Mindy Noble

The applicant sought judicial review of an HRTO decision dismissing his human rights complaint as abandoned after his counsel failed to attend a case management conference, and a subsequent decision denying reconsideration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's refusal to reconsider reasonable given an unexplained nine-month delay by counsel after learning of the dismissal.

The court also declined to extend the time to review the original dismissal decision due to the unexplained delay and the availability of the reconsideration process as an adequate alternative remedy.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing her application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged the respondent breached a 2011 settlement agreement.

The HRTO found the application was filed well beyond the six-month limitation period under the Human Rights Code and that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Divisional Court held that the HRTO's decision was reasonable and that the HRTO did not breach procedural fairness by deciding the jurisdictional issue in writing.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her application for alleged sexual harassment and age discrimination by an assistant manager at a Goodlife gym.

The applicant argued the Tribunal unreasonably interpreted the test for sexual harassment, made unreasonable evidentiary findings, and erred in finding Goodlife met its duty to investigate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's credibility assessments, factual findings, and conclusions regarding the duty to investigate were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her application for disability-based discrimination.

The applicant alleged she was terminated after disclosing her bipolar disorder and requesting accommodations.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by allowing the respondent employer to file a second, more detailed witness statement during the hearing without permitting the applicant to cross-examine the witness on the discrepancies between his two statements.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted to a differently constituted panel of the Tribunal for a new hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal had concluded that his transitory ankle injury was not a disability under the Human Rights Code and applied a balance of probabilities standard to its jurisdictional screening.

The Divisional Court granted the application for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal engaged in an impermissible merits review rather than a jurisdictional analysis.

The court held it was unreasonable for the Tribunal to depart from the 'plain and obvious' standard for jurisdictional screening and to fail to apply a multidimensional, socio-political analysis to the definition of disability.

The appellant sought judicial review of decisions from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) and the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT).

On consent, the Divisional Court quashed the HRTO decisions and remitted the matter for further adjudication without specific directions.

The Court also quashed the LAT decisions and remitted the matter for a new hearing before a different adjudicator, with reasons to follow.

The applicant, a Black municipal councillor, alleged he was subjected to racial profiling by a police officer.

After a Police Services Act (PSA) disciplinary hearing cleared the officer of misconduct, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) dismissed the applicant's human rights complaint under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding the matter had been appropriately dealt with.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court found the HRTO's decision unreasonable because it failed to apply or justify its departure from established Supreme Court of Canada and HRTO jurisprudence, which holds that it is generally unfair to use a PSA proceeding to bar a human rights complaint due to differences in purpose, standard of proof, and available remedies.

The HRTO decisions were set aside and remitted for a new hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of an HRTO decision that struck the personal respondents and dismissed his human rights application at a summary hearing.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's decision to strike the personal respondents was reasonable, as the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability.

However, the court held the HRTO unreasonably dismissed the application by failing to justify its conclusion that there was 'no evidence' of discrimination despite the applicant's factual assertions.

Furthermore, the HRTO breached procedural fairness by ordering a summary hearing after a previous Vice-Chair had already directed a merits hearing which had commenced.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted to the HRTO for a merits hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed his application.

The applicant had alleged that his termination during his probationary period was based on sex discrimination and reprisal.

The HRTO found no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant provided no evidence connecting his termination to a protected ground.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's decision was logical and justified.

This endorsement addresses procedural directions for a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario from a Divisional Court decision dismissing Adam Knauff’s application for judicial review of decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The moving party seeks clarification of the test for leave to appeal, referencing recent Court of Appeal decisions, and requested a five-judge panel.

The Court directs that the motion for leave to appeal will be heard orally, and sets timelines and procedures for intervention motions.

In the context of an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision, the applicant issued summonses to witness to two former HRTO Associate Chairs and the Registrar, seeking internal documents regarding the HRTO's standard of proof protocol.

The HRTO brought motions to quash the summonses and to strike portions of an affidavit sworn by a former adjudicator.

The Divisional Court granted the motions, finding that the summonses were a fishing expedition without a reasonable evidentiary basis, and that the challenged portions of the affidavit were protected by deliberative secrecy.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination application as an abuse of process due to his persistently discourteous and disruptive behaviour.

The applicant alleged reasonable apprehension of bias, procedural unfairness, and unreasonableness.

The Divisional Court declined to dismiss the judicial review for delay, accepting the applicant's medical explanation.

However, the court dismissed the application on the merits, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, no breach of procedural fairness, and concluding that the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the underlying application for abuse of process was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding that his 'ethical veganism' was not a creed under the Human Rights Code.

Prior to the decision, the parties had settled the underlying complaints, withdrawing them and agreeing not to refile, though preserving the right to seek judicial review on the preliminary issue.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the basis of mootness, finding no live controversy remained between the parties and declining to exercise its discretion to hear the moot case.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his application at a summary hearing.

The applicant alleged he was terminated due to a perceived disability after being exposed to COVID-19.

The Tribunal found he was terminated for violating workplace policies by failing to inform his spouse, a co-worker, of his exposure.

The Divisional Court held the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair, noting that a full merits hearing is not an absolute right and the Tribunal reasonably relied on the termination letter.

Ontario sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario finding that changes to the Ontario Autism Program (OAP) discriminated against a child with autism on the basis of disability.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and quashed the Tribunal's decision, finding it unreasonable.

The Court held that the Tribunal failed to provide a rational chain of analysis to support its conclusion that the child experienced adverse treatment based on her disability, as the OAP's funding caps were designed to address inequities and ensure all eligible children received some beneficial services.

The Court declined to remit the issue of disability discrimination back to the Tribunal, concluding that no rational analysis could lead to a finding of discrimination on these facts.

The applicant, a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing their claim that changes to the Ontario Autism Program discriminated on the basis of age and disability.

The tribunal had declined to decide whether the definition of 'age' in section 10 of the Human Rights Code, which limits age discrimination claims to persons 18 or older, violated section 15 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court held that the tribunal was required to decide the Charter issue as it was properly pleaded and necessary to resolve the applicant's claim.

The tribunal's decision was quashed and the matter remitted for resolution of the constitutional question.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint of racial discrimination against a retail store employee, as well as the Tribunal's subsequent reconsideration decision.

The applicant argued the hearing was procedurally unfair because the Tribunal limited his cross-examination on will-say statements and restricted evidence regarding the adequacy of the store's internal investigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's evidentiary rulings and narrowing of the issues were procedurally fair.

The Court also held that the Tribunal's merits decision was reasonable, as it was transparent, intelligible, and justified by the evidentiary record.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion to extend time for judicial review, the respondents sought costs.

The underlying dispute involved a failed $250 used car sale, which the applicant escalated into numerous administrative and legal proceedings.

The court awarded costs of $3,000 against the applicant, finding his proceedings to be frivolous and vexatious.

Additionally, the court revoked the applicant's fee waiver under s. 4.10 of the Administration of Justice Act and prohibited him from obtaining further fee waivers in related proceedings without prior judicial permission.

The self-represented applicant sought an extension of time to bring an application for judicial review of multiple administrative tribunal decisions stemming from a failed car sale in 2019.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no merit in the applicant's claims, which were based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and concluding that the applicant failed to prove that the respondents would not suffer prejudice from the five-year delay.

The court also raised concerns that the proceedings were frivolous and vexatious, and invited submissions on whether the applicant's fee waiver should be cancelled.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed their discrimination application.

The underlying complaint alleged age and family status discrimination because the minor applicants were initially denied access to the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as moot because the applicants received the requested vaccine prior to the hearing, and found no reasonable prospect of success.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal's summary hearing process was procedurally fair and its conclusions on mootness and prospect of success were reasonable.