Kathleen DeBlock Boersma

The applicant appealed the conditions of a provisional consent to sever a property granted by the County of Huron.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement amending the conditions to require an easement for beach access and the transfer of an existing laneway to the Township.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amended conditions reasonable and the proposed severance consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for farm properties, or alternatively, damages for breach of contract.

The defendants argued the agreement was unconscionable, they were coerced by real estate agents, and the property was not unique.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the validity of the agreement, rejecting the defences of non est factum and unconscionability, and held that the defendants breached the contract.

However, the court declined to order specific performance, finding the property was not sufficiently unique and damages were an adequate remedy.

Partial summary judgment was granted on validity and breach, with the issue of damages deferred to trial.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of criminal proceedings and a WSIB psychological assessment.

The applicant provided evidence that both the criminal proceedings and the WSIB process had concluded.

The respondent did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application and directed that a mediation date be scheduled.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and discrimination in employment.

The application was initially deferred pending a related WSIB proceeding.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application for delay in reactivation after the WSIB allowed the claim.

The Tribunal found that the WSIB proceeding was not fully completed due to an ongoing psychological assessment and that related criminal proceedings against the alleged harasser were also relevant.

The Tribunal ordered the application to remain deferred until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings and the WSIB assessment.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application for lack of jurisdiction, as it did not set out specific incidents of alleged discrimination related to a Code ground.

In response, the applicant alleged discrimination and harassment on the basis of sex.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the Application fell outside its jurisdiction and declined to dismiss it at this stage, directing that the Application be delivered to the respondents.