Brian Abraham Blumenthal

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint of age discrimination and reprisal against a volunteer model aviation club.

The Tribunal had found that the applicant was removed from his position due to interpersonal conflict, not age, and that he pursued the complaint in bad faith, disentitling him to protection from reprisal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that denied her claim for $100,000 in general damages.

The Tribunal had found that the Ministry's subcontracting rules under the Ontario Disability Support Program discriminated against the applicant based on her disability.

However, applying the Mackin rule, the Tribunal held that damages were not available because the government's conduct in applying the policy was not clearly wrong, in bad faith, or an abuse of power.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal's application of the Mackin rule to the policy directive and its conclusion that no exceptions applied were reasonable.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which had refused to dismiss a human rights application early.

The underlying human rights application alleged discrimination and failure to accommodate related to a student's expulsion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review as premature, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify interfering with an ongoing tribunal proceeding.

The court distinguished a previous case, noting there was no risk of inconsistent findings, no broad principle at stake, and the judicial review had caused delay.

The City of Toronto sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding it had discriminated against the respondent.

The respondent was subjected to a racial slur by another customer at a court services office.

While most City staff responded promptly and appropriately, the Tribunal found discrimination based on one clerk's inadequate response.

The Divisional Court granted the judicial review and quashed the Tribunal's decision, holding that it was unreasonable to find a poisoned environment and fix corporate responsibility on the City based on the inconsequential conduct of a single non-supervisory employee when the overall response was appropriate.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his human rights application for delay.

The incidents complained of occurred between 2003 and 2012, well beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision reasonable, as the applicant failed to provide a good faith reason for the delay and could not establish a series of incidents extending into the limitation period.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision which found that rent increases for several cottage leases were void because the landlord failed to provide the required 90 days' notice under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the leases were subject to the Act and that the tenants were entitled to a rebate for the excess rent paid in the one year prior to their applications.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint of age discrimination against his former employer.

The applicant alleged that his termination at age 46 was discriminatory and that the Tribunal made errors of fact and law in its findings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no errors of law and holding that the Tribunal's factual findings regarding the applicant's performance and the employer's business reasons for termination were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant, a student with disabilities, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision that found the school board failed to accommodate him but denied his claim for special damages covering private school tuition.

The Divisional Court held that while it was reasonable to deny tuition costs for subsequent years because the parent removed the student from the public system without giving the board a further chance to accommodate, it was unreasonable to deny tuition costs for the remainder of the Grade 9 year when the board had completely failed to provide support.

The application was granted in part and remitted to the Tribunal to assess special damages for the Grade 9 year.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing his complaint for a second time.

The Tribunal had previously reinstated the complaint but ordered the applicant to provide all supporting material within two weeks, which he failed to do.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the complaint for failing to comply with procedural orders was reasonable in the interests of procedural fairness and finality.

The Court also dismissed the applicant's allegations of bias, finding no cogent evidence to rebut the presumption of impartiality.

The respondent Landlord and Tenant Board requested the court dismiss the appellant's appeal under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous and an abuse of process.

The appellant had named the Board as the respondent instead of the tenants, sought damages unavailable on appeal, and raised issues regarding a separate property.

The court found the proceeding was clearly abusive on its face and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed decisions of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board that limited his loss of income claim and denied periodic payments.

The Divisional Court found that the Board erred in law by deducting social assistance benefits (Ontario Works and ODSP) from his compensation, contrary to the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.

The Court also held that the Board erred by failing to consider its broad discretionary power to vary earlier lump sum awards to allow for periodic payments.

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

The appellant tenants appealed a decision denying them a rent abatement after their apartment building's elevator was out of service for 96 days due to a latent defect.

The Landlord and Tenant Board found that the landlord had acted diligently and reasonably in maintaining the elevator and replacing it, and thus did not breach its duty to maintain the residential complex in a good state of repair under s. 20(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The Divisional Court affirmed the decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's contextual interpretation of s. 20(1), which considered the reasonableness of the landlord's actions, was reasonable and did not constitute an error of law.

Following a judicial review application where the court found a reasonable apprehension of bias by the Child and Family Services Review Board, the parties sought costs against the tribunal for both the tribunal hearing and the judicial review.

The Divisional Court held it lacked jurisdiction under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act to award costs for the proceeding before the administrative tribunal.

Furthermore, the court declined to award costs of the judicial review application against the tribunal, finding its participation was not adversarial and its conduct did not rise to the exceptional level required to justify such an award.

The self-represented parties' alternative claim for costs against the children's aid society was also dismissed as they were unsuccessful in the application.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting her for repeatedly denying the landlord access to her rental unit to take photographs for the purpose of selling the property.

The Divisional Court held that the Board erred in law by finding that section 27(1)(5) of the Residential Tenancies Act permitted entry for this purpose.

The Court concluded that absent a specific term in the lease or the tenant's consent, a landlord has no statutory authority to enter a rental unit to take photographs for marketing purposes, as doing so infringes on the tenant's privacy interests.

The eviction order was set aside.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy because his dog caused or contributed to the landlord's severe allergic reaction.

The tenant argued the Board breached procedural fairness, exhibited bias, misapprehended evidence, and made an unreasonable decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's procedures were fair, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and the evidence supported the finding that the dog exacerbated the landlord's asthma.

The children's aid society and the prospective adoptive parents sought judicial review of decisions by the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the adoption placement of a child.

The Board had rescinded the society's decision to refuse another foster family's adoption application and confirmed the termination of the prospective adoptive parents' adoption placement.

The Divisional Court allowed the applications for judicial review, finding that the Board's conduct during the hearing, including uneven treatment of the foster families and inappropriate questioning of witnesses, gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court set aside the Board's decisions and ordered a new hearing before a newly constituted panel to determine the child's current best interests.

Following a successful appeal from a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, the appellant sought partial indemnity costs of $12,367.42.

The Board argued that no costs should be awarded against it due to its role as an administrative tribunal.

The Divisional Court held that because the Board took an active, adversarial role on the appeal, an award of costs was appropriate.

Finding the claimed amount excessive, the Court fixed costs at $5,000 all inclusive.

The applicant, a former TTC bus driver, sought judicial review of a decision by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying his claim for lost income following his retirement.

The Board had awarded him partial wage loss for a period prior to his retirement, finding that a workplace assault exacerbated his psychological issues, but denied wage loss post-retirement based on a WSIB report concluding his issues were unrelated to the assault.

The Divisional Court quashed the Board's decision, finding it unreasonable because the Board reached contradictory conclusions on causation without adequate explanation and improperly relied on selective quotes from a WSIB decision rather than the actual medical evidence before it.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board which found that he had abandoned his rental unit.

The Board had concluded that rent was in arrears because the September 2010 rent cheque was paid by a third party rather than the tenant.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Residential Tenancies Act permits rent to be paid on behalf of a tenant by a third party.

Since the rent was paid, the statutory precondition for abandonment was not met, and the matter was remitted to the Board to determine a remedy.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his discrimination complaint against his former employer for failing to file within the one-year limitation period.

The applicant argued his delay was caused by a severe crack cocaine addiction.

The HRTO dismissed the application because the applicant failed to provide medical evidence establishing a causal link between his disability and his inability to file on time.

The Divisional Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the HRTO's requirement for medical evidence and its procedure were both reasonable and fair.