23 total
Appeal dismissed; HRTO reasonably balanced Charter expressive rights against Human Rights Code protections in union blog dispute.
The appellant, a manager at a provincial jail, filed a human rights complaint after the respondent union president posted sexist comments about her on a union blog during a labour dispute.
The Human Rights Tribunal dismissed the complaint, finding the conduct did not constitute discrimination 'with respect to employment' under s. 5(1) of the Human Rights Code, after balancing the Code's objectives with the respondent's Charter rights to freedom of expression and association.
The Divisional Court upheld the decision on judicial review.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that administrative tribunals must consider Charter values when interpreting their home statutes, even absent ambiguity, and that the Tribunal's balancing of these rights was reasonable.
Tribunal decision dismissing human rights complaint set aside for unreasonably deferring to Commission's settlement.
The applicant, a young African-Canadian man, filed a human rights complaint alleging racial profiling after being stopped by police.
The Commission and the police settled the complaint, agreeing to a limited data collection project, but the applicant sought broader systemic remedies, including data collection for pedestrian stops.
The Human Rights Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request without a full hearing, deferring to the settlement and finding it lacked jurisdiction to order remedies for pedestrian stops.
On judicial review, the Divisional Court set aside the Tribunal's decision, holding that while the summary process was procedurally fair, the Tribunal's conclusions on jurisdiction and its complete deference to the Commission's settlement were unreasonable.
Judicial review of OLRB refusal to extend time for Employment Standards Act review dismissed.
The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision refusing to extend the time to review an Employment Standards Officer's order to pay.
The applicant's solicitor had inadvertently missed the 30-day deadline, initiating the request six months late.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's discretionary decision reasonable given the statutory purpose of prompt resolution and the presumed prejudice of a six-month delay.