcotic Control Act.

The issues concerned whether a provincial Attorney General or any other person is entitled to lay an information charging a violation, and whether the provincial Attorney General is entitled to prosecute.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, finding no constitutional question and agreeing with the New Brunswick Court of Appeal's conclusions on statutory construction.