Courtney J. Harris

Appellants sought a declaration that section 14 of the Health Insurance Act, which prohibits OHIP-eligible Ontario residents from purchasing private health insurance for OHIP-covered services, violated their Charter rights under section 7.

The appellants' OHIP coverage had been cancelled for failure to prove Ontario residency, and they claimed private insurers refused to sell them insurance citing section 14.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding the appellants were not affected by section 14 itself but rather by an alleged misinterpretation of it by private insurers.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that the appellants failed to demonstrate that section 14 of the HIA, rather than a misinterpretation by non-parties, was affecting them.

The applicants, two women in a platonic relationship, sought to jointly adopt a Crown ward.

The Child, Youth and Family Services Act (and its predecessor, the Child and Family Services Act) restricted joint adoption applications to individuals who are "spouses of one another" defined as married or in a conjugal relationship.

The applicants challenged this restriction as discriminatory under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing it violated their equality rights based on marital status.

The Attorney General of Ontario intervened and conceded constitutional invalidity.

The court found the legislation created a distinction based on marital status, an analogous ground, and perpetuated prejudice and stereotyping by excluding non-spousal couples from joint adoption without merit-based assessment.

The court further found the infringement was not justified under section 1 of the Charter, as it lacked rational connection and minimal impairment, and its deleterious effects outweighed any benefits.

The court declared the words "who are spouses of one another" in the relevant sections of both Acts to be of no force and effect for public adoptions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability after being denied a Northern Health Travel Grant.

The Tribunal directed a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, as the respondent argued that a 2011 settlement and release from a previous application barred the current claim.

The Tribunal held that the release language only applied to the specific events and allegations of the 2010 application and did not preclude future claims arising from subsequent grant denials.

The request to dismiss the application was denied, and the matter was allowed to proceed.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario considered the claims of 17 individuals alleging that the special diet allowance schedule under Ontario's social assistance system discriminated against them based on disability.

The claimants argued that the schedule failed to fund or underfunded special diets for 11 different medical conditions.

Applying the four-part test from Ball v. Ontario, the Tribunal dismissed the majority of the claims, finding that the claimants failed to establish that their conditions required modifications to a regular healthy diet, that the diets led to additional costs, or that the medical community generally recognized the need for such diets.

However, the Tribunal allowed the claims for Prader-Willi syndrome and unintended weight loss due to renal failure, as the respondent conceded these conditions met the Ball test.

The Tribunal ordered retroactive benefits for these two conditions, rejecting the respondent's argument that the recognition of Prader-Willi syndrome constituted a substantial change in the law that would preclude retroactive relief.

The Tribunal determined the appropriate remedial order for two cases of discrimination regarding the Special Diet Allowance under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The respondent argued it should be entitled to apply the retroactive benefits owed to the complainants towards their pre-existing overpayments.

The Tribunal held that, to meaningfully remedy the discrimination and place the complainants in the position they would have been in absent the Code violation, the respondent must pay the retroactive benefits directly to the complainants without deducting the overpayments.

The complainants, who receive Ontario Disability Support Program benefits and have been diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C, alleged that the special diet allowance program discriminated against them on the basis of disability.

Applying the test from Ball v. Ontario, the Tribunal found that there is general recognition in the Ontario medical community that individuals with chronic hepatitis C require modifications to a regular healthy diet, specifically increased protein and energy.

The Tribunal concluded that the complainants established disability-based discrimination and ordered the respondent to provide retroactive and ongoing special diet allowances for chronic hepatitis C.