|
2. LITIGATiON record – Q2 2010 BILAN DES LITIGES - MISE À JOUR
TRIMESTRIELLE |
That Council receive this report
for information.
Recommandation du ComitÉ
Que le Conseil prenne connaissance du présent
rapport.
DOCUMENTATION
1.
City Manager’s report dated 17 August 2010 (ACS2010-CMR-LEG-0013).
Report to/Rapport
au :
Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee
Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique
and Council / et au Conseil
August 17th, 2010 / le 17 août 2010
Submitted by/Soumis par : Kent
Kirkpatrick,
City Manager/Directeur des services municipaux
Contact Person/Personne ressource
: M. Rick O'Connor, City Clerk and Solicitor
Legal
Services/Services juridiques
(613) 580-2424
x21215, rick.oconnor@ottawa.ca
|
SUBJECT: |
LITIGATiON record – Q2
2010 |
|
|
|
|
OBJET
: |
BILAN DES
LITIGES - MISE À JOUR TRIMESTRIELLE |
REPORT
RECOMMENDATION
That the Corporate Services and
Economic Development Committee and Council receive this report for information.
RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité des services
organisationnels et du développement économique et le Conseil municipal
prennent connaissance du présent rapport.
BACKGROUND
In March 2009, the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee
and City Council received the first report on Legal Services’ litigation record
(Ref N°:
ACS2009-CMR-LEG-0008). This
report, prepared in response to Council resolutions stemming from the 2007 Audit
of Labour Relations, outlined the methodology by which litigation outcomes
of all types, including labour arbitrations, civil claims and administrative
tribunal matters, would be categorized as “successful” or “unsuccessful”. The March 2009 report, as well as the 2009
year-end report presented in January 2010, provided a summary for all
litigation.
In terms of matters before the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), a
continuously-updated summary of all such matters since 2001 is on file with the
City Clerk and Solicitor. On May 26,
2010, City Council endorsed the proposal put forward by Councillor Qadri
in a report to the Planning and Environment Committee on May 3, 2010, as
follows:
2.
That, as part of this report and all future debriefings, staff
outline any potential changes to City plans, policies and/or procedures to
address issues arising from OMB decision in order to minimize the potential for
future losses on appeal and to more accurately reflect Council’s direction.
In keeping with that direction, staff will be providing a detailed
summary of any loss before the OMB. With
the first of such reports, in respect of the 287 Lisgar Street matter, is to be
presented in September.
DISCUSSION
In keeping with the format adopted in the
initial report, this follow-up report contains in Document 1 a summary of Legal
Services’ outcomes for the second quarter of 2010. The litigation outcomes for
Legal Services matters will continue to be presented to Committee and Council
on a quarterly basis.
CONSULTATION
As this is an administrative direction to staff, no public consultation
was undertaken.
LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:
The decisions involved in the recommendation of this
motion to Council do not have any significant Legal/Risk Management concerns.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no financial implications arising from this report.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 – Litigation Record – 2010 Results
(Quarter 2)
DISPOSITION
Subject to any direction by Committee and Council, the City Clerk and
Solicitor will continue to produce the City’s record for all litigation on a
quarterly basis.
Document 1
LITIGATION
RECORD – 2010 RESULTS (Quarter 2)
Total matters
concluded:
|
Total Cases: 25 |
|||
|
Successful Matters: |
Unsuccessful Decisions: |
||
|
Settlements |
Decision(s) |
|
|
|
21 |
2 |
|
2 |
Case 1: This case involved the interpretation and application of Section 357 of the Municipal Act, 2001 (applications for tax relief for gross or manifest errors of a clerical nature). An application had been brought pursuant to Section 357 by a shopping centre/strip mall owner. The staff review of the application concluded that there was no gross or manifest error of a clerical nature that would trigger the requirement of a Council hearing under Section 357. The Applicant appealed the matter to the Assessment Review Board but, for uncertain reasons, did not pursue this avenue. Rather, the Applicant filed a judicial review application seeking to compel the City to convene a hearing before Council. In a brief decision, the Divisional Court ordered that such a meeting be held by Council and that Council make a decision regarding the 2003-2005 tax years. The City Clerk and Solicitor has sought leave to appeal the decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal, based on the implications of the decision and various errors made by the Divisional Court. The Court of Appeal has granted a stay of the decision, pending a determination of the leave application.
Case 2: This Small Claims Court case involved a claim of negligent building inspection occurring in the early 1980’s. While the presiding Deputy Judge agreed with the City’s interpretation of the applicable law, the Deputy Judge disagreed with the City’s view that the facts did not give rise to liability in the municipality. As the decision was based on the specific facts of the case and recognizing that the events in question occurred more than two decades ago, no remedial action was warranted.
|
Total Matters Concluded: 13 |
|||
|
Successful Matters: |
Unsuccessful Decisions: |
||
|
By settlement |
By decision/order |
|
|
|
11 |
2 |
|
|
|
Total matters concluded - 1 |
|||
|
Successful Matters: |
Unsuccessful Matters: |
||
|
By Settlement |
By Decision/Order |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
Reasons for Unsuccessful Outcomes:
Case 1: This case involved an appeal to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appears Tribunal from a decision of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) Claims Adjudicator. The Adjudicator had denied the claim for one day’s loss of pay based on the minor nature of the injury. However, based on updated medical information, the Appeals Tribunal allowed the claim.