6 total
HRTO decision quashed in part; tribunal unreasonably focused on intent rather than impact in misgendering claim.
The applicant, a Black trans-male, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination claims against a walk-in clinic.
The applicant alleged he was misgendered and denied treatment based on his gender identity and race.
The Divisional Court found the HRTO's dismissal of the race discrimination claim was reasonable, as it rested on unassailable credibility findings.
However, the court held the HRTO's analysis of the misgendering allegations was fundamentally flawed because it improperly focused on whether the clinic staff intended to discriminate, contrary to established jurisprudence that intent is not required for prima facie discrimination.
The misgendering issue was remitted for a new hearing.
Class action certified against Toronto police for alleged racial profiling and Charter breaches through carding.
The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against the Toronto Police Services Board and several Chiefs of Police regarding the practice of 'carding' or street checks.
The plaintiffs alleged that the practice disproportionately targeted Black and Indigenous individuals, violating their Charter rights and constituting systemic negligence and intrusion upon seclusion.
The court found that the plaintiffs met all the criteria for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including establishing a valid cause of action, an identifiable class, common issues, preferable procedure, and suitable representative plaintiffs.
The motion for certification was granted.
Motions by union and legal clinic to intervene in human rights judicial review granted.
The York University Staff Association (YUSA) and the Black Legal Action Centre (BLAC) brought motions for leave to intervene in a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.
YUSA sought to intervene as an added party under Rule 13.01, while BLAC sought to intervene as a friend of the Court under Rule 13.02.
The applicant consented, but the respondent university opposed.
The Divisional Court granted both motions, finding that YUSA had a significant interest in the workplace procedures at issue and that BLAC would provide a useful systemic perspective on anti-Black racism without expanding the issues or causing undue delay.
Motions by two organizations to intervene in a judicial review regarding HRTO limitation periods dismissed.
Two organizations, York University Staff Association (YUSA) and Black Legal Action Centre (BLAC), sought leave to intervene in an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.
The underlying decision dismissed most of the applicant's discrimination claims for being outside the one-year limitation period.
The Divisional Court dismissed both motions for leave to intervene.
The court found that YUSA did not have a direct interest in the narrow limitation period issue before the court, and that BLAC would not provide a distinct perspective from the applicant and risked introducing irrelevant peripheral issues.
Buyer ordered to forfeit unpaid $40,000 deposit after repudiating real estate agreement hours after acceptance.
The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment after the defendant buyer repudiated a residential real estate agreement within hours of acceptance and failed to pay the $40,000 deposit.
The plaintiffs subsequently sold the property to another buyer for $12,473 less than the defendant's agreed price.
The court conducted a comprehensive review of the law on deposits and relief from forfeiture, concluding that the Stockloser test applies to real estate deposits.
The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to the full $40,000 deposit, as the defendant's breach was not accompanied by unconscionability that would justify relief from forfeiture, despite the deposit exceeding the actual damages.
Application to lift interim closure of premises denied as illegal cannabis sales likely to resume.
The applicant, a residential tenant living above an unlicensed cannabis retail store, brought an application under section 18(4) of the Cannabis Control Act to lift an interim closure order that barred entry to the entire premises.
The premises had been repeatedly closed by law enforcement due to illegal cannabis sales, but the operators continually breached the closures.
The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to satisfy the burden of proving that, if access were granted, the premises would not continue to be used for illegal cannabis sales with the landlord's permission.