Emily Shepard

The self-represented applicant sought an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of a decision by Legal Aid Ontario denying him duty counsel services and issuing a legal aid certificate instead.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the underlying application lacked apparent grounds for relief because the decision was not of a sufficiently public character to attract judicial review.

The court found that the applicant met the test for an extension, noting the minimal delay, lack of prejudice, reasonable explanation for the delay due to filing portal issues, and the existence of apparent grounds for relief.

The motion for an extension of time was granted.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by European Bakery Supply Inc. against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a two-tower mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted party status to three entities (Royce, Campont, and PSKRA) and participant status to one unincorporated community group (Garden).

A 10-day hearing was scheduled for May 2025, and the parties were directed to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant filed two Requests for an Order During Proceedings, seeking an order compelling the respondents to produce their arguably relevant documents and an order anonymizing her name in all decisions.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce the documents by a specified deadline, failing which they may be barred from calling witnesses or presenting evidence.

The Tribunal also granted the anonymization request, finding that the applicant's allegations of workplace sexual assault and harassment, combined with her history of sexual abuse and resulting mental health issues, constituted exceptional circumstances justifying the protection of her identity.

The applicant requested hearing accommodations, specifically to testify via videoconference from a separate room due to major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder allegedly resulting from the personal respondent's actions.

The respondents objected, arguing the disability was not conclusively linked to the allegations and emphasizing the need for in-person testimony for credibility assessment.

The Tribunal granted the accommodation, finding sufficient medical evidence supported the request and noting that the accommodation was required for Code-related needs regardless of whether the allegations were ultimately proven.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested orders to amend her application to increase the monetary remedy sought from $50,000 to $200,000, and for hearing accommodations including testifying via video from a separate room and having a support person present.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the hearing.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's requests, finding no prejudice to the respondents in the amendment and sufficient medical evidence to support the accommodations.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify delaying the scheduled hearing.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found the respondent school board discriminated against him but denied his request for special damages to cover the $144,559.42 cost of his private residential school education.

The applicant argued the Tribunal's decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and involved a matter of public importance.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant was attempting to re-argue the case and had not established any new, compelling, or extraordinary facts, nor any conflict with established jurisprudence, to justify reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant, a student with multiple disabilities including learning disabilities, ADHD, and anxiety, alleged that the Toronto District School Board discriminated against him by failing to accommodate his disability-related needs to the point of undue hardship.

The applicant sought funding for a private residential school placement with a focus on elite sports, arguing it was necessary for his accommodation.

The Tribunal found that while providing a residential school placement is outside the school board's legislated mandate, the board nevertheless failed to accommodate the applicant during his Grade 9 year by delaying or failing to provide available supports such as social work, attendance counselling, and alternative placement discussions.

The Tribunal awarded $35,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, but denied compensation for the private school tuition.

The applicant requested to reactivate, bifurcate, and consolidate two deferred human rights applications against the respondents.

The first application alleged discrimination based on disability and ethnic origin, while the second alleged reprisals.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the applications due to anticipated delays in the applicant's related WSIAT appeal.

The Tribunal denied the request to bifurcate the issues, finding it would complicate the proceedings.

However, the Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the applications, concluding that the public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings and the presence of common issues outweighed any potential prejudice to the individual respondent.

The applicant requested an interim order for summary judgement or partial summary judgement in his favour before the respondent had presented its evidence.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal's Rule 19A and the principles of proportionality from the Rules of Civil Procedure supported granting summary judgement.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that Rule 19A provides for summary hearings to dismiss applications with no reasonable prospect of success, but does not grant the power to issue summary judgement in favour of an applicant without hearing the respondent's case.

Doing so would violate section 43 of the Human Rights Code and basic principles of procedural fairness.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging discrimination based on disability brought two requests for orders during proceedings.

First, the applicant sought to admit the testimony of a former NHL player as an expert in the lived experience of anxiety-based mental illness.

The Tribunal denied this request, finding the proposed witness did not meet the Mohan criteria for expert evidence, as his personal experiences were not directly relevant to the applicant's specific educational context and did not qualify him to give opinion evidence.

Second, the applicant requested the disclosure of two letters written by his teachers to a private boarding school.

The Tribunal declined to order production because the respondent could not locate the documents, noting the applicant could question the teachers at the hearing or seek to introduce the letters later if obtained from the boarding school.

In an application alleging discrimination in educational services based on disability, the applicant sought an interim order to limit evidence regarding the parent's pursuit of medical treatment for the student and whether the parent prevented the school board from accommodating the student.

The Tribunal ordered that evidence regarding the lack of medical treatment or residential psychiatric programs be excluded, as the duty to accommodate exists regardless of such treatment.

However, the Tribunal declined to exclude evidence that the parent prevented accommodation, noting that some accommodations require parental consent.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to comply with Rule 5.7 regarding the late disclosure of additional documents.

The respondent school board brought a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking the production of the applicant's medical records from various health practitioners and institutions, as well as records relating to a disability credit application.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing that some records fell outside the relevant time frame and raising privacy concerns.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce disability-related diagnostic and assessment records from 2005 to the date the applicant left the school board, finding them arguably relevant to the issue of accommodation.

The Tribunal declined to order the production of treatment records or disability credit application documents.