Jennifer Hunter

The applicant, a 19-year-old man with a developmental disability and mental health issues, alleged that the respondent emergency room physician discriminated against him by failing to perform a physical examination before referring him to a crisis team.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not point to any evidence beyond mere speculation that his disability was a factor in the respondent's medical decisions.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The tenants brought an application for judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board consent order.

The tenants had previously agreed to vacate the premises by a specified date in exchange for the landlords waiving $3,500 in rent arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the record inadequate to understand the tribunal proceedings and noting that judicial review is a discretionary, equitable remedy.

The court held it would be inequitable to grant relief because the consent order substantially reflected the tenants' agreement.

The respondent physician requested that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario defer the applicant's discrimination application because a concurrent complaint based on the same facts was pending before the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act creates an absolute statutory privilege that prevents the disclosure of CPSO findings in a civil proceeding like a Tribunal application.

Consequently, the risk of inconsistent findings—a primary rationale for deferral—did not apply.

The 15-year-old applicant child sought a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program under section 124(9) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The child contested four of the five criteria for admission under section 124(2).

The Board found that the child suffered from a mental disorder that grossly impaired his capacity to make reasoned judgments, had caused or threatened bodily harm to others, and that the secure treatment program was the least restrictive method appropriate for his needs.

The application for release was denied.