Jora Singh Kuner

The applicant condominium owner sought an order requiring her neighbour, the respondent, to cease making unreasonable noise, described as loud thumping and pounding.

The respondent denied making the noise and provided video evidence with decibel readings to demonstrate her unit was not the source.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found insufficient objective evidence to prove on a balance of probabilities that the respondent was creating or permitting the noise.

The application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to either party.

This criminal trial concerned charges against Johnathan Cox and Steven Cox related to sex trafficking, procuring, advertising sexual services, financial benefit from sexual services, and aggravated assault.

The complainant (C) alleged Johnathan initiated her involvement in the sex trade, managed her activities, and took her earnings, as well as physically assaulting her.

Steven, Johnathan's father, was accused of facilitating C's sex work by renting hotel rooms and paying for advertisements.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and largely reliable, while rejecting Johnathan's evidence as unbelievable.

Steven's evidence was found conflicted, acknowledging his efforts to help C but also his knowledge and facilitation of her sex work.

Johnathan was found guilty on all counts except one procuring charge (over 18), while Steven was found guilty only of advertising sexual services, being acquitted of procuring and financial benefit charges due to a lack of specific intent to facilitate the purchase of sex.

The applicant, an adjacent landowner, sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for upgraded sewage works at a neighbouring wedding venue.

The Tribunal found the applicant had standing under s. 38(1) of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

However, the applicant failed to satisfy the leave test under s. 41.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert evidence that the upgraded sewage system posed a low risk to the environment and would actually improve upon the existing system.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a development permit for an on-farm diversified use, the Ontario Land Tribunal determined the Issues List for the upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal approved the issues proposed by the Niagara Escarpment Commission, with an amendment to include water quality and quantity.

The Tribunal struck several issues proposed by the appellant, finding that concerns regarding the need for a site visit, the applicant's past conduct, and the need for an occupancy permit were not substantive issues for adjudication under the applicable legislation.

A procedural order was issued and a one-day video hearing was scheduled.

The applicant sought $51,562.22 in costs against the appellant following the appellant's unsuccessful appeal of a development permit for a commercial wedding venue.

The applicant argued the appellant's conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious, alleging he caused unnecessary delays and presented misleading evidence.

The Hearing Officer applied the three-step test for costs and found that the appellant's conduct did not interfere with the Tribunal's ability to secure a just and expeditious determination.

The application for costs was dismissed.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy based on an N11 agreement.

The tenants argued the written agreement was subject to an oral side agreement allowing them to stay until the property was sold.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by concluding the N11 was binding without making factual findings about the side agreement or providing adequate reasons.

The matter was remitted to a different Member of the Board for a new hearing.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating their tenancy based on an N11 agreement.

The tenants argued the written agreement was subject to an oral side agreement allowing them to stay until the house was sold.

The Board upheld the eviction without making factual findings about the side agreement or explaining its legal consequences.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board's failure to provide reasons or consider the real substance of the transaction under section 202(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act rendered the decision unreasonable and incapable of meaningful review.

The matter was remitted to a different Board member.