Jeffrey Glen Aitkens

The appellant appealed a Review Decision of the Fire Marshal that modified an Inspection Order regarding a hoarding situation in his apartment.

The Order required the appellant to maintain a 1-metre clearance from ignition sources and ceilings, and to provide a 1-metre egress pathway.

The appellant argued the requirements were impractical for his small apartment and that he was unfairly targeted.

The Fire Safety Commission found the measures were necessary to ensure fire safety, reasonable, and clear.

The Commission confirmed the Review Decision and extended the compliance date as agreed by the parties.

The applicants sought judicial review of the City of Guelph's decision to replace a one-lane heritage bridge with a two-lane bridge on Niska Road, alleging contravention of section 24 of the Planning Act and non-conformity with the City's Official Plan and Neighbourhood Traffic Management Policy.

The application also alleged bad faith.

The court, applying a reasonableness standard of review, dismissed the application, finding that the City's interpretation and application of its policies were not unreasonable and that the process was carried out according to the rule of law.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his discrimination application at a summary hearing.

The applicant alleged he was not interviewed for a municipal job due to discrimination based on race and origin, and that the job posting's preference for 'lived immigration experience' was discriminatory.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's conclusion that the applicant failed to show his non-Canadian experience was disregarded was reasonable.

The Court also rejected the applicant's claims of procedural unfairness and bias by the HRTO.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent city breached the Minutes of Settlement resolving a previous human rights application regarding priority seating on city buses.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the settlement by failing to install revised signage and complete driver training by the agreed deadlines, though it had since largely complied.

The Tribunal found no breach regarding the public awareness campaign or newspaper notice.

As the applicant did not seek financial compensation, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to complete training for remaining employees upon their return from leave and to issue a written reminder to drivers regarding priority seating policies.

The parties, former friends, entered a business investment involving two properties.

The business relationship deteriorated, leading Chute to bring an application for partition and sale.

Pryor subsequently brought a motion seeking removal of Chute's personal property, authorization to operate the music hall, and a final disposition.

The court found Chute consistently interfered with the business operations and violated previous court orders.

An interim order was issued releasing Pryor from undertakings, making both parties jointly responsible for property expenses managed by counsel, and expediting an early trial date to resolve the dispute and income loss issues.