Hugh Scher

On a motion for leave to intervene in a pending constitutional challenge to the mental-illness exclusion from medical assistance in dying, the court granted leave to four public-interest interveners to participate in an urgent July motion seeking individual constitutional relief under s. 24(1) of the Charter.

Applying Rule 13.02 and the generous constitutional intervention framework, the court found each proposed intervener had a sufficient interest, distinct perspective, or recognized expertise capable of assisting the court.

The court held it was premature to determine intervention in the underlying application because the evidentiary record was incomplete and additional intervener requests might follow.

Strict limits were imposed: no new evidence, no new issues, no submissions on the individual applicant’s personal circumstances, and no costs.

The applicant alleged that her employer failed to accommodate her disability following a motor vehicle accident and discriminatorily terminated her employment, and that her union discriminatorily withdrew her grievances.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application at a preliminary hearing, arguing it had no reasonable prospect of success given the applicant's settlement of a civil claim for long-term disability benefits and medical reports indicating she was totally disabled from working.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's own medical evidence demonstrated she was incapable of returning to work and that her prognosis was poor, meaning there was no reasonable prospect she could prove the employer failed to accommodate her or discriminatorily terminated her employment.

The allegations against the union were also dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application regarding her dismissal from employment, while concurrent grievances were also filed on her behalf.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing that not all issues would be addressed in the grievances and that she had limited control over the grievance process.

The Tribunal found significant overlap in the issues, particularly regarding the dismissal, and held that the orderly administration of justice favoured deferral.

The application was deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant, who has complex health problems, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the provision and eventual termination of home care services by the SECCAC and the respondent Ministries.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims against the Ministries, finding no Code requirement for government benefit programs to be perfectly tailored to individual needs.

The Tribunal also dismissed most claims against the SECCAC regarding the quality of care and failure to accommodate, as disagreements over medical care do not constitute discrimination.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation that the termination of services was discriminatory to proceed, as it required evidence to determine if the complexity of the applicant's disability was a factor in the service providers' refusal to work.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a member for professional misconduct and sexual abuse of a former student.

The member engaged in inappropriate electronic communications with the student and met with her outside of school on several occasions, during which physical contact occurred.

The member had previously been reprimanded by his school board for similar conduct but continued the relationship.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct and sexual abuse, rejecting his claim that he was merely trying to end the relationship.

The Committee ordered the revocation of the member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration.

The respondent opposed the appointment of the applicant's mother as her litigation guardian, arguing she had a conflict of interest because her own actions were at issue in the dispute over the termination of the applicant's support services.

The Tribunal applied the test for litigation guardians, finding that a clear and demonstrated conflict of interest is required to disqualify a proposed guardian.

The Tribunal held that the mother's interest in vindicating her own actions did not conflict with her interest in pursuing the applicant's rights, and appointed her as litigation guardian.

The applicant, a former part-time cook, alleged she experienced a sexually poisoned work environment, discrimination based on ancestry, reprisal, and termination due to a disability.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and reliability, noting her allegations were largely uncorroborated, prone to exaggeration, and not raised prior to her termination.

The Tribunal found the termination was justified by the applicant distributing vitriolic and offensive packages to her managers and co-workers.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant, who suffered from coronary artery disease, alleged that he experienced harassment in employment because of his disability during a warehouse consolidation process.

He claimed that various management representatives made inappropriate comments, coerced him regarding long-term disability benefits, and threatened to cut off his sick leave when he failed to provide comprehensive medical consent.

The Tribunal found that while one manager's comment about doctors writing whatever employees want was unfortunate and vexatious, it was an isolated incident that did not amount to a course of conduct required for harassment.

The Tribunal dismissed the remaining allegations, finding the employer's actions in requesting medical information and managing the accommodation process were reasonable and not discriminatory.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision granting ARCH Disability Law Centre leave to intervene in the proceeding.

The Tribunal also set a schedule for submissions regarding the applicant's request to appoint Sheila Barber as litigation guardian, noting the respondent's intention to argue a conflict of interest.

During a case management conference call in a human rights application, the respondent raised a preliminary issue regarding whether the applicant's litigation guardian, who holds powers of attorney for personal care and property, should be removed due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to file the relevant Power of Attorney and scheduling a teleconference hearing to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to remove a litigation guardian under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondents breached a Memorandum of Settlement by paying the second settlement instalment eight days late and providing an unsatisfactory apology letter.

The Tribunal found that while the late payment constituted a breach, the respondent had provided advance notice and fulfilled the payment shortly after.

The Tribunal concluded that the apology provided did not breach the settlement terms and that no harm arose from the brief payment delay to justify a remedial order under section 45.9(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging reprisal by the respondents, who were opposing counsel and parties in a previous application.

A preliminary hearing was scheduled to determine if the applications were an abuse of process and if the applicants should be declared vexatious litigants.

The applicants failed to attend the hearing or file submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications and, finding a pattern of vexatious conduct and abuse of process, ordered that the applicants must obtain leave from the Tribunal before filing any future applications against the respondents or related parties.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging failure to accommodate his disability and workplace harassment following a workplace reorganization.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matters had been appropriately dealt with in a prior grievance arbitration proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the accommodation issues were substantively resolved through settlements and an arbitration decision in the prior proceeding, and dismissed that portion of the application.

However, the Tribunal allowed the harassment allegations to proceed, as they had not been addressed in the grievance process.

The union referred a grievance to arbitration regarding the employer's violation of the union security provisions of the collective agreement by employing non-union members.

In a prior decision, the Board found the employer liable.

In this decision on damages, the Board held that the breach of the collective agreement gave rise to a claim for damages because the union had unemployed members who were ready, willing, and able to perform the work.

The Board rejected the employer's argument that its good faith in attempting to enter into a bona fide subcontract should relieve it from paying damages.

The employer was ordered to pay $18,751.44 to the union.