Stanley Frederick Floras

The appellants appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding the Ontario Municipal Board's finding that an amendment to the City of London's Official Plan (OPA 403) was valid.

The appellants argued that OPA 403 impermissibly delegated authority by making a separate guideline determinative in designating woodlands as significant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the respondents that the Official Plan remains paramount and the City's discretion is not fettered by the guideline.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) refusing to order a joint board under the Consolidated Hearings Act (CHA) for a proposed golf course and residential development on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The Divisional Court held that the OMB correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to order a joint board because the potential hearings under the Ontario Water Resources Act were exempt under the applicable regulations.

Furthermore, the Court found that the OMB had the discretion under s. 24(2) of the CHA to refuse to order a joint board and made no error in exercising that discretion.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants filed human rights complaints alleging discrimination by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) and its members after their request for an adjournment was denied.

The respondents argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction due to judicial immunity.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the doctrine of judicial immunity applies to statutory tribunals and their members acting in their adjudicative capacity.

The applications were dismissed as they related to the conduct of the OMB members, with the applicants given an opportunity to make submissions on any remaining allegations against OMB staff.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Hearing Officer's decision declaring jurisdiction to proceed with a hearing regarding an amended Plan for the Niagara Escarpment Planning Area.

The applicants argued that an investigation and survey under s. 3(2) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act was a condition precedent to amending the Plan following a boundary alteration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the statutory requirement for an investigation and survey only applied when the Area was originally established, not for subsequent boundary amendments.

The Ontario Nurses Association brought an application alleging the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk violated the Pay Equity Act, 1987.

As a preliminary issue, the Tribunal had to determine whether the Regional Municipality was the employer of the Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Police, such that the police force would be included in the Municipality's establishment for pay equity comparisons.

The Tribunal developed a four-part test to determine the employer for pay equity purposes, focusing on overall financial responsibility, responsibility for compensation practices, the nature of the service, and consistency with the Act's purpose.

Applying this test, the majority found that the Regional Municipality was the employer of the police force, as it bore the ultimate financial burden and responsibility for policing as a municipal function.

The police force was therefore part of the Municipality's establishment.

The Applicant union moved to stay a Review Services order and to strike portions of the Respondent's Response.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion to stay, finding no statutory basis to stay a review officer's order when no enforcement was sought and the issues were already before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal granted the motion to strike portions of the Response that contained new allegations of bad faith bargaining not raised during the Review Services process, while allowing the Respondent to amend its remedy to seek confirmation of the review officer's order.

The applicant union filed a complaint alleging the respondent municipality contravened the Pay Equity Act.

The respondent and the Board of Commissioners of Police challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear the complaint, arguing the review officer had not declared an inability to effect a settlement.

The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction under both s. 25(1)(a) and s. 25(1)(b) of the Act, finding that a reasonable opportunity for settlement had occurred and that an order had been issued entitling the applicant to request a hearing.

The Tribunal also granted the Board of Commissioners party status for the limited purpose of determining what constitutes the establishment.