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The Education Act requires a parent or guardian to appeal for a student of his age unless the student has withdrawn from parental control.

Josh asserted he had withdrawn from parental control, a position supported by his parents, but the School Board refused him standing, citing insufficient objective evidence.

The court found that Josh Alexander had indeed withdrawn from parental control as of December 22, 2022, and therefore had the necessary standing to advance his appeals to the School Board.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