Jennifer Elizabeth Birrell

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application for judicial review, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court rejected the applicant's argument that he was a public interest litigant and applied the presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs.

Costs were fixed in favour of the respondent on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $15,000 all-inclusive.

The applicant, a high school student, sought judicial review of a school board committee's decision upholding his 20-day suspension and subsequent exclusion orders.

The discipline was imposed after the applicant made derogatory and harassing comments regarding transgender students, which he claimed were expressions of his sincerely held religious beliefs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the committee's decision reasonable as it appropriately balanced the applicant's freedom of religion with the school's statutory duty to maintain a safe environment free from bullying and harassment.

A 17-year-old student, Josh Alexander, sought to appeal suspension and exclusion decisions by his school principal to the Renfrew County Catholic District School Board.

The Education Act requires a parent or guardian to appeal for a student of his age unless the student has withdrawn from parental control.

Josh asserted he had withdrawn from parental control, a position supported by his parents, but the School Board refused him standing, citing insufficient objective evidence.

The court found that Josh Alexander had indeed withdrawn from parental control as of December 22, 2022, and therefore had the necessary standing to advance his appeals to the School Board.

The decision clarified that financial independence is not a prerequisite for withdrawal from parental control, especially when parents voluntarily continue to support their independent adult children.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaints of reprisal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The applicant alleged his employment was terminated because he took personal emergency leave and made a harassment complaint.

The Board found the termination was solely due to ongoing performance issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board applied the correct legal test for reprisal, reasonably assessed the evidence, and did not deny the applicant procedural fairness in its evidentiary rulings.

In an interim decision regarding case management issues, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce supporting documentation for various bank deposits and to clarify the status of her bank accounts.

The Tribunal also permitted the applicant's treating physician to testify, noting he was not being called as an expert, but ordered the applicant to immediately produce the physician's medical records to the respondent to prevent trial by ambush.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed two requests for orders during proceedings.

The respondent sought production of the applicant's personal bank records and other financial documents related to her loss of wages claim, arguing they were arguably relevant due to inconsistencies in her reported income from a personal business.

The Tribunal granted this request, ordering the applicant to produce the records.

The applicant sought to amend her application to include a claim for $30,000 in general damages and pre- and post-judgment interest, having initially filed as a self-represented litigant.

The Tribunal allowed the amendment, finding it would not prejudice the respondent or affect the course of the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability following his demotion from a head caretaker position and an ongoing failure to accommodate his physical restrictions.

The respondent requested early dismissal of the application on the basis that it was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the demotion was a discrete event that did not form part of a series of incidents with the subsequent alleged failures to accommodate, and dismissed the allegations regarding the demotion as untimely.

However, the Tribunal allowed the timely allegations of ongoing failure to accommodate to proceed, while ordering the applicant to provide further particulars regarding those claims.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after his employment was terminated.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for three weeks' pay.

The applicant argued he did not understand the release due to limited literacy and signed it under economic duress.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had sufficient opportunity to review the release, understood its terms when he cashed the settlement cheque, and was not subjected to economic duress or coercion.

The Tribunal upheld the release and dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant, a labour relations officer, sought an interim remedy exempting him from travel to accommodate his family status, citing his spouse's high-risk pregnancy and their special needs child.

The respondent union requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending an ongoing grievance process under the collective agreement.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting the availability of expedited arbitration under the Labour Relations Act, and declined to grant interim relief while the matter was deferred.

The Union filed a policy grievance regarding the employer's use of non-bargaining unit agency personnel to perform bargaining unit work.

The arbitrator found that the arrangement constituted 'contracting in' rather than 'contracting out', and that the collective agreement contained an implied term prohibiting the use of agency workers in this manner for longer than two weeks.

The Divisional Court set aside the award on judicial review, finding it patently unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Union's appeal, holding that the arbitrator did not exceed his jurisdiction and that his interpretation of the collective agreement was not patently unreasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitral decision regarding a policy grievance on contracting out.

The arbitrator found that a worker provided by an agency was not an employee of the applicant, but nevertheless concluded by analogy that the worker could not work for the applicant for more than two weeks under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, finding that the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction and effectively amended the collective agreement by creating a third class of worker.

The court held the decision was patently unreasonable as it conflicted with the express provision allowing contracting out.

The applicant union filed a complaint alleging the school board contravened the strike replacement provisions of the Labour Relations Act by planning to use regular teachers to perform the work of occasional teachers during a threatened strike.

The strike was averted when a collective agreement was reached.

The school board argued the complaint was moot and requested the Board decline to inquire into it.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, exercising its discretion under section 91 of the Act to refuse to render an advisory opinion on a hypothetical scenario where the concrete dispute had disappeared.