4 total
Leave to appeal Permit to Take Water denied; applicants failed to show Director's decision was unreasonable.
The applicants sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue a Permit to Take Water to a hydroelectric station on the Mississippi River.
The applicants raised concerns regarding water levels, endangered species habitat, and conflict with a water management plan.
The Environmental Review Tribunal found that both applicants had standing to seek leave to appeal.
However, the Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding that the applicants failed to establish under the first branch of the test in s. 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights that no reasonable person could have made the decision to issue the permit.
Liquor licence for additional outdoor area granted without conditions; objector failed to prove public interest concerns.
The appellant applied for a liquor licence for an additional licensed area (an outdoor patio) at its establishment in the Byward Market.
The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application due to objections from the Lowertown Community Association.
The objector argued that increased licensed capacity in the area contributed to higher crime rates and requested conditions limiting capacity, hours, and music.
The Tribunal found insufficient evidence linking the specific application to increased crime and noted that capacity and noise are addressed by municipal bylaws.
The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the application without the requested conditions.
Charity providing supportive housing 'occupies' property for tax exemption purposes despite tenants' physical occupation.
The appellant Municipal Property Assessment Corporation appealed a Divisional Court decision granting a property tax exemption to the respondent, a charitable organization providing supportive housing.
The appellant argued that a 1998 amendment to the Assessment Act required the charity to physically occupy the premises itself, rather than renting units to tenants.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the charity 'occupied' the land because it was used directly to fulfill its charitable mandate of providing housing to the poor and mentally ill, and the tenants' physical occupation did not oust the charity's occupation for the purpose of the exemption.
Charitable housing provider qualifies for property tax exemption despite granting exclusive possession to tenants.
The appellant, a charitable corporation providing housing for the homeless and mentally ill, appealed a decision denying it a property tax exemption under s. 3(1)12 of the Assessment Act.
The respondent argued that because the appellant rented units to tenants who had exclusive possession, the appellant did not 'occupy' the land.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the property was occupied by the appellant because it was controlled and employed as a necessary prerequisite to fulfill its charitable mandate.
