Naomi Margo

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision declaring her a vexatious litigant.

The court initiated a review under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if the proceeding was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found that the applicant's son, who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant himself, was improperly attempting to represent his mother and pursue the litigation on his own behalf without her sworn authorization or proper medical evidence of her capacity.

Concluding that the application was an abuse of process and an attempt to circumvent prior orders, the Divisional Court dismissed the proceeding.

The applicant, a transgender man, requested that the Tribunal anonymize his application to prevent being 'outed' and facing social isolation.

He also requested to expedite the proceeding due to his deteriorating health from Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and recurrent infections.

The respondent consented to both requests.

The Tribunal granted the anonymization request, finding it an exceptional situation where the risk of outing outweighed the open court principle.

The Tribunal also granted the request to expedite, directing that mediation be scheduled promptly.

The applicant estate filed a human rights application alleging that a hospital policy requiring a six-month abstinence from alcohol before a liver transplant was discriminatory.

The application was filed nearly two years after the events in question.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for delay, finding that the applicant's ignorance of the law did not constitute a good faith explanation under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code, as she had all the necessary information to make inquiries at the time.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's request for the adjudicator to recuse himself, finding that his former employment with the Government of Ontario over 20 years ago was too remote to create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of an appeal to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

Following the issuance of the HPARB decision, the applicant filed a timely request to reactivate.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, reactivated the application, and directed that a morning mediation be scheduled.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing after her legal counsel withdrew for health reasons.

The respondents opposed the request, noting the applicant's failure to comply with pre-hearing disclosure rules.

The Tribunal found that the counsel's withdrawal constituted an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment.

However, given the unexplained failure to comply with disclosure rules prior to the withdrawal, the Tribunal imposed strict conditions requiring the applicant to provide document and witness lists within three weeks, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The applicant, who identifies as Pagan, sought to retain his amputated foot bones following surgery for religious reasons.

The respondent hospital required the bones to be released directly to a funeral home or upon receipt of a burial certificate, which the applicant opposed.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

Finding that the matter required further evidence regarding the connection between the applicant's religious beliefs and the respondent's policy, as well as the respondent's authority and discretion, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the application and referred the matter to mediation.