A. Sinclair

The claimant sought $382,263.54 in legal, appraisal, and planning costs under section 32 of the Expropriations Act following a settlement for the partial expropriation of her property.

The respondent disputed portions of the costs, particularly legal fees for tax advice related to the claimant's non-resident status, arguing they were unrelated to determining compensation.

The Tribunal applied the principle of full indemnification but found only a portion of the tax advice costs were reasonably related to the compensation claim.

The Tribunal awarded $354,875.60 in costs, deferring the issue of interest pending a Divisional Court appeal in a separate matter.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of 32 hours forfeiture.

The officer had submitted profane and insulting comments criticizing equity, diversity, and inclusion initiatives to an anonymous virtual suggestion box.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing officer reasonably concluded the comments were not protected by case-by-case privilege and the proceedings were not an abuse of process.

The Commission also held that the disciplinary action was a proportionate limit on the officer's freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter, as the penalty targeted the abusive language rather than the expression of dissent.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary decision finding him guilty of unlawful exercise of authority and neglect of duty.

The charges arose from an incident where the appellant continued the arrest of an individual after learning the individual had been mistakenly identified as the target of an investigation, and failed to provide rights to counsel.

The Commission confirmed the finding of unlawful exercise of authority, holding that the continued arrest after the misidentification became known was unlawful.

However, the Commission revoked the finding of neglect of duty, finding the hearing officer erred in law by relying on his own experience rather than uncontradicted evidence regarding whose duty it was to provide rights to counsel.

A new hearing was ordered for the neglect of duty charge and the penalty.

The plaintiff, Humi Holdings Corporation, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent former employees and their new company from competing and using alleged confidential information to develop an embedded payroll software product.

The court admitted expert evidence from both sides.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the non-competition clauses were enforceable or breached, or that confidential information was misused.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favored the defendants.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants.

A case management conference was held regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The parties advised they were close to a full settlement and sought consent amendments to the procedural order to accommodate a shorter, five-day video hearing.

The Tribunal granted the requested amendments and issued a revised procedural order.

The claimant sought compensation under the Expropriations Act for lands expropriated by the Province for highway construction.

At the second Case Management Conference, the parties advised the Tribunal that they had participated in mediation and were close to a full settlement, resulting in their non-compliance with the existing Procedural Order timelines.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference and directed the parties to provide a status update or an amended draft Procedural Order if a settlement is not finalized.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference to update the timetable for an expropriation compensation claim.

The parties agreed to a new timetable, which was filed with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal ordered that all outstanding undertakings be fulfilled by January 31, 2023, and approved the agreed-upon timetable.

The claimants brought a motion regarding delayed responses to undertakings from the discovery of the City's appraiser in an expropriation compensation matter.

As previous timeframes could no longer be met, the parties sought a new hearing date to allow for appropriate exchange dates and potential mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference, set new dates for the exchange of appraisal reports, and rescheduled the 15-day hearing for May and June 2023.

The City of Markham sought to expropriate a property to construct a central municipal flood storage facility as part of its flood reduction strategy.

The tenant of the property requested a Hearing of Necessity under the Expropriations Act, arguing that the project was not completely designed or funded and that relocation would be difficult.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the proposed taking was fair, sound, and reasonably necessary to address serious flooding and liability issues.

The Tribunal concluded the taking was reasonably defensible and declined to award costs to the tenant.

The plaintiff, a manager with 30 years of service, was summarily dismissed after slapping a female subordinate's buttocks in front of other male colleagues.

The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal, claiming the touching was accidental and a joke.

The court applied the McKinley contextual analysis and found that the plaintiff's conduct constituted serious sexual harassment.

The court held that the plaintiff's lack of remorse and failure to understand the seriousness of his actions irreparably breached the employment relationship.

The action was dismissed, with the court finding the employer had just cause for termination.

The plaintiff sued his former employer for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for cause following an incident involving a female co-worker.

The co-worker moved for leave to intervene in the action under Rule 13.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to protect her moral and physical integrity, arguing that the plaintiff's version of events and cross-examination tactics threatened her reputation in the workplace.

The court granted the motion, finding that the co-worker had a legitimate interest in protecting her integrity and that her limited participation through counsel would not unduly delay or prejudice the proceedings.

The applicant police officer sought judicial review of an Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) decision that ordered a new discipline hearing.

The OCPC had found that the Hearing Officer breached procedural fairness by failing to provide minimum assistance to the unrepresented public complainant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, upholding the OCPC's refusal to admit fresh affidavit evidence about off-the-record events.

The Court also rejected the applicant's argument that the complainant needed to prove actual prejudice, affirming that a breach of procedural fairness carries inherent prejudice and denies a meaningful role in the proceeding.