Jason Tam

The applicant, a former probationary professor, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her discrimination and reprisal application against the university.

The Tribunal had found her application was filed outside the one-year limitation period, calculating the time from the date she was denied tenure rather than her final day of employment or the denial of her grievance.

The Tribunal also dismissed her reprisal claim and denied her request to amend the application.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable, finding that the denial of tenure was the triggering event and that there was no evidence of an intention to retaliate by the university.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing her complaint against the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT), the City of Windsor, and the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The HRTO had dismissed the complaint against the SBT based on adjudicative immunity, and against the other respondents under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding the issues had already been authoritatively decided by the SBT.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the HRTO's decisions were reasonable and that the applicant's proper remedy was to appeal the SBT decision rather than launch a collateral attack via a human rights complaint.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing her human rights complaints against her former employer.

The Tribunal had dismissed the applications as an abuse of process after the applicant and her counsel unilaterally refused to attend the scheduled hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the judicial review, finding no evidence of bias or institutional bias.

The Court held that the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the applications for abuse of process was reasonable and justified given the applicant's deliberate failure to attend the hearing.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario refusing to dismiss a human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent had alleged racial profiling during a traffic stop, an issue previously raised and dismissed in a criminal proceeding before the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court found exceptional circumstances to review the interlocutory decision and held that the Tribunal's decision was unreasonable.

The Tribunal failed to properly apply the principles of issue estoppel and fairness as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada, relying instead on generalized public policy concerns rather than a case-specific analysis.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted to a differently constituted panel.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint that s. 10(5) of the Coroners Act discriminates against migrant farm workers by denying them mandatory inquests into workplace deaths, a benefit extended to mining and construction workers.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal reasonably applied the two-step Kapp test for discrimination and reasonably concluded that the exclusion of migrant farm workers from mandatory inquests did not violate s. 1 of the Human Rights Code, given their lower risk of fatal workplace injury and lesser variety of hazards compared to construction and mining workers.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination claim against a university and a department chair.

The Tribunal had dismissed the application because it was filed more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination, which it determined was the date the applicant was asked to withdraw for academic reasons.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the application as untimely was reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing his discrimination complaint.

He argued the Tribunal unfairly refused to hear three allegations, improperly conducted the hearing by teleconference, and reached an unreasonable decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal reasonably declined to re-litigate allegations already decided in another complainant's hearing, the applicant had agreed to the teleconference format, and the Tribunal's decision was defensible on the facts.

The respondent Director of Employment Standards moved to quash the applicant employer's application for judicial review of four orders to pay, arguing the employer failed to exhaust its statutory remedies under the Employment Standards Act.

The employer argued that the Employment Standards Officer violated principles of natural justice and that it could not afford to pay the ordered amounts into trust as required for a statutory review.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that alleged natural justice violations do not constitute exceptional circumstances to bypass the statutory scheme, and that the employer provided insufficient evidence of financial hardship to justify an exception.

The Crown appealed a sentence appeal decision arising from two workplace safety convictions after a factory worker was seriously injured by falling sheet metal.

The Court of Appeal held that an employer's compliance with a post-accident inspector's order under the Occupational Health and Safety Act is not a mitigating factor where the compliance was statutorily required, because treating it as mitigating would undermine accident prevention and deterrence.

The court further held that there is no jurisdiction to impose concurrent fines for separate OHSA contraventions.

The original fines of $25,000 on each count, totalling $50,000, were reinstated, although no repayment of the earlier refund was ordered.