Matthew Todd

The applicant appealed the Municipality of Leamington's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and refusal to enact a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a two-storey, nine-unit apartment building.

The parties reached a settlement that included minor reductions to parking space dimensions to accommodate additional spaces.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of applications for an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-Law Amendment to permit a 9-unit apartment building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties requested to schedule a hearing before finalizing a Procedural Order and Issues List, citing ongoing evaluations related to Bill 23.

The Tribunal declined to schedule a hearing without these documents and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List prior to a second Case Management Conference.

The Board issued a procedural order adding the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers as a Third Party to the application.

Pursuant to subsection 9.1(1)(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Board also ordered that the application be heard at the same time as nine other related applications brought by various greenhouse farms against the Municipality of Leamington.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board issued a procedural order on consent adding the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers as a Third Party.

The Board also ordered that the applicant's case be heard at the same time as eight other related applications against the Municipality of Leamington, and set out a schedule for the hearing, disclosure, and procedural planning.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board issued a procedural order on consent adding the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers as a Third Party to the application.

The Board also ordered that the application be heard at the same time as eight other related applications challenging a municipal by-law of the Municipality of Leamington, and set out a schedule for the joint hearing, disclosure, and procedural planning.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board ordered on consent that the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers be added as a Third Party.

The Board also ordered on consent that the application be heard at the same time as six other related applications against the Municipality of Leamington concerning By-law Number 79-20.

Hearing dates were scheduled and procedural directions were given for disclosure and the presentation of evidence.

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding an application by AMCO Farms Inc. challenging a municipal by-law under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

On consent of the parties, the Board ordered that this application be heard at the same time as six other applications challenging the same by-law.

The Board set hearing dates and directed the parties to develop plans for disclosure and the presentation of evidence.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board ordered on consent that seven applications challenging the Municipality of Leamington's By-law Number 79-20 be heard at the same time.

The Board also added the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers as a third party to the proceedings on consent and set out a schedule for the joint hearing.

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding an application challenging a municipal by-law restricting normal farm practices.

On consent, the Board ordered that the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers be added as a third party and that the application be heard at the same time as six other related applications challenging the same by-law.

Procedural directions were given for disclosure and the conduct of the joint hearing.

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding an application to determine whether a municipal by-law restricts a normal farm practice.

On consent, the Board ordered that the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers be added as a third party and that the application be heard at the same time as six other related applications against the municipality.

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding an application to determine whether a municipal by-law restricts a normal farm practice.

On consent, the Board ordered that the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers be added as a Third Party and that the application be heard at the same time as six other related applications against the municipality.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination and reprisal in employment.

Most allegations were previously dismissed for timeliness, leaving four incidents.

Three of these incidents were subsequently addressed and dismissed by the Tribunal in a related application involving a different applicant.

The respondent argued that proceeding with these three allegations would constitute re-litigation.

The Tribunal agreed, dismissing the three overlapping allegations and directing that the application proceed only with respect to the single remaining incident.

The applicant, who has severe rheumatoid arthritis, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination because the respondents (the landlord and the physiotherapy clinic) refused to install an automatic door.

The Tribunal found that the inaccessible door created a barrier and restricted the applicant's access to services and facilities.

Both respondents failed to accommodate the applicant's disability-related needs, instead pointing to each other as responsible.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to jointly pay $6,000 in general damages, install an automatic door, and ordered the landlord to undergo human rights training.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination, harassment, and reprisal by his employer over several years.

The respondent requested dismissal of the application, arguing that most allegations were out of time or governed by the collective agreement.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish good faith for the delay in filing the older allegations.

However, the Tribunal permitted four recent allegations of racist comments to proceed, finding they constituted a series of incidents within the statutory time limit.

The matter was adjourned pending the outcome of a related application by a co-worker.

The applicant alleged a poisoned work environment based on race, colour, and ethnic origin.

The respondent employer requested orders to dismiss allegations regarding two incidents for delay and to exclude proposed similar fact evidence from two witnesses.

The Tribunal struck the first incident as it occurred more than one year prior to the application and did not form part of a series, but allowed the second incident.

The Tribunal also excluded the proposed similar fact evidence, finding its prejudicial effect exceeded its probative value given the temporal disconnect from the main allegations.