Robert E. Charney

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging systemic gender-based compensation discrimination against midwives spanning two decades.

The respondent brought a preliminary request to dismiss all allegations relating to events prior to November 27, 2012, arguing they fell outside the one-year limitation period in section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the detailed allegations of historical practices, policies, and attitudes formed an interconnected web that constituted a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1)(b), making the entire application timely.

During jury selection for a complex, six-month murder trial, the applicant sought to discharge the sworn jurors and increase juror compensation, arguing that the high rate of excusals for financial hardship violated her Charter right to a representative jury panel.

The court acknowledged the inadequacy of current juror compensation but found that the remaining panel, after hardship excusals, was still sufficiently representative of the community.

The court held that the characteristic of being paid by an employer for jury service is not material to juror competence or impartiality, and dismissed the application.

The appellant sought appellate relief after a lower court refused to grant a declaration that the Crown has a general post-trial and post-appeal duty to preserve evidence for the lifetime of an offender convicted of a life-imprisonment indictable offence.

The application below had been grounded in the loss of autopsy photographs said to be potentially relevant to a miscarriage of justice review under s. 696.1 of the Criminal Code, but the appellant accepted on appeal that no Charter breach had been established from their loss.

The Court of Appeal held there was no basis to entertain the appeal because the appellant advanced a new declaratory theory not supported by the record and not adjudicated below.

The appeal was dismissed, with no costs.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario considered the claims of 17 individuals alleging that the special diet allowance schedule under Ontario's social assistance system discriminated against them based on disability.

The claimants argued that the schedule failed to fund or underfunded special diets for 11 different medical conditions.

Applying the four-part test from Ball v. Ontario, the Tribunal dismissed the majority of the claims, finding that the claimants failed to establish that their conditions required modifications to a regular healthy diet, that the diets led to additional costs, or that the medical community generally recognized the need for such diets.

However, the Tribunal allowed the claims for Prader-Willi syndrome and unintended weight loss due to renal failure, as the respondent conceded these conditions met the Ball test.

The Tribunal ordered retroactive benefits for these two conditions, rejecting the respondent's argument that the recognition of Prader-Willi syndrome constituted a substantial change in the law that would preclude retroactive relief.

The applicant, convicted of first-degree murder in 1984, sought a declaration that section 7 of the Charter requires the Crown to preserve all Stinchcombe disclosure material for the lifetime of the offender.

She alleged her section 7 rights were violated because autopsy photographs from her trial were lost or destroyed.

The court dismissed the application, finding that even if a post-appeal duty to preserve evidence exists, the loss of the photographs was adequately explained given the passage of time and lack of retention policies in the 1980s.

Furthermore, the applicant suffered no prejudice as the photographs would not have assisted in demonstrating her innocence.

The appellant association appealed a decision finding that the process for renewing the appointments of Deputy Judges of the Small Claims Court does not infringe the principles of judicial independence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, applying the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Valente.

The Court held that a reasonable and well-informed observer would conclude that the Deputy Judges and the Small Claims Court are sufficiently independent, as the renewal discretion rests with senior judicial officers rather than the Executive.

The plaintiffs, autistic children and their parents, commenced a proposed class proceeding alleging the provincial government and several school boards failed to provide or fund Applied Behavioural Analysis therapy and related services within Ontario’s education system, contrary to the Charter.

After earlier rulings struck most causes of action and the Court of Appeal limited the remaining claims, the plaintiffs moved to discontinue the proceeding under s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act.

The court reviewed the legal framework governing discontinuance of proposed class proceedings, focusing on whether the discontinuance would prejudice putative class members.

Finding no evidence of improper purpose, prejudice to class members, or objection from notified parties, the court approved the discontinuance on consent and without costs.

The Tribunal determined the appropriate remedial order for two cases of discrimination regarding the Special Diet Allowance under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The respondent argued it should be entitled to apply the retroactive benefits owed to the complainants towards their pre-existing overpayments.

The Tribunal held that, to meaningfully remedy the discrimination and place the complainants in the position they would have been in absent the Code violation, the respondent must pay the retroactive benefits directly to the complainants without deducting the overpayments.

The complainants, who receive Ontario Disability Support Program benefits and have been diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C, alleged that the special diet allowance program discriminated against them on the basis of disability.

Applying the test from Ball v. Ontario, the Tribunal found that there is general recognition in the Ontario medical community that individuals with chronic hepatitis C require modifications to a regular healthy diet, specifically increased protein and energy.

The Tribunal concluded that the complainants established disability-based discrimination and ordered the respondent to provide retroactive and ongoing special diet allowances for chronic hepatitis C.

In a Charter application brought by a person convicted of first degree murder seeking a declaration that evidence in homicide cases must be preserved for the lifetime of the offender, the respondent Attorney General moved to strike portions of affidavit evidence and parts of the amended notice of application and constitutional question.

The impugned affidavits contained second‑hand information about other alleged wrongful conviction investigations and lost evidence.

The court held the affidavit material could remain in the record for the limited purpose of illustrating the types of evidence that may be lost post‑conviction, but not to prove the truth of the allegations in those other cases.

However, paragraphs in the amended notice of application and notice of constitutional question relying on alleged loss of evidence in other cases were struck because the applicant lacked standing to advance constitutional claims based on those matters.

The motion was therefore granted in part.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision finding that the respondent was discriminated against due to the lack of a special diet allowance for hypoproteinemia under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The Divisional Court reviewed the Tribunal's decision on a reasonableness standard.

The Court found that there was no evidence before the Tribunal to support its finding that eating additional protein from food sources is generally recognized in the Ontario medical community as an appropriate treatment for hypoproteinemia.

Consequently, the Tribunal's decision was deemed unreasonable and quashed regarding the respondent's claim for a special diet allowance for elevated protein requirements.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that extended the period for the respondent government to comply with an order regarding special diet benefits.

The Commission argued that the Tribunal was functus officio and lacked the power to extend the compliance period.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the doctrine of functus officio does not restrict administrative tribunals more than courts, and that the Tribunal has the power to extend time periods for compliance with ordered remedies, similar to the Supreme Court of Canada in Charter cases.

The respondent requested an extension of time to implement a future compliance remedy ordered by the Tribunal regarding special diet benefits.

The government announced the elimination of the Special Diet Allowance and the creation of a new nutritional supplement program, requiring 9-12 months to implement.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction under its general remedial powers to extend the time limit without treating the request as a reconsideration.

The Tribunal granted the extension to April 13, 2011, finding it consistent with remedial principles to allow the government a reasonable period to implement comprehensive policy changes to achieve Code compliance.

Three lead complainants alleged that the special diet allowance component of the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) discriminated against them on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal established a four-part test to determine discrimination in the program: the claimant must have a disability, there must be general medical recognition that a special diet is required, the diet must lead to additional food costs, and the funding must be non-existent or significantly disproportionate to the costs.

The Tribunal found that the program discriminated against W. by failing to fund hypoproteinemia and underfunding hypertension and hypercholesterolemia.

S. was discriminated against due to underfunding for extreme obesity, and B. was discriminated against due to underfunding for hypercholesterolemia.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide retroactive and ongoing benefits in accordance with the Code principles, but declined to award general damages or order a specific redesign of the program.

The appellant challenged the constitutionality of Ontario's ban on pit bulls under the Dog Owners' Liability Act, arguing the law was overbroad and vague under s. 7 of the Charter, and that a provision allowing a veterinarian's certificate as proof of breed violated the presumption of innocence under s. 11(d).

The application judge upheld the ban but struck down parts of the definition and the certificate provision.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal and allowed the Attorney General's cross-appeal, restoring the struck provisions.

The Court held the ban was not grossly disproportionate to the risk posed by pit bulls, the definition was not unconstitutionally vague, and the certificate provision did not create a mandatory presumption of guilt.

The appellants, representing children with autism and their families, appealed a motion judge's decision striking several causes of action from their proposed class proceeding against Ontario and several school boards.

The claims challenged the provision of autism and education services, alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and Charter violations.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part.

It struck the age-based discrimination claim without leave to amend, citing stare decisis from the Wynberg decision.

The disability discrimination claim and the claim for Charter damages were struck with leave to amend due to a lack of precision in the pleadings.

The court also granted leave to amend the negligence claim against the school boards regarding operational aspects of the programs, but otherwise dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision finalizing a procedural order to manage multiple complaints regarding the special diet allowance.

The order establishes a timetable for selecting lead cases, disclosing documents, identifying issues, and filing evidence and pleadings.

The Tribunal incorporated minor changes requested by the respondent and the clinic caseworkers representing the complainants.

The respondent's right to request a stay of proceedings due to concurrent litigation before the Social Benefits Tribunal was preserved.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario held a case management conference to determine the procedure for 77 related complaints challenging the special diet allowance regime.

The Tribunal adopted a joint proposal by counsel to proceed with two to six lead cases to be heard together, finding it to be a fair, just, and expeditious manner of resolving the complex complaints.

The Tribunal also addressed privacy concerns by ordering that disclosure be exchanged only among parties to the lead cases and that lead complainants remain anonymous in public documents.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested an adjournment of a case management conference scheduled for 77 consolidated complaints regarding the special diet allowance under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The Commission's lead counsel requested the adjournment because he would be on a long-planned vacation.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that it does not reschedule initial conference calls without the written consent of all parties, and that a party's desire to have particular counsel attend cannot justify an adjournment.

The appellants were convicted of offences under the Safe Streets Act and the Highway Traffic Act for squeegeeing and soliciting money from drivers of stopped vehicles on roadways.

They appealed their convictions, arguing that the legislation was unconstitutional because it was ultra vires the province as criminal law, and that it violated their rights under sections 2(b), 7, and 15 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the legislation was a valid exercise of provincial power to regulate roadways.

While the provisions infringed freedom of expression under section 2(b), the infringement was justified under section 1.

The court also found no violations of sections 7 or 15.