Saad Syed

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed two-tower residential development.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement involving revised building heights, setbacks, and parkland dedication.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal represents good planning, supports transit-oriented intensification, and is consistent with provincial and municipal policies.

The appeals were allowed in part, with the amendments approved in principle subject to final conditions.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Cambridge's refusal to enact a Zoning By-law Amendment for a proposed residential development.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the Waterloo Region District School Board on consent.

A request for party status by adjacent landowners Funchal Enterprises Inc. and Urros Investments Inc. was denied, but they were granted participant status with leave to re-apply for party status at the next CMC.

The parties indicated an interest in Tribunal-led mediation once the related draft plan of subdivision appeal is filed.

Three young men with no prior criminal records pleaded guilty to break, enter and commit assault causing bodily harm contrary to s. 348(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The offenders broke into the residence of a drug dealer who had previously beaten and left for dead a friend of theirs.

The break-in involved multiple attempts to gain entry and ultimately using a truck to destroy patio doors.

Once inside, the victim was assaulted, suffering minor injuries.

The Crown sought a five-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought twelve to eighteen months plus probation.

The court imposed ninety days in jail followed by two years of probation, with community service orders and a ten-year weapon prohibition.

The judge distinguished the case from typical home invasion cases, emphasizing the offenders' youth, lack of criminal records, genuine remorse, stable employment, family support, and the victim's criminal background.

The accused was charged with Over 80 contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code arising from an incident on March 30, 2012.

The Crown conceded a section 10(b) Charter violation regarding the accused's right to counsel.

The sole issue was whether breath test evidence should be excluded pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter and the Grant test.

The court found that the police officer demonstrated a cavalier attitude toward the accused's right to counsel despite being aware of his obligations under R. v. Prosper.

The officer failed to explain the accused's rights or ascertain whether the accused understood what he was giving up when waiving counsel.

Applying the three-part Grant analysis, the court found the violation serious, the impact on Charter-protected interests significant, and excluded the breath test evidence.

The accused was acquitted.