Andrea Cole

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that dismissed her discrimination complaint against her university and an arbitrator.

The applicant alleged that the arbitrator's report, which found her harassment allegations unfounded, was discriminatory and that the arbitrator lost adjudicative immunity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it to be a duplicative and meritless attempt to relitigate previous findings, and upheld the HRTO's conclusions on reasonable prospect and adjudicative immunity.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding that the respondent employee's dismissal was discriminatory.

The Tribunal had found the employee was harassed and that his dismissal following a workplace fight was discriminatory because the fight was partly a reaction to the harassment.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision regarding the dismissal was unreasonable because it failed to properly assess whether the dismissal was discriminatory, lacked an evidentiary basis linking the employee's depression to the fight, and failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination before finding a duty to investigate.

The application for judicial review was granted, the dismissal finding and remedy were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding she discriminated against the respondents on the basis of sexual orientation and marital status by denying them a room at her bed and breakfast.

The applicant argued the room was unlicensed and therefore not a service available to the public.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the adjudicator's conclusion that the applicant withdrew the room offer upon learning of the respondents' same-sex relationship was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario summarily dismissing his complaint against the Toronto Police Service and Toronto Police Services Board.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on mental disability, race, and country of origin, as well as threats of reprisal.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Tribunal reasonably concluded there was no evidence of discrimination or reprisal.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness or bias.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination complaint against the Toronto Transit Commission for being out of time.

The Tribunal found the applicant knew of the alleged discriminatory acts by 1994, despite his claim of discovering them in 2010, and thus the delay was not in good faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of natural justice in the Tribunal's use of a written hearing for a jurisdictional issue, and holding that the Tribunal's decisions on timeliness and reconsideration were reasonable.

The requester sought access to documents relating to advice given to the Minister of Finance regarding the effective date of amendments to the Corporations Tax Act.

The adjudicator ordered disclosure, finding that the 'advice or recommendations' exemption under s. 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act did not apply because the documents did not suggest a single course of action and there was no proof they were communicated to the final decision-maker.

The Divisional Court upheld this decision.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Minister's appeal, holding that the adjudicator's interpretation of s. 13(1) was unreasonable as it failed to protect the deliberative process and the range of options presented to a decision-maker.

The requester sought records relating to advice given to the Minister of Finance regarding amendments to the Corporations Tax Act.

The Ministry refused disclosure under s. 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming the records contained advice or recommendations.

The adjudicator ordered disclosure, finding no evidence the records went to the final decision-maker and that they did not suggest a single course of action.

The Divisional Court upheld this decision.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the adjudicator's interpretation unreasonable, holding that s. 13(1) protects the deliberative process, including drafts and options, without requiring proof of delivery to the ultimate decision-maker or a single recommended course of action.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of the Environment's approval of Terms of Reference for an environmental assessment regarding a transportation corridor.

The applicant argued that the Terms of Reference conflicted with the Growth Plan under the Places To Grow Act, 2005, because they did not restrict the study to the existing highway route.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Growth Plan did not preclude considering alternative routes and that the Minister's decision was reasonable.

The applicants, an employee and the employer, sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board and the Minister of Labour regarding the negotiation of a first collective agreement.

The Board had ordered first agreement arbitration, and the Minister subsequently cancelled a scheduled final offer vote.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the Board did not breach its duty of fairness, the Vice-Chair was not biased, the decision to order arbitration was reasonable, and the Minister had the jurisdiction to cancel the vote.