Kenneth E. Jull

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed a motion for particulars brought by The Econo-Rack Group Inc. (Konstant Manufacturing) in a prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).

The Applicant sought particulars regarding the alleged offence under section 45(b) of Ontario Regulation 851, arguing that without such particulars they could not adequately prepare a due diligence defence.

The Court held that the charge as drafted, combined with disclosure, the Crown’s opening statement, and the Inspector’s investigative report, provided sufficient detail to ensure a fair trial.

The Court emphasized that particulars concerning the cause of the accident or the means by which the offence was committed are not required under the Provincial Offences Act and that the focus is on the employer’s failure to uphold prescribed safety measures, not on causation narrowly defined.

This decision addresses the application of s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the context of workplace inspections under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).

The applicant, The Econo-Rack Group Inc. (Konstant Manufacturing), challenged the Ministry of Labour inspector's warrantless collection of evidence following a workplace injury, alleging an unreasonable search and seizure.

The Court applied the two-step s. 8 analysis, focusing on whether a search or seizure occurred and if it was reasonable, and considered the "predominant purpose" test from R. v. Jarvis to determine if the inspector had crossed from regulatory inspection into penal investigation requiring a warrant.

The Court found that although Konstant had a reasonable expectation of privacy, the inspector's actions were authorized under s. 54 of the OHSA as part of a regulatory inspection, and no s. 8 breach occurred.

The application for exclusion of evidence and costs was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority's refusal to issue a permit for the reconstruction and enlargement of an existing dwelling on a property located on a barrier beach.

The Tribunal found that the property is located within a riverine floodplain and meets the definition of hazardous land under O. Reg. 41/24.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the proposed development would increase the size of the building, thereby increasing the potential occupancy and the risk to health and safety during a regulatory flood event.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the property lacks safe access for vehicles and people during times of flooding, rendering the proposal inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 and the Conservation Authority's policies.

The appeal was dismissed and the refusal of the permit was upheld.

The defendants were charged with undertaking development in a wetland without a permit under the Conservation Authorities Act.

The prosecution brought a motion to preclude the defendants from challenging the TRCA's jurisdiction and the existence of a wetland, which the court dismissed as violating the presumption of innocence.

The defendants brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter alleging unreasonable delay.

The court found a net delay of 21.5 months, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial offences.

Finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the delay, which was exacerbated by a lack of judicial resources, the court stayed the charges.

The appellant appealed the refusal of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority to issue a development permit.

During the course of the hearing, new legislative amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act and O.Reg 41/24 came into effect.

The Tribunal ruled that the new legislation governs the de novo appeal and granted an adjournment to allow the parties and their experts to address the new law.

The Tribunal also granted the appellant's motion to amend his witness list but denied a request for a site visit as premature.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a successful motion by the Halton Region Conservation Authority (HRCA) to strike an application for certiorari and prohibition brought by Gordon Baron and Lifestyles by Barons Inc. (collectively, "Baron").

Baron had been charged under the Conservation Authorities Act.

HRCA sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis, while Baron proposed a significantly lower partial indemnity amount.

The court awarded HRCA $25,000 on a partial indemnity basis, finding Baron's underlying application meritless and noting inappropriate conduct, though not bad faith, on Baron's part.

The applicants, facing charges under the Conservation Authorities Act, brought an application for certiorari and prohibition after the trial justice recused himself due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Halton Region Conservation Authority brought a motion to strike the application.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the motion to strike, finding that there was no decision left to quash via certiorari following the recusal, and that an order of prohibition was unwarranted as issues of standing and jurisdiction should be dealt with by the trial court.

The respondents sought damages arising from an interim injunction obtained by the applicant, alleging it was an excessive overreach and caused them financial harm by preventing a property sale.

The court found that proper notice was provided for the initial injunction hearing, and it did not proceed on an *ex parte* basis.

While some facts were not disclosed by the applicant, the court determined these omissions were not material to the necessity of the injunction, which was granted to maintain the status quo and protect the public interest in remediating provincially significant wetlands.

The respondents had also consented to the injunction's continuance after the initial period.

As the respondents eventually remediated the property, the merits of the underlying application for a permanent injunction were never judicially determined.

The court dismissed the respondents' motion for damages, exercising its discretion due to the respondents' inequitable conduct and the applicant's role as a public body acting in the public interest.

This endorsement addresses ongoing disagreements between counsel, leading to a civil case conference.

The parties agreed to orders for the respondents to produce a realtor's complete file and for cross-examinations to proceed with documents marked as exhibits pending privilege determination.

The court admonished counsel for their uncivil and uncooperative conduct, emphasizing that civil case conferences are not for resolving civility issues and that counsel have a strict obligation to act reasonably and collaboratively.

The court ordered that no further motions or civil case conferences could be brought without leave.

This was the fourth Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the conservation authority's refusal to issue a development permit.

The parties provided a preliminary Hearing Work Plan setting out the anticipated order and schedule of witnesses.

The Tribunal scheduled a 12-day video merit hearing and directed the parties to continue working together to meet the timelines in the Procedural Order.

The respondent conservation authority brought a motion to strike two fact witnesses from the appellant's witness list and to permit the pre-hearing examination of witnesses summoned by the appellant.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the two fact witnesses had no direct knowledge of the appeal or were not giving evidence with respect to the decision under appeal, and were therefore not necessary for a fair and expeditious hearing.

The Tribunal also ordered that any testimony from summoned witnesses be limited to factual evidence and permitted the respondent to examine them prior to the merit hearing.

At a third Case Management Conference for an appeal under the Conservation Authorities Act, the Tribunal addressed scheduling and procedural issues arising from an increased number of proposed witnesses.

The Tribunal granted extensions to the procedural order timetable, scheduled a 12-day merit hearing, and directed that three preliminary motions regarding witness summons and evidence be heard in writing prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference for an appeal under the Conservation Authorities Act regarding a refused development permit.

The parties agreed to a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a 9-day hearing and a prior status hearing, and issued the Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Halton Region Conservation Authority to void a development permit for a home renovation.

After the partial collapse of walls during construction, the Authority voided the permit without notice or a hearing, claiming the scope of work had fundamentally changed.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, finding it both unreasonable and procedurally unfair because the Authority failed to follow the mandatory show cause hearing process set out in section 8 of O. Reg. 162/06.

The appellant appealed the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority's refusal to grant a development permit for his property.

At a case management conference, the Tribunal noted that the parties were engaged in Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a four-day video hearing in the event that a settlement is not reached.

The applicants sought declaratory orders after the conservation authority cancelled a permit for their home renovation project.

The respondent brought a motion arguing the application was premature or should be transferred to the Divisional Court as a judicial review.

The Superior Court found that the application fundamentally challenged the exercise of a statutory power of decision under the Conservation Authorities Act.

Concluding that the matter was properly a judicial review and not satisfying the urgency requirement for Superior Court jurisdiction, the court ordered the application transferred to the Divisional Court.

The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences for unlawfully undertaking development within 120 metres of a provincially significant wetland without permission from the Halton Regional Conservation Authority.

The appeal addressed four main issues: the reasonableness of the convictions, alleged infringements of section 7 Charter rights (including disclosure and abuse of process), alleged infringements of section 11(b) Charter rights (unreasonable delay), and the appropriateness of the sentences imposed.

The court dismissed the appeals against conviction and the Charter applications, finding the convictions reasonable and no Charter breaches.

However, the court partially allowed the appeal against sentence, reducing one appellant's fine, vacating the other's fine and substituting a suspended sentence, and amending the probation order to a one-year term with specific conditions, while upholding the remediation order.

Other counts were conditionally stayed based on the Kienapple principle.

The appellants were convicted of two counts of breaching a regulation under the Conservation Authorities Act.

At trial, they were sentenced to fines of $5,000 each and a two-year probation order requiring reconstruction of a seawall.

The Conservation Authority appealed to the Provincial Offences Appeal Court, seeking removal of a home addition as a sentencing term.

The POAC judge allowed the appeal, set aside the original sentence, remitted the fines, and ordered removal of the addition.

The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, arguing the POAC judge exceeded the scope of appellate review by reversing factual findings without identifying palpable and overriding error.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the POAC judge impermissibly substituted his own findings regarding whether the conduct constituted a flagrant and deliberate breach of the regulations.

The defendants brought a Charter application under subsections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that their right to be tried within a reasonable time had been infringed due to unreasonable delay in consolidated provincial offence proceedings involving 39 defendants and 812 charges under the Conservation Authorities Act.

The court applied the analytical framework established in Regina v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, distinguishing between individual defendants and corporate defendants.

The court found that the individual defendants' rights had been infringed and stayed their charges, while the corporate defendants' applications were dismissed based on the principle that prejudice to fair trial rights cannot be inferred for corporations and the application of the transitional exceptional circumstance.