Anthony Griffin

The applicant, who has Duchenne's Muscular Dystrophy, sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to refer his discrimination complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal.

He alleged discrimination on the basis of age and disability because the government provided residential group homes in his community for adults with cognitive disabilities, but not for medically challenged adults without cognitive disabilities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness in the Commission's investigation or disclosure.

The Court held that the Commission's decision was reasonable, as the comparator group had different needs and the government is permitted to target social programs to specific disadvantaged groups.

The appellant appealed the remedy decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario regarding a finding of employment discrimination.

The respondent cross-appealed the quantum of damages and the award of legal costs.

The appellant also brought a constitutional challenge arguing that s. 41(4) of the Human Rights Code, which allows costs to be awarded to respondents but not complainants, violated ss. 7 and 15(1) of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the constitutional challenge, finding that economic interests are not protected under s. 7 and that complainants do not constitute an analogous group under s. 15(1).

The court upheld the Tribunal's findings on lost income and interest but allowed the cross-appeal in part, reducing the general damages award from $35,000 to $25,000 because the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to include $10,000 for legal costs under s. 41(1)(b).

The applicants sought urgent judicial review of an interim order by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario that required them to call ten specific witnesses and produce will-say statements for them.

The Tribunal had amended the complaint mid-hearing and ordered the applicants to call these witnesses to bridge the evidentiary gap.

The Divisional Court granted the application and quashed the order, holding that the Tribunal's inquisitorial approach breached natural justice and procedural fairness by depriving the applicants of their right to control their own defence in an adversarial proceeding.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to refer his discrimination complaint to a Board of Inquiry.

The Commission had declined the referral because the employer had made a reasonable settlement offer that matched what the applicant could expect at a hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Commission was correct to consider the settlement offer in exercising its gatekeeper function under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss or adjourn a motion brought by the respondent Ontario Human Rights Commission, which was scheduled to be heard by a panel of the Divisional Court.

The applicant argued that the respondent failed to comply with a production order and a previous costs order.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the outstanding costs order but dismissed the motion to dismiss or adjourn, finding that the applicant's arguments regarding the timing of the respondent's motion should be made to the panel hearing that motion.

The appellant landlords appealed a Board of Inquiry decision finding that their use of rent-to-income ratios to screen prospective tenants constituted constructive discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's findings that the sole use of such criteria disproportionately excluded protected groups and was not a bona fide requirement.

However, the Court amended the Board's forward-looking prohibition against using income criteria, noting that recent amendments to the Code and O. Reg. 290/98 now expressly permit landlords to use income information in specific ways.

The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario applied for judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission to investigate a complaint regarding the reading of the Lord's Prayer during the Assembly's daily proceedings.

The Speaker argued that the Commission lacked jurisdiction due to parliamentary privilege.

The Divisional Court granted the application, holding that the Standing Orders governing the Assembly's proceedings fall within the scope of parliamentary privilege and are immune from outside investigation by the Commission.