Chinese and Asian "Muslim haters",... who knew.
So much for our resident racist lawyer's rants.
Ontario Mosque Films Opponents - Gets Permission to Expose Names
- Thread starter Galseigin
- Start date
So much for our resident racist lawyer's rants.
It is a common misconception by people who are primarily familiar with procedure before the courts (and certainly by those unfamiliar with any legal procedure) that quasi-judicial administrative tribunals such as the Ontario Municipal Board have the same mandate and operate in the same way as courts.
Unlike courts, administrative tribunals often have the authority to conduct their own investigations, utilizing their own staff or engaging their own contractors to do so. The OMB has this power under s. 47 (1) of its enabling statute:
Board may order inquiries
47 (1) The Board may appoint or direct any person to make an inquiry and report upon any application, complaint or dispute before the Board, or upon any matter or thing over which the Board has jurisdiction.
Tribunals with such authority will often exercise it in order to protect individual privacy, or to ensure that other interests material to statutory authority at issue are not undermined . A good example is the practice of the Ontario Labour Relations Board. OLRB staff reviews union membership applications submitted in support of a union's application for certification. The employer party is never permitted to see these documents, despite whatever concerns it may have regarding their authenticity, involuntariness, or other legal issue.
To say the OMB is merely an adjudicator of disputes brought before it is incorrect.
Further, administrative tribunals such as the OMB have the authority to determine their own practice and procedure, and to develop rules (including ad hoc rules as required). Accordingly, they were in no way "required" to order the WWCA to provide membership information to any other parties. As in all cases, they were free to decide whether ordering specific pre-hearing particulars or disclosure of documents would improve the efficiency or probative value of their hearing. There is no necessary correlation to the mandatory discovery and pre-hearing disclosure of documents that occurs in court proceedings. Court proceedings are determined on an adversarial model that is not closely mirrored by administrative tribunals.
Also, as should be obvious from the fact that a "hearing" is held that permits parties to adduce evidence, an "appeal" to the OMB is really a trial de novo. Accordingly, the applicant who seeks planning approval bears the onus of establishing its claim for approval. The onus does not fall on parties seeking to oppose approval (contrary to the impression given elsewhere in the thread).
A party which does seek to oppose another party's position should be prepared to adduce evidence in support of its objections. Of course, that would be provided in the form of witnesses, documents, and real evidence. That evidence could be produced by a single witness having knowledge of the matters they are testifying to. It would not matter in the slightest what the membership composition of an opposing association is. What would matter is whether that association can produce evidence substantiating the concern raised. The OMB does not operate by way of "mini plebiscites" on the planning issues that come before it!
On the little reported about this matter, I would say the procedural ruling of the OMB is wrongly founded.
Unlike courts, administrative tribunals often have the authority to conduct their own investigations, utilizing their own staff or engaging their own contractors to do so. The OMB has this power under s. 47 (1) of its enabling statute:
Board may order inquiries
47 (1) The Board may appoint or direct any person to make an inquiry and report upon any application, complaint or dispute before the Board, or upon any matter or thing over which the Board has jurisdiction.
Tribunals with such authority will often exercise it in order to protect individual privacy, or to ensure that other interests material to statutory authority at issue are not undermined . A good example is the practice of the Ontario Labour Relations Board. OLRB staff reviews union membership applications submitted in support of a union's application for certification. The employer party is never permitted to see these documents, despite whatever concerns it may have regarding their authenticity, involuntariness, or other legal issue.
To say the OMB is merely an adjudicator of disputes brought before it is incorrect.
Further, administrative tribunals such as the OMB have the authority to determine their own practice and procedure, and to develop rules (including ad hoc rules as required). Accordingly, they were in no way "required" to order the WWCA to provide membership information to any other parties. As in all cases, they were free to decide whether ordering specific pre-hearing particulars or disclosure of documents would improve the efficiency or probative value of their hearing. There is no necessary correlation to the mandatory discovery and pre-hearing disclosure of documents that occurs in court proceedings. Court proceedings are determined on an adversarial model that is not closely mirrored by administrative tribunals.
Also, as should be obvious from the fact that a "hearing" is held that permits parties to adduce evidence, an "appeal" to the OMB is really a trial de novo. Accordingly, the applicant who seeks planning approval bears the onus of establishing its claim for approval. The onus does not fall on parties seeking to oppose approval (contrary to the impression given elsewhere in the thread).
A party which does seek to oppose another party's position should be prepared to adduce evidence in support of its objections. Of course, that would be provided in the form of witnesses, documents, and real evidence. That evidence could be produced by a single witness having knowledge of the matters they are testifying to. It would not matter in the slightest what the membership composition of an opposing association is. What would matter is whether that association can produce evidence substantiating the concern raised. The OMB does not operate by way of "mini plebiscites" on the planning issues that come before it!
On the little reported about this matter, I would say the procedural ruling of the OMB is wrongly founded.
Last edited:
Oh no!!! It's bacccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccck!!!!!!! Knew he couldn't stay away.
Absolutely wholeheartedly agree.
You are the one of a few posters here, that I enjoy reading and learning from!
p.s. I believe American law has enshrined the concept of being able to face one's accusers.
Okay then, make up your own facts about how the legal system works.
The 'neighbours' petitioned to be anonymous because they were afraid of threats. They argued their case and the board found that their case didn't have merit and was dismissed.
It seems the standard procedure is for applicants to give their names and the board found no reason to alter their practices.
WOW, lets count the ways,...
1st,... the point of the OP was about releasing the names of private citizens to The Muslim Association of Canada,... and you really believe that the OMB was correct in deciding to ignore private citizens privacy with no actual benefit to deciding whether a place of worship is to be built.
There is NOTHING to be gained by releasing the list of private citizens to a religious organisation,... when the OMB is deciding the actual case, which is whether or not the place of worship was to be allowed to be built.
The OMB makes the decision, NOT the to The Muslim Association of Canada
As has been explained to you,... the OMB has staff to research if the list of private names was legit.
2nd,... the OMB is NOT part of the Ontario legal system,... they are not court of law,... but simply a government agency out of control. Soon to be shut down, and not too soon.
3rd,... nobody is debating whether or not private citizens don't have to provide a list of names to the OMB,... but not to The Muslim Association of Canada.
So now you are claiming that the Chinese and Asians in Waterloo are minority haters,... that's hilarious backetcase.
You are spending far too much time beating your head against the brick wall, that is the fraud,... its effecting your thinking, and not in a good way.
Waterloo is in Canada,... and here you can be allowed to cover your face in court.
You don't understand the procedure in this case. [The proponents of the Mosque appealed planning denial to the OMB. The residents association filed to oppose the appeal, and requested a hearing. - See following correction] The residents association filed an appeal to challenge zoning changes by the city permitting the mosque. The proponents of the mosque filed to oppose the appeal. [Note this edit to my original post. However, this change does not alter any of the points made by the post]. The proponents of the Mosque demanded that certain pre-hearing information be disclosed by the residents association, presumably on the basis that such information was required in order to prepare for the hearing. The association opposed the request for the names and addresses of their members, citing privacy and harassment concerns (and perhaps other arguments that have not been reported). The OMB granted the disclosure request of the Mosque group.
Problem is, the identity of members of the residents association is irrelevant to the hearing unless NOT A SINGLE MEMBER of the association would have standing (because they lacked a material interest in the outcome). That test could have been satisfied by providing the name and address of a SINGLE MEMBER with the requisite interest. It's notable that the proponents of the Mosque DID NOT allege that the residents association lacked standing.
Beyond that, what the OMB could have ordered was particulars of the claim by the residents association that the proposed development would lead to increased traffic, potential car accidents, conflict with surrounding land use, etc. That disclosure would not require the identification of witnesses to be called (unless some of those witnesses would be expert witnesses relying upon studies/reports).
^ Well put and informative for those of us outside Ontario.
Presume that this ruling of an administrative body (OMB) can be appealed to a court - certainly that would be the norm elsewhere.
Presume that this ruling of an administrative body (OMB) can be appealed to a court - certainly that would be the norm elsewhere.
The OMB is protected by its enabling statute from a true "appeal". Instead, their decisions would be subject to judicial review by the courts. There is a very high standard that an applicant must meet in such a proceeding. If the matter ruled upon was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal (interpretation of the Planning Act, OMB Act, etc.), a court could only interfere with the tribunal if the decision was "patently unreasonable" (there is actually a lot of case law that bandies about the exact phrasing and application of this test), rather than merely legally incorrect. However, if the ruling is a matter considered to outside of the exclusive jurisdiction (natural justice, procedural fairness, statutes of general application, common law principles), the standard is correctness. Further, there is a doctrine of prematurity that applies to challenging preliminary or procedural rulings that could result in a court deferring its review pending a final decision (although, on these facts, that principle may be overcome).
Notwithsatnding all the argument above, according to the OP the OMB ruled: "In a decision handed down Feb. 26, the Ontario Municipal Board ordered the Waterloo West Community Association (WWCA) to provide a complete list of the names and addresses of its current and former members to the other parties in the matter, which is set to go to hearing April 24" [the emphasis is mine]
Yes, they did. The discussion has been about whether the ruling was correct, and whether it can or will be challenged.
