Woodward McKaig

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 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, 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 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.