C.E. Taucar

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing her human rights complaints against her former employer.

The Tribunal had dismissed the applications as an abuse of process after the applicant and her counsel unilaterally refused to attend the scheduled hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the judicial review, finding no evidence of bias or institutional bias.

The Court held that the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the applications for abuse of process was reasonable and justified given the applicant's deliberate failure to attend the hearing.

The applicant, represented by her husband, sought the recusal of the presiding judge from a Divisional Court panel hearing a judicial review application.

The applicant alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias based primarily on comments made by the judge at the conclusion of the hearing, suggesting that the applicant would be better served by independent counsel.

The judge, with the concurrence of the other panel members, dismissed the recusal request, finding that the comments were made out of concern for the applicant's best interests and did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias when viewed in context.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether certain complaints should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegation that a respondent breached the Code by communicating directly with the applicant, finding no evidence that the respondent knew this violated an accommodation need.

The Tribunal also dismissed allegations regarding a short deadline and extension request.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation regarding a 'paranoid' comment to proceed and declined to remove the personal respondent.

Certain irrelevant paragraphs of the application were struck.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application, the respondent university sought costs.

The court awarded costs to the respondent university fixed at $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court noted that the application served no public benefit, was based on voluminous materials, and was presented in a laborious manner that added significantly to the university's costs.

The applicant, a university instructor, sought judicial review of an investigator's report and the university's subsequent determination dismissing her workplace harassment and discrimination complaint against a colleague.

The parties had previously agreed to bypass the collective agreement's formal inquiry panel process in favour of a private investigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the customized, private process lacked the requisite public character to be amenable to judicial review, and also dismissed a motion to set aside a single judge's order striking the applicant's affidavit for containing inadmissible evidence.