Jennifer Zdriluk

The applicant sought judicial review of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario's decision declining to reactivate her application after a workplace grievance was withdrawn.

The Tribunal found she failed to provide a reasonable explanation for her delay in requesting reactivation, as her medical evidence did not establish she was prevented from pursuing her legal rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable, its assessment of the medical evidence entitled to deference, and no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant tennis association sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding it discriminated against women by offering twice as many playing spots to men in its mixed league.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the standard of review for HRTO decisions remains reasonableness post-Vavilov.

The Court found the HRTO reasonably concluded the respondents had standing, the applications were timely, and the applicant failed to establish undue hardship in implementing a gender-equal format.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding his employer breached its procedural duty to accommodate his disability but awarding only $5,000 in general damages.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred by considering seniority rights and a WSIB incentive program in its accommodation analysis, and by failing to award lost wages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's findings on the duty to accommodate and its remedial order were reasonable given the evidentiary record.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which had refused to dismiss a human rights application early.

The underlying human rights application alleged discrimination and failure to accommodate related to a student's expulsion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review as premature, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify interfering with an ongoing tribunal proceeding.

The court distinguished a previous case, noting there was no risk of inconsistent findings, no broad principle at stake, and the judicial review had caused delay.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his application as abandoned for failing to comply with pre-hearing disclosure requirements.

The adjudicator discovered that an extension had previously been granted but not recorded in the file.

The respondent consented to the reconsideration.

The Tribunal granted the Request for Reconsideration and ordered the matter to proceed to mediation or hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a school and an individual teacher, alleging discrimination based on disability.

The respondents requested the removal of the individual teacher as a party.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no compelling reason to keep the individual as a respondent since the school board accepted liability for its employee's actions and there was no issue regarding its ability to remedy any potential Code infringement.

The Tribunal also amended the style of cause to name the school board as the proper organizational respondent.

The respondents requested to defer a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, arguing that concurrent proceedings were ongoing before the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario and the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development.

The Ministry file was closed, leaving only the College proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, finding that the College complaint was only at the initial investigation stage and that section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 creates an absolute statutory privilege preventing any findings from the College proceeding from being admitted in the Tribunal proceeding.

The appellant School Board appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario's finding that it failed to accommodate the respondent employee's disability and ordering her reinstatement.

The employee had developed a psychiatric impairment due to the stress of her position and was unable to return to her previous role.

The Tribunal found that the School Board failed to accommodate her by not placing her in available alternative positions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decisions on both liability and the remedy of reinstatement were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested permission to file a late Reply and sought an order for early production of documents prior to a scheduled summary hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request to file a late Reply, noting it was early in the process, but adjourned the summary hearing to prevent prejudice to the respondent.

The request for early production was denied as premature, as the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting disclosure before the summary hearing.

The parties jointly requested an order to anonymize the names of the applicant and the individual respondent in the Tribunal's decisions.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the previously released interim decisions contained highly sensitive information about the applicant's mental health.

The Tribunal balanced the public interest in open justice against the sensitive nature of the information and the small size of the academic program at issue.

The matter having been resolved, the Tribunal's file was closed.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested several interim orders, including permission to have the hearing transcribed by a court reporter and a change of venue from London to Toronto as an accommodation for her post-traumatic stress.

The Tribunal granted the request for a court reporter, ordering the applicant to provide transcripts to all parties at her expense.

The Tribunal denied the change of venue request, noting it was made less than a week before the hearing and that other accommodations could be provided in London.

A request for reconsideration of a prior interim decision was also denied as premature.

The respondent, Sharon Fair, brought a motion in writing to amend the Divisional Court's earlier written reasons, alleging clerical errors.

The applicant school board opposed the motion.

The court noted that the applicant had already obtained leave to appeal the judgment to the Court of Appeal.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that even if it had jurisdiction to amend its reasons, it would be unseemly to do so while an appeal was pending, and that justice would be better served by leaving the determination of any errors to the Court of Appeal.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions finding it discriminated against an employee by failing to accommodate her disability and ordering her reinstatement with damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decisions on liability and remedy were reasonable and amply supported by the evidence.

The Court also rejected the applicant's arguments regarding procedural fairness and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add a personal respondent and to amend the application to include the social area of contract.

The corporate respondent had asserted that it only had contractual dealings with the applicant, not an employment relationship.

Given the lack of a substantive response from the respondents regarding the roles played by the corporate and proposed personal respondents, the Tribunal found it appropriate to add the personal respondent.

The Tribunal also permitted the amendment to add the ground of contract given the early stage of the proceeding.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent breached the Minutes of Settlement from a previous human rights complaint.

The applicant claimed the respondent's employees made disparaging remarks, falsely stated she was terminated, and disclosed the settlement amount.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the Minutes of Settlement only imposed confidentiality and non-disparagement obligations on the applicant, not the respondent, and the resignation clause did not prevent the respondent from stating she was terminated.

The applicant, a taxi driver, alleged employment discrimination based on race and origin against the respondent cab company.

In this interim decision, the applicant requested an extension of time, an ocular inspection of the dispatch system, and the production of various documents.

The Tribunal denied the extension of time for lack of explanation, deferred the ocular inspection request to the hearing, and denied the document production request because the respondent did not possess or control the requested records.

The organizational and individual respondents filed a request to remove the individual respondent from the human rights proceeding.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Persaud v. Toronto District School Board and found that the allegations against the individual respondent were central to the applicant's claim of discrimination and sexual solicitation.

The Tribunal concluded that if an infringement is found, it may be appropriate to make an order against the individual respondent personally.

The request to remove the individual respondent was dismissed.