Justin Basinger

The applicant, acting as an estate trustee, commenced an application for judicial review without a lawyer.

The Divisional Court adjourned the hearing, holding that under Rule 15.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a party acting in a representative capacity must be represented by a lawyer.

The court ordered the applicant to retain counsel by a specified date, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision convicting her of misconduct for allegedly using unnecessary force by kicking a handcuffed suspect.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the evidence and found that the Hearing Officer failed to make a definitive finding on whether the appellant actually kicked the suspect as alleged in the Statement of Particulars.

Concluding that the evidence did not meet the required standard of clear and convincing proof, the Commission revoked the Hearing Officer's decision and dismissed the charge.

The applicant requested an order to anonymize her name in the proceedings, citing concerns about the impact on her professional career and a desire for privacy.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that these were not exceptional circumstances that would outweigh the public interest in transparent human rights processes.

The Tribunal also corrected an error in a previous interim decision regarding the applicant's employment status.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment regarding three disciplinary suspensions imposed by her managers.

The applicant had also initiated three grievances through her union regarding the same disciplinary issues.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievances.

Finding substantial overlap between the facts and allegations in the application and the grievances, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on multiple grounds.

The Tribunal convened a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant's allegations were based on his belief that the respondent used time travel and mind control against him.

The Tribunal found the allegations to be fanciful, incapable of proof, and lacking any connection to a protected ground under the Code.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination and reprisal by the respondents.

The applicant's union had also filed two grievances on her behalf alleging violations of the Human Rights Code based on the same facts and issues.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of the grievance procedure.

The Tribunal found that there was a substantial overlap of facts and issues between the proceedings and that deferral was appropriate to avoid the risk of inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred pending the resolution of the grievance procedure.

The respondents requested that the human rights application, which alleged discrimination in employment based on disability, be deferred because the applicant had filed a union grievance dealing with the same issues.

The applicant did not make submissions on the deferral request.

The Tribunal found that the issues and remedies sought in the grievance overlapped with the application, and proceeding could lead to inconsistent decisions.

The application was deferred pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The applicant acknowledged that the facts of the application were part of an ongoing union grievance proceeding.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, as the grievance process could address the human rights issues.

The application was deferred.