Charles Roach

The appellants commenced a proposed class action alleging that the procedures used to process claims for Ontario Disability Support Program benefits were inefficient and procedurally unfair, claiming negligence and breaches of ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter.

The motion judge struck the statement of claim but granted leave to amend the s. 7 claim solely regarding the failure to give reasons for denying benefits.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the striking of the negligence and s. 15 claims, but expanded the leave to amend the s. 7 claim to include other potential procedural fairness deficiencies beyond just the failure to give reasons.

The appellant dentist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario finding him guilty of professional misconduct regarding his orthodontic practice.

The appellant raised several procedural and substantive grounds of appeal, including a reasonable apprehension of bias, issue estoppel arising from a prior undertaking, inappropriate use of expert evidence, non-disclosure, and the severity of the penalty.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal in its entirety, finding no procedural unfairness, no error in the committee's evidentiary rulings, and that the remedial penalty was reasonable and necessary to protect the public.

The appellant appealed the remedy decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario regarding a finding of employment discrimination.

The respondent cross-appealed the quantum of damages and the award of legal costs.

The appellant also brought a constitutional challenge arguing that s. 41(4) of the Human Rights Code, which allows costs to be awarded to respondents but not complainants, violated ss. 7 and 15(1) of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the constitutional challenge, finding that economic interests are not protected under s. 7 and that complainants do not constitute an analogous group under s. 15(1).

The court upheld the Tribunal's findings on lost income and interest but allowed the cross-appeal in part, reducing the general damages award from $35,000 to $25,000 because the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to include $10,000 for legal costs under s. 41(1)(b).

The applicant school board sought a stay of a Board of Inquiry hearing regarding a human rights complaint, pending an application for judicial review.

The school board argued that the Board of Inquiry lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the remedy phase of the hearing because the Human Rights Commission had settled with the school board and withdrawn from the proceedings.

Applying recent jurisprudence, the Divisional Court found there was a serious issue to be tried regarding jurisdiction and that proceeding would cause irreparable harm.

The stay was granted.