Brian Abraham Blumenthal

The appellant contested the denial of statutory accident benefits following a 2010 automobile accident, bringing simultaneous proceedings before the Divisional Court by way of statutory appeal on questions of law and judicial review on questions of fact and mixed fact and law.

The courts below held that, where there is a limited statutory right of appeal, judicial review should only be exercised in exceptional or rare cases.

The Supreme Court of Canada held this was an error: a circumscribed statutory right of appeal on questions of law does not restrict the availability of judicial review on questions of fact or mixed fact and law, and the Strickland framework does not support imposing a heightened threshold for judicial review in such circumstances.

The Court further found that the LAT adjudicator's reconsideration decision was unreasonable because he failed to consider the effect of the reinstatement of income replacement benefits on the validity of the initial denial and failed to have regard to relevant tribunal jurisprudence on the point.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the LAT adjudicator for reconsideration.

The plaintiff sued the Landlord and Tenant Board, an adjudicator, and others, alleging issues with a Board decision that led to her eviction.

The court, on its own initiative under Rule 2.1.01, considered dismissing the proceeding as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff did not respond to the notice.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the Landlord and Tenant Board is not a suable entity, adjudicators are immune, and the plaintiff's proper remedy was an appeal or judicial review, not a civil action.

The appellant, Julie Daly, appealed the dismissal of her claim for damages under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other relief against the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) and the Crown.

Her claim alleged improper treatment and bias by LTB members during several applications concerning her lease.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the LTB was not a suable entity and the Crown was not vicariously liable for the LTB's actions.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, confirming that the LTB is not a suable entity and that the Crown is immune from vicarious liability for judicial acts of quasi-judicial board members acting in good faith under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 and the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019.

The appeal was dismissed.

The South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario and the Colour of Poverty/Colour of Change Network sought leave to intervene as friends of the court in an appeal concerning an employer's policy requiring permanent residency for job applicants, which was alleged to be discriminatory on the basis of citizenship.

The employer opposed the intervention, while the original applicant and tribunal took no position.

The court granted intervener status, finding that the appeal raised issues of public importance regarding the interpretation of human rights legislation and that the proposed interveners possessed expertise to offer a useful and distinct perspective on the Post-Graduation Work Permit program and partial discrimination.

Roch Longueépée, largely successful in his appeal, sought partial indemnity costs from the University of Waterloo and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found Longueépée entitled to costs against the University, fixing them at $25,000.

The court also awarded costs against the HRTO, fixed at $7,500, because its arguments on the standard of review and request for a five-judge panel expanded the scope of the appeal, even though its position was not taken in bad faith.