Albertos Polizogopoulos

Appeal of a Divisional Court decision upholding College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario policies requiring physicians who object to providing certain medical procedures on religious grounds to provide effective referrals to non-objecting providers.

The appellants, individual physicians and physician organizations, challenged the policies as violating their freedom of conscience and religion under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and their equality rights.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the policies infringe freedom of religion, the infringement is justified under s. 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limit demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The court emphasized the importance of equitable patient access to health care services, particularly for vulnerable populations, and the role of family physicians as gatekeepers in the health care system.

The applicants, a registered political party, contracted to place political advertisements in municipal bus shelters.

The city removed the advertisements on the basis that they discriminated against the transgendered community, without providing the applicants an opportunity to be heard or considering their freedom of expression.

The Divisional Court quashed the city's decision and a subsequent ratifying motion, finding that the city breached the duty of procedural fairness by failing to balance the competing Charter rights and by denying the applicants natural justice.

The applicants, including several religious physicians and organizations, challenged two policies of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario that require physicians who object to providing certain medical services (such as abortion or medical assistance in dying) on religious or conscientious grounds to provide an 'effective referral' to a non-objecting provider.

The applicants argued these policies infringed their rights to freedom of religion and equality under the Charter.

The Divisional Court held that while the effective referral requirements did infringe the physicians' freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter, the infringement was justified under s. 1 as a reasonable limit to ensure equitable access to healthcare for patients.

The court dismissed the applications.

A parent sought accommodation from a school board to receive advance notice of classroom instruction on topics he considered "false teachings" based on his sincere Christian and Greek Orthodox beliefs, including matters related to sexual orientation, gender identity, and moral relativism.

The parent requested the ability to withdraw his children from such classes.

The school board refused, citing its statutory mandate to provide an inclusive and non-discriminatory educational environment.

The application judge found that while the board's refusal engaged the parent's freedom of religion, it was reasonable and proportionate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the parent failed to establish any objective interference with his religious freedom, as he provided no evidence of actual harm to his children despite years of attendance at the school.

The applicants challenged s. 65(5.7) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), which excludes all records relating to abortion services, arguing it violated their s. 2(b) Charter right to freedom of expression by impeding meaningful public discussion.

The court found that the provision substantially impeded meaningful debate on a matter of public interest, establishing a prima facie breach of s. 2(b).

While the objective of protecting privacy and safety was pressing, the absolute exclusion of all records, including non-identifying statistical information, was not rationally connected, minimally impairing, or proportional to the objective.

The court declared s. 65(5.7) of FIPPA to be of no force or effect, suspending the declaration for 12 months to allow the legislature to enact remedial legislation.

The applicant, a Greek Orthodox parent, sought a declaration of parental authority and an order requiring the respondent school board to provide advance notice of curriculum topics conflicting with his religious beliefs, specifically regarding human sexuality, and to allow his children to be withdrawn from those classes.

The applicant argued the board's equity policy infringed his freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter and the Human Rights Code.

The court dismissed the application, finding the board's decision to deny the accommodation was reasonable as it proportionately balanced the applicant's Charter rights with the statutory objectives of inclusion and equality.

The court also held it lacked jurisdiction to hear the standalone Human Rights Code claim.

The applicants, a same-sex married couple, alleged discrimination after a private Christian school denied their child admission to its preschool program.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal ruled on several procedural requests.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce internal admission policies but denied broader requests for other parents' application forms.

The Tribunal allowed the applicants to amend their pleadings to add grounds of creed, family status, and marital status.

To protect the minor child's identity, the Tribunal ordered the record sealed but declined to close the hearing to the public.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding they discriminated against the respondents on the basis of sex, gender identification, and sexual orientation.

The applicants argued the adjudicator breached procedural fairness by admitting a radio interview, awarded unreasonable damages, and erred in finding personal liability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no procedural unfairness as the applicants were aware of the evidence and did not object, and holding that the damages and personal liability findings were reasonable.

The defendants moved to strike portions of a wrongful dismissal pleading alleging systemic misconduct toward former employees and dependent contractors, and references to defence counsel, on the basis that the allegations were scandalous, irrelevant, prejudicial, and would unduly expand discovery.

The court held that a dependent contractor is entitled to the same common law protections as an employee at dismissal and that systemic wrongdoing allegations may properly support a punitive damages claim in an employment termination context if pleaded with sufficient detail.

The court also rejected the argument that references to counsel were inherently improper, finding no immunity from scrutiny where counsel's conduct is pleaded as part of the factual narrative.

The motions were dismissed and substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the plaintiff in the test case.

The respondents and one of the applicants requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found the personal respondent discriminated against the applicants and awarded damages.

The respondents argued errors of law and fact, while the applicant argued the financial remedy was insufficient.

The Tribunal dismissed both requests, finding that neither party met the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26, as they failed to present new determinative evidence, establish a conflict with jurisprudence, or show factors outweighing the public interest in the finality of decisions.

A motion was brought for leave to intervene as an added party in two Requests for Direction concerning the disposition of Independent Assessment Process records created under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

The proposed intervenor, the National Research Centre hosted by the University of Manitoba, argued that it had a direct interest because it might be tasked with archiving the records and could assist the court on privacy and archival practices.

Several Catholic organizations opposed the motion, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction and that the applicant should participate only as a friend of the court.

The court held that it retained ongoing supervisory jurisdiction over the implementation of the class action settlement under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and the settlement agreement.

The court found the applicant met the criteria for intervention and that its participation would assist the court.

The appellants appealed an order striking portions of their claim against Carleton University and several of its employees.

The motion judge had struck the Charter claims, finding the university was not implementing a specific government program when booking space for non-academic extra-curricular use, and struck the negligence claims against the individual employees.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the university's actions did not attract Charter scrutiny under the Eldridge test, and that the pleadings failed to establish that the individual employees exhibited a separate identity or interest from the university to attract personal liability.

The defendants brought a motion under Rules 21 and 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike portions of a Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim arising from a dispute between university students and a university regarding campus activities and disciplinary actions.

The plaintiffs alleged Charter breaches, negligence, and other claims relating to the university’s response to their activities and alleged involvement with police.

The court held that the Charter claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action because the pleadings failed to establish that the university was implementing a government program or acting as government under s. 32 of the Charter.

Claims against the individual defendants were also struck as the pleadings did not establish personal liability outside the scope of their employment.

However, the negligence claim against the university itself was permitted to proceed as the amended pleadings sufficiently alleged a potential duty of care and resulting harm.