John Sanders

The applicant alleged that the respondent breached the terms of a settlement agreement regarding its parallel transit system.

The applicant claimed the respondent failed to properly implement a human telephone line, improve communication policies, and conduct required service analyses.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had complied with the settlement terms, including providing a live person for bookings, reviewing communication policies, and tabling reports on accessibility compliance.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging that a municipal zoning by-law discriminated against them on the basis of disability and age by threatening the operation of an adult day care business.

The parties requested that the two applications be consolidated, which the Tribunal granted given the common factual and legal issues.

The respondent also requested that the applications be deferred pending the outcome of an application to amend the zoning by-law.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the amendment process would not address the monetary and public interest remedies sought, nor would it determine whether the by-law violated the Human Rights Code.

The appellant appealed an order determining that proceeding by way of application was inappropriate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the order was procedural and interlocutory, as it did not finally determine any substantive issue.

The court noted it only has jurisdiction over final orders, and the dismissal was without prejudice to the appellant pursuing remedies in the Divisional Court.