David Baker

The applicant, a student with multiple exceptionalities including a mild intellectual disability and ADHD, alleged discrimination by the respondent school board.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to accommodate the applicant's disability-related needs by significantly reducing his educational assistant support without an objective assessment, failing to implement a timely behaviour management plan, and excluding him from school for an extended period without adequate educational programming.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent's imposition of a permanent communication ban on the applicant's mother hindered the accommodation process.

The respondent failed to establish that accommodating the applicant would cause undue hardship.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $35,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and directed the implementation of specific accommodations and the lifting of the communication ban.

The respondent school board sought an order relieving it from complying with a previous interim order requiring it to return the applicant student to school, alleging the student's mother breached communication restrictions.

The applicant cross-moved to amend the interim order to permit direct communication and remove a trespass notice.

The Tribunal found that communication by the mother's legal counsel regarding an alleged incident did not breach the interim order.

The Tribunal dismissed both requests, maintaining the original interim order and communication restrictions pending the final hearing.

The applicant requested to reschedule the hearing dates of March 20-22, 2013, because their counsel was required to appear before the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, vacated the March dates, and rescheduled the hearing to June 2013, with alternative dates offered in April.

The applicant, a nine-year-old student with disabilities, was excluded from school due to behavioural issues.

He sought an interim remedy to be transitioned back to school with a full-time Educational Assistant.

The Tribunal found that excluding the child for an entire school year would cause irreparable harm.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to implement its psychologist's transition plan and return the applicant to school, provided the applicant's mother agreed to the plan's terms.

The Tribunal also ordered the production of relevant documents.

The respondent hospital sought an interim order requiring the applicant to consent to the disclosure of her personal health information to the respondent's counsel, and to provide the names of coworkers who allegedly wore scents or harassed her, prior to the respondent filing its Response to the human rights application.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for medical disclosure, finding no exceptional circumstances to depart from the usual rule that a respondent must file its Response before the exchange of arguably relevant documents.

However, the Tribunal granted the request for particulars, ordering the applicant to provide the names of the coworkers involved.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion for partial summary judgment, which he had brought on the basis of issue estoppel relying on findings from a Federal Court security certificate proceeding.

During oral argument, the appellant conceded he was no longer appealing the correctness of the order dismissing the motion, but only sought to appeal the motion judge's conclusion that issue estoppel did not apply.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, holding that an appeal lies from an order and not from the reasons of the court below.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after her employment was terminated pursuant to a long-term disability guideline negotiated between the school board and the union.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application for delay, as it was filed more than four years after the termination.

The Tribunal found that the termination was the last incident of alleged discrimination and rejected the applicant's argument that the discrimination was ongoing.

The Tribunal also found that the delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant's efforts to pursue her rights through the union grievance process did not justify the delay.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The plaintiffs, autistic children and their parents, commenced a proposed class proceeding alleging the provincial government and several school boards failed to provide or fund Applied Behavioural Analysis therapy and related services within Ontario’s education system, contrary to the Charter.

After earlier rulings struck most causes of action and the Court of Appeal limited the remaining claims, the plaintiffs moved to discontinue the proceeding under s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act.

The court reviewed the legal framework governing discontinuance of proposed class proceedings, focusing on whether the discontinuance would prejudice putative class members.

Finding no evidence of improper purpose, prejudice to class members, or objection from notified parties, the court approved the discontinuance on consent and without costs.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate his deferred human rights application, stating his union informed him of a proposed settlement but he lacked details.

The respondent opposed the request, noting the grievance proceeding was ongoing because the applicant had not agreed to the proposed settlement, which required him to withdraw his human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate the application because the grievance proceeding had not yet concluded.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against her former employer and its CEO.

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

The Tribunal removed the CEO as a personal respondent, finding no compelling reason to keep him as a party since the corporate respondent could be held vicariously liable.

The Tribunal allowed the applicant to amend her remedial request, except as against the removed CEO.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to produce her unredacted medical file to the respondent, and ordered the respondent to produce certain financial and accommodation-related documents predating the applicant's termination.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal from a decision dismissing a motion for partial summary judgment.

The appellant had sought partial summary judgment using issue estoppel offensively, based on findings from a prior Federal Court decision quashing a security certificate against him.

The Court of Appeal held that the dismissal of the summary judgment motion was a final order, as it finally determined the question of issue estoppel and deprived the appellant of a substantive right.

The motion to quash the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, a university student with a disability, filed human rights complaints against the university and two student unions, alleging discrimination because her disability prevented her from taking enough credits for full-time status, thereby denying her certain benefits.

The university and one student union requested dismissal of the applications under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code and as an abuse of process, arguing the matter had already been dealt with by the university's internal Anti-Discrimination Tribunal.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the internal tribunal hearing constituted a 'proceeding' that appropriately dealt with the substance of the application against the university.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the student union as an abuse of process, noting the internal tribunal had recorded that complaint as resolved.

The applicant, an eight-year-old boy with disabilities, sought an interim remedy to compel the respondent school board to immediately transition him to a full-time grade three program with specific accommodations, rather than the one hour per day currently offered.

The Tribunal granted the request to expedite the proceedings due to the urgency of the child's educational situation and the risk of developmental regression.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request for an interim remedy, finding that the expert evidence provided did not establish that a rapid transition to full-time schooling was in the applicant's best interests or would effectively accommodate his disabilities.

The appellant parent appealed a school board's decision to place her child, who has autism and significant behavioural needs, in a Special Education Class (Intensive Support Program).

The parent sought a placement in a Regular Class with Resource Withdrawal.

The Tribunal found that the student's aggressive behaviours posed a safety risk and that the student had not made noticeable gains in a Regular Class setting.

The Tribunal concluded that a full-time Intensive Support Program placement was in the student's best interests to provide a structured environment, reduce anxiety, and address behavioural and academic needs, and dismissed the appeal.

Three appellants appealed decisions of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board denying payment for out-of-country medical treatment because they did not obtain prior written approval from the General Manager of OHIP.

The Divisional Court held that while the Health Insurance Act and regulations do not expressly confer discretion to grant retroactive prior approval, such authority is necessarily implied in urgent circumstances where prior approval cannot be obtained.

The Court rejected arguments based on legitimate expectations, promissory estoppel, limitation periods against minors, and sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.

Two of the appeals were allowed and remitted to the Board to determine if urgent circumstances existed, while the third was dismissed.

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 Council of Canadians with Disabilities filed a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency regarding VIA Rail's purchase of 139 Renaissance rail cars that were inaccessible to personal wheelchairs.

The Agency ordered VIA Rail to modify 30 of the cars to accommodate personal wheelchairs, finding that the inaccessible design constituted an undue obstacle.

The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the Agency's decision as patently unreasonable.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the Agency's decision, holding that the Agency reasonably applied human rights principles, including the duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship, within its statutory mandate under the Canada Transportation Act.

The parties jointly requested clarification of a previous Tribunal decision regarding the appropriate special education placement for a student with Autism.

The parents questioned whether the Tribunal had ordered placement in a mixed exceptionalities class of sixteen or an Autism class of six.

The Tribunal clarified that it ordered a small, separate class focusing on communication and social interaction, which was not strictly limited to six students but was not to be as large as sixteen, and was based on student learning needs rather than specific exceptionality categories.

The parents of a 14-year-old student identified with autism appealed the school board's decision to place the student in a Developmental Education Program (DEP).

The parents argued the DEP was inappropriate and requested placement in an Autism Class, which did not exist in the board's Special Education Plan.

The board challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction to order a placement not in its plan.

The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction under the Education Act to order an appropriate placement regardless of the board's plan.

The Tribunal found the DEP was inappropriate for the student, who is highly verbal and does not have a developmental disability.

The Tribunal ordered the board to place the student in a small, separate 'Communication' class focused on language development and social interaction.

Transportation Action Now Inc. (TAN) brought a motion seeking intervenor status in human rights complaints alleging discrimination in the provision of accessible transportation services.

TAN sought to make written submissions on issues including whether the services offered qualified as a special program under the Human Rights Code.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that TAN's positions overlapped with those of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the complainants, and that TAN did not offer a different perspective that would assist the Board as amicus curiae.