Allan McKitrick

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the Municipality of Shuniah's refusal to approve a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to the City of Thunder Bay due to potential impacts on the City's water supply.

The parties were directed to finalize a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and a second Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The appellants brought a motion seeking declarations that the respondent municipalities lacked jurisdiction to refer an engineer's drainage report back for reconsideration, arguing the matter was before the Drainage Referee.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that Section 57 of the Drainage Act provides clear authority for a municipal council to refer a report back to the engineer for reconsideration.

The Tribunal also noted there was no evidence of improper motive and that raising the jurisdictional issue at this stage was inappropriate.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent following a case management conference regarding appeals by Alan and Tamara Hutchinson.

The appellants seek an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Consent to permit the creation of two new lots for a wellness retreat centre in the Municipality of Shuniah.

The order sets out the procedural steps, issues list, and order of evidence for a five-day video hearing scheduled to commence on July 8, 2024.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent Board to reaffirm a cost apportionment formula for shared social services that had been used since 2004.

The applicant argued that the governing regulation required a 'double majority vote' in every year the alternate formula was continued.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the legislation did not require an annual double majority vote once the alternate formula was initially approved, and that the Board's decision was neither ultra vires nor unreasonable.

The appellants appealed the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted the redevelopment of lands for an open pit gold mine operation.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included minor amendments to the Zoning By-law to adjust the boundary of the Mining Zone and its associated buffer.

Based on uncontested expert planning and surveying evidence, the Tribunal found the amended by-law consistent with provincial policy and good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the zoning appeal in part to implement the settlement and dismissed the official plan appeal on consent.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a contractor’s claim arising from a tender competition for construction of a medical centre.

The contractor alleged that the municipality breached Contract A by failing to award the project to it after applying an alternate price credit related to winter suspension of construction.

The court found that construction did not begin in fall 2013 and was never suspended during the winter as alleged in the pleadings, rendering the alternate credit inapplicable.

The municipality was entitled to evaluate bids based on base bid prices and was not required to adjust bids using alternate credits that were irrelevant to the project as ultimately undertaken.

Summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.

The municipality brought a motion seeking dismissal of a counterclaim for delay arising from alleged flooding and property damage related to road drainage work.

The counterclaiming party had failed to comply with a status hearing timetable requiring agreement on a discovery plan and delivery of an affidavit of documents.

Applying Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held it had jurisdiction to dismiss the counterclaim on motion for non‑compliance with a timetable arising from a status hearing.

The counterclaiming party failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the prolonged delay and did not establish that the moving party would suffer no non‑compensable prejudice.

The court dismissed the counterclaim for delay.

In an ongoing human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, the respondents requested access to the applicant's employee health file held by the City, deferral of systemic discrimination allegations, and particulars.

The Tribunal granted narrow access to the health file, limited to information necessary to respond to allegations involving the City's health nurse.

The Tribunal declined to defer the systemic discrimination allegations, finding no concurrent proceedings, but ordered the applicant to provide particulars regarding an allegation that a co-worker was dismissed due to a cognitive disability.

The complainant alleged that the City of Thunder Bay discriminated against her on the basis of sex when it denied her the position of Deputy Treasurer in 1988.

The complainant and a male candidate were the final two contenders for the position.

The Board of Inquiry found that the Treasurer chose the male candidate because of his superior municipal experience, rather than the complainant's superior academic credentials.

The Board concluded that the decision was not tainted by sex discrimination and dismissed the complaint.

The respondent City brought a motion to dismiss the complainant's human rights complaint for lack of evidence at the close of the Commission's case.

The complainant alleged direct sex discrimination in the City's failure to promote her to Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer, as well as systemic discrimination against women in financial managerial positions.

The Board of Inquiry granted the motion in part.

It dismissed the direct discrimination complaint regarding the Treasurer position, finding no evidence that gender was a factor in the appointment of the long-serving male Deputy Treasurer.

It also dismissed the systemic discrimination complaint, finding no pattern or practice of discrimination in the City's hiring.

However, the Board found sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case regarding the Deputy Treasurer position and directed the hearing to continue on that issue.

In a human rights complaint alleging sex discrimination in hiring for financial management positions, the respondent City sought pre-hearing disclosure of certain Commission documents, while the Commission issued a summons for City documents relating to various job competitions.

The Board of Inquiry ordered the Commission to disclose its record of investigation but not internal procedural documents or non-existent lists.

The Board declined to quash the Commission's summons, finding that the requested documents regarding past and subsequent job competitions were relevant to the complainant's allegation of systemic discrimination, and that the Commission was entitled to use a summons to compel disclosure after the City had previously refused requests.