Mark Baker

The moving party father applied to vary child support and arrears originally ordered in 2016 for the parties' three children.

The parties agreed to terminate support for the oldest child as of June 30, 2023, because she had ceased living with the mother.

The court reviewed the father's proven annual income from 2016 to 2024 to recalculate his support obligations under the Child Support Guidelines.

Ultimately, the court adjusted the child support amounts year-by-year based on his proven income and ordered ongoing support of $212 per month for the two remaining eligible children.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting consent to sever a residential property to create two undersized lots for a semi-detached dwelling.

The City argued the proposal failed to respect the prevailing lot pattern under Official Plan Policy 4.1.5.

The owner argued the property was unique and should be evaluated under the infill criteria of Policy 4.1.9.

The Tribunal agreed with the owner, finding the property's size and shape were distinct from the neighbourhood and the proposed development would fit the existing physical character.

The appeal was dismissed and the consent was upheld.

The applicant appealed the Town's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, draft plan of subdivision, and heritage permits to facilitate a residential subdivision on the former Rand Estate.

The Tribunal approved the OPA to correct the urban boundary but found the proposed subdivision design unacceptable due to inadequate vehicular access safety, insufficient protection of cultural heritage landscapes and attributes, and unacceptable impacts to mature trees and a wetland.

The Tribunal issued an interim order granting some heritage permits in principle while directing the applicant to substantially redesign the subdivision to conserve key heritage features in situ, retain the wetland, and secure safe access, potentially through a shared access with adjacent lands.

The Applicant brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of an appeal regarding a consent to sever and minor variances.

The adjournment was requested due to the late discovery of an explanatory memorandum prepared by the City's Urban Forestry Division, which the City intended to rely upon at the hearing.

The City consented to the adjournment.

The Tribunal found that the criteria under Rule 23.3 were satisfied and granted the motion, ordering a new hearing date and fresh disclosure deadlines.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality for failing to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications within statutory timeframes.

The parties reported ongoing productive settlement discussions.

The Tribunal scheduled a fourth Case Management Conference for May 24, 2023, which may be converted to a settlement hearing if the issues are resolved.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding remaining site-specific appeals to the City of Hamilton's Official Plan Amendment No. 69 and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 17-240.

Several appeals were withdrawn, bringing the amendments into force for those lands.

The Tribunal scheduled a six-day video hearing for October 2023 for one appellant and directed the remaining appellants to file hearing requests or settlement documents by March 2023.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a proposed residential redevelopment.

The Tribunal addressed notice issues, granted party and participant status to several individuals and community groups on consent, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference and a 10-day hearing on the merits.

The appellants brought a motion seeking approval of site-specific modifications to Official Plan Amendment No. 144 to facilitate mixed-use developments on St. Clair Avenue West.

The modifications updated compatibility and mitigation study requirements for residential uses near existing meat processing plants.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence and the settlement reached with the City of Toronto, the Tribunal approved the modifications.

The applicant appealed the municipality's denial of a consent application to sever 2 hectares of vacant industrial land and add it to an abutting industrial property.

The municipality argued that the consent constituted "development" under its Official Plan, thereby requiring comprehensive land use and transportation studies to ensure a potential future bypass corridor was not compromised.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted the consent, finding that the lot boundary adjustment did not change the property's potential use or constitute "development" that would trigger the study requirements.

The Tribunal concluded that any future physical development on the lands would be subject to site plan approval, at which time compatibility and transportation corridor protection would be appropriately addressed.

The appellant insurer appealed a License Appeal Tribunal decision reinstating the respondent's Income Replacement Benefits.

The benefits had been suspended after the respondent failed to provide requested medical records.

The Tribunal found the respondent had a 'reasonable explanation' for the delay under s. 33(8)(b) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Adjudicator applied the correct legal test for 'reasonable explanation' by considering both objective and subjective factors, and provided adequate reasons for the decision.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant entitled to income replacement benefits during a period of suspension.

The insurer argued the Tribunal erred in law by misinterpreting 'reasonable explanation' under s. 33(8)(b) of the Schedule, as the applicant's explanation was only offered at the hearing.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no error of law, as the Schedule does not impose a time limitation for providing a reasonable explanation and the Tribunal had properly weighed the evidence in finding the explanation credible.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits (IRBs) until the respondent suspended them for failure to provide requested information and participate in psychological treatment.

The applicant sought retroactive payment of the suspended IRBs.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for failing to provide the requested documents and that she had participated in treatment reasonably provided by her family physician's practice.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the retroactive IRBs with interest.

The College alleged that the Member committed professional misconduct by practicing hirudotherapy (leech therapy), which involves performing an unauthorized controlled act, breaching the Food and Drugs Act, and contravening standards of practice.

The Member was also alleged to have used unauthorized titles (including 'Dr.') and permitted testimonials on her website.

The Member admitted several allegations but argued that others should be dismissed based on the rule against multiple convictions.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of all allegations, concluding that the rule against multiple convictions did not apply because each allegation contained distinct legal and factual elements.

A penalty hearing was ordered to be convened.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of a 1999 motor vehicle accident.

She claimed the accident caused a lumbar disc rupture that led to chronic pain and significant impairment.

The arbitrator found the applicant's testimony unreliable due to numerous inconsistencies with contemporaneous medical records, which showed no complaints of low back pain until over a year after the accident and referenced a possible second accident in 2001.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the 1999 accident caused her impairments or that she met the 55% whole person impairment threshold, dismissing the application.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order made by the trial scheduling judge, who had ordered the plaintiff to pay costs thrown away as a term of granting a further adjournment of the trial.

The plaintiff also sought an adjournment of this motion to obtain transcripts.

The Divisional Court denied the adjournment of the motion and dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error in the scheduling judge's exercise of discretion to award costs as a term of adjournment, particularly given the history of the proceeding and a prior unpaid costs order.

The applicant was injured in two motor vehicle accidents in 1995 and sought ongoing income replacement benefits (IRBs) and rehabilitation benefits from the insurer.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had a legitimate contract of employment as a truck driver trainee prior to the second accident and was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of that employment due to injuries sustained in the accident, specifically heterotopic bone formation affecting his ability to sit for prolonged periods.

The applicant was awarded IRBs based on the truck driving contract, as well as funding for a vocational assessment at Goodwill Industries and case management services.

The applicant's claim for a higher IRB rate based on his pre-accident work as a taxi driver was dismissed due to a lack of reliable income evidence.

The applicant was largely unsuccessful in her claim for statutory accident benefits, being awarded only a small amount for transportation expenses.

Both parties sought their expenses for the arbitration proceeding.

The arbitrator held that the new expense regulation did not restrict the discretion to award expenses to an unsuccessful applicant, as the system is designed to facilitate access to dispute resolution.

Finding that the applicant had a legitimate claim and did not unreasonably prolong the proceedings, the arbitrator awarded the applicant her expenses and denied the insurer's claim for expenses, noting that the insurer's offer to settle was a full and final offer rather than one limited to the issues in arbitration.

The applicant sought interim expenses pending the completion of an arbitration for statutory accident benefits.

The hearing was delayed for six months due to the insurer's counsel's schedule.

The arbitrator applied the Bernicky criteria, noting the applicant's financial inability to carry the expenses of the arbitration and the bona fide issues raised.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay $3,100.50 in interim expenses for medical reports and records, subject to a final order on expenses at the conclusion of the hearing.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer terminated benefits, and the applicant commenced arbitration.

Subsequently, the applicant was deported to Bulgaria and failed to attend scheduled insurer's medical examinations.

The insurer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the arbitration for failure to diligently pursue the claim and for an award of its assessment fee under s. 282(11.2) of the Insurance Act.

The arbitrator declined to dismiss the arbitration, noting the applicant's stated willingness to attend an examination upon return to Canada or in Bulgaria, and ordered a resumption of the pre-hearing to monitor the applicant's efforts to return.

The arbitrator also denied the insurer's request for the assessment fee, finding the arbitration was not frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process when commenced.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits.

The arbitrator dismissed the claims for non-earner, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits, finding that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as evidenced by video surveillance and her own statements.

The arbitrator also found no evidence that the applicant incurred expenses for care provided by her daughter.

The applicant was awarded $15.53 for transportation expenses to medical appointments.