Julian Falconer

Six organizations brought motions for leave to intervene in an appeal from an order dismissing the certification of a proposed class action regarding the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in the child welfare system.

The motion judge granted leave to intervene to the Anishinabek Nation, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Chiefs of Ontario, and the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, finding they would provide useful and unique perspectives on the issues raised on appeal.

The motions by the Hiawatha First Nation and Nigig Nibi Ki-win Gamik were dismissed because their proposed submissions would improperly expand the scope of the appeal and the evidentiary record.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging age discrimination regarding the implementation of mandatory retirement at age 60 in the City of Mississauga Fire Service.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal consolidated the applications on consent, granted the Association intervenor status in two files where it was not named as a respondent, and established a schedule for further written submissions on the respondents' request for summary hearings in light of a recent Tribunal decision.

The applicant sought to withdraw his 2009 human rights application against the Ministry and proceed with his amended 2010 application against both the Ministry and his union.

The respondents consented to the amendment of the 2010 application without prejudice to their positions on the merits.

The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the 2009 application, allowed the amendment of the 2010 application, and set a schedule for the respondents to file amended responses addressing their preliminary objections.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination based on disability and record of offences regarding his treatment at the Toronto Jail.

He subsequently commenced a civil action against the respondent Ministry seeking damages for negligence and Charter breaches based on the same factual allegations of failure to accommodate his disability.

The Tribunal held that the applications were barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, as the applicant was effectively claiming the equivalent of damages under section 46.1 of the Code in his civil action.

The applications were dismissed to prevent duplicate proceedings.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their requests for exemptions from a 15% quota transfer assessment implemented in November 2006.

The Tribunal found that while the DFO had the legal authority to levy the assessment, it failed to uphold the principles of procedural fairness by implementing the policy without adequate notice or a phase-in period, effectively locking producers into the market and causing significant financial losses.

The Tribunal ordered the DFO to grant the exemptions and refund the transfer assessments to the appellants.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their requests for exemptions from a 15% quota transfer assessment implemented in November 2006.

The Tribunal found that while the DFO had the legal authority to levy the assessment, it failed to adhere to the principles of procedural fairness by implementing the policy immediately without adequate notice or consultation, depriving the appellants of the opportunity to manage their business affairs.

The Tribunal ordered the DFO to grant the exemptions and refund the transfer assessments collected from the appellants.