Kathryn J. Bird

The applicant sought judicial review of an HRTO decision dismissing his human rights complaint as abandoned after his counsel failed to attend a case management conference, and a subsequent decision denying reconsideration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's refusal to reconsider reasonable given an unexplained nine-month delay by counsel after learning of the dismissal.

The court also declined to extend the time to review the original dismissal decision due to the unexplained delay and the availability of the reconsideration process as an adequate alternative remedy.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing their claim against the university.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability after the university denied funding for a powerchair under a disability bursary program.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable, finding that the Tribunal was not required to address every piece of evidence, reasonably concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the interpretation of the benefits manual, and correctly applied the test for prima facie discrimination.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The University of Waterloo sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision ordering it to implement a Prior Learning Assessment and Recognition (PLAR) pilot project as a systemic remedy for discriminating against an applicant with learning disabilities.

The University argued the Tribunal improperly relied on inadmissible expert evidence and that the remedy violated its institutional autonomy over admissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable.

The Court held that the Tribunal did not improperly rely on inadmissible expert opinion and that the PLAR pilot project was a tailored, proportional remedy that respected the University's academic standards while addressing the specific discrimination suffered by the respondent.

The Council of Ontario Universities brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The underlying decision ordered the applicant university to implement a pilot project for admitting students with disabilities based on prior learning and assessment recognition rather than purely grades.

The court granted the motion, finding that the Council's sector-wide perspective on university autonomy and human rights compliance would usefully contribute to the determination of the application without causing injustice to the parties.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment following her without-cause dismissal by the defendant.

The court found summary judgment appropriate and determined that the defendant's severance offer of 11.5 months was not within the reasonable range.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court fixed the reasonable notice period at 16 months, capped at 15.5 months due to the plaintiff's successful mitigation.

The court awarded damages totaling $137,048.41, which included base salary, lost bonus, pension matching contributions, and benefits over the notice period.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment award requiring it to pay outstanding invoices for temporary staffing services.

The appellant sought to rely on a set-off defence based on fraudulent invoices submitted by the respondent's employees for workers who did not actually work at the appellant's plant.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding that legal set-off was unavailable because the claim was for unliquidated damages, and equitable set-off was unavailable because the appellant bore responsibility for the fraud through its own representative's actions and was in the best position to prevent it.

The applicant father, acting as litigation guardian for his two children with Autism Spectrum Disorder, alleged that the respondent school board discriminated against them in the provision of educational services.

The father alleged that the school board excluded the children from school and summer programs, placed them in a special education class against his wishes, and failed to meet their educational needs through inadequate Individual Education Plans.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the applications, finding that the school board had accommodated the children appropriately and provided meaningful access to education.

The Tribunal noted that the school board had made significant efforts to work with the father and accommodate his numerous requests, and that the children were thriving in their educational placements.

The plaintiff staffing agency brought a motion for summary judgment for unpaid invoices relating to temporary workers provided to the defendant.

The defendant admitted liability for the invoices but raised an equitable set-off defence, alleging the plaintiff was negligent or breached the contract in relation to a prior fraudulent scheme orchestrated by the defendant's own manager involving 'phantom labourers'.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the equitable set-off defence failed because the prior fraudulent invoices were not sufficiently closely connected to the unpaid invoices to directly impeach the plaintiff's claim.

The applicant alleged that the respondent employer breached a settlement agreement by disclosing her grievance file, including medical records, to the WSIB.

The settlement had resolved a previous human rights application and related grievances.

The Tribunal found that the confidentiality clause in the settlement only bound the applicant, and the requirement to seal her personnel file did not preclude the employer from disclosing relevant records to a statutory body like the WSIB.

The Tribunal also noted it lacked jurisdiction to address potential breaches of the implied undertaking rule or privacy legislation.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant employer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal claim, arguing the employment contract was frustrated by the plaintiff's total disability.

The plaintiff argued the defendant failed to accommodate his disability after he expressed a desire to return to work.

The court found a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the contract was frustrated or if the defendant breached its duty to accommodate under the Human Rights Code, noting the employer's failure to explore accommodation options.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The respondent school board filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of a non-party student's (Student X) Ontario Student Record (OSR), notice to Student X, anonymization of all decisions, and sealing of the entire Tribunal file.

The Tribunal ordered the production of Student X's OSR, noting it was arguably relevant to the respondent's defence regarding competing accommodation needs, and ordered that any OSR documents filed into evidence be sealed.

The Tribunal declined to order further notice to Student X, as notice had already been provided.

The requests for blanket anonymization and sealing of the entire file were dismissed, as the Tribunal's standard practice of anonymizing minors adequately protects privacy interests.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent school board.

The respondent requested that allegations of incidents occurring more than one year prior to the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that incidents involving police conduct and court proceedings lacked a reasonable prospect of success against the school board and were dismissed.

However, the Tribunal held that the remaining incidents involving interactions between school employees and the applicant or his mother formed a series of incidents ending within the limitation period.

The application was allowed to proceed on the remaining allegations.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondent breached their Minutes of Settlement when he was removed from the respondent's store.

The applicant argued the settlement did not impose a lifetime ban and that a one-year ban is the industry standard.

The Tribunal found the wording of the Minutes clear and unambiguous, stating the applicant was not permitted to enter the respondent's stores 'from the date of the execution of these Minutes of Settlement forward' with no end date.

The application for contravention of settlement was dismissed.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's interim decision denying its Request for Summary Hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that it fell outside the scope of the Tribunal's Reconsideration Rules because it addressed an interim decision rather than a final decision.

A case management teleconference was ordered prior to the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Storm failed to hire him because of his age, race, and association when it took over a coil repair contract from his former employer, Outotec.

At a summary hearing, the Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success against Outotec and AMD, removing them as respondents.

The Tribunal allowed the age discrimination claim against Storm to proceed to a full hearing, but dismissed the other grounds for lack of evidence.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing her application for family status discrimination, arguing the adjudicator ignored evidence, failed to address a disability claim, and was biased.

The applicant also requested the anonymization of the decision to protect her mother's medical information.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding the applicant was attempting to reargue her case and raise a new claim not made at the hearing.

The Tribunal also found no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The request for anonymization was denied because the medical information was not highly sensitive and did not outweigh the public interest in open justice.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to add an allegation of reprisal, claiming the respondents' school was over-monitoring him after he filed the initial application.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding the amendments were linked to the original allegations, the request was filed well ahead of the hearing, and there was no prejudice to the respondents.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on family status (eldercare) after the respondent proposed a schedule change to accommodate her physical restrictions.

The applicant claimed the new schedule interfered with her ability to care for her elderly mother but refused to provide sufficient medical or factual information to the employer to substantiate her eldercare needs.

The Tribunal clarified the test for family status discrimination, rejecting the requirement to prove legal responsibility or self-accommodation as part of the prima facie case.

However, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish discrimination because she only informed the employer she prepared evening meals, which the new schedule did not prevent.

The application was dismissed, and the termination for job abandonment was upheld.

The applicant, through his litigation guardian, alleged discrimination in education services based on disability.

The respondent school board requested an order permitting it to access the applicant's Ontario Student Record (OSR) to prepare its Response.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the OSR was necessary to make full answer and defence to the allegations of failure to accommodate.

The applicant was ordered to provide written consent to the disclosure, failing which the application could be dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant, who alleged discrimination on the basis of disability following his termination during a probationary period, sought to amend his application and requested the contact information of several of the respondent's employees to summons them as witnesses.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend on consent.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to provide contact information for several employees whose anticipated testimony regarding the applicant's performance and the respondent's alleged fabrication of evidence could be relevant, except for those employees the respondent had already confirmed it would call as witnesses.