Kathryn L. Meehan

The applicant, a Black municipal councillor, alleged he was subjected to racial profiling by a police officer.

After a Police Services Act (PSA) disciplinary hearing cleared the officer of misconduct, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) dismissed the applicant's human rights complaint under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding the matter had been appropriately dealt with.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court found the HRTO's decision unreasonable because it failed to apply or justify its departure from established Supreme Court of Canada and HRTO jurisprudence, which holds that it is generally unfair to use a PSA proceeding to bar a human rights complaint due to differences in purpose, standard of proof, and available remedies.

The HRTO decisions were set aside and remitted for a new hearing.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion to extend time for judicial review, the respondents sought costs.

The underlying dispute involved a failed $250 used car sale, which the applicant escalated into numerous administrative and legal proceedings.

The court awarded costs of $3,000 against the applicant, finding his proceedings to be frivolous and vexatious.

Additionally, the court revoked the applicant's fee waiver under s. 4.10 of the Administration of Justice Act and prohibited him from obtaining further fee waivers in related proceedings without prior judicial permission.

The self-represented applicant sought an extension of time to bring an application for judicial review of multiple administrative tribunal decisions stemming from a failed car sale in 2019.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no merit in the applicant's claims, which were based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and concluding that the applicant failed to prove that the respondents would not suffer prejudice from the five-year delay.

The court also raised concerns that the proceedings were frivolous and vexatious, and invited submissions on whether the applicant's fee waiver should be cancelled.

The appellant received notice of fundamental changes to his employment contract in July 2007, with working notice until September 1, 2009.

In October 2008, the respondents sought to impose immediate changes requiring the appellant to close his neighbourhood office and relocate to an Allstate-operated office.

The appellant refused and was terminated for cause on November 6, 2008.

The trial judge found the termination was proper.

On appeal, the court found that the Neighbourhood Office Agent Amendment (NOA) precluded the respondents from unilaterally imposing the relocation during the notice period, as it constituted a fundamental change to the agreed business model.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the appellant entitled to compensation for the balance of the notice period.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent hospital.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance proceeding.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing that the grievance did not capture all issues and could be held in abeyance.

The Tribunal found that the issues in the grievance were largely identical to those in the application and deferred the application to avoid concurrent legal proceedings and duplicative use of resources.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that his former employer violated s. 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act by dismissing him in reprisal for raising harassment allegations.

The Board found the applicant was dismissed for insubordination and failure to follow employer rules, not for asserting rights under the Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision was reasonable, based on clear and logical reasons, and supported by the evidence.

The defendants moved for security for costs against the plaintiff, Hockeyfest Incorporated, under Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court applied a two-stage test: first, whether the plaintiff was a corporation with insufficient assets (which was conceded), and second, whether justice demanded the case proceed without security, considering impecuniosity and the merits.

The court found Hockeyfest failed to provide adequate financial disclosure to prove impecuniosity and that its claims against all defendants had very little chance of success due to its own non-compliance with contractual terms and misrepresentations.

Consequently, the court ordered Hockeyfest to post significant security for costs to each defendant, prohibiting further steps until paid, and allowing for dismissal if not posted within 30 days.

Following a trial, the parties agreed that the partial indemnity costs recovery figure would be $60,000, subject to arguments on the appropriate scale.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, relying on a Rule 49 offer and the plaintiff's alleged unreasonable behaviour.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments for substantial indemnity costs and ordered the plaintiff to pay the agreed partial indemnity costs of $60,000.

The plaintiff, a long-term sales agent, was terminated for cause by the defendant insurance company after refusing to accept fundamental changes to his employment terms, including relocation and a new compensation model.

The court found that the employer provided reasonable notice of the changes and that the plaintiff's refusal to comply constituted insubordination and abandonment of employment.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for wrongful dismissal and damages, including claims for ongoing commissions and 'lifetime renewals', finding that the employment contract provisions ceased upon termination for cause and that the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages by refusing a reasonable offer of continued employment.

The Attorney General for Ontario sought judicial review of an arbitration award between CUPE Local 27 and the Greater Essex County District School Board, arguing the arbitrator erred in interpreting s. 177 of the Education Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for the reasons given in a related Stated Case (2016 ONSC 2361), finding the result was the same regardless of whether the standard of review was correctness or reasonableness.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to CUPE Local 27.

The Minister of Education brought a Stated Case asking the Divisional Court to determine whether the Education Act permits school boards to pay for life insurance and health benefits for retired employees over 65 years of age.

The Minister argued that the Act only permits payments to current employees and that specific statutory authority is required for such expenditures.

The Court held that while ss. 177(3) and 177(4) do not authorize these payments, other sections of the Act, including ss. 58.5(1), 170(1)18, 171(1)3, and 177(1), when read together and in context, provide the necessary authority.

The Court found that school boards have the power to negotiate and pay for post-retirement benefits as part of employee compensation packages.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitral award that dismissed a professor for just cause.

The underlying dismissal occurred in 2001, and the arbitral award was issued in 2002.

Due to various procedural steps, adjournments, and a late intervention by the dismissed professor raising jurisdictional arguments, the application did not proceed to a hearing until 2014.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for extreme delay, finding that relitigating a workplace dispute over a decade later would cause prejudice and bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The applicant alleged that her employer failed to accommodate her family status regarding her work schedule and terminated her employment because of her family status.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not clearly communicate a need for accommodation and that her work hours were not excessive.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the applicant was terminated for performance issues, not due to her family status.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that his employment as a shuttle bus driver was terminated and he was subjected to differential treatment on the basis of his race, place of origin, ethnic origin, and ancestry.

The respondents maintained that the applicant's position was made redundant because the hotel outsourced its shuttle bus service for cost and efficiency reasons.

The Tribunal found no evidence to support the allegations of discrimination, concluding that the termination was based solely on legitimate business considerations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a plumber employed by the respondent university, alleged that he experienced differential treatment in his employment due to a disability (stress).

The applicant claimed he was overlooked for promotion, transferred, demoted, denied overtime, and unfairly questioned regarding a medical note.

The Tribunal first removed the personal respondents from the proceedings, as the corporate respondent acknowledged vicarious liability.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that he was treated differently from other employees in similar circumstances.

The evidence showed that the applicant disagreed with workplace policies, such as the requirement for specific medical notes and the formula for sharing overtime, but this did not amount to discrimination under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment based on family status, record of offences, reprisal, disability, and marital status.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the application for failing to disclose a Code infringement and, alternatively, to remove the personal respondents.

The Tribunal found sufficient facts to support a potential claim of discrimination based on disability, as the applicant alleged he was under stress and received medical treatment.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the marital status claim, finding no link between the applicant's marital status and the alleged differential treatment.

The Tribunal also declined to remove the personal respondents at this preliminary stage.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision finding that an implied term of a commercial lease granted the respondent bank access to parking spaces via the landlord's laneway.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge's finding was supported by ample evidence and was not a palpable and overriding error.

The court also rejected the appellant's res judicata argument, noting that prior litigation did not concern the interpretation of the lease.

Leave to appeal the substantial indemnity costs award was refused, as the application judge's finding of malevolent conduct justified the scale.