Richard Taylor

The appellants brought a motion for costs against an added party, Mr. Earl, seeking $42,646.65 for costs incurred due to a motion to extend time for filing an expert witness statement and for hearing costs.

The appellants argued Mr. Earl's conduct was unreasonable and frivolous, citing his expert's failure to adhere to the procedural order and his raising of a stormwater management issue not shared by the approval authorities.

The Tribunal found that while the expert's unresponsiveness and failure to meet deadlines was problematic, it did not result in significant delay or prejudice.

The Tribunal concluded Mr. Earl's conduct did not meet the high threshold of being unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith required for a costs award, and dismissed the motion.

The appellants appealed the failure of the Township and County to make decisions on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Condominium to facilitate a 16-lot residential development.

The appellants reached a settlement with the municipalities, resolving concerns about municipal water supply.

A neighbouring property owner maintained an objection regarding potential stormwater management impacts on his property.

The Tribunal dismissed a motion by the neighbour to extend the time for filing an expert witness statement due to non-compliance with the Procedural Order.

Relying on the uncontradicted expert evidence of the appellants, the Tribunal found that the proposed stormwater management plan was appropriate and would likely improve existing conditions.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan in principle, subject to finalization.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to reduce the minimum setback from a floodplain from 7.6 metres to 5.0 metres to permit the construction of a single-family dwelling.

The appellant argued the lot was too small, the proposed septic system under the driveway was inappropriate, and the development was inconsistent with the Official Plan and Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, preferring the evidence of the applicant's and City's planners that the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, and finding that concerns regarding the septic system and drainage were matters to be addressed at the building permit stage.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to reduce a floodplain setback for a new dwelling.

The Tribunal scheduled a three-day hearing, approved a draft Procedural Order, and denied the appellant's requests to add the City of Kingston as a party and to order specific disclosure of a septic system plan.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan (OPAs 13-18).

The City brought a motion for partial approval (Draft Order 3) to resolve numerous Phase 2 issues based on an Agreed Statement of Facts by land use planning experts, which the Tribunal approved.

The Tribunal also considered Draft Order 4 to implement Minutes of Settlement regarding settlement boundaries.

Fenelon Trails requested a deferral of the Fenelon Falls urban boundary approval, arguing it would restrict growth.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, noting Fenelon Trails was a non-appellant party sheltering under another appeal that had settled, and approved Draft Orders 3 and 4 to implement the settlement and boundary adjustments.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan and related Official Plan Amendments.

The Tribunal was updated on settlement discussions, a recent Minister's Zoning Order, and the resolution of issues with one of the appellants.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to file a final hearing plan by February 9, 2022, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference and hearing dates.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan and related amendments.

The Tribunal addressed a request for an adjournment based on a pending disposition letter, confirmed there were no concerns with certain lands remaining within the Lindsay urban settlement boundary, extended the deadline for the Agreed Statement of Facts, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for January 2022.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan and various Official Plan Amendments.

The Tribunal granted a motion for disclosure, allowing information pertaining to servicing capacity to be entered into evidence at the upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal denied a request by certain appellants to postpone dealing with the Lindsay urban boundary issue, directing that the hearing proceed as originally scheduled.

Finally, the Tribunal approved the modified Official Plan Schedules A-2, A-4, and A-5, and finalized the Procedural Order for the Phase 2 hearing.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan, Bromont Homes Inc. sought clarification on whether the urban settlement boundary for Lindsay remained a live issue for the upcoming Phase 2 Hearing.

The City and other parties argued the issue was settled and Bromont should have appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal found that previous orders explicitly preserved Bromont's right to argue against the boundary adjustment and ordered that the issue will be adjudicated at the upcoming hearing.

Following a finding of misconduct against Mayor Daryl Bennett for his actions as a member of the Peterborough Lakefield Police Services Board, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission determined the appropriate penalty.

The Commission rejected the argument that it lacked jurisdiction to impose a penalty due to the disbandment of the Board, finding that a liberal interpretation of the Police Services Act required accountability for past conduct to maintain public confidence.

Given the severity of the misconduct, which included undermining the Board and the Chief of Police, and the lack of remorse, the Commission ordered that Mayor Bennett be removed from the Board.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission held a hearing into the conduct of Daryl Bennett, Mayor of Peterborough and member of the Peterborough-Lakefield Police Services Board.

The Commission investigated 11 allegations of misconduct, including leaking confidential personnel complaints, attempting to negotiate the police budget directly with the Chief, publicly criticizing the Chief's operational decisions, and making disparaging remarks about the Board and the Commission.

The Commission found that all 11 allegations were proven on a balance of probabilities.

The Commission rejected the Mayor's arguments that his role as Mayor superseded his obligations as a Board member and that his Charter rights to free expression shielded him from the Code of Conduct.

The Commission concluded that Mayor Bennett breached sections 2, 5, 6, 8, and 13 of the Code of Conduct and was guilty of misconduct.

During a hearing into the conduct of a police services board member, the Commission sought to introduce three new factual matters as particulars of an existing allegation of making disparaging remarks.

The member brought a motion to declare the new matters inadmissible, arguing they were new allegations that amounted to an abuse of process and a breach of natural justice because they were raised after the hearing had commenced.

The Panel dismissed the motion, finding that the new matters were merely additional particulars that did not require amending the Notice of Hearing, and that the Commission had provided full disclosure with ample time for the member to prepare a response.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission brought a motion to amend a Notice of Hearing to add two new allegations against the respondent, a member of a police services board.

The respondent opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion seeking conditions if the amendment was granted.

The Commission granted the motion to amend, finding no prejudice to the respondent as no evidence had yet been adduced, and ordered that the respondent would not be required to lead evidence before a specified date.

The appellant police officer sued the respondent police association for breach of its duty of fair representation.

The motion judge struck the claim for want of jurisdiction, finding that such claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that it was bound by its previous decision in Renaud v. LaSalle (Town of) Police Assn., which established that an arbitrator appointed under the Police Services Act has exclusive jurisdiction over these disputes.

The respondent, a member of a police services board, brought four preliminary motions seeking to stay or dismiss the proceedings against him.

He argued that the Commission failed to provide a motion record, that the Notice of Hearing lacked sufficient particulars, that there was a reasonable apprehension of institutional bias due to the Commission's dual investigative and adjudicative roles, and that he was entitled to transcripts from a separate proceeding.

The Commission dismissed all four motions, finding that no motion record was required for an investigation initiated on its own motion, the Notice of Hearing provided reasonable information of the allegations, the Commission's statutory structure and recusal policy prevented institutional bias, and there was no basis to order the disclosure of transcripts from an unrelated hearing.

The applicant City requested a hearing regarding a Review Officer's order directing the parties to complete and implement a pay equity plan.

The respondent union moved to dismiss the application for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal held that it has the authority to dismiss an application without a hearing on the merits if the written material fails to disclose a case that the Tribunal can remedy.

Finding that the City's application merely expressed general dissatisfaction with the job comparison system without alleging facts that would constitute a violation of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal dismissed the application for failure to establish a prima facie case.

The applicant union applied under section 63(6) of the Labour Relations Act, arguing that following the respondent city's purchase of a transit business five and a half years earlier, there had been sufficient intermingling of employees to warrant a declaration altering bargaining rights.

The Board dismissed the application, holding that section 63(6) is designed to address representational problems closely related in time to a sale.

Given the significant lapse of time and the fact that collective agreements had been negotiated in the interim, the Board found it inappropriate to exercise its discretion, noting that any current representational conflicts should be resolved through grievance arbitration or jurisdictional dispute proceedings.