Sophie Nunnelley

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services on the basis of race, creed, and disability.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to appear at the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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 applicant, sentenced under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, sought to remain in a youth facility after turning 20.

The Provincial Director refused the request, and the applicant was transferred to an adult facility.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of sex in the provision of a service.

The respondents requested dismissal on the basis that the Provincial Director's decision was an adjudicative decision, not a service under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the decision-making process, which included the opportunity to make submissions and an appeal to the Custody Review Board, was adjudicative in nature.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an Application relating to the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance programs.

The Tribunal directed that the Application be treated in accordance with the 'lead case' procedure established in Ball v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), unless the parties provide compelling reasons not to do so.

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 Criminal Lawyers' Association sought access to a police report and legal advice regarding an investigation into alleged police misconduct in a murder case.

The Minister refused disclosure under the law enforcement and solicitor-client privilege exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The CLA argued that the Act's failure to apply a public interest override to these exemptions violated freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 2(b) does not guarantee access to all government documents, but only where access is necessary for meaningful public discussion and does not encroach on protected privileges.

The Court found no Charter violation, as the exemptions themselves already incorporate public interest considerations.

The matter regarding the law enforcement exemption was remitted to the Commissioner for reconsideration of the Minister's exercise of discretion.

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 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 appellant appealed a decision of Del Frate J. regarding the contents of the record for an appeal from the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Divisional Court upheld the decision, finding that based on the parties' agreement and Practice Direction 6, the 17-volume record filed by the Director constituted the evidence at the hearing and must be included in the Tribunal's record for the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs.

The applicant submitted a freedom of information request for records concerning an Ontario Provincial Police review of alleged police and Crown misconduct.

The Ministry refused disclosure, claiming exemptions for law enforcement and solicitor-client privilege under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner upheld the exemptions and found the public interest override in s. 23 of the Act did not apply to them.

The Court of Appeal held that the exclusion of these exemptions from the public interest override infringed the applicant's freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter and could not be justified under s. 1.

The Court remedied the breach by reading the exemptions into s. 23.