Visha Nankumarie Sukdeo

The moving parties requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that classified their property in the multi-residential property class for the 2011 to 2016 taxation years.

They argued that no appeal had been filed for the 2013 taxation year, and therefore the Board had no jurisdiction to decide the classification for 2013 to 2016.

The Board found that the City of Oshawa did not file an appeal for the 2013 taxation year, and the deeming provisions of the Assessment Act did not apply because 2012 and 2013 had different valuation days.

The Board rejected the City's arguments based on equity and palpable error, concluding it had no jurisdiction to cure a failure to appeal.

The previous decision was varied to remove the appeals for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years that were not properly filed.

The City of Oshawa appealed a trial justice's decision quashing an Information charging a corporation with failing to obtain a building permit for renovations to an aircraft hangar at the Oshawa Airport.

The trial justice found that the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity applied, immunizing the respondent from provincial building code enforcement because the property was integral to federal jurisdiction over aeronautics.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding the trial justice correctly applied the doctrine.

However, the court set aside a costs award of $111,000 plus HST against the prosecution, finding insufficient evidentiary foundation for such an award and palpable and overriding error in the trial justice's reasoning regarding the conduct of the prosecutors and the City of Oshawa.

This is a costs decision following the quashing of a provincial offence charge against the defendant for failing to obtain a building permit for construction to its hangar at the Oshawa Airport complex.

The court found that the constitutional doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity applied, rendering the charge void ab initio.

The court subsequently determined that the City of Oshawa, as prosecutor, had displayed marked and unacceptable departure from reasonable prosecution standards, warranting a costs award.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, finding the prosecutor had acted in self-serving interests rather than the public interest, had failed to disclose relevant materials, had breached prosecutorial responsibilities by using settlement discussions against the defendant, and had proceeded despite clear jurisprudence establishing federal exclusive jurisdiction over aeronautics.

The defendant corporation was charged with failing to obtain a building permit for modifications to a hangar at Oshawa Airport, contrary to the Building Code Act, 1992.

The defendant raised a constitutional challenge based on federal exclusive jurisdiction over aeronautics under the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity.

The court found the Building Code Act provisions invalid as applied to the defendant's hangar and dismissed the charge.

Subsequently, the court awarded costs against the City of Oshawa as prosecutor, finding the prosecution exhibited flagrant departure from reasonable standards, including tunnel vision, witness bias, failure to disclose relevant documents, and refusal to accept established jurisprudence on federal aeronautics jurisdiction.

The appellants appealed the property tax classification of a purpose-built student housing building containing 133 suites with 588 individually rented bedrooms.

The issue was whether the building should be classified as residential or multi-residential, which turned on whether the individual bedrooms or the entire suites constituted "self-contained units" under O. Reg. 282/98.

The Assessment Review Board held that the physical layout of the building and the nature of the occupancy demonstrated that the 133 suites were self-contained units.

The property was therefore placed in the multi-residential tax class.

A corporation charged with failing to obtain a building permit under the Ontario Building Code Act, 1992 for modifications to an aircraft hangar at the Oshawa Airport successfully defended the charge on constitutional grounds.

The court found that the hangar, located within the airport complex and used for aviation purposes, falls within the exclusive federal jurisdiction over aeronautics.

The doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity applied, rendering the provincial building code requirement inapplicable to the federally regulated facility.

The court also dismissed a section 11(b) Charter application regarding trial delay, finding the delay, though significant, was within acceptable bounds given the complexity of the constitutional issues and societal interest in the matter.

The appellant police officer brought a motion on consent to lift the automatic stay of his penalty of demotion pending his appeal.

The officer had pled guilty to discreditable conduct for unaccounted absences and was demoted for one year with ongoing conditions.

He abandoned his appeal of the demotion but maintained his appeal of the conditions.

The Commission found it had jurisdiction under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to lift the stay and granted the motion, noting that the appeal was not frivolous, the officer sought to serve his demotion immediately to avoid prejudice to future promotion opportunities, and the employer consented.

The applicant, who has a disability and acknowledges being an alcoholic, alleged that police officers discriminated against her on the basis of disability when they apprehended her under the Mental Health Act.

She claimed they ignored her complaints of seizures, refused her a stretcher, and dragged her to an ambulance in handcuffs.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was combative and refused treatment, and that the officers' decision to apprehend and handcuff her was based on safety concerns rather than discriminatory reasons.

The application was dismissed.

The Appellant, a police sergeant, pled guilty to discreditable conduct involving time theft and was penalized with a one-year demotion to First Class Constable along with eight conditions for reinstatement.

He appealed the conditions but abandoned the appeal of the demotion, bringing a motion to lift the automatic stay of the demotion so he could begin serving it immediately.

The Respondent supported the motion.

The Commission granted the motion, finding the appeal was not frivolous, the Appellant could be prejudiced by a delay, and lifting the stay would not adversely affect the consideration of the remaining appeal regarding the conditions.