4 total
Human rights application alleging discrimination based on mispronunciation and incorrect honorifics dismissed at summary hearing.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services based on ethnic origin, gender identity, and marital status.
The allegations stemmed from police officers allegedly mispronouncing the word 'you' as 'Chu' or 'Jew' and referring to her as 'Mrs.' instead of 'Ms.' in written reports.
The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant failed to allege or point to evidence showing that the differential treatment imposed a disadvantage on her, which is required to establish substantive discrimination under the Code.
Tribunal orders production of original digital photographs of complainant's alleged injuries as arguably relevant.
The corporate respondent requested an order requiring the Peel Regional Police to produce original digital versions of photographs showing the complainant's alleged injuries.
The complainant opposed the request, arguing the copies already provided were adequate.
The Tribunal found the digital photographs were arguably relevant to the dispute over whether the complainant's wounds were caused by biting during the alleged assault.
The Tribunal ordered the production of the digital photographs at the corporate respondent's expense.
The Tribunal also granted the Ontario Human Rights Commission's request to withdraw from the proceeding without conditions.
Corporate respondent's motion for document production and prospective order preventing conflict of interest motions dismissed.
The corporate respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of original digital photographs from the police, clinical notes from the complainant's doctors, and an order preventing any future motion to remove its counsel for conflict of interest.
The Tribunal dismissed the request for photographs because the police were not served.
The request for medical records was deemed premature as the complainant was already complying.
The Tribunal also refused to restrict the rights of the Commission or complainant to bring future motions regarding counsel's potential conflict of interest.
OHIP General Manager has implied authority to grant retroactive prior approval for urgent out-of-country medical treatment.
Three appellants appealed decisions of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board denying payment for out-of-country medical treatment because they did not obtain prior written approval from the General Manager of OHIP.
The Divisional Court held that while the Health Insurance Act and regulations do not expressly confer discretion to grant retroactive prior approval, such authority is necessarily implied in urgent circumstances where prior approval cannot be obtained.
The Court rejected arguments based on legitimate expectations, promissory estoppel, limitation periods against minors, and sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.
Two of the appeals were allowed and remitted to the Board to determine if urgent circumstances existed, while the third was dismissed.
