Dr. Grace-Edward Galabuzi

The plaintiffs, representing Ottawa taxi plate holders and brokers, brought a class action against the City of Ottawa for its response to Uber's entry into the local market in 2014.

The court found that the City owed a duty of care to the taxi industry based on a long-standing, collaborative relationship and was negligent in failing to enforce its 2012 taxi by-law against Uber.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims that the City's actions violated section 15 of the Charter or the Human Rights Code, finding no disproportionate discriminatory impact based on race or immigrant status.

The court also dismissed the claim that the City's taxi licensing fees constituted an unlawful tax, finding a reasonable nexus between the fees and the cost of services provided.

The appellants, who were refugee claimants during the relevant periods, appealed the Minister's denial of the Canada Child Benefit (CCB).

They argued that refugee claimants fall within the definition of 'temporary resident' under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and are thus eligible for the CCB.

Alternatively, they argued that excluding refugee claimants from the CCB violates their rights under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, finding that refugee claimants are not temporary residents under the legislation.

The Court also held that the denial of the CCB did not violate section 7, as it did not deprive the appellants of security of the person in a manner contrary to the principles of fundamental justice, nor did it violate section 15, as refugee claimant status is not an analogous ground and the exclusion did not disproportionately impact racialized women.

The applicants sought to stay an ongoing coroner's inquest into the deaths of a mother and two children in a fire, pending judicial review of the coroner's refusal to expand the scope of the inquest and call certain witnesses regarding social services in the Jane-Finch community.

The Divisional Court applied the RJR MacDonald test and dismissed the motion for a stay, finding no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured completing the inquest.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination and reprisals by her union.

In an interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary issues.

The adjudicator ruled that the scope of the application was limited to the allegations raised in the original complaint and could not include post-complaint events without a formal amendment.

Two personal respondents were removed on consent after the union accepted vicarious liability, while a third remained due to specific allegations against him.

The Tribunal also made case management directions regarding the order of evidence and required the parties to provide detailed witness statements.