Hannah Shaikh

The respondent in a judicial review application moved to strike an affidavit delivered by the applicants.

The underlying application sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding sexual assault and harassment.

The applicants sought to introduce the affidavit of a forensic psychiatrist to argue the tribunal improperly relied on treating doctors' evidence to bolster the complainant's credibility.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to strike, holding that the proposed evidence was irrelevant to the legal issue of oath helping and did not meet the narrow test for admitting fresh evidence on judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that denied her claim for $100,000 in general damages.

The Tribunal had found that the Ministry's subcontracting rules under the Ontario Disability Support Program discriminated against the applicant based on her disability.

However, applying the Mackin rule, the Tribunal held that damages were not available because the government's conduct in applying the policy was not clearly wrong, in bad faith, or an abuse of power.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal's application of the Mackin rule to the policy directive and its conclusion that no exceptions applied were reasonable.

The applicant sought to withdraw her human rights application on the morning of the first scheduled day of hearing.

The respondent requested costs and a declaration that the applicant was a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal found insufficient grounds for a vexatious litigant declaration but noted the significant wasted resources and prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the application on the terms that the applicant is barred from filing future related applications against the respondent and that the allegations are declared unsubstantiated.