D. Russ Makepeace

The applicant filed five separate human rights applications against five taxi companies alleging discriminatory pricing for accessible cabs.

The applicant sought to consolidate the applications.

Four of the respondents consented to consolidation.

The fifth respondent, Crown Taxi Inc., opposed consolidation on the basis that it did not operate accessible cabs and sought to be removed as a respondent.

The Tribunal consolidated the four consenting applications but ordered the application against Crown Taxi Inc. to proceed separately, as its preliminary jurisdictional issue did not share common issues of fact and law with the others.

The applicant brought a motion before a panel of the Divisional Court to set aside a decision of a single judge who declined to grant an interlocutory injunction preventing the enforcement of conditions on a liquor licence.

The applicant also sought to admit fresh evidence.

The court dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence, finding it would not have affected the outcome.

Applying the Housen standard of review, the court found the single judge made no error in applying the RJR-MacDonald test for interlocutory injunctive relief.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought an interim injunction to stay conditions on a liquor licence that barred him from any connection with the licensed business, pending the hearing of his application.

The licensee had previously consented to these conditions.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the conditions due to the applicant's past history of non-compliance with liquor licensing laws.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Toronto Licensing Tribunal decision revoking their tow truck operator licenses.

They argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment when their agent failed to appear, instead allowing two police witnesses to testify in chief.

The majority of the Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the agent's subsequent refusal to cross-examine the witnesses and the Tribunal's overall fair conduct cured any initial prejudice.

A dissenting judge would have ordered a new hearing, finding the initial refusal to adjourn and the admission of highly prejudicial, uninterrupted testimony fundamentally unfair.