Jeffrey J. Hewitt

The appellants appealed the municipality's denial of a zoning by-law amendment application to remove a holding symbol from their property.

At a status hearing, the parties advised the Tribunal that they were close to a settlement and requested additional time.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference to allow the parties to finalize the settlement details.

The appellants appealed the municipality's denial of a zoning by-law amendment application to remove a holding symbol from their property.

During a status update hearing, the Tribunal granted participant status to an adjacent property owner who raised concerns about a shared laneway.

The parties advised they were close to resolving the matter, and the Tribunal scheduled a further status update.

The appellants appealed the municipality's denial of a zoning by-law amendment application to remove a holding symbol from their property.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised that they were engaged in settlement discussions.

The Tribunal scheduled a status update hearing to allow the parties time to continue negotiations.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a zoning by-law amendment without a hearing.

The appellant did not attend the motion hearing.

The Tribunal found that the notice of appeal failed to disclose any apparent land use planning ground upon which the appeal could be allowed, as it only raised general concerns regarding design and compatibility without linking them to applicable policies.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant brought a motion for costs against the City of Windsor following a successful appeal of a minor variance decision.

The appellant argued that the City acted unreasonably and in bad faith by withdrawing from the hearing and refusing to consent to an order allowing the appeal, thereby forcing the appellant to incur unnecessary hearing costs.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the City provided timely notice of its non-attendance and had no obligation to participate or consent, especially given the presence of participants whose inputs required consideration at a hearing.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for prejudgment interest on a mortgage debt.

The parties had previously settled a construction lien dispute with a zero-interest mortgage due in 2008, which was paid off in installments as condominium units were sold, with the final balance paid after the plaintiff commenced this action in 2018.

The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to prejudgment interest on amounts paid before the statement of claim was issued, but was entitled to prejudgment interest on the balance outstanding at the time the claim was issued, from the 2008 due date until payment.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer after being found guilty of neglect of duty and deceit.

The officer had feigned and exaggerated injuries from an on-duty motorcycle accident to evade work and collect WSIB benefits, which was exposed by surveillance video showing him engaging in strenuous physical activities.

The appellant brought a motion to introduce fresh character evidence on appeal, which the Commission dismissed for failing to meet the Palmer test.

On the main appeal, the Commission upheld the dismissal, finding that the Hearing Officer properly applied the Williams sentencing factors.

The Commission agreed that the officer's repeated deceit and breach of trust constituted serious misconduct akin to theft of time, irreparably damaging his credibility and the reputation of the police service, justifying the penalty of dismissal.

The appellant purchased a new condominium townhouse and subsequently discovered serious water leaks and mold.

She sued the developer, municipality, and various engineers involved in the project for negligence and breach of contract.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action against three sets of engineers, finding they owed no duty of care to the appellant under the Anns/Cooper test and that the Professional Engineers Act does not create a private law duty of care.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, noting the engineers had no contractual relationship with the appellant, their design was not shown to be negligent, and their limited on-site inspection duties did not require physical testing.