B. Blumenthal

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her discrimination application against a grocery store for requiring her to wear a mask.

The Tribunal had dismissed the application because the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence substantiating a disability under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Tribunal's request for further medical evidence was reasonable and that the Tribunal did not breach procedural fairness, as the applicant was given multiple opportunities to provide the required information.

The applicant sought judicial review of several Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions, including three decisions from 2017 and 2019.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering dismissing the applications regarding the older decisions due to excessive delay.

The applicant provided submissions, but the court found the delay of over four to five years to be inordinate with no credible explanation.

The court dismissed the applications for judicial review of the 2017 and 2019 decisions as abuses of process that were doomed to fail.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her discrimination and reprisal application against her former employer.

The HRTO had found that the applicant signed a full and final release during a mediation, and that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the judicial review, finding that the HRTO's procedural rulings were fair, its credibility assessments were entitled to deference, and its overall decision was reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her request for reconsideration.

Her original human rights application was dismissed as abandoned after she failed to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding a jurisdictional issue.

The Divisional Court applied the Vavilov framework and found the adjudicator's reconsideration decision was reasonable, internally coherent, and entitled to a high degree of deference.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a student with disabilities, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision that deferred his request to state a case for contempt against the respondent school board.

The applicant alleged the school board failed to comply with an interim accommodation order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it premature as the HRTO proceeding had not concluded.

The court also dismissed the applicant's motion to adduce fresh evidence and held that the HRTO's decision to defer the contempt issue to the merits hearing was reasonable.