Patrick Brode

The City of Windsor expropriated a 3.04-acre property from the claimants.

At the compensation hearing, the claimants' counsel sought a last-minute adjournment and later moved to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship; both motions were denied to prevent prejudice.

On the merits, the Tribunal rejected the claimants' appraiser's highest and best use analysis, finding it failed to consider physical and financial feasibility.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's appraiser's conclusion that the highest and best use was continued residential use, but adjusted the valuation by excluding a comparable sale made under power of sale.

The Tribunal awarded $394,272 in compensation for the market value of the expropriated property.

A second Case Management Conference was held regarding a claim for compensation arising from the expropriation of a portion of the claimants' lands by the City of Windsor.

The parties submitted a draft hearing plan prior to the status hearing and confirmed they were content with it.

The Tribunal approved the hearing plan and confirmed the parties' readiness to proceed with the scheduled three-day video hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding a claim for land compensation under the Expropriations Act.

Counsel for the claimants failed to attend the scheduled video hearing without prior notice.

The Tribunal proceeded in his absence, noting a concerning trend of non-attendance by counsel in expropriation proceedings.

The Tribunal reviewed and amended a draft Procedural Order provided by the respondent, set dates for a three-day video hearing on the merits, and scheduled a final status hearing.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) regarding her complaints of police misconduct.

The applicant had filed an initial complaint about an officer's conduct, and later added a second complaint alleging unlawful arrest.

The OIPRD investigated and dismissed the first complaint but inadvertently failed to screen or investigate the second complaint.

The Divisional Court held that the failure to investigate the second complaint was unreasonable and ordered it remitted to the OIPRD for investigation by a different investigator.

However, the court found the OIPRD's decision dismissing the initial complaint was reasonable and upheld that portion of the decision.

The appellant brought a motion for costs against the City of Windsor following a successful appeal of a minor variance decision.

The appellant argued that the City acted unreasonably and in bad faith by withdrawing from the hearing and refusing to consent to an order allowing the appeal, thereby forcing the appellant to incur unnecessary hearing costs.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the City provided timely notice of its non-attendance and had no obligation to participate or consent, especially given the presence of participants whose inputs required consideration at a hearing.

The claimant sought compensation for lands taken by the respondent municipality for road reconstruction and injurious affection under the Expropriations Act.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised the Tribunal that the discovery process was ongoing and they were not yet in a position to finalize a Procedural Order or set a hearing date.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide a written update on the progress of discovery and deferred setting a date for a further Case Management Conference.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to obtain a status update and set a new hearing date for a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act.

The parties agreed to proceed to a 6-day virtual hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled the hearing for March 7, 2022, and directed the parties to update the Procedural Order accordingly.

The claimant sought $4 million in compensation under the Expropriations Act, alleging the city expropriated an easement and caused business losses through road construction.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the claim in its entirety.

The tribunal found no evidence that an easement ever existed or that any land was expropriated.

Furthermore, the claimant failed to prove any business losses or demonstrate that the city's construction work caused substantial and unreasonable interference with the property to support a claim for injurious affection.

The appellant's land was expropriated by the respondent municipality.

After years of delay and litigation, the appellant rejected a settlement offer of $1.2 million.

The Ontario Municipal Board ultimately awarded compensation of $710,000 and ordered costs against the appellant from the date of the settlement offer.

The appellant appealed, arguing that 'amount offered' under s. 32 of the Expropriations Act refers only to the initial statutory offer under s. 25, and that costs cannot be awarded against an expropriated party.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 32 encompasses subsequent offers and that the Board retains discretion to award costs against a claimant to encourage settlement and sanction unreasonable conduct.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing his discrimination complaint.

He argued the Tribunal unfairly refused to hear three allegations, improperly conducted the hearing by teleconference, and reached an unreasonable decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal reasonably declined to re-litigate allegations already decided in another complainant's hearing, the applicant had agreed to the teleconference format, and the Tribunal's decision was defensible on the facts.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Final Decision dismissing his human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

He argued that the hearing process was unfair, particularly the use of a teleconference, and disputed the Tribunal's findings on timeliness and the employer's investigation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The Tribunal noted that the parties had consented to the teleconference hearing and that the applicant was given a full opportunity to present his case.

The applicant alleged discrimination by the City of Windsor and the Ministry of Community and Social Services regarding the deduction of her Ukrainian disability pension from her Ontario Works benefits and alleged rude treatment by City staff.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the portion of the application regarding the pension deduction under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the Social Benefits Tribunal had already appropriately dealt with the substance of that issue.

The Tribunal dismissed the remaining allegations of bad treatment and reprisal as having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant could not establish a link between the alleged treatment and any protected ground.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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 alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, marital status, creed, and reprisal after her Ontario Disability Support Program income support was reduced due to the inclusion of her spouse's income.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application, arguing there was no reasonable prospect of success because the Social Benefits Tribunal had previously dismissed a similar claim involving different parties.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario declined to dismiss the application, finding that the applicant had made a legitimate choice of venue to have her human rights issues decided at the HRTO, and the non-binding authority of another tribunal did not preclude her claim from proceeding.

The applicant filed an application alleging human rights violations by the respondent.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving proper notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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, a 64-year-old man, received a conditional offer of employment as a part-time arena attendant from the respondent City.

The offer was withdrawn after he failed a pre-employment physical test administered by the respondent Proactive.

The test was terminated because the applicant's heart rate exceeded the maximum allowable rate calculated using the Fox and Haskell formula, which sets lower maximums for older individuals.

The Tribunal found that the heart rate standard was prima facie discriminatory on the basis of age.

Applying the Meiorin test, the Tribunal held that while the standard was adopted in good faith for safety reasons, the respondents failed to prove it was reasonably necessary.

Expert evidence showed that using a maximal heart rate criterion to terminate a strength test is not supported by scientific literature and that the risk of a cardiac event was not substantiated.

The respondents also failed to accommodate the applicant.

The Tribunal awarded $10,000 for injury to dignity, lost wages, and ordered the City to conditionally place the applicant in the job.

The applicant, Laurie Parent, objected to her Application for Review Services being combined with another application regarding the employer's 2005 Pay Equity Plan.

The Tribunal denied her request to refer the matter back to Review Services, noting that under section 17 of the Pay Equity Act, objections to a plan posted pursuant to section 16(4) must be heard by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal also amended the style of cause to reflect that the Civic Association of Non-Union Employees at the City of Windsor (CANUE) represents all other applicants.

CANUE requested an extension of time to file its application to allow for discussions with the employer.

The Tribunal indicated its inclination to grant the extension to September 30, 2011, but directed Parent to advise within 15 days if she objected to the extension.

The City of Windsor appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding compensation to landowners for expropriated property.

The City argued the Board erred by ignoring the land's natural features and provincial policy statements when determining market value, and by improperly assessing injurious affection and interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusions on the scope of the expropriation scheme, the highest and best use of the land, and the appropriate comparators were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the police service and an individual officer for refusing to accept his complaints.

The Tribunal found that the application was barred by section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code because it arose from the same factual history, dealt with the same issues, and asserted the same allegations as a previous complaint filed with the Commission.

The application was dismissed.