Anu Bakshi

The City of Oshawa brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by the appellant regarding a City-wide Zoning By-law Amendment that introduced regulations for social service establishments.

The City argued that the amendment did not apply to the appellant's property, which was zoned R2 (Residential), and therefore the appellant did not meet the statutory precondition to appeal under section 34(19)2.2 of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal agreed with the City, finding that the R2 Zone excludes the relevant uses and that the amendment's provisions do not apply to the appellant's property.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

This decision addresses a motion for leave to intervene in an appeal concerning a s. 15 Charter challenge to COVID-19 benefit programs.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and the Income Security Advocacy Centre (ISAC) sought leave to intervene as friends of the court.

The appellant consented to both interventions, while the respondent opposed ISAC's motion.

The court granted both motions, finding that both interveners would provide unique and useful contributions, particularly on issues of remedy, retroactive application of invalidity declarations, and the application of substantive equality analysis in the context of disability and income security programs.

The South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario (SALCO) brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal from a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The underlying appeal concerned the cancellation of the appellant's social benefits on the basis that she was not living as a single person, raising issues of gender-based violence and culturally competent assessments of marital relationships.

The court granted the motion, finding that SALCO had a real, substantial, and identifiable interest in the appeal and could provide a unique and distinct perspective without causing undue delay or prejudice to the parties.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision ordering it to pay for disputed chiropractic treatment plans once incurred.

The insurer argued the LAT lacked jurisdiction to order payment for expenses not yet incurred prior to the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LAT has broad remedial powers to determine entitlement to benefits, and requiring claimants to self-fund disputed treatments before accessing the LAT would defeat the consumer protection purpose of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The moving party, counsel of record for the applicant, brought a motion to be removed as solicitor of record due to an alleged breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The applicant opposed the motion.

The arbitration had been delayed for years due to concerns regarding the applicant's capacity to instruct counsel, and the moving party's law firm had previously undertaken to have a litigation guardian appointed but failed to do so.

The arbitrator found that the moving party failed to fulfill a subsequent undertaking to produce medical evidence addressing the applicant's capacity.

Given the ongoing ambiguity regarding capacity, the failure to abide by undertakings, and the prejudice to the applicant, the arbitrator declined to exercise discretion to release the moving party as solicitor of record and adjourned the matter for the production of medical evidence.