Dr. Michael Ornstein

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 complainants, two young black individuals, alleged discrimination in accommodation on the basis of age and colour after their rental application was rejected.

The rejection was based on their failure to meet a 33% rent-to-income ratio and a requirement for permanent employment.

The Board of Inquiry found that the use of rent-to-income ratios and minimum job tenure criteria adversely impacted young persons and visible minorities, constituting discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

Although the corporate landlord was vicariously liable, the Board declined to order damages because the complainants had already settled with one of the corporate partners and the proper landlord entity was not named as a respondent.

The Board ordered the property manager to cease using rent-to-income ratios and permanent employment requirements.

Three complainants alleged that the respondent landlords discriminated against them by using minimum income criteria and rent-to-income ratios to deny them rental accommodation.

The Ontario Board of Inquiry found that the use of these criteria constitutes adverse effect discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status, family status, age, citizenship, place of origin, and receipt of public assistance.

The Board held that the landlords failed to establish that the income criteria were reasonable and bona fide, as there was no empirical evidence showing that rent-to-income ratios accurately predict a tenant's likelihood of defaulting on rent.

The Board ordered the landlords to cease using income criteria and awarded general and specific damages to the complainants.