Jonathon Kenneth Bradbury

The appellant appealed portions of a Director's Order requiring the design of a stormwater management system and submission of an environmental compliance approval application for an auto wrecking business.

After several years of progress and the eventual approval of the stormwater management facility design and ECA application, the appellant withdrew its appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in accordance with Rule 199 of its Rules of Practice.

The applicant sought a stay of a Renewable Energy Approval pending a motion for leave to appeal from a Divisional Court order dismissing its application for judicial review.

The Divisional Court had found that the Ministry's letter regarding construction compliance was not a reviewable statutory power of decision, and that the applicant was attempting to disguise a challenge to the REA itself.

The Court of Appeal addressed the jurisdictional question of whether the Divisional Court's decision could be reviewed by the Court of Appeal or only by a panel of the Divisional Court under section 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court held that the panel review process applies and that the applicant must exhaust the Divisional Court's remedial jurisdiction before appealing to the Court of Appeal.

The Appellant appealed the Director's decision to issue an amendment to a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project.

The Approval Holder and the Director brought motions to strike the Notice of Appeal and dismiss the appeal, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the appeal raised issues unrelated to the specific amendment, which only allowed for an alternate transformer.

The Tribunal granted the motions, struck the Notice of Appeal and witness statements, and dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appellant failed to allege any harm arising specifically from the amendment.

The Director and the Approval Holder brought motions to strike the appellant's Notice of Appeal regarding an amendment to a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project.

The Tribunal granted the motions, struck the Notice of Appeal and the appellant's witness statements, and dismissed the appeal, with reasons to follow.

The Tribunal also granted participant status to two entities.

The applicant sought leave to appeal the issuance of an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for a hydroelectric generating station.

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the application because the ECA was exempt from the notice requirements of section 22 of the Environmental Bill of Rights under section 32(2), as it was a step towards implementing an undertaking exempted by regulation under the Environmental Assessment Act.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to cease receiving and processing end-of-life vehicles at a site in Toronto following a fire.

After negotiations, the Director confirmed the revised operation plan complied with the order.

The appellants withdrew their appeals and stay motion on consent.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals pursuant to Rule 199 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to cease receiving and processing end-of-life vehicles following a fire at their site.

The parties jointly requested an adjournment of a scheduled stay motion and asked the Tribunal to provide mediation services prior to the Pre-hearing Conference (PHC).

The Tribunal granted the adjournment on consent but denied the request for early Tribunal-assisted mediation, finding that its rules and practice require the PHC to occur first to ensure all interested persons have an opportunity to participate.

The Appellant, an auto wrecking business, appealed a Director's Order requiring the design and implementation of a storm water management system following a petroleum spill into a nearby creek.

During the protracted pre-hearing process, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) requested and was granted participant status due to its mandate to protect the affected watershed and its status as a downstream property owner.

The Tribunal documented the extensive history of the pre-hearing process, which involved 22 status updates over three years, and adjourned the preliminary hearing to allow the parties to continue developing the required storm water management plan.

The requester sought access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to records held by the Children's Lawyer relating to a custody and access dispute involving his children.

The Children's Lawyer refused, arguing the records were not in the custody or control of the Ministry of the Attorney General (MAG) when acting as counsel for a child.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) ordered MAG to issue an access decision, finding the records were under MAG's control.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court held the standard of review was reasonableness, not correctness, as interpreting s. 10(1) of FIPPA is not a true question of jurisdiction.

The Court dismissed the application, finding the IPC's decision reasonable and noting that solicitor-client privilege concerns could be addressed through FIPPA exemptions.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application as abandoned for failing to provide pre-hearing disclosure.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had, in fact, filed a request for an extension of time on the deadline date.

Finding that the applicant did not intend to abandon the application, the Tribunal granted the reconsideration, reinstated the application, and set a new deadline for the applicant to provide his documents and witness list.

The appellant appealed two orders striking out two statements of claim against the Landlord and Tenant Board and related individuals without leave to amend.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred, lacked jurisdiction, and exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the motion judge's decisions and no basis for the bias allegation.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against the Regional Municipality of Peel and the Crown regarding the administration of his Ontario Works and ODSP benefits.

The defendants brought motions to strike the amended statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court found that the plaintiff's complaints should have been pursued through the statutory appeal routes under the respective social assistance acts and the Human Rights Code, rather than by way of a civil action.

Furthermore, the pleadings contained only bald allegations without supporting material facts.

The motions were granted, the amended statement of claim was struck, and the action was dismissed without costs.