Human Rights - ODC

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim decision and a reconsideration decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) that dismissed most of her discrimination and reprisal application for delay.

The HRTO had directed a combined summary hearing (to assess reasonable prospect of success) and preliminary hearing (to assess delay).

The Divisional Court found that the HRTO breached procedural fairness and rendered an unreasonable decision by conflating the two hearings, specifically by making substantive determinations about the merits of the applicant's timely allegations during the delay hearing without permitting viva voce evidence on the merits.

The application for judicial review was allowed, the HRTO decisions were set aside in part, and the matter was remitted to the HRTO.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision that dismissed her discrimination complaint against the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) and its adjudicators.

The HRTO had ruled it lacked jurisdiction to review LTB decisions or the conduct of its adjudicators.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding it frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting the applicant had already unsuccessfully challenged the same LTB decisions through a combined appeal and judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision denying his request to reactivate his human rights application.

The application had been deferred pending grievance arbitrations, which were withdrawn in 2018.

The applicant filed his reactivation request over four years later.

The Tribunal declined to extend the time limit due to the length of the delay, the lack of a reasonable explanation, and prejudice to the employer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable and noting the applicant was the author of his own misfortune.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his application as out of time, and a subsequent reconsideration decision.

The Tribunal found the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under the Human Rights Code and there was no evidence the delay was incurred in good faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applicant's motion to admit fresh evidence, finding it did not meet the test for admission on judicial review.

The Court held there was no denial of procedural fairness and the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable, dismissing the application for judicial review.

The applicant, a foreign-trained medical doctor, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his application for lack of standing.

The HRTO had found that the applicant failed to allege his own rights were infringed regarding the allocation of residency positions.

The Divisional Court held that the HRTO's decision was unreasonable because the applicant had included evidence in his application showing he had applied for and been denied a residency position.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted to the HRTO.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint of age discrimination and reprisal against a volunteer model aviation club.

The Tribunal had found that the applicant was removed from his position due to interpersonal conflict, not age, and that he pursued the complaint in bad faith, disentitling him to protection from reprisal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appellant sought judicial review of his removal and arrest from a city bus station for distributing pamphlets, seeking declaratory relief and an order quashing the trespass decision.

The Divisional Court held it lacked jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief because the Trespass to Property Act does not confer a statutory power of decision.

The court further found the application to quash was moot and declined to exercise its discretion to hear it.

The matter was transferred to the Superior Court of Justice to be heard as a Charter application.

The applicants, including several religious physicians and organizations, challenged two policies of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario that require physicians who object to providing certain medical services (such as abortion or medical assistance in dying) on religious or conscientious grounds to provide an 'effective referral' to a non-objecting provider.

The applicants argued these policies infringed their rights to freedom of religion and equality under the Charter.

The Divisional Court held that while the effective referral requirements did infringe the physicians' freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter, the infringement was justified under s. 1 as a reasonable limit to ensure equitable access to healthcare for patients.

The court dismissed the applications.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his human rights application for delay.

The incidents complained of occurred between 2003 and 2012, well beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision reasonable, as the applicant failed to provide a good faith reason for the delay and could not establish a series of incidents extending into the limitation period.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing her complaint against the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT), the City of Windsor, and the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The HRTO had dismissed the complaint against the SBT based on adjudicative immunity, and against the other respondents under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding the issues had already been authoritatively decided by the SBT.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the HRTO's decisions were reasonable and that the applicant's proper remedy was to appeal the SBT decision rather than launch a collateral attack via a human rights complaint.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his application.

He alleged his former employer, the Ottawa Catholic School Board, failed to accommodate his return to work from a medical leave by improperly requiring him to attend an independent medical examination (IME).

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal reasonably concluded that the employer had a bona fide reason to question the treating physician's medical information and was justified in requesting an IME.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's refusal to admit post-application evidence regarding the accommodation process.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which summarily dismissed his discrimination complaint against the respondent housing corporation regarding his eviction for rent arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it to be an abuse of process as the applicant sought to relitigate his employment termination and eviction, which had already been settled or decided.

The court held that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable, procedurally fair, and entitled to deference.

The applicant was ordered to pay costs of $2,644.55 and barred from bringing further applications without paying outstanding costs and obtaining leave.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision which found that the respondent police service did not discriminate against her when officers apprehended her under the Mental Health Act.

The applicant, who was experiencing a mental health crisis, was taken to the hospital after officers spent an hour trying to convince her to attend voluntarily.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found no defect in the Tribunal's proceedings or its conclusion that the officers had cause to apprehend the applicant.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing her human rights complaints against her former employer.

The Tribunal had dismissed the applications as an abuse of process after the applicant and her counsel unilaterally refused to attend the scheduled hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the judicial review, finding no evidence of bias or institutional bias.

The Court held that the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the applications for abuse of process was reasonable and justified given the applicant's deliberate failure to attend the hearing.

The applicant, a student with disabilities, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision that found the school board failed to accommodate him but denied his claim for special damages covering private school tuition.

The Divisional Court held that while it was reasonable to deny tuition costs for subsequent years because the parent removed the student from the public system without giving the board a further chance to accommodate, it was unreasonable to deny tuition costs for the remainder of the Grade 9 year when the board had completely failed to provide support.

The application was granted in part and remitted to the Tribunal to assess special damages for the Grade 9 year.

The self-represented applicant appeared before the Divisional Court for a judicial review application and indicated he was unwell.

Although he did not request an adjournment and accused the panel of bias, the court decided to adjourn the matter to a fixed date to ensure the applicant was capable of fully presenting his arguments.

The respondent's request to proceed was denied.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint that s. 10(5) of the Coroners Act discriminates against migrant farm workers by denying them mandatory inquests into workplace deaths, a benefit extended to mining and construction workers.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal reasonably applied the two-step Kapp test for discrimination and reasonably concluded that the exclusion of migrant farm workers from mandatory inquests did not violate s. 1 of the Human Rights Code, given their lower risk of fatal workplace injury and lesser variety of hazards compared to construction and mining workers.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants brought a motion to set aside an order quashing their application for judicial review of the Minister's decision to apply an Interim Enforcement Policy to certain First Nations regarding hunting and fishing rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, upholding the motions judge's finding that the Minister's decision was an exercise of prosecutorial discretion and therefore not justiciable absent an abuse of process.

The Court also agreed that the applicant's section 15 Charter claim was bound to fail as the policy did not alter his rights or impose a burden based on race.

Furthermore, the Court held it lacked jurisdiction under the Judicial Review Procedure Act because the policy was not an exercise of a statutory power.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination claim against a university and a department chair.

The Tribunal had dismissed the application because it was filed more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination, which it determined was the date the applicant was asked to withdraw for academic reasons.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the application as untimely was reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding him $500 for a Charter breach during a traffic stop, seeking higher damages and appealing the dismissal of his claim against the OIPRD.

The respondent police cross-appealed the finding that the traffic tickets were motivated by race.

The Divisional Court allowed the cross-appeal, finding the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error by basing the racial motivation finding solely on the officer's demeanour.

The court found no Charter breach and upheld the dismissal of the claim against the OIPRD, as there was no evidence of bad faith to overcome statutory immunity.