Eric K. Gillespie

The applicant sought judicial review of the City of Toronto's decision to proceed with the construction of a dedicated streetcar right-of-way on St. Clair Avenue West, arguing it contravened the Planning Act and the Environmental Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court released a short endorsement granting the application and setting aside the City's decision to proceed with the project, with formal reasons to follow.

The court noted the urgency of the matter to avoid wasted construction costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board approving official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a commercial development, including a Wal-Mart, near a spiritual retreat centre.

The moving party argued the Board erred in its treatment of the retreat centre's freedom of religion claims under s. 2(a) of the Charter, specifically regarding the non-physical, spiritual compatibility of the proposed development with the retreat's practices of quiet contemplation.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the competing interests and the application of the Charter to such land use compatibility issues raised questions of province-wide public importance.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to certify a class proceeding against Inco Limited and others for environmental contamination in Port Colborne, as well as the subsequent costs order.

On appeal, the appellant narrowed the claims to real property devaluation, abandoning health impairment claims.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings that the proposed class definition was arbitrary, individual issues would overwhelm common issues, and a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure.

The court also upheld the costs award of $184,332.14 against the appellant, finding no error in the motion judge's application of costs principles under the Class Proceedings Act and the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Environmental Review Tribunal to quash one of their grounds of appeal.

The tribunal had previously granted leave to appeal a Director's order regarding nickel contamination in soil on only one of eight proposed grounds.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the tribunal had the jurisdiction to limit the scope of the appeal to the ground on which leave was granted.

The court also held that the application was premature, as it challenged an interlocutory procedural decision, and that the tribunal's decision was reasonable.

The respondent school board applied for an order of costs against the Ontario Human Rights Commission after several allegations in a human rights complaint were dismissed.

The Board of Inquiry found that while a partial dismissal of a complaint satisfies the jurisdictional pre-condition for awarding costs under s. 41(4) of the Human Rights Code, the dismissed allegations were not trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith.

Furthermore, the Commission's conduct of the case did not cause undue hardship to the respondent.

The application for costs was dismissed.

This is a decision on remedies following a finding that the respondent school boards discriminated against the complainant and subjected him to reprisals in two job competitions.

The Board of Inquiry ordered the successor school boards to pay special damages for wage loss and relocation expenses, general damages for loss of the right to freedom from discrimination, and damages for mental anguish.

The Board also ordered public interest remedies, including the posting of the decision, the development of recruitment policies incorporating reprisal protection, and notice to the complainant of future vacancies.

The complainant brought a motion to amend his human rights complaint to add allegations of reprisal and family status discrimination.

The Commission brought a motion to allow a witness residing in Germany to testify by speaker telephone.

The Board of Inquiry granted both motions.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to amend the complaint as the respondents had adequate notice of the factual issues and would not be prejudiced.

The Board also interpreted section 5.2 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act as permitting parts of a hearing to be conducted electronically, finding that the respondents failed to establish significant prejudice from the witness testifying by telephone.

The respondent school boards brought a motion to rule that the Board of Inquiry Interim Rules of Practice did not apply to the hearing and to quash summonses served on their Directors of Education.

The adjudicator held that the 1994 amendments to the Human Rights Code and the Interim Rules applied because the hearing had been reassigned to a new panel.

The adjudicator set aside the summonses as overly broad but ordered the respondents to disclose specific, arguably relevant documents relating to the disputed job competitions, including minutes of meetings where decisions were made.

The adjudicator rejected the respondents' claim of social privilege over the board minutes and found the claim of solicitor-client privilege premature.