Peter Krysiak

The Ontario Land Tribunal initiated a motion to dismiss an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted a 67-unit residential building.

The appellant, a self-represented individual, failed to provide expert planning evidence or demonstrate a triable issue, relying instead on broad questions and an affidavit from a local resident planner who could not provide independent expert opinion.

Applying the East Beach test, the Tribunal found the appeal did not disclose any apparent land use planning ground worthy of adjudication and dismissed the appeal without a hearing pursuant to s. 34(25) of the Planning Act.

The applicants, operators of an event centre, were charged under a municipal by-law for operating an adult entertainment establishment without a licence after hosting a male dancer event.

They brought an application seeking a declaration that the by-law's definition of 'adult entertainment establishment' was void for vagueness and violated s. 7 of the Charter.

The Superior Court of Justice reviewed the Supreme Court of Canada's vagueness jurisprudence, distinguishing it from earlier Court of Appeal decisions that required absolute certainty.

The court held that the by-law's language, which closely tracked the Municipal Act, 2001, provided sufficient guidance for legal debate and delineated an area of risk.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability regarding the respondent's refusal to cover the costs of medical marijuana.

The applicant subsequently filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend the application by adding numerous new allegations and several new respondents.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the new allegations, finding them too broad and disconnected from the original issue.

The Tribunal also denied the request to add Bruce County and Simcoe County as respondents, but permitted the addition of the Province of Ontario and related ministries as they appeared involved in the funding and eligibility of benefits coverage.

The request for interim relief was denied.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his defamation claim against the County of Simcoe and its employee, as well as the substantial indemnity costs award.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no evidence of malice to defeat the respondents' qualified privilege in gathering information for an Ontario Works file.

The court also upheld the costs award, noting that the appellant's unproven allegations of fraud justified costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering against the defendants.

The motion judge found that the appellant failed to demonstrate a genuine triable issue regarding whether he suffered a 'visible illness' as a result of the defendants' conduct.

The Court of Appeal agreed, noting the lack of medical evidence, and dismissed the appeal, including the appeal of the costs order.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a recusal motion.

The appellant argued that the case management judge should have recused herself due to improper and inaccurate correspondence sent by the respondents' solicitor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that a reasonable, informed member of the public would not have concerns about the judge's impartiality based on the correspondence.

The appellants appealed three orders relating to a drainage dispute.

They challenged a finding of deliberate and wilful disregard of a prior order, the denial of an adjournment request, and the decision to proceed with a contempt motion rather than transferring the matter to the Drainage Referee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all three appeals, finding ample evidence of non-compliance, no error in the exercise of discretion to deny the adjournment, and no error in addressing the contempt motion.

Costs of $12,000 were awarded to the respondents.