Asha James

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to consider requests for participant and presenter status in an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Municipality of Grey Highlands and the Brewster Lake Home Owners' Association, and presenter status to several individuals, subject to procedural directions limiting duplication and ensuring relevance.

The Tribunal also established the schedule for the hearing.

The Approval Holder brought a preliminary motion to strike portions of two witness statements filed by the Appellant in an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The Tribunal struck evidence relating to property values on consent.

However, the Tribunal declined to strike the acoustician's evidence regarding future noise compliance and health impacts, finding that the evidence was arguably relevant to the Appellant's Charter section 7 argument and that it was premature to rule on the expert's qualifications prior to cross-examination.

The Environmental Review Tribunal heard a motion to strike portions of two witness statements in an appeal regarding a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The Tribunal ordered that a specific paragraph of one witness statement be struck on consent of the parties.

The motion to strike portions of the second witness statement was dismissed at this time, with reasons to follow.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval issued for a wind facility.

At a preliminary hearing, the Municipality of Grey Highlands sought participant status, while several individuals and a homeowners association sought presenter status.

The Tribunal granted the requests, subject to the condition that their presentations be relevant to the permissible grounds of appeal and confined to the issues raised in the notice of appeal.

The Tribunal also issued procedural directions and a schedule for the main hearing.

The applicants, suppression firefighters, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed their age discrimination applications.

The applicants challenged the mandatory retirement age of 60, arguing the employer failed to accommodate them by not engaging in individualized testing for cardiac risk.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal reasonably relied on established precedent that mandatory retirement for firefighters is a bona fide occupational requirement, and that the applicants failed to provide the necessary individualized medical evidence of extremely low cardiac risk to trigger the narrow exception for accommodation.

The appellants brought motions to stay the construction of two wind turbine projects pending their appeals of the Environmental Review Tribunal's decisions upholding the Renewable Energy Approvals.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction under the Rules of Civil Procedure or the Environmental Protection Act to stay the Director's approvals directly, treating the motions as requests for interlocutory injunctions.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried but concluded the appellants would not suffer irreparable harm prior to the appeal hearing, as the turbines would not be operational by then.

The motions were dismissed.

The applicant, a correctional officer, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race and colour, specifically regarding the employer's failure to prevent a recurrence of racist hate mail.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's request for production of documents and the Union's request for intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the Union non-party intervenor status to address matters of broad application to the workplace.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to produce certain documents related to the investigation of the racist hate mail, finding them arguably relevant, while deferring other broader production requests until the applicant testifies at the hearing.

The applicants, a group of firefighters, alleged age discrimination after being required to retire at age 60.

They argued that the respondents failed to accommodate them by not developing an individual testing regime to assess their cardiac risk, relying on an exception discussed in previous jurisprudence.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing under Rule 19A to determine if the applications had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the duty to accommodate does not require an employer to develop a testing regime upon a general request, and the applicants had not presented evidence of an exceptionally low cardiac risk to trigger an individual exception.

The applications were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

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, a correctional officer, filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination and a poisoned work environment, including racist hate mail.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been appropriately dealt with by the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB).

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request, finding that the GSB proceeding dealt with earlier allegations from 2005-2009, whereas the current application concerned new allegations from April 2010 onwards.

The Tribunal directed the matter to proceed.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging age discrimination regarding the implementation of mandatory retirement at age 60 in the City of Mississauga Fire Service.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal consolidated the applications on consent, granted the Association intervenor status in two files where it was not named as a respondent, and established a schedule for further written submissions on the respondents' request for summary hearings in light of a recent Tribunal decision.

The applicant sought to withdraw his 2009 human rights application against the Ministry and proceed with his amended 2010 application against both the Ministry and his union.

The respondents consented to the amendment of the 2010 application without prejudice to their positions on the merits.

The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the 2009 application, allowed the amendment of the 2010 application, and set a schedule for the respondents to file amended responses addressing their preliminary objections.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing several preliminary matters in a complex human rights proceeding.

The request to amend the style of cause to reflect legal name changes was granted.

The request to bifurcate the hearing between liability and remedy was denied, as it would likely extend the cost and time of the proceeding.

The Hamilton Police Association's request to dismiss the complaints for failure to make out a prima facie case was dismissed as premature.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions regarding the request for dismissal on the basis of timeliness and ordered immediate compliance with disclosure obligations.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court order striking his claim for assault and Charter breaches against customs officials.

The deputy judge had struck the claim on the basis that there was no medical evidence of injuries and the officers acted reasonably.

The appellate court allowed the appeal, finding that the deputy judge erred by applying the test for summary judgment rather than the test for a motion to strike.

The court held that credibility issues and the assessment of evidence must be left for trial, and reinstated the claim with leave to amend.