Gina Brannan

The appellant appealed the City of Pickering's Official Plan Amendment 40 and several Zoning By-law Amendments aimed at managing infill and replacement housing in established neighbourhoods.

The appellant argued the instruments were improperly prescriptive, constituted inappropriate downzoning, and failed to conform to provincial and regional planning policies.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the instruments were not improperly prescriptive, the design guidelines were non-statutory, and the new performance standards struck an appropriate balance between public benefit and private interests.

The Tribunal concluded the instruments met all legislative tests and constituted good land use planning.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of the City of Pickering's Official Plan Amendment No. 40 and related Zoning By-law Amendments concerning infill and replacement housing.

The Tribunal noted the withdrawal of appeals by Centreville Homes.

The Tribunal approved a draft Procedural Order and Issues List on consent of the remaining parties and scheduled a 15-day video hearing to commence on July 17, 2023.

The applicant sought an interlocutory injunction to extend the voting period in the respondent political party's leadership contest, alleging that he and others had not received the necessary verification numbers to vote electronically.

The court dismissed the application on two grounds.

First, the applicant failed to exhaust the internal dispute resolution mechanisms provided in the party's election rules before seeking court intervention.

Second, applying the tripartite test for an interlocutory injunction, the court found that the balance of convenience heavily favoured the respondents, as extending the voting period at the eleventh hour would prejudice the tens of thousands of members who had already voted and disrupt the scheduled leadership convention.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Interim Decision regarding document production and an adjournment of the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal found that the Interim Decision was not a final decision subject to reconsideration under Rule 26.1, but exercised its discretion under Rule 26.9 to order a third party to produce a call log.

The Tribunal declined to reconsider its decision denying production of PC-16 forms.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment request due to the exceptional circumstances of a respondent's recent major surgery and a witness's religious observance.

The applicant, a volunteer scrutineer for a political leadership campaign, alleged discrimination based on disability after being asked to leave a polling station shortly after raising accessibility concerns.

The matter was referred to a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's volunteer work could potentially fall under the protected areas of services or employment under the Human Rights Code.

Furthermore, there was circumstantial evidence that could link the adverse treatment to his disability.

The Tribunal concluded the application had a reasonable prospect of success and ordered it to proceed.

The appellants appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing their application to direct the Commissioner of the Cornwall Public Inquiry to state a case regarding his jurisdiction to hear certain evidence.

The Commissioner had ruled he had jurisdiction to hear evidence from a complainant regarding a recent sexual assault by teenagers and the subsequent police investigation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Commissioner committed a jurisdictional error by misconstruing the Order in Council that established his mandate.

The Court held that the inquiry's subject matter was limited to historical sexual abuse of young people by persons in authority or positions of trust, and the proposed evidence fell outside this scope and was not reasonably relevant.

The applicants sought an order directing the Commissioner of the Cornwall Public Inquiry to state a case to the Divisional Court regarding whether the proposed evidence of two witnesses fell within the Inquiry's Terms of Reference.

The evidence concerned a sexual assault reported contemporaneously, which the applicants argued did not constitute 'historical abuse' under the mandate.

The majority of the Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commissioner had not exceeded his jurisdiction and that the evidence was reasonably relevant to the Inquiry's mandate to examine the institutional response to allegations of abuse.

A dissenting opinion would have granted the application.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until they were terminated by the Insurer.

The parties mediated the issue of entitlement to benefits but not the amount.

At a pre-hearing discussion for arbitration, the Insurer sought to add the amount of benefits as an issue.

The arbitrator held that the amount of benefits could not be raised because it had not been mediated and did not reasonably and consequentially flow from the issue of entitlement.