Cathy Pike

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to refer his discrimination complaint against his employer and union to the Human Rights Tribunal.

He alleged a denial of natural justice because the Commission failed to interview certain witnesses and consider evidence of systemic discrimination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the un-interviewed witnesses lacked direct knowledge, and holding that the Commission's conclusion of insufficient evidence of discrimination was reasonable given the applicant's objective test scores.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision finding that the respondent was discriminated against due to the lack of a special diet allowance for hypoproteinemia under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The Divisional Court reviewed the Tribunal's decision on a reasonableness standard.

The Court found that there was no evidence before the Tribunal to support its finding that eating additional protein from food sources is generally recognized in the Ontario medical community as an appropriate treatment for hypoproteinemia.

Consequently, the Tribunal's decision was deemed unreasonable and quashed regarding the respondent's claim for a special diet allowance for elevated protein requirements.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission not to refer his complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for delay.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the 17-month delay was inordinate and unexplained.

Furthermore, due to legislative amendments, the court noted it no longer had jurisdiction to remit the matter to the Commission or the newly constituted Tribunal.

The applicant, a university professor, filed human rights complaints alleging discrimination and reprisal by his employer.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission decided not to refer the complaints to the Tribunal and upheld this decision on reconsideration.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing the decisions were unreasonable, procedurally unfair, and delayed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding the Commission's decisions were rational, the investigation was adequate, and there was no procedural unfairness.

Although the six-year delay was inordinate, it did not amount to an abuse of process given the complexity of the case and lack of prejudice.

No costs were awarded due to the delay.

The applicant brought a motion to limit the involvement of the Ontario Human Rights Commission in the proceedings and to appoint an amicus curiae.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no justification to limit the Commission's involvement or to appoint an amicus curiae, noting that the Commission was the only party in a position to assist the court.

The applicant brought a motion to strike an affidavit filed by the respondent in response to an application for an expedited hearing under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The applicant argued the affidavit was incomplete and misleading.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the affidavit addressed factual matters within the Registrar's knowledge and was not prejudicial, scandalous, or an abuse of process.

The court noted the applicant had the opportunity to cross-examine the affiant or file a responding affidavit.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission dismissing her human rights complaint without a hearing.

The applicant alleged her former employer failed to accommodate her disability before terminating her employment.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review and found that the Commission acted within its jurisdiction and expertise.

The court concluded that the Commission's decision was supported by the evidentiary record, which indicated the employer had accommodated the applicant and that she was not interested in returning to her previous employment.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The respondent university brought a motion to quash the applicant's application for judicial review of a Human Rights Commission decision.

The applicant had alleged that the university's use of the LSAT in its law school admissions policy was discriminatory.

The court found that the applicant's case was virtually identical to another recently dismissed application, relying on the same arguments and factum.

Concluding that the application had no reasonable chance of success and constituted an abuse of process, the court granted the motion and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to decline to deal with her complaint of discrimination based on marital status and age.

The Commission had found the complaint to be vexatious and out of time under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court held that the Commission was entitled to rely on the definition of 'vexatious' from Black's Law Dictionary and that its decision was not patently unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, an African-Canadian male, sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to refer his complaint against the University of Toronto Faculty of Law to a board of inquiry.

The applicant alleged that the law school's reliance on LSAT scores for admission constituted systemic discrimination against African-Canadians.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable, as it had considered extensive evidence showing the law school used a holistic admissions policy rather than strict numerical cut-offs.

The court also dismissed claims of procedural unfairness and reasonable apprehension of bias.