Raymond Colautti

The appellant, a former foster parent, appealed the striking of his claims against child welfare agencies for negligence, misfeasance in public office, and Charter breaches arising from an investigation into allegations of sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal upheld the striking of the negligence and Charter claims, confirming that child welfare agencies do not owe a duty of care to foster parents.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, restoring the misfeasance in public office claim against one agency, finding that the pleadings and particulars sufficiently alleged bad faith and collaboration with malicious adoptive parents.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment attacking a police towing procurement process, challenging municipal towing licensing requirements, and alleging unlawful interference with economic interests.

The court held that the applicable procurement thresholds under the municipal purchasing by-law turned on the municipality’s annual expenditure, not the supplier’s anticipated revenue, so no RFT or RFP was required and no procurement breach occurred.

The court further found no breach of procurement-related duties of fairness or good faith, no basis to invalidate the towing contract awarded to the successful bidder, and no merit to the claim that an out-of-municipality towing operator was exempt from Windsor’s licensing regime when towing within the city.

The tort claim also failed because the impugned police conduct did not constitute actionable unlawful means against third parties and there was no proof of intention or damages.

The plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion was dismissed, the defendants’ cross-motion was granted, and the action was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse its registration as a motor vehicle dealer.

The Registrar argued that the sole director's past failure to pay a disciplinary fine, subsequent bankruptcy, and current financial position demonstrated financial irresponsibility.

The Tribunal found that while there were no reasonable grounds to believe the business would not be carried on with integrity and honesty, the director's financial history and lack of insight established that the appellant could not reasonably be expected to be financially responsible.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The appellants appealed the City of Windsor's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted a four-storey, 23-unit multiple dwelling on a vacant lot in the Walkerville Heritage Area.

The appellants argued the development was incompatible with the neighbourhood's character, citing concerns over massing, setbacks, shadowing, and parking, and argued the City ignored a previous zoning decision for single-family homes on the site.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the proposal was compatible with the surrounding area, provided an appropriate transition from a commercial arterial road, and met all provincial and municipal planning requirements, including heritage conservation policies.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the City of Windsor's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a four-storey multiple dwelling on the site of a former heritage church.

The Tribunal finalized the Issues List, approved the Procedural Order, and scheduled a four-day hearing on the merits for October 2023.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' appeal of a zoning by-law amendment without a hearing, arguing the appeal lacked apparent land use planning grounds.

The appellants opposed the motion, intending to present evidence on heritage planning and infill studies, and to cross-examine the applicant's witnesses.

The Tribunal denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the appellants had demonstrated an intention to bring legitimate land planning issues to a merits hearing and had not met the criteria for dismissal under the Planning Act or the Ontario Land Tribunal Act.

During an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment, the appellants brought a motion for discovery seeking extensive internal correspondence from the City, audio-visual recordings of public meetings, and raw data from a shadow study.

The Tribunal partially granted the motion, ordering the production of the public meeting recordings and the shadow study data, as these were relevant to the planning evidence.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the requests for internal emails and memoranda, finding them irrelevant to the planning merits and excessive under the principle of proportionality in discovery.

The corporate appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse the transfer of a liquor licence for 'The Dugout'.

The refusal was based on the criminal records of three of the four shareholders, particularly the twin brothers who had been convicted of illegal bookmaking.

The Tribunal found that the brothers had not fully accepted their criminal past and had attempted to mislead the Tribunal regarding their use of a previously licensed premises for illegal betting.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to transfer the licence only on the condition that the two brothers have no direct or indirect involvement in the corporation or the licensed premises.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed petitions objecting to the certification.

The Board found that the union had submitted sufficient membership evidence (over 55%) to be certified without a vote, and that the overlap between the petition signatures and the membership evidence was insufficient to cast doubt on the union's majority support.

The objectors raised late allegations of coercion and intimidation regarding the collection of membership evidence.

The Board refused to entertain the late allegations, noting they lacked timely particulars and relied on hearsay.

The Board granted the application and issued a certificate.