Philip Morrissey

The applicant appealed the City of St. Thomas's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the development of six townhouse units on a property currently containing a single detached dwelling.

A neighboring resident opposed the appeal, raising concerns about traffic, scale, and neighborhood compatibility.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the proposed medium-density development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal concluded the development represents appropriate infill that is compatible with the surrounding area and directed the City to amend the zoning by-law subject to conditions regarding landscaping and buffering.

At a second Case Management Conference for an appeal regarding a zoning by-law amendment to facilitate a six-unit townhouse development, the Ontario Land Tribunal finalized the Issues List and scheduled a three-day hearing.

The parties were directed to submit a finalized Procedural Order.

The applicant appealed the city's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to facilitate a 6-unit townhouse development.

A third party appealed the approval of a related consent application.

At the case management conference, the tribunal considered the impact of the newly enacted More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 (Bill 23).

The tribunal found that the third-party appellant did not meet the definition of a 'specified person' under the new legislation and the appeal was not scheduled prior to the transition date.

Consequently, the third-party consent appeal was dismissed.

The zoning by-law amendment appeal was adjourned to a second case management conference to allow the city council to reconsider the matter in light of Bill 23.

The plaintiffs brought a motion in writing on consent for an order requiring the defendants to satisfy undertakings and requiring two non-party banks to produce documents.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a production order against non-parties under Rule 30.10 cannot be granted merely on the consent of the existing parties.

The moving party must serve the non-parties with notice and provide evidence satisfying the requirements of Rule 30.10.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the plaintiffs' ability to bring a fresh, compliant motion.

The appellant, an egg producer, appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing its motion to belatedly comply with a 2013 judgment order requiring payment into court.

The appellant had failed to pay the judgment funds into court, failed to bring a motion to add respondents as defendants to a related action, and took no further steps to advance its counterclaim for five years.

When the appellant finally returned to court in 2018, it sought permission to proceed with the counterclaim and amend it.

The motion judge applied the test from Rule 48 (dismissal for delay), placing the onus on the appellant to establish an acceptable explanation for the delay and that respondents would suffer no non-compensable prejudice.

The motion judge found the appellant's explanation inadequate and concluded actual prejudice existed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the motion judge's legal test or factual findings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination two weeks after the one-year limitation period expired.

The Tribunal considered whether the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant demonstrated that she had provided timely instructions to her counsel, but the delay was caused by her counsel's trial schedule and subsequent vacation.

The Tribunal found that the delay was incurred in good faith and allowed the application to proceed.

The licensee, a Standardbred Owner/Trainer/Driver, appealed a Notice of Proposed Order from the Director to revoke his licence following two criminal convictions for sexual assault against female grooms in his employ.

The Commission found that while the licensee's conduct was criminal and contrary to the public interest, his licence should not be revoked entirely, as he was undergoing rehabilitation and the Commission wished to retain supervisory power.

The Commission substituted the revocation with a three-month full suspension, an additional three-month suspension for owning and training, a twelve-month probation, a $5,000 fine, and mandatory ongoing counselling.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision finding it responsible for paying the insured's statutory accident benefits.

The appellant also sought to vary the order to introduce fresh evidence regarding a commercial use exclusion, arguing the insured was carrying a passenger for compensation at the time of the accident.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal and the application for variation, finding that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence in obtaining the evidence for the initial hearing and that the arbitrator reasonably concluded the insured had elected to claim benefits from the appellant.