7 total
Dog ordered returned to owner despite improper at-home bandaging; statement of account for care varied.
The appellant appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep her dog in care and a statement of account for veterinary and boarding costs.
The dog had been removed after a veterinarian reported severe lacerations likely caused by the appellant's improper at-home bandaging.
The Animal Care Review Board found that while the appellant exercised poor judgment in treating the dog at home and delaying veterinary care, there was insufficient evidence that the dog would be placed in distress if returned, as the injuries were accidental and the appellant ultimately sought care.
The Board ordered the dog returned and varied the statement of account from $10,008.57 to $9,567.87, deducting unnecessary boarding costs.
Appeal of animal removal dismissed for mootness after dog was automatically forfeited to the Crown.
The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal regarding the removal of his dog.
The dog had been removed pursuant to the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, and a statement of account was issued for veterinary costs.
Because the appellant neither paid nor appealed the statement of account within the statutory timelines, the dog was automatically forfeited to the Crown.
The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the dog since the appellant was no longer the legal owner.
The court ordered the respondent in a civil forfeiture application to answer discovery questions regarding his financial means and records.
The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion for an order compelling answers to undertakings, refusals, and questions taken under advisement from Huddy Conserve in the context of a civil forfeiture application under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001.
The application sought forfeiture of $53,990.00 in Canadian currency found in Mr. Conserve's home, alleged to be proceeds or instruments of unlawful activity (e.g., undeclared income, proceeds of crime, drug trafficking).
Mr. Conserve claimed legitimate ownership, having saved the funds over his working life.
The court found the requested information relevant to Mr. Conserve's financial means and the legitimacy of the funds, and ordered him to provide the answers and documents, emphasizing the "best efforts" requirement for disclosure.
The court admitted a 911 recording and police notebook statements for their truth under the principled approach to hearsay despite the complainant's claimed memory loss.
The Crown brought a motion to admit two out-of-court hearsay statements during a trial on an assault charge arising from a domestic dispute.
The statements consisted of a 911 recording and police notebook statements.
The court applied the principled approach to hearsay exceptions, examining both necessity and threshold reliability.
The complainant claimed memory loss regarding the events.
The court found that the Crown met its burden on both prongs of the test and admitted both the 911 tape and the police notebook statements for the truth of their contents.
Forfeiture denied where full seizure would be harsh and inequitable.
The applicant sought forfeiture of sale proceeds from a property used for a large marijuana grow operation under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001.
The central issue was whether forfeiture would clearly not be in the interest of justice where the owner had separated from the co-respondent before the unlawful activity and denied knowledge or wilful blindness.
The court reviewed evidentiary gaps concerning occupancy, knowledge, and the source and effect of rental payments on mortgage equity, and applied appellate guidance on proportionality and owner conduct.
The court found the owner did not knowingly participate in or profit materially from the unlawful activity and that full forfeiture would be harsh and inequitable.
The application was dismissed.
Judicial review granted; planning applications declared nullities under the Greenbelt Protection Act development freeze.
The applicants sought judicial review of planning applications filed by a land developer for a residential subdivision near proposed airport lands.
The applicants argued the applications were nullities under the Greenbelt Protection Act, 2004, which imposed a development freeze on lands outside urban settlement areas.
The Divisional Court agreed, finding the lands were not designated as an urban settlement area when the Act came into effect.
The court declared the applications and subsequent municipal decisions nullities, and prohibited the Ontario Municipal Board from hearing appeals related to the applications, as it lacked jurisdiction.
Judicial review of ongoing ministerial planning process quashed as premature.
The applicant developer sought judicial review of the Minister's ongoing planning process under the Ontario Planning Development Act, 1994, alleging improper limitations on the investigation stage and lack of meaningful public participation.
The Divisional Court quashed the application as premature, holding that judicial review should generally await the conclusion of administrative proceedings.
The court found no exceptional circumstances justifying intervention before the planning process was complete.
