3 total
Interlocutory injunction granted to restrain operation of an addiction recovery centre violating municipal zoning by-laws.
The applicant municipality and chief building official sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondents from operating an addiction recovery centre on their property.
The applicants argued the property was not zoned for institutional use, while the respondents claimed the facility qualified as a permitted 'Lodge' or 'Resort'.
Applying the modified RJR MacDonald test for public authorities, the court found a strong prima facie case that the use breached the zoning by-law, as the facility's primary purpose was health and welfare, not catering to the vacationing public.
The interlocutory injunction was granted.
Request for early dismissal denied; prior ESA decision did not address human rights issues.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after his employment was terminated for allegedly abandoning his job following a leave of absence.
The respondents requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior Employment Standards Officer decision awarding the applicant termination pay had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the ESA decision addressed whether the applicant's conduct amounted to wilful misconduct, but did not address whether the termination failed to accommodate his Code-related needs.
The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to file an amended Reply.
Tribunal resolves preliminary issues including witness exclusion, party removal, and document production in human rights application.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on family status and association.
On the first day of the hearing, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary issues.
The Tribunal ordered the exclusion of non-party witnesses but denied requests to exclude children from the hearing room and to impose a publication ban regarding prior settlement minutes.
The Tribunal also removed the individual respondents from the proceeding, finding no compelling reason to keep them as parties.
Finally, the Tribunal ordered both parties to produce requested documents, including the applicant's financial and medical records, and the respondents' statistical information and exclusion letters.
