4 total
Judicial review of HRTO decision ordering reinstatement for failure to accommodate disability dismissed.
The applicant school board sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions finding it discriminated against an employee by failing to accommodate her disability and ordering her reinstatement with damages.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decisions on liability and remedy were reasonable and amply supported by the evidence.
The Court also rejected the applicant's arguments regarding procedural fairness and reasonable apprehension of bias.
Tribunal grants applicants' request to amend human rights applications and permits Commission to intervene.
The applicants filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend their human rights applications to include the grounds of family status and marital status, and to add claims for monetary compensation and public interest remedies.
The respondents did not oppose the amendments but requested the opportunity to file an amended Response.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission also filed a Notice of Intervention.
The Tribunal granted the request to amend the applications and permitted the Commission to intervene as a party.
Request for reconsideration of decision dismissing human rights application over union blog posts denied.
The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application against the union and its president.
The original decision found that blog posts by the union president, which criticized the applicant using sexist stereotypes, did not constitute workplace harassment under the Human Rights Code because they were protected by freedom of expression and association in the context of union-management relations.
The applicant and the intervening Ontario Human Rights Commission argued the Tribunal made fundamental errors in balancing these competing rights and denied procedural fairness.
The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no conflict with established jurisprudence, no denial of procedural fairness, and no error in its balancing of the competing rights.
Mother permitted to continue as litigation guardian after child protection proceedings concluded.
The respondents challenged the applicant's mother's ability to continue acting as his litigation guardian in human rights proceedings, arguing that her involvement in child protection proceedings created a conflict of interest.
The Tribunal found that since the child protection proceedings had concluded and the mother had regained custody, there was no clear and demonstrated conflict of interest.
The mother was permitted to continue as litigation guardian.
