Hassan Ahmad

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which held it lacked jurisdiction to hear a stand-alone Charter challenge regarding a Ministry of Transportation policy.

Before the judicial review was heard, the applicant succeeded on his Human Rights Code claim, obtained his driver's licence, and the Ministry revised the impugned policy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the basis of mootness, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the case as there was no longer an adversarial context and the issue was not evasive of review.

The respondent moved to dismiss the applicant's application for judicial review on the basis of mootness.

The underlying dispute regarding a discriminatory driver's licensing policy had been resolved in the applicant's favour by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, and the policy was subsequently amended.

However, the court dismissed the motion to dismiss, finding that the underlying legal issue—whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide a standalone Charter claim—is an important issue that may be evasive of appellate review.

The mootness issue was left to be decided by the full panel hearing the application on the merits.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination regarding the Ministry of Transportation's policy on exemptions from the one-year waiting period for a driver's license.

The applicant requested to expedite the Application, arguing it would become moot if not heard before the waiting period expired.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, noting that the Application would not necessarily become moot under the Tribunal's case law, and offered the parties an expedited mediation.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant failed to attend the arbitration hearing and presented no evidence to support his claims.

The arbitrator proceeded in the applicant's absence pursuant to Rule 37.7 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The applicant's claims were dismissed for failing to meet the burden of proof.

The insurer was awarded $1,500 in expenses due to the applicant's conduct prolonging the proceeding.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant failed to attend the arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator proceeded in her absence pursuant to Rule 37.7 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

As the applicant presented no evidence, she failed to meet her burden of proof, and her claims were dismissed.

The applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's expenses fixed at $1,500.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action for damages arising from a 2009 fire.

The motion judge had dismissed the action as statute-barred because the statement of claim was issued in September 2013, outside the two-year limitation period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the discoverability principle did not assist the appellant as he was aware of his psychological difficulties by July 2011.