Jason Tam

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination complaint against PayPal.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on ethnic origin, place of residence, and citizenship after PayPal refused to issue him a cheque in US dollars upon closing his Canadian account.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal reasonably concluded that the essence of the complaint was based on residence, which is not an enumerated ground under the Human Rights Code.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness.

The applicant sought judicial review of two HRTO decisions regarding the interpretation of a release signed to settle a human rights complaint against the police.

The HRTO had ruled that the release also covered an earlier, separate human rights complaint that was under reserve, and subsequently set aside its merits decision in that earlier complaint.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's interpretation of the release unreasonable, as it failed to properly consider the factual matrix and ambiguity in the settlement documents.

The court set aside both HRTO decisions, concluding the release did not apply to the earlier complaint.

The respondent applied to the University of Waterloo as a transfer student but did not meet the academic standards due to prior grades affected by undiagnosed disabilities.

The University's Admissions Committee rejected his application based solely on those unaccommodated grades.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed his discrimination complaint, finding the University met its duty to accommodate.

The Divisional Court set aside the HRTO decision as unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's finding that the HRTO decision was unreasonable, as the University could not rely solely on unaccommodated grades to demonstrate reasonable accommodation, but varied the remedy to remit the matter back to the HRTO rather than the Admissions Committee.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions dismissing her application against her employer for alleged disability discrimination.

The Tribunal had found that the employer's actions, including placing the applicant on administrative leave, requesting an independent medical examination, and transferring her to another school, were not discriminatory and did not breach the duty to accommodate.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review, finding that the Tribunal's factual conclusions were supported by the evidence and that the applicant was improperly seeking to have the court reweigh the evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed her complaint against her union, the Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA).

The applicant alleged the ONA failed in its duty to accommodate her disability.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair, as neither the employer nor the union knew of the disability prior to termination, and the employer subsequently refused to consider reinstatement.

The court confirmed that a union cannot be found to impede accommodation efforts when the employer makes no such efforts.

The self-represented applicant objected to the form and content of a draft order reflecting a previous panel decision, arguing that the costs were unreasonable, seeking a grace period for payment, and disputing the interest rate.

The court dismissed the objections, noting that the quantum of costs had already been decided, the panel did not grant a deferral, and the 2.0% post-judgment interest rate was correct under the Courts of Justice Act.

The draft order was approved as to form and content.

The applicant sought judicial review of three decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing her application against her former employer for alleged discrimination in denying her tenure and terminating her employment.

The Tribunal had directed the matter to a preliminary and summary hearing, ultimately dismissing the claims for delay and for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal's procedures were fair and its decisions were reasonable.

The court declined to consider new Charter and negligence claims raised for the first time on judicial review.

The appellant tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal due to substantial rent arrears.

Prior to the hearing, the tenant withdrew his appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as abandoned, lifted the stay of the eviction order, and fixed outstanding rent at $10,710.17.

The court also added the new purchaser of the property as a respondent landlord to ensure vacant possession could be enforced.

Costs of $4,000 were awarded to the respondent.

A case management teleconference was held to set the schedule and procedural directions for an application for judicial review of decisions by the human rights tribunal.

The court provided directions for a virtual videoconference hearing, document filing via a drop box, and deadlines for serving materials.

The Ministry of Health applied for judicial review of decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario finding that the Ministry engaged in systemic gender discrimination in setting compensation for midwives.

The Tribunal found that the Ministry had abandoned historical compensation principles that aligned midwives with community health centre physicians, leading to an inequitable compensation gap.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's findings of adverse treatment and the connection to sex were reasonable.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's remedial orders, which included a 20% retroactive compensation increase and $7,500 per eligible midwife for injury to dignity.

A case management conference was held to schedule an application for judicial review of two decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The court set a hearing date of August 6, 2020, by videoconference, and provided detailed directions for the filing of materials, including the use of an electronic drop box, hyperlinked factums, and compendiums.

The applicant, an OPP Sergeant, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding findings of misconduct for writing a letter to a newspaper criticizing a helicopter relocation.

The applicant argued the Hearing Officer was biased and erred in denying a disclosure motion, which prevented him from establishing a whistleblower defence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and agreeing with the Commission that the whistleblower defence failed because the applicant did not first raise his concerns internally with his chain of command.

The applicant, an off-duty police officer, spoke at a conference in favour of cannabis legalization despite being ordered not to attend or speak.

He was convicted of insubordination and discreditable conduct.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission revoked the discreditable conduct conviction but upheld the insubordination conviction, finding the order was lawful under s. 49 of the Police Services Act.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court found the Commission's decision unreasonable because it failed to consider s. 80(2) of the Act, which requires a connection between off-duty conduct and the occupational requirements or reputation of the police force.

Given the Commission's findings on the discreditable conduct charge, the court concluded the s. 80(2) test could not be met and revoked the insubordination conviction.

A case management endorsement setting out the procedure for an upcoming virtual hearing before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court provided directions on electronic filings, videoconferencing protocols, and public access.

The applicant's motion to stay the impugned decision was adjourned to the panel, with the court declining the respondent's request to adjourn it to a single judge after the hearing.

A case management endorsement providing directions for an upcoming virtual hearing before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court outlined procedures for videoconferencing, electronic filing of materials, and the format of the hearing.

The court also directed that Ontario's motion to stay the impugned decision be adjourned to the panel hearing the application, rather than being heard by a single judge.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating their tenancy based on an N11 agreement.

The tenants argued the written agreement was subject to an oral side agreement allowing them to stay until the house was sold.

The Board upheld the eviction without making factual findings about the side agreement or explaining its legal consequences.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board's failure to provide reasons or consider the real substance of the transaction under section 202(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act rendered the decision unreasonable and incapable of meaningful review.

The matter was remitted to a different Board member.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board review order that upheld his eviction for the landlord's own use.

The tenant argued the LTB failed to properly consider relief from eviction under s. 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act, breached procedural fairness by having the same member review her own decision, and exhibited bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law, no breach of procedural fairness, and no reasonable apprehension of bias on the record.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding them liable for sexual harassment and creating a poisoned work environment, and ordering them to pay $200,000 to the respondent.

The applicants argued the Vice-Chair's approach to credibility was unreasonable and procedurally unfair, particularly regarding the respondent's memory issues and the use of expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Vice-Chair's credibility assessments were reasonable, did not improperly rely on oath-helping, and did not subject the applicant's evidence to unequal scrutiny.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding them liable for sex discrimination, a poisoned work environment, and reprisal.

The Tribunal had awarded the respondent $30,000 in general damages after she was terminated for complaining about sexualized comments and conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the adjudicator's factual findings, damages award, and treatment of the incidents as a continuous series were reasonable.

The court also rejected the argument that the adjudicator's partial reproduction of the respondent's submissions compromised his independence.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario that summarily dismissed his application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and reprisal by a retail store.

The Tribunal had found no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant failed to point to evidence establishing a link between the store's actions and his race or colour.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal's decisions were transparent, intelligible, and fell within the range of reasonable outcomes.