Mary Ellen McIntyre

The mother, sister, and two brothers of a murder victim appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying them compensation for nervous shock.

The Board had denied compensation based on the deceased's contributory conduct and a finding that the claimants did not meet the criteria for nervous shock because they did not witness the murder.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal for three of the claimants, finding the Board erred in law by failing to conduct a proportionality analysis between the victim's conduct and the offenders' actions.

The Court also held the Board erred in its application of the nervous shock criteria, as the common law does not strictly require claimants to directly witness the event if they come upon the immediate aftermath.

The applicant, a part-time cook/cleaner at a parish, took an eight-month leave of absence after sustaining physical injuries at another job.

When she attempted to return to work, the parish pastor informed her that her employment was terminated and her replacement would be kept on.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and age.

The Tribunal found that the respondents discriminated against the applicant because of her disability by failing to accommodate her return to work and terminating her employment.

The age discrimination allegation was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The Tribunal awarded $5,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered human rights training and policy updates.

The applicant alleged that her former supervisor discriminated against her on the basis of ancestry and ethnic origin by making derogatory comments about Spanish people and enforcing an English-only rule on the factory floor.

The Tribunal found that the language requirement was a management directive for safety and that the allegations of derogatory comments were unsupported by credible evidence, particularly given the predominantly Latin American workforce.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought to add a director of the corporate respondent as a personal respondent after the corporation went into receivership.

The Tribunal applied the three-part test from Smyth and found no allegations that the proposed respondent interacted with the applicant or had knowledge of the alleged discrimination.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the director and granted the request to remove the corporate respondent.

The applicants, who self-identify as Black and of Dominican descent, alleged they experienced racial discrimination when they were barred from the respondent restaurant.

The respondent claimed the denial of service was due to an incident where one applicant yelled at a server, and a subsequent perception that he was intoxicated.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's inappropriate behaviour and the owner's snap judgment regarding intoxication were the actual reasons for the denial of service.

Finding no link between the respondent's actions and the applicants' race, the Tribunal dismissed the applications.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal which found her claim for damages against the landlords was res judicata.

The tenant had previously sought damages for missing stored possessions, but the Tribunal initially ruled it lacked jurisdiction under the former wording of the Tenant Protection Act.

Following a legislative amendment clarifying jurisdiction, the tenant brought a fresh application, which the Tribunal dismissed on the basis of res judicata.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal erred in law in applying res judicata and that its rigorous application would be unfair given the uncertainty in the law at the material time.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal to be heard on the merits.