J. Paul R. Howard

The applicants sought an injunction to prevent the closure of the only public secondary school in Niagara-on-the-Lake, pending an application for judicial review of the school board's decision.

The court dismissed the motion primarily due to the applicants' two-year delay in bringing the proceeding.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court found no strong prima facie case, as the board's administrative decision was procedurally fair and reasonable.

Furthermore, the applicants failed to establish irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience heavily favoured the board, which had already completed complex logistical arrangements to relocate students and staff.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of a decision by the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers ordering the production of documents.

The documents, which contained confidential legal advice, had been inadvertently disclosed to the College by a secretary employed by the board.

The Divisional Court granted the application, holding that the secretary lacked authority to waive solicitor-client privilege and that the privilege should be upheld.

The court ordered the return of the documents and the reconstitution of the prosecutorial function with a different prosecutor.

The appellant appealed the remedy decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario regarding a finding of employment discrimination.

The respondent cross-appealed the quantum of damages and the award of legal costs.

The appellant also brought a constitutional challenge arguing that s. 41(4) of the Human Rights Code, which allows costs to be awarded to respondents but not complainants, violated ss. 7 and 15(1) of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the constitutional challenge, finding that economic interests are not protected under s. 7 and that complainants do not constitute an analogous group under s. 15(1).

The court upheld the Tribunal's findings on lost income and interest but allowed the cross-appeal in part, reducing the general damages award from $35,000 to $25,000 because the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to include $10,000 for legal costs under s. 41(1)(b).

The applicant school board brought a motion to exclude the public, specifically the requester, from the hearing of an application involving sealed materials.

The applicant argued that the requester's presence would render the application moot by revealing the subject matter and that referring to sealed materials without reading them would inhibit counsel's effectiveness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that the normal practice of referring the court to sealed materials without reading them aloud is sufficient and does not inhibit counsel.

The court emphasized that access to the court is a super-ordinate value under s. 135 of the Courts of Justice Act and there was no serious risk of injustice.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an adjudicator's decision ordering the disclosure of records concerning a student's behaviour to the student's father.

The board argued the records were exempt under s. 13 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, claiming disclosure could reasonably be expected to seriously threaten the safety or health of an individual.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it was not unreasonable for the adjudicator to conclude the board failed to discharge its burden of proof, given the lack of evidence of threatening behaviour by the father or psychiatric evidence regarding the son's propensity to carry out past threats.

The applicants sought an interim mandatory order requiring the Toronto District School Board to maintain Yifat Barmapov as the Special Needs Assistant for Carly Fleischmann, a child with severe autism, pending a judicial review application.

The applicants argued that replacing the assistant without a transition plan and without ensuring the replacement had Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) training would cause irreparable harm.

The court found a strong prima facie case that the Board's actions conflicted with its duties under the Education Act to consult with parents on the Individual Education Plan.

The court granted the interim order, finding that the balance of convenience favoured the applicants and that the child would suffer irreparable harm if the assistant was replaced.