Brian Abraham Blumenthal

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision finding it had discriminated against a job applicant on the basis of citizenship.

The employer had rescinded a job offer after discovering the applicant, an international student, lied about being eligible to work permanently in Canada.

The Divisional Court quashed the HRTO's decision, holding that it was unreasonable to conflate 'permanent residence' with 'citizenship' to find direct discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The court found that permanent residency is a separate status from citizenship, and the HRTO's expansion of the protected ground was not justified.

The Landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision denying an above-guideline rent increase for the cost of installing a fall arrest roof anchor system.

The Landlord argued it was denied procedural fairness when the LTB refused an adjournment to allow it to gather evidence proving the installation was legally necessary.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Landlord bore the onus of proving the expenditure was necessary to comply with building standards and should have attended the hearing prepared with such evidence.

The Court also rejected the argument that the LTB improperly relied on a confidential prehearing note.

The applicant sought judicial review of HRTO decisions dismissing his human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The HRTO found that the substance of his allegations had been appropriately dealt with in a prior labour arbitration, even though the union declined to advance Code-based arguments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's application of s. 45.1 was reasonable, as the arbitrator's factual findings precluded any finding of Code violations.

The court also rejected the applicant's claims of procedural fairness denial and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant landlord applied to the Landlord and Tenant Board to terminate the respondents' tenancies of two cottages for his children's use.

The respondents claimed they owned the cottages and only leased the land.

The Board determined it had jurisdiction to decide the ownership issue, found that the respondents owned the cottages, and dismissed the eviction applications.

The Divisional Court dismissed the landlord's appeal, holding that the Board had exclusive jurisdiction to determine ownership for the purpose of the Residential Tenancies Act, did not breach procedural fairness, and correctly concluded that the Act superseded the common law of fixtures.

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.

The applicant brought a motion to supplement the record of proceedings for her judicial review application with almost 5,000 pages of additional documents.

She argued these documents were 'documentary evidence filed with the tribunal' under s. 20(d) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act because she had sent them to the tribunal's registrar and executive chairs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that merely sending documents to tribunal officials or providing them during disclosure does not make them evidence in a hearing.

The applicant failed to meet the Keeprite test for supplementing the record on judicial review.

The respondent applied to the University of Waterloo as a transfer student but did not meet the academic standards due to prior grades affected by undiagnosed disabilities.

The University's Admissions Committee rejected his application based solely on those unaccommodated grades.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed his discrimination complaint, finding the University met its duty to accommodate.

The Divisional Court set aside the HRTO decision as unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's finding that the HRTO decision was unreasonable, as the University could not rely solely on unaccommodated grades to demonstrate reasonable accommodation, but varied the remedy to remit the matter back to the HRTO rather than the Admissions Committee.

A case management conference was held in an application for judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The self-represented applicant sought to introduce over 4,700 pages of additional materials that were not included in the tribunal's official record of proceedings.

The court directed that the issue of the proper record be determined at a subsequent motion, outlining the narrow exceptions under which new evidence may be admitted on judicial review.

The court also provided directions regarding the applicant's proposed notice of constitutional question.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing their application for bad faith eviction under s. 57 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Board found the application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period in s. 57(2).

The appellants argued the discoverability principle under the Limitations Act should apply, as they only discovered the bad faith eviction months after vacating.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 57(2) of the RTA prevails over the Limitations Act and that the discoverability rule does not apply when a limitation period runs from a precise event, such as vacating a rental unit.

A case management conference was held to schedule an application for judicial review of several Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions.

The court scheduled the hearing for January 13, 2021, dismissed the application against personal respondents on consent, and set deadlines for the service and filing of the Record of Proceedings, factums, and other materials using Caselines.

The applicants, foster parents who had cared for a three-year-old child since birth, sought judicial review of a Child and Family Services Review Board decision that overruled the Children's Aid Society's approval of their adoption application.

The Board had directed the child be placed with the respondents, who had previously adopted two of the child's maternal half-siblings, citing the importance of the child's Métis heritage and biological siblings.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision unreasonable, noting it applied differential standards to the evidence, ignored the child's strong bond with the foster family, and relied on speculation regarding the child's ability to transition to a new home.

The application for judicial review was allowed, the Board's decision was quashed, and the Society's decision approving the applicants' adoption was restored.

A case management conference was held to address an issue regarding whether the appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board had been settled.

The court directed the parties to exchange materials on the settlement issue and place them before the panel scheduled to hear the appeal.

The Ministry of Health applied for judicial review of decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario finding that the Ministry engaged in systemic gender discrimination in setting compensation for midwives.

The Tribunal found that the Ministry had abandoned historical compensation principles that aligned midwives with community health centre physicians, leading to an inequitable compensation gap.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's findings of adverse treatment and the connection to sex were reasonable.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's remedial orders, which included a 20% retroactive compensation increase and $7,500 per eligible midwife for injury to dignity.

A case management conference was held to set procedural directions for an appeal from an interim decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The court ordered that the appeal proceed before a three-judge panel via video conference.

Detailed directions were provided regarding the electronic filing of documents, factums, compendiums, and costs materials using a password-protected drop box.

The applicant tennis association sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding it discriminated against women by offering twice as many playing spots to men in its mixed league.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the standard of review for HRTO decisions remains reasonableness post-Vavilov.

The Court found the HRTO reasonably concluded the respondents had standing, the applications were timely, and the applicant failed to establish undue hardship in implementing a gender-equal format.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding that the individual applicant sexually harassed the respondent by exposing himself to her on two occasions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal's factual findings were rational and grounded in evidence, its consideration of male/female power dynamics was appropriate, its conclusion that the respondent was an employee was consistent with jurisprudence, and its damages award was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The Child and Family Services Review Board brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review commenced by the Toronto District School Board regarding a student's suspension and expulsion.

The motion was brought on the grounds of mootness and undue delay.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the school board's 23-month delay in commencing and perfecting the application was excessive, unexplained, and prejudicial to the tribunal.

Furthermore, the court held that the underlying dispute had been settled, rendering the application moot, and declined to exercise its discretion to hear the case.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision dismissing her discrimination complaint against the respondent accounting bodies.

The applicant, whose second language is English, failed a final accounting exam and alleged constructive discrimination based on language ability and ethnic origin.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's hearing was procedurally fair and its decision reasonable, as language ability is not a prohibited ground of discrimination and the applicant failed to establish a nexus between her language ability and her ethnic origin.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing his human rights complaints against his employer and union.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The Divisional Court found the delay of 16 months to commence the application and almost another year to perfect it was excessive.

Finding no reasonable explanation for the delay and presuming prejudice to the respondents, the court dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding his employer breached its procedural duty to accommodate his disability but awarding only $5,000 in general damages.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred by considering seniority rights and a WSIB incentive program in its accommodation analysis, and by failing to award lost wages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's findings on the duty to accommodate and its remedial order were reasonable given the evidentiary record.