Justin Martin

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Special Education Tribunal (OSET) and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) regarding his son's special education placement.

The applicant argued his son, who has autism, required 1:1 support in a regular classroom.

The OSET dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that 1:1 support was a 'service' rather than a 'placement.' The HRTO subsequently summarily dismissed the applicant's human rights complaints.

The Divisional Court allowed the applications for judicial review, finding the OSET's narrow interpretation of 'placement' and the HRTO's summary dismissal were both unreasonable.

The HRTO decision was quashed and remitted for a hearing on the merits.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding a claim for compensation by Capital Paving Inc. against several utility companies under the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent, setting out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the issues list, the order of evidence, and the timetable leading up to a 14-day video hearing scheduled to begin in November 2026.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding claims for compensation filed by the claimant against several utility companies under the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012.

The claims allege delays in providing locates within the statutory five-day period.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a revised draft Procedural Order and scheduled a 14-day video hearing for November 2026.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Michelle Botosh’s appeal from the order striking out her 2023 action against members of the defence team from her earlier personal injury litigation.

The court found the new action was a collateral attack on the 2013 judgment and an abuse of process.

The court also upheld the motion judge’s findings regarding witness and lawyer immunity, the absence of a privacy claim, and the reasonableness of the costs award.

The Tribunal initiated a motion to determine its jurisdiction to hear claims for compensation for late locates under the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, following the repeal of section 17(1)(c) on May 1, 2024.

The claimant argued that its claims were commenced prior to the repeal and that it had a vested substantive right to proceed under the Legislation Act.

The respondents argued that the legislature intended to eliminate the Tribunal's jurisdiction over such claims.

The Tribunal found that the repeal did not apply retroactively and that it retained jurisdiction to hear the claims on their merits.

The Tribunal convened Case Management Conferences for claims for compensation filed by the claimant against several utility companies for delays in providing locates.

Following the recent repeal of s. 17(1)(c) of the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, the respondents argued the Tribunal no longer had jurisdiction to award compensation.

The Tribunal initiated a motion to determine its jurisdiction via a written hearing and set a schedule for submissions.

The Tribunal convened a first Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation by the claimant against the respondent for alleged delays in providing locates under the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012.

The respondent indicated that additional claims should be made against other members.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to allow the claimant time to serve additional members and to receive a status update.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against an endocrinologist and a hospital, alleging negligence in the treatment of her hypothyroidism and pre/post-surgery care.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment, supported by expert evidence demonstrating they met the standard of care.

The plaintiff failed to provide any expert medical evidence to rebut the defendants' experts or establish a breach of the standard of care.

The court granted the summary judgment motions and dismissed the action without costs, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action seeking over $150 million in damages against numerous individuals, agencies, and institutions relating to an unsuccessful adoption process.

Several defendants requisitioned the court to dismiss the action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found the statement of claim consisted of broad, sweeping allegations lacking substantive content to support any known cause of action.

The court dismissed the action against the requisitioning defendants and, on its own initiative, dismissed the action in its entirety against all remaining defendants.