Nabila F. Qureshi

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.

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 plaintiff moved for the production of redacted and unproduced documents from the defendant prior to examinations for discovery, related to his termination from Correctional Service Canada (CSC).

The defendant opposed, arguing prematurity, privilege, and public safety concerns.

The court found the motion was not premature and ordered the production of unedited CCTV footage, rejecting privacy and public safety concerns regarding inmate identities, citing relevance to the plaintiff's alleged conduct and the deemed undertaking rule.

However, the court dismissed the request for an unredacted email concerning a parking lot incident, finding it irrelevant to the pleadings.

It also dismissed the production of five emails claimed under litigation privilege, finding the defendant failed to prove litigation was reasonably apprehended at their creation.

One email, initially misdated, was found to be litigation privileged as it was created after litigation commenced.

Two emails related to security clearances were also deemed irrelevant to the remaining pleaded issues.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment dismissing his action for wrongful dismissal and vacation pay.

The trial judge found that the appellant, a courier, was an independent contractor and had abandoned his position after leaving work midday following complaints from a client and failing to return for 11 days.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings of fact, concluding there was no palpable and overriding error in determining the appellant abandoned his work and was an independent contractor.

The defendants brought a motion for particulars of the plaintiff's statement of claim, which sought a declaration of constructive trust over properties, declarations of oppressive conduct or fraudulent conveyances, and damages.

The court partially granted and partially dismissed the motion.

Particulars were ordered for allegations regarding the indirect ownership of specific properties by each defendant and for clarifying the recipient and timing of alleged fraudulent transfers of income.

However, requests for particulars on the specific amounts claimed from each defendant for unjust enrichment/quantum meruit and the exact amounts of alleged rental payment transfers were dismissed, as these were deemed evidentiary matters not necessary for pleading.