Farah Malik

The applicant, a firefighter, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming that the strict application of the collective agreement prevented him from achieving the rank of Captain in the Operations Division.

Due to a disability, the applicant had transferred to the Training Division in 2000.

Under the collective agreement, candidates for Captain in Operations required two years of recent service in Operations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not forced to transfer out of Operations and ought to have reasonably known or inquired about his potential to remain in Operations indefinitely while being accommodated.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination and dismissed the applications.

In an application challenging the constitutionality of section 10(5) of the Coroners Act for not mandating inquests into the deaths of migrant farm workers, the adjudicator issued interim procedural rulings.

The adjudicator ruled that expert witnesses would affirm their reports without a prior voir dire, with qualifications and weight to be argued in final submissions.

The adjudicator also admitted document briefs into evidence without requiring witnesses to formally identify each document.

Finally, the adjudicator denied the applicant's request to call reply evidence regarding the causes of heart attacks among migrant workers, finding that such evidence should have been led in the case in chief.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal against her employer and a personal respondent.

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondent, accepting vicarious liability for her actions.

The applicant consented to the removal.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the personal respondent and directed the parties to schedule mediation.

The applicant, a racialized woman, alleged discrimination in employment by the respondent on the basis of sex, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

She claimed she was subjected to differential treatment, including a heavier workload, removal of files, excessive scrutiny, and racially insensitive comments by her supervisor, which ultimately led to her resignation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as there was no evidence that her sex or race were factors in the respondent's actions.

The application was dismissed.

In an ongoing human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services, the Tribunal previously ordered the applicant to produce a recording of his arrest or file submissions opposing its production.

The applicant was unable to comply with the original time limit.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision granting an extension, ordering the applicant to provide a copy of the recording or written submissions explaining his opposition by April 19, 2013.

In an ongoing human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services, the Tribunal addressed the production of a recording of the applicant's arrest.

The recording was in the possession of the applicant's criminal counsel, not the respondent police services board.

With the respondents' consent and the Crown indicating no objection to the use of police-generated materials where the police are defending themselves, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to obtain and produce the recording to the respondents.

The respondents in a human rights application sought an order permitting them to access, use, and disclose the applicant's personal health information contained in the employer's Occupational Health and Claims Management files to potential witnesses in order to prepare their Response.

The applicant consented to disclosure to the respondents and their counsel but objected to disclosure to potential witnesses.

The Tribunal held that under the Personal Health Information Protection Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act, disclosure to potential witnesses is permissible for the purpose of participating in a proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the request subject to strict confidentiality requirements, granted a 35-day extension to file the Response, and ordered the respondents to provide the applicant with copies of the disclosed documents, subject to redactions for privilege.

The applicant requested an order to permit three medical witnesses to testify by telephone conference during the upcoming hearing.

The respondents opposed the request, citing a lack of detailed witness statements and insufficient time for cross-examination.

The Tribunal granted the request but ordered the applicant to provide detailed witness statements in advance, which the witnesses will adopt as their evidence-in-chief, to ensure the respondents have adequate time for cross-examination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondents failed to accommodate his disabilities by refusing his requests to transfer to a ground floor unit in 2008 and 2010.

The applicant brought a request for an order during proceedings seeking production of redacted tenancy agreements and waiting lists.

The Tribunal declined to order production, accepting the respondents' representation that the documents had already been produced or no longer existed.

The Tribunal also noted that the 2008 allegations appeared to be outside the one-year time limit under the Human Rights Code and ordered the parties to provide written submissions on timeliness prior to the hearing.

The applicant, a 64-year-old occasional teacher, alleged that the respondent school board discriminated against her on the basis of age when she was unsuccessful in five separate job competitions for permanent contract teaching positions.

In each case, the successful candidate was significantly younger and had less teaching experience.

The Tribunal found that the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination.

However, the respondent provided credible, non-discriminatory reasons for its hiring decisions, demonstrating that the applicant was either outperformed in the interviews or received a poor reference.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant, a Research Scientist at Laurentian University, alleged that the University discriminated against her on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, and sex, and engaged in reprisal, when it closed the Central Analytical Facility (CAF) liquid phase and did not renew her contract.

The Tribunal found that the decision to close the facility was based on legitimate financial and program concerns, including the need for significant investment to upgrade equipment and an accreditation review, rather than discriminatory reasons.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents in a human rights application filed a Request for Order during Proceeding seeking production of the applicant's business and financial records to assess his efforts to mitigate damages following the termination of his employment.

The applicant resisted, arguing that his business and rental income were separate from his claim for lost employment income and that the businesses were not parties to the proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the documents were arguably relevant to the calculation of damages and mitigation, and ordered the applicant to produce the requested records within 30 days.

The complainant, a nurse with clinical depression and fibromyalgia, filed a human rights complaint alleging the College of Nurses of Ontario discriminated against her by placing conditions on her certificates of registration.

The College brought a request to dismiss the complaint under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) had already appropriately dealt with the substance of the complaint, and that the complaint was an abuse of process.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that HPARB failed to appropriately apply human rights principles, specifically the duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship as set out in Meiorin, and failed to address the issue of adverse impact discrimination.

The Tribunal also rejected the College's arguments regarding adjudicative immunity, deliberative secrecy, collateral attack, and lack of jurisdiction, allowing the complaint to proceed on its merits.

The respondents brought motions to quash the appellant's appeal from an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal granted the motions and quashed the appeal, finding that the appellant had appealed to the wrong court.

The proper appeal route was to a panel of the Divisional Court on a motion under section 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The self-represented appellant purported to appeal a costs-only order following the dismissal of his underlying action.

The Court of Appeal held that there is no right of appeal from a costs order and that leave is required.

Treating the materials as an application for leave to appeal costs, the Court refused leave and awarded costs of $1,000 to each of the four responding groups.

The moving party sought to set aside three orders made by the Deputy Registrar dismissing his appeals for failing to perfect them.

The underlying orders had struck out the moving party's claims against various defendants, including the Ontario Human Rights Commission, former employers, and their lawyers, for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motions, finding that the moving party's delay contributed to the failure to perfect and that the proposed appeals had no reasonable prospect of success, as the OHRC cannot be sued, responses to OHRC complaints are protected by absolute privilege, and the pleadings failed to disclose known causes of action.

The applicant sought to add Southwire Canada Company, Gentoma Company, and Gentek Inc. as respondents to his human rights complaint, arguing they were successor corporations to his former employer, Noma Cable Tech Ltd. The Tribunal declined to add Southwire, finding it was a complete stranger to the complaint and had purchased assets months after the applicant's termination.

Regarding Gentoma and Gentek, the Tribunal ordered them to provide affidavits detailing their legal relationships with Noma Cable before deciding whether they should be added.

The applicants, children attending private faith-based schools, challenged Ontario's failure to provide them with special education benefits available in public schools.

They argued this exclusion violated their freedom of religion and equality rights under the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Supreme Court's decision in Adler v. Ontario foreclosed the freedom of religion claim.

The court also held that the challenged regulation, O. Reg. 386/99, which provides some health services to private school students, is an ameliorative program under s. 15(2) of the Charter and does not discriminate on the basis of disability.

A secondary claim seeking language therapy under the regulation was also dismissed, with the court finding a rational basis for the province's distinction between speech and language disorders.

The appellant's son was killed when his bicycle collided with the respondents' motor vehicle.

At trial, the jury dismissed the action, finding no negligence on the part of the respondents.

The appellant appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury regarding the reverse onus under s. 193(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge's instructions on the onus of proof were contradictory and confusing, which constituted a substantial wrong.