Robert W. Baldwin

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two parcels for future development.

The Committee of Adjustment reviewed the application against the criteria in section 51(24) of the Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statement.

Finding no concerns from the City Planning department or other agencies, the Committee granted the provisional consent subject to conditions, including registering agreements regarding groundwater and soil conditions, obtaining a zoning by-law amendment, and conveying a road widening to the City.

The plaintiff moved to set aside the registrar's dismissal of his claim, which had been ongoing for 23 years.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide an adequate explanation for the inordinate delay in prosecuting the action.

The court also determined that the plaintiff could not rebut the presumption of non-compensable prejudice suffered by the defendants due to the passage of time, including unavailable witnesses and documents.

The court noted the action had been previously dismissed and reinstated, and the plaintiff still could not satisfy the requirements to set the matter down for trial.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial profiling by police during a traffic stop, vehicle search, and subsequent reprisal.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance was appropriately dealt with when the Ontario Court of Justice dismissed the applicant's Charter motion during his Provincial Offences Act trial.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the quasi-criminal proceeding only addressed the initial stop, not the subsequent search or reprisal allegations.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held it would be unfair to preclude the human rights claim given the significant differences in purposes, processes, and stakes between a quasi-criminal defence and a human rights application.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request for production of police training materials.

The applicant alleged that the respondent police services board discriminated against him on the basis of age by participating in his eviction from his home and changing the locks.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify any evidence that would establish a connection between the respondent's alleged actions and his age.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the individual defendant for repayment of a USD$1 million loan and over $400,000 in interest.

The funds had been advanced to a corporate entity controlled by the defendant, who failed to account for them.

Applying the Hryniak framework, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the principal amount, as the defendant provided no credible explanation for the missing funds.

However, the court found a trial was necessary to determine if the defendant was personally liable for the contractual interest rate.

The appellants appealed an order directing the sale of a residential property they co-owned as tenants in common with the respondent.

The appellants sought physical partition instead of sale.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the property's configuration and the appellants' failure to pay municipal taxes and insurance made partition impractical and sale the most beneficial option.

The respondent's cross-appeal to purchase the appellants' share at a fixed price was dismissed, as joint tenants are entitled to the fair market value obtained through an open market sale.

The respondent was awarded costs for both the application and the appeal.

The appellant home inspector appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding him liable for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract regarding a roof inspection.

The trial judge had rejected the appellant's qualified expert witness and instead relied on the respondents' lay witness, who was not qualified as an expert, to establish the standard of care.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in law by treating lay opinion evidence as expert evidence without proper qualification.

Without accepted expert evidence on the standard of care, there was no evidentiary foundation for a finding of negligence.

The appeal was allowed and the action dismissed.

The applicant requested that his human rights application remain deferred pending the disposition of his appeal of a criminal conviction in absentia.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the application to remain deferred pending the completion of the appeal process.

The respondents requested that the human rights applications be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code on the basis that the applicants' prior public complaints under the Police Services Act appropriately dealt with the substance of the applications.

The Tribunal considered the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions in Figliola and Penner.

The Tribunal held that section 45.1 should not be interpreted to bar a Code application where doing so would result in an affront to basic principles of fairness.

Given the lack of personal remedies in the police disciplinary process and the broader policy implications, the Tribunal found it would be unfair to preclude the applicants from pursuing their human rights claims.

The respondents' requests to dismiss the applications were denied, and the applications were allowed to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial profiling during a traffic stop and reprisal in the form of Highway Traffic Act charges.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed against the individual respondent for delay and that the matter be deferred pending the completion of the related court proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the application against the individual respondent was filed within the one-year time limit and denied the request to dismiss.

However, the Tribunal granted the request to defer the application, finding substantial overlap between the facts in the application and the ongoing court proceedings.

The applicant, a Black pastor, alleged racial discrimination by two police officers during his arrest for fraud related to his church's charitable status.

He claimed the officers used excessive force, made racist comments, and subjected him to a humiliating strip search.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and reliability, preferring the officers' testimony.

The Tribunal concluded the officers had reasonable grounds for the arrest based on the fraud complaint and the applicant's evasive behaviour, and that race was not a factor in their actions.

The applications of the pastor and other church board members were dismissed.

The respondents requested a stay of the Tribunal's previous order pending judicial review.

The Tribunal noted that the respondents had not yet exhausted internal remedies, specifically the right to request reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules.

The Tribunal granted a temporary stay to allow the respondents to file a request for reconsideration, with the stay to be extended if the request is filed.

The applicant, a Black woman, alleged racial and gender discrimination during a traffic stop by a police officer while she was delivering newspapers.

The encounter quickly escalated into an arrest after the applicant failed to immediately provide identification, instead attempting to call her husband on her cellphone.

The Tribunal found that the officer's failure to de-escalate the situation and his decision to arrest and charge the applicant were influenced by unconscious racial and gender biases.

The Tribunal held the officer, the Police Services Board, and the Chief of Police jointly and severally liable, awarding the applicant $5,000 in damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation by the respondents in an after-school program.

At a case management meeting, the applicant requested further witness statements and sought to exclude a respondent witness who would only provide good character evidence.

The respondents requested permission to have a court reporter at the hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request for further witness statements, ruled the character evidence inadmissible, and allowed the court reporter on the condition that any transcript be shared with the applicant and the Tribunal.

The respondent Toronto Police Services Board requested to add Respite Services as a respondent party to a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in the provision of police reference checks.

The complainant alleged that the disclosure of mental health apprehensions in reference checks constituted discrimination in services.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the complaint focused on systemic policy regarding police services, and adding Respite Services would inappropriately shift the focus to an individualized employment complaint.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that allowed the respondent's claim for $164,444.27, representing 33 per cent of a tax credit figure in a SRED submission prepared by the respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's reasons given the absence of contrary evidence from the appellants.

The appellant rented a loader from the respondent and accidentally submerged it in water, causing severe engine damage.

The respondent successfully sued in Small Claims Court for repair costs and lost rental income.

The appellant appealed to the Divisional Court, raising issues regarding machine identification, causation of the engine damage, proof of lost rentals, betterment, and the damage waiver clause.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact and liability.

The applicant, a self-employed bricklayer, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until the insurer terminated them.

The applicant sought reinstatement of benefits, claiming ongoing disability due to chronic neck and back pain.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant's pre-existing degenerative disc disease was aggravated by the accident, surveillance video demonstrating the applicant laying bricks showed he no longer had physical limitations preventing him from working.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant was entitled to benefits up to July 31, 1993, but failed to prove ongoing disability beyond that date.