Richard Miller

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) appealed to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal regarding whether a property should be designated in the Farm Property Class for the 2016 to 2019 taxation years.

The property owners had missed deadlines to submit applications due to ownership changes following a death.

The Assessment Review Board had previously extended the time for filing appeals under section 40.1 of the Assessment Act.

The Tribunal found that the Board's order extending the time to appeal cured any procedural defects or missed deadlines by the property owners.

As the substantive requirements for the Farm Property Class were met, the Tribunal ordered the property to be designated in the Farm Property Class for the relevant years and awarded costs against the Administrator.

The plaintiff, Jennifer Umlauf, sued two hospitals and two government agencies (Mississauga Halton Local Health Integration Network and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, treated as the Crown) for various claims including negligence, funding mismanagement, and Charter breaches, arising from her employment and psychiatric admissions.

The government agencies moved to strike the claim against them.

The court found that the Crown and LHIN did not owe a private law duty of care to the plaintiff, their funding decisions were protected by statutory immunity, and the Charter claims lacked a reasonable prospect of success.

The claim against the Crown was also a nullity due to lack of proper notice.

The motion to strike was granted, and the action against the moving defendants was dismissed.

Following a successful motion by the third party NGOs to strike the Crown's third party claims in a proposed class action regarding youth detention centres, the NGOs sought costs of $47,695.45 on a partial indemnity basis.

The Crown argued the amount was excessive and suggested $16,500, contending that the NGOs were only successful due to late amendments to the plaintiff's pleadings.

The court rejected the Crown's argument, finding the NGOs were entitled to costs for work both before and after the amendments, but reduced the claimed amount to $35,000 all inclusive as being within the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party.

In a proposed class action regarding youth detention centres, the plaintiff sued the Crown for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and Charter violations, explicitly limiting the claim to the Crown's several liability.

The Crown issued third party claims against the NGOs that operated some of the centres.

The plaintiff and the NGOs moved to strike the third party claims.

The court granted the motions, applying the principle that where a plaintiff limits their claim to the defendant's proportionate degree of fault, a third party claim for contribution and indemnity is legally untenable.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, creed, sex, and age, as well as reprisal, following the termination of her employment.

The applicant alleged she was denied time off for a religious holiday, subjected to ageist comments, and denied accommodation for pregnancy-related medical appointments and a miscarriage.

The Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety, finding the applicant to be an unreliable and non-credible witness whose testimony was internally inconsistent, uncorroborated, and contradicted by documentary evidence and the testimony of the respondent's witnesses.

The Tribunal concluded there was insufficient evidence to establish that the respondent breached the Human Rights Code or that the termination was discriminatory.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to remove the personal respondent, who was the Chair of the Board of the organizational respondent.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Sigrist and Carson and denied the request, finding that the applicant made allegations of conduct against the personal respondent that, if proven, could lead to a finding of discrimination and remedies against him personally.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondents contravened a settlement agreement by failing to implement non-monetary public interest remedies, including drafting a service animal policy and completing human rights training.

The respondents failed to file a response and were deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found a breach of the settlement and ordered the respondents to comply with the outstanding terms.

The Tribunal also awarded the applicant $1,000 in compensation for the distress caused by the respondents' failure to implement the remedies, which left her fearful of returning to the respondents' building.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondents regarding a police stop.

The respondents filed an incomplete Response and a Request for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP) seeking to dismiss the application as untimely under s. 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an RFOP requesting the respondents be ordered to file a complete Response.

The Tribunal held that while it has the flexibility to consider jurisdictional issues without a complete Response, a complete Response would assist in determining the timeliness issue in this case.

The respondents were ordered to file a complete Response.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to add a personal respondent, an allegation of reprisal, and a claim for monetary compensation.

The corporate respondent opposed the amendments.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth test and found compelling reasons to add the personal respondent, as her alleged conduct was the central issue.

The Tribunal also permitted the addition of the reprisal allegation and the claim for monetary compensation, noting that these issues would require factual determinations at a hearing.

The request to amend was granted in its entirety.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the applicant's human rights complaint alleging age discrimination and reprisal.

The applicant opposed the request and brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend his application to add the ground of disability.

The Tribunal denied the respondent's request for a summary hearing, finding that the issues required a full hearing on the merits to resolve.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application on consent.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on creed (wearing a hijab) requested orders to add the owner of the corporate respondent as a personal respondent and to compel disclosure of contact information for a former employee who witnessed the alleged events.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the personal respondent on consent.

Applying the test of arguable relevance, the Tribunal also ordered the corporate respondent to disclose the former employee's contact information to allow the applicant to call her as a witness.

The applicant settled her human rights application against the co-respondent union.

The remaining respondent employer sought production of the settlement agreement, arguing the settlement figures were relevant to the damages it might owe, as both respondents had conceded liability for a discriminatory collective agreement provision.

The Tribunal declined to use an O'Connor-type procedure but ordered production, finding that an exception to settlement privilege applied because the settlement figures were arguably relevant to the assessment of damages against the remaining respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination and harassment by a bus driver while riding the respondent's transit system.

After learning the driver's name through a Tribunal order, the applicant sought to add him as a personal respondent.

The corporate respondent and the driver opposed the request, arguing the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability.

The Tribunal applied the three-part test for adding a respondent and found that the driver's alleged conduct was central to the application and remedies could not be awarded against him unless he was a party.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the driver as a personal respondent and identified his union as an affected party.

The respondent employer brought a request for an order during proceedings to defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of the applicant's appeal before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to employment because of disability following a termination he claimed was discriminatory, while the respondent asserted the employment contract was frustrated.

The adjudicator dismissed the deferral request, finding that while there was some overlap regarding lost earnings, WSIAT would not consider whether the termination infringed the applicant's Code-protected rights.

The Tribunal directed that the application proceed to scheduling.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment and contracts based on disability.

The parties previously settled liability and public interest remedies, leaving only personal remedies to be determined.

At the scheduled hearing, the Tribunal found the parties were not prepared to proceed and converted the hearing to a preliminary hearing.

On consent, the Tribunal issued procedural orders regarding document production, witness statements, and the scheduling of the remedy hearing.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend the Application to include public interest remedies, order disclosure of documents, and exclude certain documents from evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the amendments were unnecessary or moot, the documents were already disclosed or non-existent, and the evidentiary concerns were addressed by the respondent's intention to call the document authors as witnesses.

However, the Tribunal directed the respondent to provide more detailed witness statements.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of family status after his offer of employment was revoked following his request for parental leave.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend his Application to include additional remedies and an allegation that the respondent failed to investigate his complaint.

The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing it was untimely and raised a new cause of action.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting that the original Application already contained the factual allegation that no investigation was conducted, and that any prejudice to the respondent was mitigated by the fact that the hearing had already been adjourned for unrelated reasons.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The parties, including the Ontario Human Rights Commission as intervenor, reached minutes of settlement resolving the public interest issues.

The Tribunal issued an interim consent order requiring the employer and union to revise their collective agreements to ensure seniority accrues for up to 36 months for employees on unpaid leave due to a Code-related disability, and to make retroactive seniority adjustments.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondent requested a summary hearing, while the applicant requested an adjournment and an extension of time for productions due to the unanticipated early birth of her child.

The Tribunal denied the summary hearing request because the respondent disputed the facts rather than the legal sufficiency of the application.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and extended the deadline for productions, finding that the early birth constituted exceptional circumstances.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place as a respondent to a human rights application alleging discrimination in services based on race and colour.

The proposed respondent consented to being added, confirming it is responsible for security services at the relevant location and employs the security guards involved in the incident.

The Tribunal granted the request, added the respondent, and set a timeline for pleadings.