Kaush Parameswaran

The applicant purchased a property to operate a salvage yard and sought a declaration that its use was a lawful non-conforming use under s. 34(9)(a) of the Planning Act.

The respondent municipality argued that the previous owner had discontinued the salvage yard use, thereby losing the non-conforming status.

The court found that the previous owner had continuously conducted salvage operations as part of its business, maintaining the legal non-conforming use.

Furthermore, the court held that the applicant's more intensive salvage operation did not constitute a wholly different use that would extinguish the non-conforming status.

The application for a declaration was granted.

The applicants sought judicial review of the City's decision to reject an advertisement for transit vehicles.

The City conceded that it failed to provide adequate reasons balancing the applicants' right to freedom of expression against its statutory objectives, as required by the Doré/Loyola framework.

The Divisional Court granted the application, quashed the decision, and remitted the matter back to the City for proper consideration and to provide adequate reasons.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for its convenience store.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving objections from residents and the City of Hamilton.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The added parties opposed the licence on public policy grounds and requested conditions if granted.

The Tribunal found that the objectors failed to establish that granting the licence was not in the public interest, noting the appellant's robust age verification program and lack of prior infractions.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence without conditions.

The applicant, 7-Eleven Canada Inc., applied for a liquor licence for its convenience store in Hamilton.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to Review the application after receiving objections from local residents and the City of Hamilton.

The added parties argued that granting the licence was not in the public interest due to general policy concerns about alcohol in convenience stores and specific issues with loitering, garbage, and petty crime at the premises.

The Tribunal found that the objectors failed to establish that the licence was not in the public interest, noting the applicant's robust age verification program and recent steps taken to address neighbourhood concerns.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence subject to conditions, including a 'Good Neighbour' sign, a contact sign for complaints, and exterior security cameras.

The Hamilton Fire Department appealed a Review Order of the Ontario Fire Marshal that found exit doors opening onto a fire escape complied with the Ontario Fire Code.

The respondent, who had sold the building prior to the hearing, did not appear.

The Fire Safety Commission found the appeal was not moot because a live controversy remained regarding the physical composition of the doors.

The Commission rescinded the Review Order, finding the exit doors did not meet the 20-minute fire rating requirement under the Ontario Fire Code.

In a commercial tenancy dispute, the tenant moved for relief from forfeiture and related interlocutory relief based on an alleged oral lease, while the landlord brought a cross-motion for security for costs.

Before those motions were heard, the landlord orally sought to strike portions of the tenant’s reply affidavit as inadmissible opinion evidence, hearsay, irrelevant material, and improper reply.

The court struck paragraphs containing unsupported expert-style opinion, unsworn double hearsay, and conceded irrelevant allegations, relying on the Rules of Civil Procedure governing motion affidavits.

However, the court dismissed the objection that the remaining impugned material was improper reply evidence, emphasizing the contextual balancing approach to case-splitting and the landlord’s failure to move promptly before taking further procedural steps.