Anna Rosenbluth

Application and cross-application concerning a municipal site-specific by-law aimed at clearing a longstanding homeless encampment to facilitate a transit hub project.

The court held that the by-law infringed s. 7 because closing the only lawful sheltering site of last resort in a region with grossly insufficient accessible indoor shelter exposed chronically homeless persons to serious risks to life, liberty, and security of the person in a manner grossly disproportionate to the by-law’s objective.

The court further held that the by-law infringed s. 15 by disproportionately burdening homeless persons who were women, gender-diverse, disabled, and Indigenous, and also recognized homelessness itself as an analogous ground under s. 15.

The infringements were not saved under s. 1, the bad-faith challenge under s. 273 of the Municipal Act failed, and the court declared the by-laws of no force and effect, restrained enforcement, and retained jurisdiction for further directions if a lawful alternative tenting protocol or site is implemented.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal had concluded that his transitory ankle injury was not a disability under the Human Rights Code and applied a balance of probabilities standard to its jurisdictional screening.

The Divisional Court granted the application for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal engaged in an impermissible merits review rather than a jurisdictional analysis.

The court held it was unreasonable for the Tribunal to depart from the 'plain and obvious' standard for jurisdictional screening and to fail to apply a multidimensional, socio-political analysis to the definition of disability.

In the context of an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision, the applicant issued summonses to witness to two former HRTO Associate Chairs and the Registrar, seeking internal documents regarding the HRTO's standard of proof protocol.

The HRTO brought motions to quash the summonses and to strike portions of an affidavit sworn by a former adjudicator.

The Divisional Court granted the motions, finding that the summonses were a fishing expedition without a reasonable evidentiary basis, and that the challenged portions of the affidavit were protected by deliberative secrecy.

Following a fire in a residential complex, the landlords refused to allow tenants to return to their units despite the City of Sarnia clearing the units for occupancy.

The Landlord and Tenant Board found the landlords had illegally locked out the tenants, substantially interfered with their reasonable enjoyment, and engaged in harassment.

The Board awarded damages and imposed administrative fines totalling $525,000.

The landlords appealed and sought judicial review on several grounds, including procedural fairness, damages awards, and the quantum of the fines.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals and applications for judicial review, except for the issue of naming the principal of the corporate landlord as a 'landlord' personally, which was remitted to the Board due to a lack of procedural fairness.

The tenants brought a motion to quash the landlord's appeal of an interim order by the Landlord and Tenant Board that required the landlord to return possession of their residential units following an illegal lockout.

The landlord had refused the tenants access to their units after a minor fire, despite a city order permitting access.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the Board's order was interlocutory and therefore not subject to appeal.

The court also held that the landlord's appeal was an abuse of process intended to delay proceedings and subvert the tenants' presumptive right to occupy their homes.

The appellant, a live-in caregiver, appealed the Divisional Court's dismissal of her judicial review application.

She sought special priority status for subsidized housing, arguing she was abused by her employer and financially dependent on them.

The Regional Municipality of Peel denied this, asserting the relationship was not familial and financial dependence ceased with employment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's finding that the Region's decision was reasonable, deferring to the administrative body's interpretation of "financially dependent" within the Housing Services Act, 2011, especially given the need to allocate scarce resources.

The Court found the Divisional Court did not err by providing additional context for the Region's decision.

Charlas MacKenzie, eligible for rent-geared-to-income assistance, had his subsidy terminated by Ottawa Community Housing Corporation and the City of Ottawa.

This was due to his failure to report a change in household composition (daughters removed due to bail conditions) and prolonged absence from his unit (required to live with surety).

The Divisional Court dismissed his application for judicial review, finding the respondents' decisions reasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's decision, finding the respondents' interpretation and application of the Housing Services Act, 2011 and its regulations regarding reporting changes and absence from the unit to be reasonable, particularly in the context of limited housing subsidies and long waitlists.

The court also found no error in the assessment of extenuating circumstances.

The tenants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing they were denied procedural fairness when the Board member refused to allow them to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses regarding the landlord's issuance of a trespass notice to their personal support worker.

The Divisional Court found that the member committed a fundamental error by failing to provide a reasonable opportunity for the tenants to be heard.

The matter was remitted to a different member of the Board for a new hearing on the issues of threats, the impact of the trespass notice, and appropriate remedies.

The appellant tenants appealed decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing their motions to set aside eviction orders.

The landlord had obtained the eviction orders ex parte after the tenants signed agreements to terminate their tenancies (N11 forms) under pressure, having been told they had to vacate for renovations without being informed of their statutory rights.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeals, finding the Board Member erred in law by failing to apply the proper test under s. 77(8)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act, failing to consider all the circumstances, and failing to assess the real substance of the transactions and the landlord's good faith under s. 202.

The eviction orders were set aside and new hearings were ordered.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy and evicting her family following an altercation with the building superintendent over a clogged sink.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board made several errors of law.

Specifically, the Board failed to consider whether the tenant 'permitted' the illegal act (spitting) under s. 61(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, improperly speculated about future risk under s. 66(1), and failed to consider all relevant circumstances for relief from eviction under s. 83.

The eviction order was set aside and the landlord's applications were dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the WSIB and its employees on the basis of disability and creed in the handling of his Labour Market Re-entry program and benefits.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the actions complained of, including the denial of accommodation and bereavement leave, fell within the WSIB's adjudicative functions.

As purely adjudicative functions do not constitute a 'service' under the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.