Human Rights

The employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision finding that it failed to properly accommodate a paramedic who suffered a workplace injury.

The arbitrator held that under the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code, the employer was required to accommodate the paramedic by allowing him to 'ride third' in an ambulance once his medical restrictions permitted it, and that the employer failed to establish undue hardship.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and application of human rights principles to be reasonable.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision finding it discriminated against the respondent employee on the basis of gender and reprised against her for asserting her human rights.

The employee had been disciplined for swearing, while male employees were not, and was terminated after refusing to sign a written warning she believed was discriminatory.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's conclusions on discrimination, reprisal, and the award of $15,000 in general damages plus six months' lost wages were reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed his complaint.

The applicant had previously settled a civil action and human rights complaint against the respondent college for $10,800, but later applied to the Tribunal claiming the settlement was obtained by fraud and pressure.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal acted reasonably in dismissing the application, as the applicant had signed the settlement, received the funds, and provided no evidence of fraud or contravention.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The applicants sought judicial review of two decisions of the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The Tribunal had dismissed applications by the unions to eliminate different rates of progression through the wage grids of comparable male and female job classes, holding that the Pay Equity Act does not require the harmonization of wage grids.

The Tribunal also rejected the argument that its interpretation of the Act authorized a contravention of the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable and that the Pay Equity Act does not require or authorize a contravention of the Human Rights Code.

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 applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming a decision to take no further action on his complaint against a psychiatrist.

The applicant argued that HPARB should have held an oral hearing rather than a written review, alleging a failure to accommodate his hearing impairment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that HPARB reasonably exercised its discretion to proceed in writing after attempts to accommodate the applicant's hearing impairment at an oral hearing were unsuccessful, and the applicant failed to show good reason why a written hearing was inappropriate.

The applicant, a graduate student, sought judicial review of a university disciplinary decision that resulted in a formal reprimand for harassment under the Code of Student Conduct.

He argued that he was denied procedural fairness because he was not permitted legal representation at the initial hearing before the Vice-Provost, that the decision was unreasonable, and that it violated his Charter right to freedom of expression.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the process was fair given the context and minor sanctions, the Statutory Powers Procedure Act did not apply, the decision was reasonable, and the Charter did not apply to the university's internal disciplinary process.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding it discriminated against the respondent on the basis of disability by terminating her after she requested medical leave for breast cancer treatment.

The Tribunal awarded $20,000 in general damages and $2,640 in special damages.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found no error in the Tribunal's factual findings or damages assessment.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed five individual grievances concerning post-age 65 retirement benefits.

The arbitrator had upheld the employer's preliminary objection, finding that the issues had already been decided in a prior policy grievance arbitration and were barred by res judicata, issue estoppel, and abuse of process.

The union argued the arbitrator failed to address its new arguments regarding age discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's application of res judicata and abuse of process was reasonable, as the union could have raised the human rights arguments during the initial policy grievance.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint of discrimination against a Children's Aid Society and its employees, as well as the Tribunal's refusal to reconsider the decision.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on sex, family status, and disability (Multiple Sclerosis) arising from a child access dispute and a request for a mental health assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable, there was no denial of procedural fairness, and no reasonable apprehension of bias was established.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding they discriminated against the respondents, two Black men, by asking them for identification in a lawyers' lounge.

The Divisional Court quashed the Tribunal's decision, finding no evidence of differential treatment or a causal nexus to race.

The Court held that the Tribunal improperly reversed the burden of proof by requiring the applicants to provide a non-discriminatory explanation for routine identification checks without the respondents first establishing a prima facie case of discrimination.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding whether periods of leave run concurrently with layoff notices under a collective agreement.

The arbitrator found that while notice periods can run concurrently with leave, doing so may be discriminatory under the Human Rights Code if the employee is unable to meaningfully consider their options while on leave.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and application of human rights principles was reasonable.

The respondent employer brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision on the basis of delay.

The applicant had delayed 26 months in filing his application and a further three months in perfecting it, without providing a cogent explanation.

The court found that the delay caused actual prejudice to the respondents, as a key witness had since been dismissed and another respondent had already undergone a full hearing on related issues.

The motion was granted and the application for judicial review was dismissed.

The College of Nurses of Ontario sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which refused to dismiss a human rights complaint filed by a nurse.

The nurse alleged discrimination based on disability after the College's Registration Committee imposed conditions on her certificates of registration.

The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) had previously reviewed and upheld the conditions, finding they reasonably accommodated her disability while protecting the public.

The Divisional Court quashed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code by failing to defer to HPARB's specialized public protection mandate and by improperly assessing the adequacy of HPARB's reasons rather than whether the substance of the complaint was appropriately dealt with.

The applicant, a medical resident dismissed from the respondent's neurosurgery program, brought an application for judicial review alleging breaches of natural justice and his Charter right to freedom of expression.

He brought a motion to amend his Notice of Application to add a request for a Charter declaration and to admit fresh affidavit evidence.

The court granted the amendment, finding it was not an independent claim but a request for a declaration regarding the decision under review.

The court partially admitted the affidavit evidence, allowing portions that demonstrated a potential breach of natural justice or met the test for fresh evidence, while excluding irrelevant or repetitive paragraphs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that found the Ontario College of Teachers discriminated against him but awarded only $10,000 in general damages and no damages for loss of income.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application.

The Court found it was reasonable for the Tribunal to conclude that the applicant lacked the required academic and language proficiency for certification, meaning he had no chance of being hired to teach in Ontario regardless of the discriminatory conduct.

The applicants brought a joint motion on consent for an order allowing their application for judicial review of several decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, quashed the Tribunal's decisions, and ordered that the matter be adjudicated in a hearing de novo before a differently constituted panel of the Tribunal.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his application alleging employment discrimination based on race and place of origin.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal's decision was entirely reasonable, as the Vice-Chair had thoroughly reviewed the evidence, assessed credibility, and provided cogent reasons for preferring the respondent's evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding they breached the procedural duty to accommodate the respondent employee's disability.

The applicants argued the employee had repudiated his employment contract, negating any duty to accommodate.

The Divisional Court held the Tribunal's conclusion that the employer failed to sufficiently inquire into the employee's medical condition was reasonable.

The Court also declined to dismiss the application for undue delay, accepting counsel's explanation of ill health.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) brought a motion to intervene as a friend of the court in an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The underlying application was brought by the College of Nurses of Ontario.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that HPARB's participation was not necessary to assist the court, as other parties were well-equipped to address the relevant issues.

Furthermore, the court noted that HPARB's proposed submissions were inappropriately adversarial for a quasi-judicial tribunal.