Lisa Triano

The Tribunal heard appeals regarding an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and a Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBLA) to permit the expansion of an existing place of worship located outside the Urban Boundary within the Provincial Greenbelt Plan Area (Specialty Crop Area).

The appellants argued that the expansion of a non-agricultural use in a prime agricultural area was inconsistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) and did not conform to the Greenbelt Plan's requirement that expansions bring the use more into conformity with the Plan.

The Tribunal found that the subject lands had not been farmed in 90 years, the expansion would occur entirely on the existing property, and there would be no adverse impacts on surrounding agricultural operations.

The Tribunal interpreted the Greenbelt Plan's 'more in conformity' test as applying to conversions of uses, not expansions of existing buildings.

The Tribunal dismissed the OPA appeals, approved the OPA, and allowed the ZBLA appeal, finding the applications consistent with the PPS 2024, in conformity with the Greenbelt Plan, and representing good planning.

During a telephone conference call, the Tribunal addressed a dispute regarding the handling of an Agreed Statement of Facts (ASF) prepared by expert witnesses.

Counsel for one of the parties had substantively revised the ASF to align wording with planning documents and preserve questions of law.

The Tribunal directed that the ASF must be submitted as signed by the experts, and that counsel are not permitted to alter the ASF beyond visual formatting or grammatical corrections, as doing so interferes with the outcome of the experts' meeting.

A case management conference was held regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment.

The Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society (PALS) requested party status in the Zoning By-law Amendment appeal.

The applicant objected, arguing PALS did not make submissions during the municipal process and lacked a direct interest.

The Tribunal granted PALS party status, finding they had sufficient grounds as an appellant in the related Official Plan Amendment appeal.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to finalize the draft procedural order and issues lists, and scheduled an eight-day hearing on the merits.

This was a concurrent Case Management Conference regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment for the expansion of a place of worship in the Greenbelt Plan Area.

The Tribunal ordered that the appeals be heard together, as they involve the same applicant, subject property, and proposed development.

The Tribunal also directed the removal of Natural Heritage matters from the Issues List because the appellants did not intend to call expert witnesses to address them.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the approval of an Official Plan Amendment to permit the expansion of a Place of Worship in the Greenbelt Plan Area.

The Tribunal granted Party Status to the applicant but denied a Party Status request from a local resident who sought to act as a negotiator rather than raise planning concerns.

The Tribunal also deferred a request to consolidate these appeals with a related Zoning By-law Amendment appeal, scheduling a combined Case Management Conference to address procedural matters.

The appellant appealed an order granting the respondent summary judgment, which dismissed his motion to change a previous child support order.

The appellant argued the previous order did not comply with the Child Support Guidelines.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the original judge was entitled to make an order based on Minutes of Settlement even if it deviated from the Guidelines, provided reasonable arrangements were made.

To vary the order, the appellant had to show a material change in circumstances, which he failed to do.

The personal respondent requested to be removed as a party to the human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Sigrist and Persaud, noting that the only allegations where the personal respondent's conduct was a central issue had already been dismissed as untimely.

Finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the personal respondent and no prejudice to the applicants, the Tribunal granted the request and removed the personal respondent.

The applicant filed a second human rights application alleging failure to accommodate and reprisal after returning to work from a leave related to asthma triggered by photocopier emissions.

The Tribunal had previously deferred her first application pending a WSIAT appeal regarding the cause of her asthma.

The Tribunal declined to defer the second application, finding that the issues of accommodation and reprisal upon her return to work extended beyond the scope of the WSIAT appeal, minimizing the risk of inconsistent results.

The applicant, a female electrician, alleged that she was denied a promotion to a supervisory position because of her sex and as a reprisal for previously complaining about gender-based harassment.

During the merits hearing, after the applicant presented her evidence, the respondent moved to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the successful male candidates had superior paper qualifications and that there was no evidence linking the hiring committee's decision to the applicant's sex or her prior harassment complaints.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's appeal to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The applicant alleged that photocopier emissions triggered her asthma and environmental sensitivities, and that the respondents failed to accommodate her.

The WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer had previously denied her claim, finding no causal link between the emissions and her medical condition.

The Tribunal found that the factual issues regarding the cause of the applicant's medical conditions were central to both proceedings.

To avoid the risk of inconsistent findings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the WSIAT appeal.

The Appellant applied for a liquor licence for a three-deck river boat, the Niagara Belle.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving objections from area residents concerned about noise, traffic, and parking.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors failed to provide clear and cogent evidence that granting the licence would not be in the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the application without imposing additional conditions.

The responding parent brought a motion to vary an existing parenting order to obtain equal parenting time with the parties’ children.

The other parent opposed the motion on the basis that no material change in circumstances had occurred and that the proposed arrangement was not in the children’s best interests.

The court held that the evidence largely repeated the material filed on the original motion and did not establish a material change affecting the children.

The moving parent had also failed to exercise a number of scheduled access visits under the existing order.

The court concluded that the motion amounted to a thinly disguised appeal of the prior order and dismissed the motion to change, leaving the issue of equal parenting time to be determined at the upcoming trial.

Following a motion to change a child support order, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving party had been successful in obtaining an order requiring the responding party to pay full table child support due to a reduction in parenting time exercised by the responding party, though she was unsuccessful on other arguments including the characterization of the prior order and certain claimed s. 7 expenses.

Applying Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court assessed success, reasonableness of the parties’ positions, offers to settle, and the time reasonably attributable to the motion.

The court found that while both parties advanced some unreasonable positions, neither acted in bad faith.

Considering partial success and proportionality, the court awarded reduced costs to the moving party.

The applicant brought a motion to change a prior final order relating to child support and special expenses for three children.

The previous order required the respondent to pay 80% of the Child Support Guidelines table amount based on an expectation of extensive parenting time.

The court found a material change in circumstances because the respondent was exercising significantly less access than contemplated when the reduced support level was agreed upon.

Full table child support was ordered effective November 1, 2011 with further adjustment based on updated income figures.

Only limited section 7 expenses were allowed, including tutoring and orthodontic expenses, while most extracurricular activities were found not to qualify as extraordinary given the level of table support.

The appellant union appealed an inspector's decision finding that the City had complied with an earlier order regarding firefighter response protocols.

The union sought an interim order requiring the City to schedule two full-time firefighters at all times or instruct them not to respond to calls until two firefighters were on the vehicle.

The City raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction to issue an interim order under s. 61(3.4) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act once a hearing had commenced.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the hearing and consultation processes are not mutually exclusive.

However, the Board dismissed the request for an interim order, concluding that the union failed to demonstrate compelling grounds to interfere with the inspector's decision or that the firefighters' health and safety would be jeopardized without the order, given the City's standard operating procedures for one-person crews.

The applicant, a union member, filed an application alleging that his union breached section 75 of the Labour Relations Act by improperly referring other members ahead of him on the out-of-work list to jobs at a Honda assembly plant.

The Board dismissed the application on two grounds.

First, the referrals were not made pursuant to a collective agreement, as the union was not bound by the collective agreement governing the work.

Second, the applicant lacked standing to complain because he was too far down the out-of-work list to have been referred even if the union had followed its procedures correctly.

The Board heard two appeals under section 61 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act regarding orders issued by an inspector concerning firefighter staffing.

The City withdrew its appeal after the inspector issued a subsequent decision finding the City in compliance.

The Board dismissed the City's appeal.

The Association maintained its appeal of the inspector's subsequent decision and requested an interim order regarding minimum staffing levels.

The Board established a timetable for written submissions on the interim order request and scheduled hearing dates for the Association's appeal.