Brian Abraham Blumenthal

The applicants sought judicial review of interim decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which declined to dismiss human rights applications under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicants argued that prior proceedings under the Police Services Act and the Regulated Health Professions Act should bar the human rights complaints based on issue estoppel and finality principles.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding the Tribunal reasonably applied the Supreme Court's fairness principles from Penner to conclude that it would be unfair to dismiss the human rights applications, given the different purposes, lack of financial stakes, and statutory contexts of the prior proceedings.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing her nine applications on the basis of delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued the HRTO failed to include all respondents she complained against.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to address why the HRTO's decisions were unreasonable and noting the HRTO correctly identified the named respondents.

The landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing that the Board applied the wrong burden of proof and breached its duty of procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board correctly applied the balance of probabilities standard and properly assessed credibility.

The Court also held that the presiding Member of the Board actively guided the self-represented parties and ensured procedural fairness throughout the hearing.

The appellant tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating her tenancy for causing damage to the rental unit and transferring occupancy to an unauthorized occupant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's arguments regarding the Board's factual findings and exercise of discretion did not raise any questions of law.

The Court also rejected the appellant's arguments that the Board failed to accommodate her disabilities, noting she was able to participate fully in the hearing.

The eviction order was stayed until June 1, 2015, to allow the appellant to find replacement accommodation.

The self-represented appellant requested an adjournment of her appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board to recast her Notice of Appeal and bring a motion for fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court denied the request, noting the Notice of Appeal was filed over two years prior and the time for perfection had already been extended once.

The court held that granting the adjournment would be contrary to the fair and orderly administration of justice.

The tenants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board regarding the landlord's responsibility to maintain an elevator under s. 20 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, finding that the Board was entitled to construe its home statute to consider the landlord's actions in the circumstances.

Finding no error of law, the court dismissed the appeal.

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

The applicant's late husband was denied a liver transplant due to a policy requiring six months of abstinence from alcohol.

The applicant filed her human rights complaint almost two years later, arguing she did not know the policy was discriminatory until then.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding it reasonable to conclude that ignorance of the law does not constitute a good faith explanation for delay under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

During a judicial review proceeding, the court struck the applicant's affidavit from the record.

The court found that the affidavit contained argument and attempted to supplement the record before the Tribunal.

The applicant failed to satisfy the court that the affidavit fell within the exceptional circumstances set out in Keeprite that permit a party to file affidavit evidence to supplement the record.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to summarily dismiss her human rights complaint.

The Tribunal had concluded that earlier incidents were out of time and not part of a series of incidents, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success for the timely allegations.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision to be reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review, awarding costs to the respondent employer.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions dismissing his complaints against his former employer, the TTC, and his union.

The TTC complaint was dismissed because the applicant had previously signed a settlement agreement releasing all claims, and the union complaint was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success due to a lack of particulars.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal's procedures were fair and its decisions were reasonable.

During the hearing of an application for judicial review, the applicant's counsel requested an adjournment and leave to file additional evidence towards the end of his submissions.

The opposing counsel objected, noting they had never seen the document.

The Divisional Court denied the requests, finding it totally inappropriate to raise the issue at the end of submissions when the application had been commenced over a year prior and listed for hearing for over nine months.

The applicant, a First Nations constable, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision dismissing his complaint that his suspension and termination by the OPP Commissioner were discriminatory and acts of reprisal.

The applicant had been terminated after making public comments criticizing the OPP.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the exclusion of First Nations constables from the procedural protections of the Police Services Act was not discriminatory, but rather respected First Nations self-government.

The Court also upheld the finding that the termination was not a reprisal under the Human Rights Code, as the applicant's public comments were not an assertion of human rights.

A related application by the First Nation Council alleging a denial of natural justice was also dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision that awarded her $5,000 for discrimination.

The applicant argued the award was unreasonable because it did not compensate her for lost wages akin to a wrongful dismissal claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the HRTO's award was based on a procedural failing in the duty to accommodate and was distinct from common law wrongful dismissal damages.

Applying the reasonableness standard of review, the court found the HRTO's decision fell within the range of possible, acceptable, and defensible outcomes.

The Landlord and Tenant Board brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review filed by the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario.

The application sought to prohibit the Board from applying its rule 32, which gives adjudicators discretion to allow a legal representative to act as both an advocate and a witness.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding it plain and obvious that the application would fail because procedural fairness must be assessed in the specific context of a case, not in a vacuum.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating his tenancy after the Board found he had assaulted the building superintendent.

The tenant argued the Board erred in law by failing to consider his personal circumstances, including his lack of a criminal record, financial situation, and ties to the community, as required by section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the tenant had adduced little to no evidence on these factors before the Board, and the Board had properly considered section 83 based on the evidentiary record before it.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision finding it discriminated against the respondent employee on the basis of gender and reprised against her for asserting her human rights.

The employee had been disciplined for swearing, while male employees were not, and was terminated after refusing to sign a written warning she believed was discriminatory.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's conclusions on discrimination, reprisal, and the award of $15,000 in general damages plus six months' lost wages were reasonable.

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

The applicant had previously settled a civil action and human rights complaint against the respondent college for $10,800, but later applied to the Tribunal claiming the settlement was obtained by fraud and pressure.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal acted reasonably in dismissing the application, as the applicant had signed the settlement, received the funds, and provided no evidence of fraud or contravention.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her application, which alleged that the Ontario Sales Tax Transition Benefit discriminated on the basis of marital and family status.

The Tribunal had found it lacked jurisdiction because the benefit was an integral part of taxation and thus excluded from the definition of 'services' under section 10(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias in the Tribunal's reconsideration process and concluding that the Tribunal's interpretation of the Code was reasonable.

The applicant was dismissed from his employment after being arrested and charged with a criminal offence.

He filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, arguing that being charged with an offence is a 'socio-political limitation' constituting a disability.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the statutory definition of disability is restricted to physical and mental conditions.

The Court also declined to hear a new constitutional challenge to the Code under s. 15(1) of the Charter, as it was not raised before the Tribunal and the interests of justice did not warrant an exception.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her discrimination complaints as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had fabricated letters from co-workers to support her claims and lacked credibility.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable, well within its power to control its own process, and protected by a highly deferential standard of review.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.