Jennifer Park

The applicant appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding a site plan application and minor variances for a property in Toronto.

The variances sought to convert unused underground parking space into residential storage lockers, increasing the gross floor area, and to reduce the width of bicycle parking spaces.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and provisionally approved the site plan application in principle, subject to a $52,000 monetary contribution.

Following a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a 35-storey residential tower, the Tribunal issued a consent Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal for a 19-unit townhouse development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two individuals, noted the outstanding issue regarding commercial use, and scheduled a 6-day hearing.

The Tribunal directed the municipality to provide its issues and the applicant to coordinate the finalization of the Procedural Order.

The applicant moved for an order striking the respondent's pleadings, staying proceedings, or for security for costs due to alleged non-compliance with orders and unpaid costs.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking to vary child support, rescind arrears, obtain financial disclosure from the applicant, and prevent further motions without leave.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion to strike pleadings and for security for costs, finding that the respondent's failure to pay costs was due to a medical condition and that disclosure was largely forthcoming.

The respondent's motion for summary judgment on access was not dealt with, and his motion to reduce child support was adjourned.

The applicant father sought to change a 2012 consent order from joint custody to sole custody, to establish child support obligations for the respondent mother, and to establish a new access schedule following his relocation with the children to Saskatchewan.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father's employment-driven move to Saskatchewan and the mother's deteriorated health.

The court maintained the joint custody arrangement, finding both parents had meaningful contributions to offer the children.

The court imputed income to the mother based on her financial discrepancies and ordered her to pay child support of $467 per month commencing June 1, 2016.

The court established a detailed access schedule for the mother's visits with the children in Ontario and clarified transportation cost allocation between the parents.

The offender was sentenced for failing to remain at the scene of an accident contrary to s.252(1) of the Criminal Code after striking a cyclist and leaving without providing assistance or identification.

The court emphasized that the offence focuses on the failure to remain and does not involve determining causation for the victim’s injuries.

Aggravating factors included the offender’s failure to fulfill multiple statutory obligations and the fact that he was driving while his licence was suspended.

Mitigating factors included the absence of a prior criminal record, stable employment, support of a young child, and strict bail conditions including house arrest for approximately two years.

Balancing denunciation and general deterrence with the mitigating circumstances, the court imposed a 90‑day intermittent custodial sentence, a driving prohibition, DNA order, victim surcharge, and probation during the intermittent sentence.

The accused was charged under s. 252(1) of the Criminal Code after striking a cyclist with a pickup truck and leaving the scene of the collision.

Although the accused initially stopped, he remained only briefly, failed to provide his name and address, and did not offer assistance to the seriously injured cyclist before departing.

The accused claimed he left temporarily to obtain water and blankets to assist the victim, but the court rejected this explanation as not credible and inconsistent with the surrounding evidence.

The court found that the accused’s conduct demonstrated an intention to escape potential civil or criminal liability, particularly given his status as a suspended driver and his attempt to leave the area rapidly.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused failed to provide required information and assistance with the requisite intent under s. 252(1).

Sentencing of three defendants involved in a drug project investigation.

Quan Chan Lao pleaded guilty to multiple counts of trafficking and conspiracy to traffic cocaine and methamphetamine, receiving a net global sentence of 5 years and 11 months after pre-trial custody credit.

Joseph Nestorovski was found guilty of conspiracy to traffic 1 kilogram of cocaine and sentenced to 6 years imprisonment.

Khuan Minh Mac was found guilty of conspiracy to traffic 2 kilograms of methamphetamine and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for serious drug offences.

The defendants applied for leave to cross-examine the affiant and sub-affiant on an application for authorization to intercept private communications, in the context of a Garofoli challenge.

They argued that investigative necessity had not been established and that police prematurely resorted to wiretap authorizations instead of pursuing conventional investigative techniques such as surveillance, informant development, and tracking orders.

The Crown opposed the request, submitting that the authorization materials fully described the investigative steps taken and that cross-examination was unnecessary.

The court held that there was no basis to permit cross-examination, noting there was no suggestion the affiant misled the authorizing judge and that the Garofoli review would proceed based on the existing materials.

The application for cross-examination was dismissed.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police found 252 grams of cocaine hidden under the passenger seat of a vehicle he was driving.

The vehicle belonged to a friend, and the accused had only been driving it for a short time.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of the accused's former girlfriend, who claimed she found the drugs and confronted him about them shortly before the traffic stop.

The court found the girlfriend's evidence unreliable and concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control of the hidden cocaine.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused were charged with production of marihuana, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and theft of electricity after arriving at a residence containing a grow operation.

The police arrested them immediately upon their arrival without reasonable grounds, and failed to properly communicate their Charter rights due to language barriers.

The court found multiple breaches of the accused's ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) Charter rights and excluded the evidence obtained, including a house key and a garage door opener, under s. 24(2).

Even if the evidence were admitted, the court found the circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove knowledge and control beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused were found not guilty.