Geoffrey Belch

Nortel and Nagata appealed a Director's Order requiring work to be done at a contaminated site.

Nortel, under CCAA protection, reached a settlement with the MOECC to pay approximately $3,000,000 to address outstanding environmental issues.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal of Nortel's appeal and the revocation of the Director's Order against Nortel, finding the settlement consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to submit a clean-up plan for groundwater contamination.

During ongoing settlement discussions, Freightliner and the City of London requested party status, which was unopposed.

The Tribunal granted party status to both entities for their respective sites and extended the stay of the Director's Order to allow settlement discussions to continue.

The moving party, acting under a s. 38 BIA order in the bankruptcy of a general contractor, moved for a final order that a release executed by the bankrupt's trustee did not bar a claim for damages against the respondent municipality.

The moving party also sought an order nunc pro tunc for leave to amend the bankrupt's statement of defence to add a crossclaim against the municipality.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the action had already been dismissed following a settlement, and a crossclaim could not stand alone under the Construction Lien Act.

Furthermore, the comprehensive release executed by the trustee barred the crossclaim, and the court declined to exercise its discretion under s. 37 of the BIA to reverse the trustee's decision.

The appellant applied to amend a municipal by-law schedule to permit a second adult entertainment parlour location.

The City refused the application because the proposed location abutted a residential property, contrary to the by-law.

The appellant appealed, alleging bad faith, misinterpretation of 'residence', and procedural unfairness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no bad faith, agreeing the abutting property was a residence despite being unoccupied during renovations, and concluding a full hearing would not have changed the outcome.

The complainant, a Black man, alleged that he was discriminated against on the basis of race and colour by the respondent municipality when he attended City Hall to pick up a response to a freedom of information request.

During a dispute over the contents of the information package, a City employee called security, and a security guard subsequently escorted the complainant from the premises.

The Tribunal found that the complainant was loud, aggressive, and banged his fist on the counter during the interaction.

The Tribunal concluded that the decision to call security was based entirely on the complainant's behaviour and that race was not a factor.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant requested to add a security officer as a respondent on the first day of the hearing, more than a year after the Commission referred the complaint to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the complainant failed to raise the issue in pleadings or during pre-hearing processes as required by the Rules of Practice.

The complainant provided no acceptable reason for the significant delay, which outweighed any interest in having the issue determined on its merits given the prejudice to the hearing process and the other parties.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a City Council decision granting site plan approval for a condominium development on environmentally sensitive lands near the Thames River.

The applicant attempted to introduce fresh affidavit evidence from experts and herself.

The court admitted portions of the expert evidence commenting on the revised site plan but rejected the applicant's affidavit.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the application, finding that the City Council's decision was not patently unreasonable because the developer's environmental undertakings to the Ontario Municipal Board would be enforced by the City prior to the issuance of a building permit.

No costs were awarded.