Finance and Economic Development Committee
Comité des finances et du développement économique
and Council / et au Conseil
29 March 2011 / le 29 mars 2011
Submitted
by/Soumis par : M. Rick O'Connor, City Clerk and Solicitor/
Greffier et Chef du contentieux
Contact Person/Personne ressource : David White, Manager, Litigation & Labour Relations/Gestionnaire litiges et Relations de travail
(613) 580-2424 x21933, David.white@ottawa.ca
SUBJECT: |
LITIGATION RECORD – for the period of 1 October 2010 to 31 December 2010 |
|
|
OBJET : |
BILAN DES LITIGES - POUR LA PÉRIODE DU 1er octobre AU 31 DÉcembre 2010 |
That the Finance and Economic Development Committee and Council receive this report for information.
Que le Comité des finances et du développement économique et le Conseil municipal prennent connaissance du présent rapport.
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, a detailed summary of the loss before the OMB identified in Document 1 was provided to Planning Committee on October 4th, 2010.
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 fourth quarter of 2010.
N/A
As this is an administrative direction to staff, no public consultation was undertaken.
N/A
The receipt of this information report by the Committee and Council does not have any significant Legal/Risk Management implications.
N/A
N/A
There are no financial implications arising from this report.
Document 1 – Litigation Record – Results for the Period from October 1st to December 31st, 2010.
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
Total Matters Concluded: 24 |
||
Successful Matters: 24 |
Unsuccessful Matters (by decision): 0 |
|
By Settlement |
By Decision
|
|
12
|
12
|
|
Total Matters Concluded: 13 |
||
Successful Matters: 13 |
Unsuccessful Matters (by decision): 0 |
|
By Settlement |
By Decision |
|
10 |
3
|
|
Total Matters Concluded: 4 |
||
Successful Matters: 3 |
Unsuccessful Matters (by decision): 1 |
|
By Settlement |
By Decision |
|
1
|
2 |
1 |
Summary of the unsuccessful decision:
The adverse ruling involved an application for rezoning and associated consents to sever for a reduced lot frontage, which had been opposed by the City. Before the Ontario Municipal Board, the main issue in dispute was the community compatibility of the smaller lot. In the face of conflicting evidence by those in the neighbourhood, including support for the application by those closest to the property in question, the Board ultimately determined that the smaller lot size was compatible with the community and granted the application.
Total matters concluded - 4 |
||
Successful Matters: 3 |
Unsuccessful Matters (by decision): 1 |
|
By Settlement |
By Decision |
|
1 |
2
|
1
|
Summary of the unsuccessful decision:
As in most Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (W.S.I.A.) cases, the appeal was initiated by the employee in respect of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (W.S.I.B.). At issue was a denial of temporary benefits for a period of approximately two months in 1995, during which the employee was not at work due to complaints of respiratory problems stemming from pesticide residue in the workplace.
The Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (W.S.I.A.T.) determined that there was sufficient evidence of a link between the workplace and the employee’s condition to meet the requirements of the W.S.I.A. and thus granted benefits for the period in question
Though this decision is specific to the facts presented, staff are reviewing other similar claims, in consultation with the W.S.I.B., in order to minimize the need for any further W.S.I.A.T. proceedings.