Brian Abraham Blumenthal

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged he was assaulted by a coworker and subsequently terminated from his temporary assignment, claiming discrimination on various grounds.

The HRTO dismissed the application because the applicant failed to allege any nexus between a protected ground under the Human Rights Code and the alleged discriminatory conduct.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's decision reasonable and concluded there was no denial of procedural fairness, as the HRTO acted in accordance with its rules.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

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 applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that dismissed his eight complaints of discrimination and declared him a vexatious litigant.

The complaints primarily alleged discrimination based on ancestry and place of origin due to poor customer service.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal's dismissal of the complaints was reasonable as they were frivolous on their face.

The court also held that the Tribunal's process was procedurally fair and its declaration of the applicant as a vexatious litigant was justified given his history of bringing multiple meritless proceedings.

The applicant, a former teacher, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision staying her human rights application as an abuse of process.

The applicant had previously pursued grievances through her union, which involved extensive arbitration hearings where unfavourable medical evidence was presented, before the union withdrew the grievances.

The Divisional Court found that the HRTO Vice-Chair reasonably concluded the applicant was engaged in forum shopping and that allowing the HRTO application to proceed would be an abuse of process.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a tenured university professor, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his discrimination application as out of time, and a subsequent decision denying reconsideration.

The HRTO had found that the applicant's allegations regarding a workplace investigation did not form part of a 'series of incidents' with earlier alleged discriminatory acts by a dean, and thus the application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the HRTO's decisions, finding that the HRTO reasonably concluded the investigation was discrete and separate from the earlier incidents, and that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which held it lacked jurisdiction to hear a stand-alone Charter challenge regarding a Ministry of Transportation policy.

Before the judicial review was heard, the applicant succeeded on his Human Rights Code claim, obtained his driver's licence, and the Ministry revised the impugned policy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the basis of mootness, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the case as there was no longer an adversarial context and the issue was not evasive of review.

The appellant landlord sought to adduce fresh evidence at the outset of an appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The proposed evidence was an affidavit from building management stating there was no record of the landlord requesting the deactivation of the tenant's key fob.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, applying the Palmer test.

The court found the evidence could have been obtained prior to the Board hearing with reasonable diligence, and that it would not have been dispositive of the lockout issue given the other evidence of the landlord's threats.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding it discriminated against a resident with disabilities by implementing a strict COVID-19 visitation policy in its congregate care setting.

The Divisional Court held the HRTO's decision was unreasonable, finding the policy was based on public health guidance rather than presumed characteristics of persons with disabilities, and thus did not constitute prima facie discrimination.

Furthermore, the court found the HRTO unreasonably concluded the applicant failed in its duty to accommodate, as it ignored the fluid nature of pandemic guidance and the reasonable alternatives offered.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the HRTO decisions were set aside.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering a 15% rent reduction for tenants after the landlord unilaterally removed on-site storage lockers to build new rental units.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's determinations regarding the unreasonableness of the landlord's actions and the quantum of the rent reduction were questions of mixed fact and law, which are not subject to statutory appeal.

The Court also held that the Board did not breach procedural fairness by crafting a global remedy for all affected tenants without requiring each individual tenant to testify.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denying her request to reactivate her human rights application.

The request was made 40 days late due to the inadvertence of her counsel.

The Tribunal applied the strict test under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code, requiring a good faith explanation and no substantial prejudice, rather than its broader procedural rules.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision unreasonable, as it fettered its discretion by refusing to consider prejudice and misapplied its own jurisprudence.

The decision was set aside and remitted to a different Tribunal member.

The applicant sought judicial review of an HRTO decision dismissing his human rights complaint under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The HRTO had found that the applicant's concurrent civil action for wrongful dismissal, which sought damages for intentional infliction of mental distress and moral damages based on the same factual matrix, barred the human rights application.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the HRTO's decision, finding it was reasonable to conclude that the civil claim essentially sought remedies for the same alleged Code infringements despite not explicitly pleading the Code.

The Ministry of Health appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review of Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions.

The Tribunal had found that the Ministry engaged in systemic gender discrimination against Ontario midwives by abandoning equitable compensation principles established in 1993, leading to a significant compensation gap between midwives and community health clinic physicians.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the standard of review for the Tribunal's decisions is reasonableness, even post-Vavilov.

The Court held that the Adjudicator's liability and remedy decisions were reasonable, as they revealed a rational chain of analysis supported by the evidence, and dismissed the appeal.

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.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which denied his request to amend his application and dismissed his application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age, race, and colour by the Toronto Transit Commission.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Tribunal reasonably concluded the application had no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence linking the failure to hire with the applicant's age, race, or colour.

The court also found the Tribunal reasonably denied the request to amend the application.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The tenants appealed from interlocutory orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing that their notice of appeal automatically stayed the proceedings, including a review of an eviction order.

The Divisional Court held that section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 does not confer a right of appeal from an interlocutory order, and therefore the appeal did not stay the proceedings.

The court also found that the tenants were not denied procedural fairness, as they deliberately chose not to attend the review hearing.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering his eviction from a housing co-operative.

He argued procedural unfairness regarding the scheduling of an expedited remote hearing, the use of security video evidence, and findings on conduct not in the eviction notices, as well as a failure to accommodate his disability under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the remote hearing process or the admission of evidence, and concluding that the adjudicator had appropriately considered and accommodated his disability by delaying the eviction.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario's decision declining to reactivate her application after a workplace grievance was withdrawn.

The Tribunal found she failed to provide a reasonable explanation for her delay in requesting reactivation, as her medical evidence did not establish she was prevented from pursuing her legal rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable, its assessment of the medical evidence entitled to deference, and no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board declining to void an eviction order for non-payment of rent.

The Board had found that the tenant failed to pay all arrears, costs, and enforcement fees under the Administration of Justice Act.

The Divisional Court held that the Board erred in law by including enforcement fees in its determination of whether the tenant met the requirements of s. 74(11) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Board for a new hearing.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed their complaint regarding a failure to provide sign language interpretation during a private prosecution.

The Divisional Court upheld the dismissal against the private prosecutor and the individual who laid the information, finding they did not provide a 'service' under the Human Rights Code.

The Court also dismissed the application against the Justices of the Peace due to judicial immunity.

However, the Court found the Tribunal's dismissal of the complaint against the Ministry of the Attorney General was unreasonable, as the Tribunal ignored explicit allegations that requests for interpretation were made to the court clerk.

The matter against the Ministry was remitted to the Tribunal.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint against the Law Society of Ontario and several individuals.

Before a summary hearing was scheduled, the applicant requested early document production, which the Tribunal's Registrar deferred as premature.

The applicant sought judicial review of this interim decision.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the application for judicial review.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the application was manifestly premature as the Tribunal had not made a final decision on document production and no exceptional circumstances warranted early court intervention.