Justin Martin

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Special Education Tribunal (OSET) and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) regarding his son's special education placement.

The applicant argued his son, who has autism, required 1:1 support in a regular classroom.

The OSET dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that 1:1 support was a 'service' rather than a 'placement.' The HRTO subsequently summarily dismissed the applicant's human rights complaints.

The Divisional Court allowed the applications for judicial review, finding the OSET's narrow interpretation of 'placement' and the HRTO's summary dismissal were both unreasonable.

The HRTO decision was quashed and remitted for a hearing on the merits.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Michelle Botosh’s appeal from the order striking out her 2023 action against members of the defence team from her earlier personal injury litigation.

The court found the new action was a collateral attack on the 2013 judgment and an abuse of process.

The court also upheld the motion judge’s findings regarding witness and lawyer immunity, the absence of a privacy claim, and the reasonableness of the costs award.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against an endocrinologist and a hospital, alleging negligence in the treatment of her hypothyroidism and pre/post-surgery care.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment, supported by expert evidence demonstrating they met the standard of care.

The plaintiff failed to provide any expert medical evidence to rebut the defendants' experts or establish a breach of the standard of care.

The court granted the summary judgment motions and dismissed the action without costs, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action seeking over $150 million in damages against numerous individuals, agencies, and institutions relating to an unsuccessful adoption process.

Several defendants requisitioned the court to dismiss the action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found the statement of claim consisted of broad, sweeping allegations lacking substantive content to support any known cause of action.

The court dismissed the action against the requisitioning defendants and, on its own initiative, dismissed the action in its entirety against all remaining defendants.