Bruce Ellis

The appellant appealed the permanent dismissal of her child from a school for the Deaf operated by the Provincial and Demonstration Schools Branch (PDSB).

The Child and Family Services Review Board considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under section 311.7 of the Education Act.

The Board found that its jurisdiction is limited to expulsion decisions made by a 'board' as defined in the Act, which does not include schools operated by the PDSB.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and creed, arguing that tuition fees and interest-bearing student loans are discriminatory against descendants of slaves.

He sought free tuition or interest-free loans, claiming that paying interest violated his religious beliefs.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application as having no reasonable prospect of success, finding that financial assistance is based on financial need rather than Code-protected grounds, and that the applicant failed to provide objective evidence linking his objection to interest to a specific religion.

The applicant, a transsexual male seeking to have his government-issued identity documents reflect his gender identity without reference to his birth-assigned gender, alleged discrimination in services based on gender identity and expression.

On the first day of the hearing, the parties jointly requested an eight-month adjournment to engage in community consultations and attempt to resolve the application.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting the broad-reaching implications of the public interest remedy sought.

The applicant, who alleged discrimination based on disability, sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity regarding the denial of funding for surgery, brought several requests for orders.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's requests to amend the application to add gender expression as a ground and to increase the monetary compensation sought.

However, the Tribunal denied the request to add the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario as a respondent, finding no allegations of Code violations against her office.

The Tribunal also denied the request for an interim remedy ordering immediate funding for the surgery, concluding it was not necessary to ensure a full and effective final remedy and would inappropriately grant part of the final remedy sought before a determination on the merits.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of gender identity regarding the 20-month waiting period for a Gender Identity Clinic assessment required for OHIP funding of sex reassignment surgery.

The respondent requested a deferral of the application because the applicant had also appealed the denial of funding to the Health Services Appeal and Review Board (HSARB).

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding that the HSARB proceeding and the application addressed the same issues and that proceeding concurrently could lead to inconsistent decisions.

The applicant, a transsexual male, filed an application alleging discrimination regarding government-issued identification.

He requested an order to anonymize his identity by using his initials, arguing that identifying him would expose his sex assigned at birth and undermine the purpose of the application.

The respondent took no position.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the applicant's privacy interest outweighed the principle of open proceedings, as public disclosure would necessarily reveal his sex assigned at birth.

The applicant alleged age discrimination under the Human Rights Code after his health benefits ended at age 65.

The Tribunal previously found that s. 25(2.1) of the Code is a complete defence unless it is found unconstitutional.

Two teachers' unions, OECTA and ETFO, sought intervenor status to address the constitutional issues.

The respondent and the Attorney General requested limitations on their participation, including a requirement to act jointly.

The Tribunal granted the unions full intervenor status without the requested limitations, finding that their perspectives on the administration of benefits and the impact on older workers would assist the Tribunal in this significant constitutional challenge.

The applicants, who recently took over the operation of a convenience store, sought judicial review of a Minister's decision applying a tobacco sales prohibition order to them.

The prohibition was issued under section 16 of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act because employees of the prior, unrelated operator had been twice convicted of selling tobacco to minors.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, holding that on a purposive interpretation of the Act, the prohibition can only be applied to a person who has committed at least one tobacco sales offence.

Since the applicants had never been convicted of such an offence, the Minister lacked jurisdiction to apply the prohibition to them.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Ontario Disability Support Program Act discriminated against her on the basis of disability, family status, and marital status by making her eligibility dependent on her spouse's income.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application was timely, as it was filed five years after her benefits were cancelled.

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a stand-alone challenge to the legislation under the Charter or the Code.

Furthermore, the continuing deductions from the applicant's Ontario Works benefits were found to be continuing effects, not continuing contraventions.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish a good faith reason for the delay and dismissed the application as untimely.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that extended the period for the respondent government to comply with an order regarding special diet benefits.

The Commission argued that the Tribunal was functus officio and lacked the power to extend the compliance period.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the doctrine of functus officio does not restrict administrative tribunals more than courts, and that the Tribunal has the power to extend time periods for compliance with ordered remedies, similar to the Supreme Court of Canada in Charter cases.

The respondent requested an extension of time to implement a future compliance remedy ordered by the Tribunal regarding special diet benefits.

The government announced the elimination of the Special Diet Allowance and the creation of a new nutritional supplement program, requiring 9-12 months to implement.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction under its general remedial powers to extend the time limit without treating the request as a reconsideration.

The Tribunal granted the extension to April 13, 2011, finding it consistent with remedial principles to allow the government a reasonable period to implement comprehensive policy changes to achieve Code compliance.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which held that the definition of disability under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act (ODSPA) was not discriminatory and did not conflict with the Human Rights Code.

The appellant argued that because he met the broader definition of disability under the Code, denying him benefits under the narrower ODSPA definition was discriminatory.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the ODSPA is a special program designed to ameliorate the conditions of a disadvantaged group under s. 14(1) of the Code.

The government is not required to extend benefits to every conceivable member of a broad class, and providing benefits to the most disadvantaged is not discriminatory.

Three lead complainants alleged that the special diet allowance component of the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) discriminated against them on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal established a four-part test to determine discrimination in the program: the claimant must have a disability, there must be general medical recognition that a special diet is required, the diet must lead to additional food costs, and the funding must be non-existent or significantly disproportionate to the costs.

The Tribunal found that the program discriminated against W. by failing to fund hypoproteinemia and underfunding hypertension and hypercholesterolemia.

S. was discriminated against due to underfunding for extreme obesity, and B. was discriminated against due to underfunding for hypercholesterolemia.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide retroactive and ongoing benefits in accordance with the Code principles, but declined to award general damages or order a specific redesign of the program.

The applicant, an eleven-year-old student, alleged that the school board's head lice policy discriminated on the basis of age.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several procedural requests.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's requests for an interim remedy, to add the examining nurse as a respondent, and for early production of documents.

The Tribunal denied a publication ban but ordered that the applicant and her next friend be anonymized in decisions due to her age and the potential stigma.

The Tribunal also directed that the applicant's constitutional challenge to the definition of age in the Human Rights Code be heard as a preliminary issue.

The applicant, a young adult with severe autism, filed a human rights complaint alleging that the Ministry of Education discriminated against her by failing to provide appropriate special education programs, specifically Intensive Behavioural Intervention (IBI).

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the complaint had already been dealt with in the Wynberg litigation and by the Special Education Tribunal.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the core issue—the failure to provide IBI in schools—was the same question litigated and ultimately dismissed by the Court of Appeal in Wynberg.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant, a student with ADHD, alleged that the school board discriminated against him by denying him access to special education accommodations.

The complainant sought to add the Ministry of Education as a respondent, arguing that the Ministry's definitions of exceptionalities and failure to assist contributed to the discrimination.

The Tribunal granted the request in part, finding that there were sufficient allegations that the Ministry's standards for exceptionalities may have acted as a barrier to accommodation, but rejected the other theories of liability.

The complainants requested reconsideration of an interim decision that refused to add the Ministry of Education and various individuals as full party respondents to their human rights complaints regarding special education.

The Tribunal reviewed its new reconsideration powers under the amended Human Rights Code and its Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal determined that while interim decisions disposing of central issues can be subject to reconsideration, the complainants failed to establish any new facts, conflict with established jurisprudence, or other compelling factors to justify reconsidering the original decision.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The appellants, representing children with autism and their families, appealed a motion judge's decision striking several causes of action from their proposed class proceeding against Ontario and several school boards.

The claims challenged the provision of autism and education services, alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and Charter violations.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part.

It struck the age-based discrimination claim without leave to amend, citing stare decisis from the Wynberg decision.

The disability discrimination claim and the claim for Charter damages were struck with leave to amend due to a lack of precision in the pleadings.

The court also granted leave to amend the negligence claim against the school boards regarding operational aspects of the programs, but otherwise dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision finalizing a procedural order to manage multiple complaints regarding the special diet allowance.

The order establishes a timetable for selecting lead cases, disclosing documents, identifying issues, and filing evidence and pleadings.

The Tribunal incorporated minor changes requested by the respondent and the clinic caseworkers representing the complainants.

The respondent's right to request a stay of proceedings due to concurrent litigation before the Social Benefits Tribunal was preserved.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario held a case management conference to determine the procedure for 77 related complaints challenging the special diet allowance regime.

The Tribunal adopted a joint proposal by counsel to proceed with two to six lead cases to be heard together, finding it to be a fair, just, and expeditious manner of resolving the complex complaints.

The Tribunal also addressed privacy concerns by ordering that disclosure be exchanged only among parties to the lead cases and that lead complainants remain anonymous in public documents.