Maija-lisa Robinson

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision that dismissed her discrimination complaint against the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) and its adjudicators.

The HRTO had ruled it lacked jurisdiction to review LTB decisions or the conduct of its adjudicators.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding it frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting the applicant had already unsuccessfully challenged the same LTB decisions through a combined appeal and judicial review.

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 applicant, a Black trans-male, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination claims against a walk-in clinic.

The applicant alleged he was misgendered and denied treatment based on his gender identity and race.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's dismissal of the race discrimination claim was reasonable, as it rested on unassailable credibility findings.

However, the court held the HRTO's analysis of the misgendering allegations was fundamentally flawed because it improperly focused on whether the clinic staff intended to discriminate, contrary to established jurisprudence that intent is not required for prima facie discrimination.

The misgendering issue was remitted for a new hearing.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a judicial review application.

The parties had previously submitted an agreement on costs, which the court had inadvertently overlooked.

Pursuant to the agreement, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $8,000 in costs thrown away, with no costs awarded for the judicial review application itself.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision refusing to reconsider a default judgment.

The default judgment was issued after the applicant's former counsel failed to respond to Tribunal communications, despite the applicant having previously participated in the proceedings.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's reliance on a deeming rule to penalize the applicant for its lawyer's negligence was unreasonable, as it failed to conduct a contextual analysis.

The application was granted, the Tribunal's decisions were quashed, and a new hearing was ordered.

The applicant sought an order compelling the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to issue a decision on his discrimination complaint, which had been pending since March 2021.

Before the application was heard, the tribunal released its decision dismissing the complaint due to delay.

The applicant argued the court should still hear the application despite it being moot, alleging irreparable harm from the delay.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application, finding it focused on the specific circumstances of the complaint rather than broader issues of public importance.

The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on creed after her employment was terminated for failing to comply with a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness, found no denial of procedural fairness, and concluded that the Tribunal's determination that the applicant's singular belief against the vaccine did not constitute a 'creed' under the Human Rights Code was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Council of Ontario Universities brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The underlying decision ordered the applicant university to implement a pilot project for admitting students with disabilities based on prior learning and assessment recognition rather than purely grades.

The court granted the motion, finding that the Council's sector-wide perspective on university autonomy and human rights compliance would usefully contribute to the determination of the application without causing injustice to the parties.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing his complaint as abandoned after he failed to respond to a single email inquiring about the status of related WSIB proceedings.

The Tribunal had refused to reconsider the dismissal, focusing solely on whether the email was delivered rather than conducting a contextual analysis of abandonment.

The Divisional Court held that inferring abandonment from the failure to respond to one email, given the applicant's history of compliance and the ongoing nature of the WSIB proceedings, was unreasonable.

The application was granted, the dismissal order was quashed, and costs were awarded to the applicant.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions finding she breached the confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses of a settlement agreement by posting about her human rights complaint on LinkedIn.

The Tribunal had ordered the applicant to repay the full settlement amount as liquidated damages and granted an anonymization order protecting the respondents' identities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of the settlement agreement, its enforcement of the liquidated damages clause, and its decision to grant anonymization were all reasonable.