Mindy Noble

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.

The applicant sought judicial review of fifteen reconsideration decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) dismissing his applications alleging discrimination by various individuals and organizations.

The applicant requested an extension of time to file the judicial review, which the Divisional Court granted due to the HRTO's delay and lack of prejudice.

However, the Court dismissed the application on the merits, finding that the HRTO's decisions to deny reconsideration were reasonable and that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the same adjudicator hearing the reconsideration requests.

The Durham Regional Police Services Board and Christopher Delaney appealed a Divisional Court decision that found the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario's (HRTO) decisions unreasonable.

The HRTO had ruled that a settlement agreement for a second human rights application also settled a prior, undecided first application by Joseph Briggs, and subsequently cancelled a favourable decision for Briggs on the first application as an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court reversed the HRTO, finding its interpretation of the settlement unreasonable and deciding the matter itself rather than remitting it.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's finding that the HRTO's decision was unreasonable due to its narrow interpretation of the factual matrix and exclusion of relevant evidence (Form 25).

The Court of Appeal also affirmed the Divisional Court's discretion to decide the matter rather than remitting it, citing the inordinate delay and the binary nature of the issue.

The appeal was dismissed, confirming that the settlement did not cover the first application.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to add two respondents, amend the application to include the social area of goods and services, and add related allegations.

The Tribunal granted the requests, noting that the application was at an early stage, mediation had not taken place, and the proposed new respondents did not object to being added.

The respondents filed a Request for Reconsideration of a decision that found them liable for refusing to allow a service animal into their restaurant and terminating an employee.

They claimed they did not receive notice of the proceedings due to mail delivery issues after moving to a new community.

The Tribunal found the respondents' evidence regarding the mail delivery issues and their delay in filing the request to be inconsistent, misleading, and not credible.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondents failed to prove they did not receive notice through no fault of their own, and that their request was untimely without a good faith explanation.

The Request for Reconsideration was denied.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a hearing scheduled for one week later, citing emotional distress from the death of his son four months prior.

The applicants opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting that while the death of a child is tragic, a request made four months after the event and only one week before the hearing does not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying a late adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

At the outset of the hearing, the applicant objected to the respondent being represented by an unlicensed individual.

The representative, a former employee of the respondent now acting as a consultant, argued he fell under the Law Society Act exemption for employees of a single corporation.

The Tribunal found the exemption did not apply to his current consultant arrangement and ruled he could not represent the respondent.

The Tribunal subsequently granted the respondent's request for an adjournment to retain legal counsel, finding no concrete prejudice to the applicant.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing because a key witness would be out of province.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that witness unavailability due to travel is not an extraordinary circumstance warranting an adjournment.

The applicant requested that his doctor be permitted to testify by teleconference.

The Tribunal granted this request, noting that the doctor's credibility was not a significant issue and the respondent did not object.

The applicant alleged reprisal under the Human Rights Code, claiming he was assaulted by police officers.

The respondent sought to rely on a prior Police Services Act disciplinary judgment that cleared one of the officers of using excessive force, arguing issue estoppel and abuse of process.

The Tribunal held that while the judgment was admissible and not barred by s. 83(8) of the PSA, the doctrines of issue estoppel and abuse of process did not apply to prevent the applicant from litigating the excessive force allegations, following the Supreme Court's decision in Penner.

Following a decision upholding their human rights applications regarding discrimination based on the use of a service animal, the applicants requested that the Tribunal anonymize their identities in the decision.

Although the request was made after the final decision was issued, the Tribunal treated it as a request for reconsideration under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the disclosure of sensitive mental health information, including suicidal ideation and involuntary hospitalization, warranted anonymizing the applicants, witnesses, respondents, and the service animal.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add a former employee of the organizational respondent as an individual respondent to her human rights application.

The application alleged the former employee harassed her because of her relationships with racialized people.

Applying the three-part test from Smyth, the Tribunal found that the allegations could support a Code violation, the individual's conduct was a central issue, and there was no apparent prejudice.

The request to add the individual respondent was granted.

The applicant requested an order to amend her human rights application to provide more information about her teaching background, additional facts regarding contact during her maternity leave, and to request public interest remedies.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, finding no prejudice to the respondent as the amendments only provided a fuller explanation of the existing discrimination allegations and added public interest remedies.

The applicants, a mother and daughter, filed human rights applications against a restaurant and its owners.

The mother, who uses a service animal for multiple disabilities, was denied service and subjected to rude and aggressive behaviour by the owners when she attended the restaurant.

The daughter, who worked as a waitress at the restaurant, was instructed by the owners to deny her mother entry and call the police if she returned.

The owners also threatened to report the daughter's separate dog sledding business to public health if the mother pursued her legal rights.

The Tribunal found that the respondents intentionally discriminated against the mother on the basis of disability and against the daughter on the basis of family status and association, and engaged in reprisal.

The Tribunal awarded $10,000 to the mother and $15,000 to the daughter for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with public interest remedies.

The applicant requested an order to amend her human rights application to include the ground of creed, explaining she inadvertently omitted it when self-represented.

The respondents opposed, claiming prejudice and the need for further investigation.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting the original application explicitly linked the applicant's head scarf to her religion, meaning the respondents were not prejudiced by the amendment.

The applicant, a person with a developmental disability, worked as a general labourer for the respondent for over 10 years.

She was paid a 'training honorarium' of $1.00 to $1.25 per hour, while non-disabled employees performing substantially similar work were paid the statutory minimum wage.

The Tribunal found that this differential pay practice constituted discrimination on the basis of disability, as it imposed an arbitrary disadvantage on the applicant solely because of her disability, despite allowing her to maintain provincial disability support payments.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay compensation for lost income and injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and issued compliance orders including a cease and desist order and mandatory training.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination against her employer and several members of its management team.

Following a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding the personal respondents, the applicant consented to removing all personal respondents except one.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the agreed-upon personal respondents and directed the parties to mediation.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application by adding reprisal as a ground of discrimination, adding new allegations and remedies, and adding a personal respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the proposed amendments were substantial, unrelated to the original application regarding a failure to accommodate, and would prejudice the respondent given the proximity to the scheduled hearing.

The applicant alleged racial profiling and harassment by police officers on three occasions.

The respondent requested to dismiss the October 2011 incident for delay and the January 2012 incident for lack of proof.

The Tribunal denied both requests, finding that the October 2011 incident formed part of a series of incidents within the limitation period, and that it was premature to dismiss the January 2012 incident before the hearing and document production process.

The applicant, who has claustrophobia and irritable bowel syndrome, alleged that the respondent travel agency discriminated against her by refusing to provide further services after she disclosed her disabilities and requested an aisle seat near the front of the plane for future travel.

The respondent claimed it denied services because the applicant was combative and demanding, and denied knowledge of her disabilities.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence credible and concluded that her disclosure of her disabilities was a factor in the respondent's decision to deny services, thereby breaching section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent breached its procedural duty to accommodate by failing to inquire into the applicant's needs or consider accommodation options when she subsequently called to ask why she was denied services.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $5,000 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed an application alleging racial discrimination in the provision of police services.

Due to a lack of clarity in the initial narrative, the Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

At the hearing, the applicant, having retained counsel, proposed to amend the application to provide specific details of an alleged discriminatory police stop and search.

The respondent consented to the amendment.

The Tribunal ordered that the application not be dismissed at this stage and directed the applicant to file an amended application.