Judith Sidlofsky Stoffman

The applicant, Guelph Taxi, sought an interlocutory injunction to restore its accessible taxi licence pending an application for judicial review of the Police Chief's decision to revoke it.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to provide a proper undertaking as to damages under Rule 40.03, failed to establish irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages, and that the balance of convenience favoured the respondents due to the applicant's delay and public safety concerns.

The applicant, Guelph Taxi Inc., brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restore its accessible taxi cab service license, which had been revoked by the Guelph Chief of Police and upheld by the Guelph Police Services Board.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to provide a proper undertaking as to damages, did not establish irreparable harm that could not be quantified or compensated by damages, and that the balance of convenience favored not granting the injunction, partly due to the applicant's delay and history of by-law infractions.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination with respect to services by the respondents.

A summary hearing was convened by teleconference to determine if the applications had no reasonable prospect of success.

During the hearing, one applicant repeatedly interrupted, made inappropriate comments about opposing counsel and the Tribunal, and ultimately left the call, refusing to allow the other applicant to represent him.

The second applicant then left the call without explanation.

After waiting 15 minutes, the adjudicator reconvened the hearing and dismissed the applications as abandoned.

The applicants filed human rights applications against the Guelph Police Service, an insurance company, and other individuals, alleging discrimination based on race and other grounds during a robbery investigation.

The Tribunal held a teleconference to address jurisdictional and timeliness issues, during which the self-represented applicant behaved inappropriately and hung up.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications against the police service because they were filed outside the one-year limitation period and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The applications against the remaining respondents were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as they contained only general allegations of unfairness without a nexus to a prohibited ground of discrimination.