Laura K. Bisset

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 21-storey residential building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to several local residents and a condominium corporation, and granted party status to the Toronto Lands Corporation and the South Eglinton Ratepayers and Residents Association.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the procedural order and issues list.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a proposed 18-storey mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to 16 individuals and party status to an adjacent landowner.

Decisions on six other party status requests were deferred to a second CMC to allow those individuals to review the City's forthcoming issues list.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Toronto's approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 478.

The parties reported that settlement discussions were ongoing in good faith and requested a subsequent Case Management Conference to review the results.

The Tribunal scheduled the next Case Management Conference for January 31, 2022, and a 30-day Hearing of the Merits commencing April 4, 2022.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and a Heritage Conservation District designation, the Tribunal considered requests for party status and appellant substitution.

The Tribunal granted appellant status to the current owner of 619 Yonge Street, substituting them for the previous owner.

The Tribunal also granted party status to the owners of two abutting properties, allowing them to shelter under the 619 Yonge Street appeal, as the properties comprise a single site proposed for redevelopment.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment 183 and the designation of the Historic Yonge Street Heritage Conservation District.

The Tribunal ordered that the appeals be heard together, granted party status to two community associations, and established a procedural timeline for the exchange of draft changes and issues lists.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Toronto's non-decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 35-storey residential building.

The Tribunal granted party status to three adjacent property owners and the Toronto District School Board.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled dates for a status hearing and a 20-day hearing on the merits.

The moving party sought a stay of an Ontario Municipal Board hearing pending a motion for leave to appeal the Board's decision dismissing its motion to remove the responding parties' lawyers of record due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the moving party failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The appellant, a commercial truck driver, appealed his conviction under the Highway Traffic Act for operating a truck with a speed limiter set above the mandated 105 km/h.

He argued the speed limiter requirement violated his right to security of the person under section 7 of the Charter by preventing him from accelerating to avoid collisions.

The Court of Appeal held that while the legislation infringed section 7 by being overbroad in rare situations where acceleration is necessary to avoid accidents, the infringement was demonstrably justified under section 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limit to improve highway safety and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants, who recently took over the operation of a convenience store, sought judicial review of a Minister's decision applying a tobacco sales prohibition order to them.

The prohibition was issued under section 16 of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act because employees of the prior, unrelated operator had been twice convicted of selling tobacco to minors.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, holding that on a purposive interpretation of the Act, the prohibition can only be applied to a person who has committed at least one tobacco sales offence.

Since the applicants had never been convicted of such an offence, the Minister lacked jurisdiction to apply the prohibition to them.

The respondent was charged with driving a commercial vehicle not equipped with a working speed limiting system contrary to section 68.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario.

At trial, the respondent challenged the constitutionality of the legislation, arguing it infringed his right to security of the person under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by preventing him from accelerating to avoid dangerous driving situations.

The trial justice found in favour of the respondent and struck down the provision.

The Crown appealed.

The appellate court allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the speed limiter legislation deprived him of security of the person, and that the legislation was not arbitrary.

The court also addressed the procedural issue of continuing the appeal following the respondent's death, substituting his widow as respondent in the interests of justice.

The applicants, commercial motor vehicle operators, sought a mandatory injunction or stay of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to downgrade their safety ratings from 'Satisfactory' to 'Conditional'.

The applicants argued the Registrar erred by using a kilometric measure and by attributing the same rating to an associated company.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no serious issue to be tried as the Registrar acted within his statutory authority and did not breach procedural fairness.

The court also held that the balance of convenience favoured the public interest in highway safety over the applicants' pecuniary interests.

The respondent was charged with driving a commercial vehicle not equipped with a working speed limiting system contrary to section 68.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario.

At trial, the respondent challenged the constitutionality of the provision, arguing it infringed his right to security of the person under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by preventing him from accelerating beyond 105 km/h to avoid dangerous driving situations.

The trial judge found in favour of the respondent and struck down the provision.

The Crown appealed and brought an application to admit fresh evidence in the form of a supplementary affidavit from an expert assessing a new study on speed limiter safety released after trial.

The appeal judge granted the application, finding the fresh evidence satisfied all four Palmer criteria and was in the interests of justice.

The moving party municipality sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that approved official plan and zoning bylaw amendments permitting a mixed-use high-density development.

The municipality argued the Board failed to have regard to its new official plan, exceeded its jurisdiction regarding community benefits, and provided inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the Board's decision on the applicable official plan and height issues were matters of fact or mixed fact and law entitled to deference.

The court also held that the Board did not impose community benefits and that its reasons were adequate and met the duty of procedural fairness.