9 total
Tribunal granted stay of child care centre's licence suspension after imminent threat was eliminated.
The appellant child care centre brought a motion to stay a Protection Order issued by the Director under the Child Care and Early Years Act, 2014, which suspended its operations due to alleged inappropriate infant feeding practices.
The Tribunal first determined it had the ancillary authority under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and its home statute to grant an interim stay, despite the Act's silence on staying suspensions.
Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm to the appellant's business, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay because the appellant had already eliminated the imminent threat by suspending the involved staff and closing the infant room.
The motion for a stay was granted.
Private career college registration renewal refused due to unauthorized refunds and unapproved program delivery.
The Applicant, Toronto School of Technology Inc., appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse to renew its registration under the Private Career Colleges Act, 2005.
The Registrar's investigation revealed that the Applicant had engaged in egregious conduct, including providing unauthorized refunds to students funded by the Second Career program, delivering vocational programs remotely without approval, failing to maintain proper student records, and scheduling instructors to teach multiple classes simultaneously.
The Tribunal found the evidence against the Applicant compelling and rejected the Applicant's defense of an "honest but mistaken belief." The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant failed to operate the college in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity, and ordered the Superintendent to refuse to renew the registration.
Human rights application dismissed as an abuse of process due to applicant's ungovernable conduct and non-attendance.
The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in the provision of goods and services related to the Second Career program.
The applicant repeatedly failed to comply with the Tribunal's rules and directions regarding pre-hearing disclosure, made baseless allegations against the adjudicator and respondent's counsel, and engaged in abusive and disrespectful conduct.
The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.
The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and as an abuse of process.
Adjudicator denies recusal and adjournment requests, scheduling hearing on whether application constitutes abuse of process.
The applicant failed to comply with multiple Case Assessment Directions requiring him to disclose documents and witness summaries.
He subsequently requested that the adjudicator recuse himself for alleged bias, and sought an adjournment of the upcoming hearing on the grounds of lack of notice and a desire to retain counsel.
The adjudicator dismissed the recusal request, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, and denied the adjournment, noting the applicant had timely notice and failed to act diligently to secure representation.
Due to the applicant's ongoing non-compliance, unsubstantiated allegations, and inappropriate communications, the adjudicator converted the scheduled hearing into a teleconference to address whether the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process.
Reprisal allegation dismissed summarily; failure to accommodate surgery allegation proceeds to full hearing.
The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal regarding his application for funding under the Second Career program.
The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal found that the reprisal allegation had no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence of retaliatory intent in the respondent's requests for information.
However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation regarding the failure to accommodate the applicant's need for surgery to proceed to a full hearing, as credibility issues could not be resolved summarily.
Summary hearing adjourned due to applicant's alleged non-receipt of scheduling emails despite procedural non-compliance.
The applicant requested an adjournment of a summary hearing, claiming he had a job interview and had not received the Tribunal's correspondence offering alternative dates.
Despite the applicant's failure to comply with the Tribunal's Rules regarding communication, the adjudicator granted the adjournment to ensure fairness, noting the applicant's claim that he did not receive the scheduling emails.
The adjudicator also admonished the applicant for his unacceptable behaviour during the teleconference and directed that future scheduling communications be conducted by mail.
Human rights application dismissed; benefits denial based on program rules, not creed discrimination.
The applicant alleged discrimination in goods, services, and contract on the basis of creed, claiming she was denied Self Employment Benefits because her proposed business involved reading tarot cards.
The respondents maintained the denial was because the applicant had previously operated similar businesses, making her ineligible under program guidelines.
The Tribunal found that the decision to deny benefits was based solely on the program's terms and conditions regarding prior similar businesses, not on the applicant's practice of tarot.
The application was dismissed without needing to determine if tarot constitutes a creed under the Code.
Court lacks jurisdiction to extend refraining order time limits, but Director must prove service.
The Director of the Family Responsibility Office appealed a motions judge's order lifting the suspension of a defaulting payor's driver's licence, issuing a refraining order, and directing the withdrawal of any federal licence denial application.
The Court of Appeal held that the motions judge lacked jurisdiction to make a refraining order outside the 30-day statutory period.
However, because the Director failed to prove service of the First Notice regarding the driver's licence suspension, the suspension could not stand.
The Court further held that the motions judge erred in ordering the withdrawal of the federal licence denial application, as the payor had been properly served with notice and failed to take the required statutory steps to prevent it.
The appeal was allowed in part.
Driver's licence suspension upheld where Director proved proper service of notice of intention to suspend.
The respondent was in default of a child support order and his driver's licence was suspended after the Director sent a First Notice to his address on record.
The respondent brought a motion to reinstate his licence, claiming he did not receive the notice.
The motions judge ordered the reinstatement of the licence for 90 days to allow the respondent to bring a motion to vary support.
The Director appealed.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Director proved proper service of the First Notice in accordance with the legislation.
The motions judge had no jurisdiction to order reinstatement or to make a refraining order outside the statutory 30-day period.
