Nidhi Punyarthi

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit seven townhouse dwellings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 and in conformity with the applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the zoning by-law in accordance with the settlement.

The applicants appealed the City of Niagara Falls' refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Vacant Condominium to permit the development of six townhouse dwellings and one semi-detached dwelling.

The parties reached a settlement modifying the proposal to include one semi-detached dwelling instead of two and extending privacy fencing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The appeals were allowed in part, the zoning by-law was amended, and the draft plan was approved subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Niagara Falls' failure to make a decision on applications for an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a 10-storey mixed-use building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal approved the draft procedural order and scheduled a five-day merit hearing.

The parties were directed to finalize the issues list following a meeting of expert witnesses.

The applicants appealed to the Assessment Review Board for the cancellation of their 2023 property taxes, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Board found that the applicants' household expenses exceeded their income after one applicant became legally blind and unable to work, forcing the other to leave employment to provide care.

The Board concluded that the applicants were unable to pay their property taxes due to sickness and ordered the cancellation of the $8,307.94 levied for the 2023 taxation year.

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing based on disability, claiming the respondent landlord failed to accommodate his mental health during Landlord and Tenant Board proceedings.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce its tenant file on the applicant, finding it arguably relevant to the issues in dispute.

The Tribunal also directed both parties to exchange hearing documents and deferred the respondent's request to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code to the hearing.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment in a breach of contract action and delivered an additional affidavit shortly before the hearing after the defendant had cross-examined the plaintiff’s initial affiant.

The defendant objected to the late affidavit and alternatively sought leave to file responding affidavit evidence.

The court held that Rule 39.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure only restricts further affidavits from a party who conducted the cross-examination, which did not apply to the plaintiff.

However, the court exercised its discretion to grant the defendant leave to file a responding affidavit because the new affidavit addressed weaknesses revealed during cross-examination.

The plaintiff’s affidavit was admitted and the defendant was permitted to respond.