Mark Edelstein

The applicant, a foreign-trained dentist, filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent college's non-exemptible examination requirement for a specialty certificate discriminated against him.

The respondent college requested that the application be dismissed on a preliminary basis under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been appropriately dealt with by its Registration Committee.

The Tribunal found that the Registration Committee process was a 'proceeding' within the meaning of section 45.1, that the discrimination issue was essentially the same, and that the applicant had a full opportunity to present his case.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, noting it is not an appellate body for other tribunals with a public protection mandate.

The applicant, whose brother died while working as a migrant agricultural worker, brought a human rights application alleging that the Coroners Act discriminates by not mandating inquests for agricultural worker fatalities.

In this interim decision, the applicant sought production of data regarding participant fatalities and medical repatriations from third parties FARMS and HRSDC.

The Tribunal ordered the third parties to produce the requested data from 1978 to the present, noting that the respondent did not oppose the production and the third parties either did not oppose or cited privacy concerns that an order would resolve.

The College of Nurses of Ontario sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which refused to dismiss a human rights complaint filed by a nurse.

The nurse alleged discrimination based on disability after the College's Registration Committee imposed conditions on her certificates of registration.

The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) had previously reviewed and upheld the conditions, finding they reasonably accommodated her disability while protecting the public.

The Divisional Court quashed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code by failing to defer to HPARB's specialized public protection mandate and by improperly assessing the adequacy of HPARB's reasons rather than whether the substance of the complaint was appropriately dealt with.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former union, several union representatives, and a lawyer retained by the union, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, creed, and association, as well as reprisal.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the allegations against the lawyer related to professional negligence rather than discrimination, and the allegations against the union respondents did not establish a link between their actions and any discriminatory factors.

Concluding that the application had no reasonable prospect of success, the Tribunal dismissed it.

The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) brought a motion to intervene as a friend of the court in an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The underlying application was brought by the College of Nurses of Ontario.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that HPARB's participation was not necessary to assist the court, as other parties were well-equipped to address the relevant issues.

Furthermore, the court noted that HPARB's proposed submissions were inappropriately adversarial for a quasi-judicial tribunal.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging that the respondent College discriminated against him on the basis of sex and marital status when its Complaints Committee dismissed his professional misconduct complaint against a social worker.

The underlying complaint related to a custody and access assessment conducted by the social worker during family law proceedings.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant provided only bald allegations of bias and discrimination with no evidence connecting the Committee's decision to a protected ground under the Code.