Morgana Kellythorne

The applicant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decisions that dismissed his discrimination application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged his former employer failed to accommodate his workplace knee injury and terminated him.

The HRTO found the applicant had not provided medical evidence or communicated his availability for months, leading the employer to deem his employment abandoned.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the HRTO's decisions were reasonable, intelligible, and justified based on the record.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found she had not sustained a catastrophic impairment following a motor vehicle collision.

The applicant argued the Tribunal unreasonably rejected expert evidence that her accident-related sleep impairments resulted in a 9% whole person impairment rating.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal reasonably concluded there was a lack of causal evidence linking the sleep impairment to the accident and that the Tribunal's reasons were justified, transparent, and intelligible.

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 applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Special Education Tribunal (OSET) and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) regarding his son's special education placement.

The applicant argued his son, who has autism, required 1:1 support in a regular classroom.

The OSET dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that 1:1 support was a 'service' rather than a 'placement.' The HRTO subsequently summarily dismissed the applicant's human rights complaints.

The Divisional Court allowed the applications for judicial review, finding the OSET's narrow interpretation of 'placement' and the HRTO's summary dismissal were both unreasonable.

The HRTO decision was quashed and remitted for a hearing on the merits.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision ordering eviction for rent arrears.

The tenant argued he was unable to pay rent due to injuries sustained when his apartment ceiling collapsed, which is the subject of a separate Superior Court of Justice (SCJ) personal injury claim.

Due to procedural errors by the tenant's counsel, the LTB did not adjudicate the merits of the rent abatement or stay request.

The Divisional Court upheld the LTB's findings on rent arrears but quashed the denial of abatement and stayed the eviction order, directing that the abatement and stay issues be determined by the SCJ alongside the personal injury claim to prevent injustice.

The moving party sought an extension of time to bring an application for judicial review of a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board decision dated May 4, 2021.

The court considered the factors under s. 5(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The court found the delay of over four years was very long, lacked a good explanation, and caused prejudice to the responding party, which no longer exists.

Furthermore, the court found the merits of the proposed judicial review were not strong.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The applicant appealed and sought judicial review of Licence Appeal Tribunal decisions dismissing her claims for income replacement benefits and medical expenses, and ordering the destruction of internal tribunal documents she submitted as evidence of institutional bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application, finding no error of law in the Tribunal's determination that the insurer's examination notices complied with the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's orders striking the applicant's reply evidence and directing the destruction and non-dissemination of internal documents, concluding that the Tribunal reasonably exercised its jurisdiction to control its process and properly applied the doctrines of solicitor-client privilege and deliberative secrecy.

The applicant, a police constable, sought judicial review of an Ontario Civilian Police Commission decision upholding a finding of discreditable conduct.

The misconduct arose from profane and abusive comments the applicant submitted to an anonymous virtual suggestion box intended for EDI initiatives.

The applicant argued the process was an abuse of process due to entrapment and that his comments were protected by case-by-case privilege.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no reviewable error in the Commission's application of the legal principles, including the test for privilege, as the comments fell outside the purpose of the suggestion box.

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 insurer sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding that the respondent insured was not barred by the two-year limitation period from claiming income replacement benefits.

The Tribunal had concluded that the insurer's termination letter was not a clear and unequivocal denial because it left open the possibility of future benefits upon submission of an updated disability certificate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's interpretation of the letter as ambiguous was both reasonable and correct.

The court also upheld the Tribunal's refusal to extend the time for the insurer's reconsideration request.

The applicant sought judicial review of an HRTO interim decision that disqualified his counsel, a former Associate Chair of the HRTO.

The HRTO adjudicator had raised concerns about conflict of interest and reasonable apprehension of bias because the applicant's file was opened during the counsel's tenure as Associate Chair, and the counsel had been involved in the adjudicator's hiring process.

The Divisional Court allowed the application for judicial review, finding the interim decision unreasonable.

The court held that the adjudicator improperly conflated conflict of interest with bias, and that the appropriate remedy for a bias concern was for the adjudicator to recuse herself, not to deprive the applicant of his counsel of choice.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of an Ontario Civilian Police Commission decision upholding a finding of discreditable conduct and a penalty of 80 hours' forfeited pay.

The misconduct stemmed from a $50 anonymous donation the applicant made to the 'Freedom Convoy' protests while on unpaid leave.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it was reasonable for the Commission to conclude the protests were illegal and that the limitation on the applicant's freedom of expression was proportionate to the statutory objectives of maintaining effective policing.

The court also upheld the Commission's refusal to hear a new abuse of process argument on appeal.

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 moving party sought a panel review of a single judge's order that dismissed her request for an extension of time to review a previous order denying leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no error in principle in the single judge's decision that the moving party failed to provide evidence of intention to review, lacked an explanation for the delay, and that the underlying proposed appeal lacked merit.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding her dismissal for discreditable conduct and insubordination.

The charges stemmed from her failure to attend internal investigations and her use of a personal Twitter account to make inappropriate comments about the Chief of Police and others.

The applicant argued she was denied procedural fairness and accommodation for her post-traumatic stress disorder, and that her dismissal infringed her Charter rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the hearing officer reasonably accommodated her and properly proceeded in her absence.

The Court also upheld the Commission's finding that sections 7 and 15 of the Charter were not engaged, and that her dismissal was a proportionate limit on her freedom of expression under section 2(b).

The appellant appealed and sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the Residential Tenancies Act applied to her relationship with the respondent.

The appellant claimed she lived in the unit and shared a kitchen, which would exempt her under s. 5(i) of the Act.

The Board accepted the respondent's evidence that the appellant did not live on the premises.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and judicial review, finding no error in the Board's assessment of the evidence or its refusal to admit fresh evidence under the Palmer test.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal regarding statutory accident benefits.

The appellant's father, who is not a lawyer, sought to represent him, claiming the appellant suffers from a mental disability.

After a previous motion to appoint the father as litigation guardian was dismissed, the court provided directions for the father to bring a motion to appoint the Public Guardian and Trustee to act on the appellant's behalf.

The appellant sought an appeal and judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying him income replacement benefits under the 'any occupation' test and denying an extension of time to request reconsideration.

The Divisional Court found no errors of law or procedural unfairness in the adjudicator's handling of expert evidence, cross-examination, or factual findings.

The court held the adjudicator's decision was reasonable and dismissed the appeal and judicial review application.

The moving party tribunal brought a motion to strike an application for judicial review of an interim decision that removed the responding party's counsel due to an alleged appearance of a conflict of interest.

The tribunal argued the judicial review was premature.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to strike, finding it was not plain and obvious that the application would fail, as there was a reasonable argument that exceptional circumstances existed to justify reviewing the interim decision.