Brian Abraham Blumenthal

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed their discrimination application.

The underlying complaint alleged age and family status discrimination because the minor applicants were initially denied access to the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as moot because the applicants received the requested vaccine prior to the hearing, and found no reasonable prospect of success.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal's summary hearing process was procedurally fair and its conclusions on mootness and prospect of success were reasonable.

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 decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing her discrimination complaint against the respondent college and denying reconsideration.

The complaint arose from a group assignment in a paralegal course where the applicant alleged discrimination based on race, ancestry, place of origin, and creed.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's decisions to be reasonable, noting the applicant failed to link the alleged unfair treatment to any prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Code.

The court also dismissed allegations of adjudicator bias, concluding that an adverse finding does not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

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

The applicant alleged he was unlawfully removed from a convention centre but explicitly denied the discrimination was based on a prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair because the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over general allegations of unfairness unrelated to the Code.

The Income Security Advocacy Centre (ISAC) brought an unopposed motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an application for judicial review.

The underlying application concerns a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision regarding the Ministry's refusal of a Guide Dog Benefit to a person with a mental health disability.

The court granted the motion, finding that ISAC met the criteria for intervention given its extensive experience and expertise with social assistance, ODSP benefits, and the Human Rights Code, and that its participation would be useful without prejudicing the parties.

The tenants appealed and sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that terminated their tenancy for non-payment of rent and awarded partial rent abatements for maintenance issues.

The tenants argued the Board erred in its interpretation of the Residential Tenancies Act, failed to find serious breaches by the landlords that would preclude eviction, and exhibited bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application, finding the Board's conclusions were reasonable, the tenants were not entitled to self-abate rent, and the minor errors alleged did not warrant interference.

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 applicant, previously declared a vexatious litigant by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO), sought judicial review of two HRTO decisions that dismissed his latest human rights application and denied his request for reconsideration.

The applicant alleged the decisions were unreasonable, procedurally unfair, and tainted by bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the HRTO's decisions were reasonable, the applicant was afforded procedural fairness despite his failure to seek leave as required, and there was no cogent evidence to rebut the presumption of impartiality of the adjudicators.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision that dismissed one of her two allegations of breach of a settlement agreement for being untimely.

The HRTO found that the two alleged breaches did not constitute a 'series of contraventions' under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, meaning the first breach was filed outside the six-month limitation period.

The Divisional Court held that the HRTO's interpretation was reasonable and consistent with its established jurisprudence.

The court also dismissed the applicant's claims of procedural unfairness and bias, finding no evidentiary basis for them.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his application alleging age discrimination in credit card travel insurance.

The HRTO had dismissed the application at a preliminary hearing, finding that s. 22 of the Human Rights Code applied.

The Divisional Court granted the judicial review, finding that the adjudicator made a fundamental error by placing the onus on the applicant to prove that s. 22 did not apply, rather than on the respondents seeking to benefit from the exception.

The HRTO decisions were quashed and the matter was remitted for a new preliminary hearing before a different adjudicator.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing her claims of workplace discrimination and reprisal against her former employer.

She alleged the HRTO hearing was procedurally unfair and demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the HRTO's procedural rulings, including the admission of hearsay evidence and late-filed documents, were fair and within its discretion.

The court concluded the HRTO's dismissal of the discrimination and reprisal allegations was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of HRTO decisions that summarily dismissed his complaints against various City of Toronto officials and departments.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on race and place of origin regarding the City's handling of his zoning by-law inquiries.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding the HRTO's conclusions that the complaints had no reasonable prospect of success and lacked a factual link to Code-protected grounds were reasonable and procedurally fair.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her discrimination application against a college.

The tribunal had dismissed the application at a preliminary stage, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant failed to establish a connection between her removal from an academic program and any prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the tribunal's decision exhibited the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility, and transparency.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a resident of a housing co-operative, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing her discrimination application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged the HRTO breached procedural fairness by conducting a combined summary and preliminary hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no procedural unfairness as the HRTO has the power to control its own procedures and the applicant was afforded an opportunity to be heard.

The Court also upheld the HRTO's finding that the applicant's complaint did not raise Code violations, as she had been offered and refused a unit that accommodated her disability-related need for a balcony.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Child and Family Services Review Board, the Children's Aid Society, and the Ottawa Police Services Board regarding a brief child protection investigation.

The court upheld a motion judge's dismissal of the application against the police board as frivolous under Rule 2.1.01.

The court dismissed the remainder of the application due to excessive and unexplained delay in perfecting it, and alternatively found that the board's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal of its own decision regarding a builder's licence renewal.

The LAT sought to make limited submissions on the statutory context, standard of review, procedural fairness, and statutory interpretation, without addressing the merits of the appeal.

The court granted the motion, finding that the LAT's proposed intervention would provide a useful perspective without compromising impartiality or causing undue delay, and imposed conditions on its participation.

The appellant, an international student eligible for a Post-Graduate Work Permit (PGWP), was offered an entry-level engineering position by the respondent employer.

The offer was conditional on proof of permanent eligibility to work in Canada (Canadian citizenship or permanent residency).

When the appellant disclosed he would be working on a PGWP, the employer withdrew the offer.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found the employer discriminated against the appellant on the basis of citizenship.

The Divisional Court set aside the tribunal's decision.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the tribunal's decision, holding that it was reasonable for the tribunal to find that a policy excluding PGWP-holders—who are legally entitled to work full-time in Canada—constitutes discrimination on the basis of citizenship, even if the policy excepts permanent residents.

The tenants sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision to order a de novo hearing of their eviction applications.

The original LTB member had already conducted a consolidated hearing and determined that the landlord breached s. 83(3)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act by treating tenant union members differently during rent arrears negotiations.

The only remaining issue was identifying which specific tenants had made repayment proposals.

Before making this final factual determination, the member resigned.

The LTB subsequently ordered a de novo hearing without consulting the parties.

The Divisional Court held that ordering a de novo hearing in these circumstances, where the substantive legal issues had already been comprehensively decided, was a denial of procedural fairness.

The application for judicial review was granted, the original decision was reinstated, and the matter was remitted to the LTB solely to determine which tenants made repayment proposals.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) that dismissed his requests to reactivate deferred human rights applications and denied reconsideration.

The HRTO had found that the applicant failed to reactivate his applications within the 60-day time limit and did not provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The Divisional Court held that the HRTO's decisions were reasonable, as they were based on the applicant's failure to comply with procedural rules and a lack of medical evidence supporting his claim of disability-related delay.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant attempted to file a human rights complaint on the final day of the limitation period but was delayed past 5:00 PM due to printing issues at the Tribunal office.

Tribunal staff refused to accept the application, and the Tribunal subsequently ruled the later filing was out of time.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision unreasonable, noting it failed to consider the applicant's good faith efforts to file on time and the severe consequences of denying the application.

The application was allowed and remitted to the Tribunal.