Brian Abraham Blumenthal

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination complaint as abandoned.

The Tribunal had directed a summary hearing and deferred the applicant's request for document production until after the hearing.

The applicant refused to provide dates for the summary hearing until his document request was answered, leading the Tribunal to dismiss the complaint.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal acted reasonably and within its rights to control its own process when faced with the applicant's refusal to cooperate.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The Tribunal had found that an employee was subjected to a poisoned work environment based on sex and was terminated contrary to the Human Rights Code.

However, the Tribunal only ordered the inoperative corporate employer to pay damages, declining to hold the individual managers and owners jointly and severally liable.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's failure to provide a rational basis for not imposing personal liability on the managers, who had failed to address the poisoned environment and had terminated the employee, was unreasonable.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal to reconsider the apportionment of joint and several liability.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of the Environment's approval of Terms of Reference for an environmental assessment regarding a transportation corridor.

The applicant argued that the Terms of Reference conflicted with the Growth Plan under the Places To Grow Act, 2005, because they did not restrict the study to the existing highway route.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Growth Plan did not preclude considering alternative routes and that the Minister's decision was reasonable.

Following the dismissal of the employees' appeal regarding related employers under the Employment Standards Act, the successful respondents sought costs.

The appellants and the Director of Employment Standards argued against a costs award, citing financial hardship and the public interest nature of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to excuse the appellants on financial grounds and noted the Director could not use its statutory role to shield itself from costs after fully participating as an advocate.

However, because the appeal raised the interpretation of s. 4 of the Employment Standards Act for the first time in the court—a matter of broad public interest—the court ordered no costs.

The appellants, former employees of a bankrupt company, sought severance and termination pay from related companies under s. 4 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the companies were related, the relationship did not have the intent or effect of defeating the purpose of the Act, as the related companies had actually propped up the bankrupt company.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision as reasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the standard of review is reasonableness and the Board's decision fell within a range of acceptable outcomes.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister of Labour's delegate to revoke a prior order that authorized a multi-site joint health and safety committee for the respondent school board.

The applicants argued the delegate failed to consider statutory criteria, exercise discretion properly, and provide procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the delegate's decision was a discretionary administrative decision akin to public policy, owed significant deference, and was reasonable given the committee's dysfunction.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision refusing to extend the time to review an Employment Standards Officer's order to pay.

The applicant's solicitor had inadvertently missed the 30-day deadline, initiating the request six months late.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's discretionary decision reasonable given the statutory purpose of prompt resolution and the presumed prejudice of a six-month delay.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board refusing his request for an adjournment and subsequently dismissing his application for review under s. 116 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's refusal to grant the adjournment was reasonable and did not constitute a denial of natural justice.

The court noted the lateness of the request, lack of consent, prejudice to the responding parties, and the applicant's failure to obtain necessary documents in advance.

The appellant was acquitted of Occupational Health and Safety Act charges at trial.

The Crown successfully appealed to the Provincial Offences Appeal Court, where the appeal judge permitted the Crown to rely on a new theory of liability regarding supervisor status and raised additional dispositive issues on her own motion without allowing submissions.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appellant's appeal, holding that it is improper for the Crown to advance a new theory of liability on an appeal against acquittal, and that the appellant was denied a fair hearing when the appeal judge decided the case on unargued grounds.

A new hearing was ordered.

The corporate respondents sought costs of $32,950.29 on a partial indemnity basis following their success on an application for judicial review.

The applicants, represented by community legal clinics, argued no costs should be awarded as the application raised an issue of public interest regarding the related employer provisions of the Employment Standards Act.

The Divisional Court declined to award costs, finding the applicants were individuals of limited means who brought the application in good faith to enforce protective legislation, and the case raised an issue of importance for other vulnerable employees.

The respondents in an application for judicial review brought a motion to compel the applicant's affiants to re-attend cross-examinations to answer questions regarding their personal financial positions.

The applicant employer had sought judicial review of an Employment Standards Officer's order to pay wages, claiming impecuniosity to avoid the statutory requirement to pay the order amount into trust.

The court ordered the affiants to answer the questions so the judicial review panel would have a complete record to determine relevance.

The court also ordered the applicant to serve the affected employees with the notice of application.

The respondent employer was charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker was fatally injured by a reversing dump truck while acting as both a signaller and a spreader operator.

The trial judge directed a verdict of acquittal, ruling that the Crown could not prove a failure to provide a signaller under section 104 of the Regulation by showing the signaller failed to perform the duties prescribed by section 106.

The summary conviction appeal court dismissed the Crown's appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that sections 104 and 106 must be read together to promote the public safety purpose of the legislation, and ordered a new trial.