4 total
Personal respondent removed from human rights application where organizational respondent conceded vicarious liability.
The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove the personal respondent, the President and CEO of Legal Aid Ontario, from the human rights application.
The applicant opposed the request, arguing the personal respondent was the directing mind of the organization.
Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the personal respondent, as the organizational respondent conceded vicarious liability and the applicant sought no remedy that only the personal respondent could provide.
The request to remove the personal respondent was granted.
Deceased personal respondent removed from human rights proceedings as corporate respondent remains vicariously liable.
The corporate respondent requested the removal of the personal respondent, Angela Longo, from the human rights proceedings following her death.
The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and determined that there was no longer a compelling reason to keep her estate as a party.
The corporate respondent would be vicariously liable for her actions and had the capacity to provide any remedy, while potential remedies against the personal respondent, such as training, were no longer applicable.
The request was granted and the personal respondent was removed.
Request for costs against applicant's counsel denied as no reprehensible conduct was established.
Following the dismissal of the applicant's judicial review application, the respondents sought costs against the applicant's counsel, the African Legal Clinic (ACLC).
The respondents argued the ACLC was the real litigant and made extreme allegations.
The Divisional Court dismissed the request, finding no evidence of reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous conduct by the ACLC.
The court also noted the matter raised novel issues of public importance, making a costs award inappropriate.
No costs were ordered.
Judicial review of student's expulsion for bringing a knife to school dismissed; proceedings were procedurally fair.
The applicant sought judicial review of a school board decision upholding her son's limited expulsion for bringing a concealed knife to school and threatening another student.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the principal's inquiry and the board's appeal hearing were procedurally fair.
The court held that the board's decision was not patently unreasonable and that the expulsion did not violate the student's or parent's section 7 Charter rights.
