ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
CITATION: City of Toronto v. HRTO, 2010 ONSC 918
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 404/09
DATE: 20100205
CUNNINGHAM A.C.J.S.C., FERRIER AND MCCOMBS JJ.
BETWEEN:
CITY OF TORONTO, WILLIAM FORREST, BARRY GUTTERIDGE and MARIE MLAKAR
Applicants
– and –
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO and MARY NAGUIB
Respondents
Counsel
Heather Crisp, for the Applicants
Margaret Leighton and Reema Khawja, for the Respondents
HEARD at Toronto: February 5, 2010
mccombs j. (orally)
[1] We are all sympathetic to the reality that this matter has been ongoing since 2003 and it has doubtless been stressful for the individuals who are the subject of the complaint.
[2] However, we are not persuaded that this reality, by itself, is a sufficient basis to justify departing from the well-established rule that courts will generally decline to hear judicial review applications concerning interlocutory orders.
[3] While the history is troubling, this is simply not one of those exceptional cases that would warrant our intervention notwithstanding that a jurisdictional issue has been raised. The application is therefore quashed.
[4] No costs.
MCCOMBS J.
CUNNINGHAM A.C.J.S.C.
FERRIER J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 5, 2010
Date of Release: February 12, 2010
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
CITATION: City of Toronto v. HRTO, 2010 ONSC 918
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 404/09
DATE: 20100205
CUNNINGHAM A.C.J.S.C., FERRIER AND MCCOMBS JJ.
BETWEEN:
CITY OF TORONTO, WILLIAM FORREST, BARRY GUTTERIDGE and MARIE MLAKAR
Applicants
– and –
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO and MARY NAGUIB
Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MCCOMBS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 5, 2010
Date of Release: February 12, 2010