Woodward Bruce McKaig

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving a consent to sever lands owned by a railway company to facilitate a sale to the applicant for future redevelopment.

During the hearing, it was discovered that the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) had not received notice, leading to an adjournment and HDI being added as a party on consent.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed severance had appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest, satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, and was consistent with provincial policies.

The appeal was dismissed and the provisional consent was granted subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving a consent application to sever lands owned by CN Rail.

During the hearing, evidence emerged that the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) and Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) opposed the development but had not been formally notified of the appeal.

The Tribunal determined it had a duty to ensure adequate notice was provided to affected Indigenous peoples pursuant to section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and provincial planning policies.

The Tribunal directed notice be given to HDI, which subsequently requested party status.

The hearing was adjourned on consent of all parties to allow for settlement negotiations and to address HDI's status request.

The plaintiff developer and the municipality sought a permanent injunction against protesters occupying a residential development site and blocking public roads.

The court found the leader of the protesters in contempt for refusing to obey interlocutory injunctions and struck his pleadings, denying him further participation.

The court granted the permanent injunctions, finding the developer had good title, the protesters' self-help remedies and blockades were unlawful, and there was a serious risk of ongoing harm and violence.

The City of Hamilton sought judicial review of a decision by the Mining and Lands Commissioner dismissing its appeal of a conservation authority levy apportioned by the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority.

Hamilton argued that the levy should only be calculated using the assessed value of lands within the conservation authority's jurisdiction, rather than the entire municipality's assessment base.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Commissioner's interpretation of the Conservation Authorities Act and Regulation 670, finding that the entire assessment base of the municipality is to be used in the calculation.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his application as abandoned for failing to comply with pre-hearing disclosure requirements.

The adjudicator discovered that an extension had previously been granted but not recorded in the file.

The respondent consented to the reconsideration.

The Tribunal granted the Request for Reconsideration and ordered the matter to proceed to mediation or hearing.

The Applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Regional Municipality of Niagara Police Services Board, which declined to extend the time for service of a Notice of Disciplinary Hearing on two police officers beyond the six-month period under s. 83(17) of the Police Services Act.

The Divisional Court found that the Board breached procedural fairness by not providing the Applicants with the officers' submissions or an opportunity to respond.

The Court also found the Board's decision unreasonable for failing to consider the causes of delay holistically.

The Board's decision was quashed and remitted for reconsideration.

The Assessment Review Board issued a final decision determining the property tax vacancy rebates owed to U.S. Steel Canada Inc. by Haldimand County for the 2010 and 2013 taxation years.

Following an interim decision establishing eligibility, the Board quantified the rebates for the Main Plant and Pickling Plant.

The Board also determined the interest commencement date under section 364(20) of the Municipal Act, 2001, finding that the application was complete by October 20, 2014, when evidentiary requirements were met, making the interest commencement date February 22, 2015.

The appellant municipality appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board granting vacancy property tax rebates to the respondent steel company for periods during which the respondent had locked out its employees.

The appellant argued that maintaining the plant in a production-ready state during a labour dispute constituted 'use' of the facility, disqualifying it from the rebate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's interpretation of the Municipal Act and Regulation 325/01 to be reasonable.

The Court upheld the Board's conclusion that the reason for the vacancy was irrelevant and that the maintenance activities fell within the permitted exemptions for upkeep.

The moving party, Men's Fire, sought to be added as a party and to vary an interlocutory injunction that prevented interference with the plaintiff's archaeological assessments on its property.

The court added Men's Fire as a party on consent but dismissed the motion to vary the injunction.

The court found no evidence of an active land claim against the property, no failure by the plaintiff to comply with legislation, and no duty on the private landowner or the municipality to consult with the moving party under the circumstances.

The Corporation of Haldimand County sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board that granted U.S. Steel Canada Inc. vacancy tax rebates for periods during which it had locked out its unionized employees.

The Board had found that the maintenance activities conducted during the lockouts did not constitute 'use' of the property under Ontario Regulation 325/01.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's statutory interpretation of 'use' and 'vacant property' in the context of a voluntary lockout, and that the issue was of sufficient public importance to warrant appellate review.

The applicant filed a second human rights application alleging failure to accommodate and reprisal after returning to work from a leave related to asthma triggered by photocopier emissions.

The Tribunal had previously deferred her first application pending a WSIAT appeal regarding the cause of her asthma.

The Tribunal declined to defer the second application, finding that the issues of accommodation and reprisal upon her return to work extended beyond the scope of the WSIAT appeal, minimizing the risk of inconsistent results.

U.S. Steel Canada Inc. applied for property tax rebates under the vacancy rebate program for its steel mill in Haldimand County during periods of labour lockouts in 2009, 2010, and 2013.

The County refused the rebates, arguing that a voluntary idling of the plant due to a lockout did not qualify and that maintenance activities constituted 'use'.

The Assessment Review Board held that the reason for the vacancy does not disqualify the property from the rebate program and that the maintenance activities fell within the exemptions for 'use' under Ontario Regulation 325/01.

The Board granted the rebates for 2010 and 2013 but dismissed the 2009 claims as they did not meet the statutory requirements for periods overlapping two taxation years.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's appeal to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The applicant alleged that photocopier emissions triggered her asthma and environmental sensitivities, and that the respondents failed to accommodate her.

The WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer had previously denied her claim, finding no causal link between the emissions and her medical condition.

The Tribunal found that the factual issues regarding the cause of the applicant's medical conditions were central to both proceedings.

To avoid the risk of inconsistent findings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the WSIAT appeal.

The applicant, who has profound hearing loss, alleged discrimination with respect to services because the Town of Fort Erie permitted on-street parking, making it dangerous for him to exit his driveway.

He also named the owners of a convenience store across the street as respondents.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the convenience store owners, finding no social area engaged under the Code.

However, the Tribunal refused to dismiss the application against the Town, finding that the challenge to the parking by-law and its alleged adverse impact required further evidence.

In an application seeking an interlocutory and permanent injunction relating to alleged municipal by-law and building code violations, the respondents brought a motion to add the Province of Ontario as a party.

The respondents argued that issues concerning land ownership, asserted Indigenous treaty rights, duty to consult, and the applicability of municipal and provincial laws required Ontario’s participation.

The province opposed the motion, arguing it was unnecessary to resolve the injunction request.

The court held that the respondents had raised issues directly affecting the province and that Ontario, as the landowner, had a significant interest in the matter.

The motion to add Ontario as a party was granted.

The applicant, a single mother, alleged discrimination and harassment by the respondent emergency shelter based on multiple Code grounds, including creed, race, and family status.

She claimed the shelter failed to accommodate her family's need for a kosher diet, subjected her to harassment, and discriminatorily denied her application for transitional housing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondent had accommodated the dietary requests and that the applicant's allegations of harassment lacked credibility.

The Tribunal also concluded that the denial of transitional housing was based on the applicant's conflict-ridden history at the shelter, not on discriminatory grounds.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The applicant's collective bargaining agent, the Niagara Regional Police Association, filed a Request to Intervene.

As neither the applicant nor the respondents opposed the request, and recognizing that a union generally has an interest in human rights applications brought by its members regarding employment, the Tribunal granted the Association leave to intervene.

The scope of the intervention was deferred to the merits hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services based on his place of origin, arising from his interaction with a police constable during a neighbour dispute.

The constable investigated the dispute, discovered an outstanding warrant, and subsequently arrested and charged the applicant.

The Tribunal found that the constable had reasonable grounds for his actions and that there was no evidence connecting the police conduct, the timing of the arrest, or the laying of charges to the applicant's place of origin.

The application was dismissed.

Following a successful appeal to the Divisional Court that revoked a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, the appellant police officers sought costs against the respondent.

The court applied the principles from Boucher v. Public Accountants Council, fixing costs on a partial indemnity basis at $7,500, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and GST.

Two police officers appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, which had revoked a Hearing Officer's decision exonerating them of unlawfully exercising authority.

The officers had arrested a disruptive individual in a courtroom during a trial.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Commission erred by ignoring the Hearing Officer's credibility findings and by incorrectly concluding that a Justice of the Peace's contempt power superseded a police officer's power to arrest for a criminal offence in the courtroom.

The Hearing Officer's decision was restored.