Jason Tam

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 applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination by an Employment Standards Officer who investigated his employment standards claim.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the outcome of the applicant's appeal to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Despite opposition from both parties, the Tribunal ordered the deferral, finding significant overlap between the proceedings and a risk of inconsistent findings if both proceeded concurrently.

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.

The complainant, a software sales representative, alleged discrimination on the basis of sex in employment and reprisal after she discovered male colleagues were paid significantly more than her.

When she raised concerns about equal pay, the company's controller warned her that she would be fired 'on the spot' if head office found out she was talking about the law requiring equal pay.

The Tribunal found this constituted a threat of reprisal and created a poisoned work environment.

The Tribunal also found the employer failed to adequately investigate her complaints of discrimination.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations of discriminatory compensation, finding the pay differences were justified by the male colleagues' greater experience in enterprise sales, higher quotas, and tenure.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim that her termination was discriminatory or a reprisal, accepting the employer's explanation that she was terminated during a restructuring because she refused to relocate to Ottawa, where the majority of her accounts were located.

The complainant was awarded $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.