6 total
Counsel removed due to conflict of interest from prior representation and being a material witness.
The defendant brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's counsel of record, arguing a disqualifying conflict of interest and that counsel was a likely material witness.
The court found that the counsel had previously acted for the defendant in drafting a trust agreement and had received relevant confidential information regarding an income-splitting arrangement central to the current litigation.
The court also determined that counsel was a necessary witness regarding a key shareholder's knowledge of the income splitting.
The motion was allowed and counsel was removed.
Appeal for delayed occupancy compensation dismissed as builder properly invoked COVID-19 unavoidable delay provisions.
The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying his claim for delayed occupancy compensation under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.
The builder had unilaterally extended the Firm Occupancy Date due to the COVID-19 pandemic, relying on the Unavoidable Delay provisions in the Addendum to the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.
The Tribunal found that the builder met the notice and evidentiary requirements of section 5 of the Addendum in setting the new Firm Occupancy Date.
Consequently, the appellant was not entitled to compensation from the guarantee fund for delayed occupancy, and the appeal was dismissed.
Appeal against development charges dismissed; prior severance fees do not exempt new construction from current charges.
The Appellants appealed the City of Toronto's dismissal of their complaint regarding development charges imposed for the construction of a new single dwelling on their property.
The Appellants argued that fees paid during a 1980 lot severance should exempt them from current development charges, and that the proposed construction was an as-of-right development.
The Tribunal found that the proposed construction constituted a 'development' under the City's Development Charges By-law, triggering the charges.
The Tribunal also held that the demolition of an existing garage did not qualify for a demolition reduction, which applies only to existing dwelling units.
The appeal was dismissed.
Appeal of CVOR certificate refusal dismissed as applicant was related to a cancelled operator.
The applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to refuse to issue a Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate and to seize its permits and plates.
The Registrar refused the application on the basis that the applicant was related to another trucking company whose CVOR certificate had been cancelled due to a poor safety record and outstanding fines.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's principals were previously 50% owners and managers of the cancelled company, establishing that the two corporations were related under the Highway Traffic Act.
The Tribunal concluded the applicant was created to continue the cancelled company's operations while avoiding its debts and safety record.
The appeal was dismissed, and the Registrar was directed to refuse the CVOR certificate and carry out the seizure order.
Tribunal dismisses most allegations in WSIB accommodation dispute but allows delay and family status claims to proceed.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal against the WSIB and its service provider regarding his labour market re-entry program.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal dismissed the application against the personal respondent and dismissed most of the allegations against the corporate respondents, including reprisal and general unfairness.
However, the Tribunal permitted the allegations concerning a delay in providing disability accommodation and a threat related to family status to continue.
Employee appeal for unpaid salary dismissed as adjudicator finds applicant worked on commission basis.
The applicant appealed an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay for 8 weeks of unpaid salary and vacation pay.
The applicant claimed he was employed on a salaried basis after selling his shares in the respondent restaurant business.
The respondent argued the applicant was retained on a casual commission basis to generate banqueting events.
The Adjudicator found the respondent's evidence more probable, concluding the applicant was not employed on a salaried basis during the disputed period.
The appeal was dismissed, but the respondent was directed to calculate and pay the applicant any outstanding commission earned during that time.
