Graham Walsh

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Dunpar Developments Inc. against the City of Mississauga's enactment of Zoning By-law 0008-2023.

The Tribunal granted party status to Fountain Hill Construction and Consulting Ltd., limiting its involvement to sheltering under the issues raised by the appellant.

The Tribunal directed that no further requests for party status would be allowed in future proceedings.

A five-day video hearing was scheduled to commence on January 8, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Mississauga for failing to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 15-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several individuals and the LCBO, noted the withdrawal of the Region of Peel as a party, and approved a Procedural Order for a 10-day video hearing scheduled to commence on October 30, 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Miss BJL Corp. against the City of Mississauga for failing to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications within the statutory timeframes.

The applications seek to permit a 9-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Regional Municipality of Peel on consent.

As the parties were engaged in settlement discussions pending a resubmission, the Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for June 20, 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 128 Lakeshore Road East LP Inc. against the City of Mississauga's failure to adopt an official plan amendment and make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment to permit an 11-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent, setting the hearing dates, procedural steps, and the issues list for the upcoming hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the City of Mississauga's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for an 11-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two neighbours on consent, directed the parties to finalize the draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled an 8-day hearing for October 2023.

The appellant, Peel Condominium Corporation 395, appealed the City of Mississauga's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a 28-storey development on an adjacent property.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing, arguing the appellant lacked statutory status and failed to disclose valid land use planning grounds.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the appellant had not made the required oral or written submissions to City Council prior to the by-law's passage and failed to provide adequate planning grounds or expert evidence.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeals without a hearing.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by the applicant for the failure of the municipality to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to the regional municipality and participant status to five individuals, subject to conditions.

The Tribunal also issued procedural directions and scheduled a two-day hearing on the merits.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed her human rights application against the City of Mississauga.

She argued the City breached its duty under the Human Rights Code to investigate her complaint of discrimination regarding a taxi service, and that the Tribunal breached natural justice by not holding a summary hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the City was not in an employment or service relationship with the applicant, but merely enforcing its by-laws, and therefore the allegations were outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the human rights application, arguing that the timely allegation regarding a September 2014 email had no reasonable prospect of success and that the remaining allegations were out of time.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the email allegation at the preliminary stage, finding that the respondent's explanation required evidence.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations of incidents occurring between 2000 and 2009 due to delay, as the gaps in time were too significant to constitute a series of incidents under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The July 2013 allegation was permitted to proceed pending further evidence.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability after a taxi driver denied her entry because she uses a guide dog.

The City of Mississauga requested summary dismissal as the applicant made no allegations of discrimination against it regarding its investigation of her complaint.

The Tribunal dismissed the Application against the City.

The applicant also requested to add the taxi driver as an individual respondent because the taxi company claimed its drivers are independent contractors.

Applying the Smyth test, the Tribunal granted the request to add the driver, finding his conduct central to the Application and noting the company's dispute over liability.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and reprisal after he was unsuccessful in the recruitment process for a transit operator position.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant relied solely on his subjective belief that he was treated differently because he is Black, and failed to point to any evidence linking the respondents' decision not to hire him to his race.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged that an Animal Control Officer discriminated against him on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, and creed during an investigation regarding an injured pet rabbit.

The applicant claimed the officer bullied him and failed to accommodate his religious practice of not wearing shoes on prayer carpets.

The Tribunal found that the creed issue was resolved by rolling up the carpets.

While the Tribunal acknowledged the applicant felt bullied and that the situation could have been handled better, it dismissed the application because there was no evidence linking the officer's conduct to any protected grounds under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant alleged that his employment was terminated as a reprisal for refusing to alter a health and safety investigation report, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed because the applicant had signed a severance agreement and a full and final release.

The applicant argued the release was signed under economic and psychological duress and without legal advice.

The Tribunal found that the applicant understood the release, received sufficient consideration, and that the pressures he faced did not amount to coercion of his will.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment based on his mental health disability (anxiety disorder).

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay and lack of reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under the Human Rights Code and that the applicant failed to establish a continuing series of incidents or good faith for the delay.

The application was dismissed against all respondents.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of race, colour, and disability.

A summary hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to appear.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

Shortly after the hearing, the respondent forwarded a letter from the applicant seeking to withdraw the application, but as the decision to dismiss had already been made, the dismissal stood.

The applicant, a long-term employee of the City of Mississauga, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on colour and age.

The respondent requested dismissal of the application for delay and for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the allegations prior to 2008 did not form part of a series of incidents with the 2009 allegations and that the delay in raising them was not incurred in good faith.

For the remaining allegations concerning performance management in 2008 and 2009, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to point to sufficient evidence to support a reasonable prospect of proving a nexus between the performance management and his colour or age.

The application was dismissed.