Human Rights - ODC

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing his discrimination claim.

The respondents raised the issue of prematurity because the applicant did not seek reconsideration at the Tribunal.

The prematurity issue was bifurcated for a separate hearing.

The Divisional Court concluded it was not advisable to separate the prematurity issue from the rest of the application and adjourned it to be decided by the panel hearing the full application for judicial review.

The applicant brought a motion to stay the enforcement of a $34,508.98 Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario award pending its application for judicial review.

The applicant argued there was a real risk the respondent would be unable to repay the award if the judicial review succeeded.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, as the evidence of the respondent's inability to repay was speculative and based on outdated income information.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision refusing to reconsider a default judgment.

The default judgment was issued after the applicant's former counsel failed to respond to Tribunal communications, despite the applicant having previously participated in the proceedings.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's reliance on a deeming rule to penalize the applicant for its lawyer's negligence was unreasonable, as it failed to conduct a contextual analysis.

The application was granted, the Tribunal's decisions were quashed, and a new hearing was ordered.

The York University Staff Association (YUSA) and the Black Legal Action Centre (BLAC) brought motions for leave to intervene in a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

YUSA sought to intervene as an added party under Rule 13.01, while BLAC sought to intervene as a friend of the Court under Rule 13.02.

The applicant consented, but the respondent university opposed.

The Divisional Court granted both motions, finding that YUSA had a significant interest in the workplace procedures at issue and that BLAC would provide a useful systemic perspective on anti-Black racism without expanding the issues or causing undue delay.

Two organizations, York University Staff Association (YUSA) and Black Legal Action Centre (BLAC), sought leave to intervene in an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The underlying decision dismissed most of the applicant's discrimination claims for being outside the one-year limitation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions for leave to intervene.

The court found that YUSA did not have a direct interest in the narrow limitation period issue before the court, and that BLAC would not provide a distinct perspective from the applicant and risked introducing irrelevant peripheral issues.

The appellant sought judicial review of decisions from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) and the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT).

On consent, the Divisional Court quashed the HRTO decisions and remitted the matter for further adjudication without specific directions.

The Court also quashed the LAT decisions and remitted the matter for a new hearing before a different adjudicator, with reasons to follow.

The applicants, tow truck drivers with decades of experience, sought judicial review of O. Reg. 167/23 under the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021.

The regulation disqualified them from obtaining a tow certificate due to mandatory lifetime weapons prohibitions stemming from 20-year-old criminal convictions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the regulation was not ultra vires as it reasonably aligned with the Act's purpose of combating crime in the towing industry.

The Court also dismissed the Charter challenges, holding that the evidentiary record did not establish criminal history as an analogous ground under s. 15, and that the regulatory disqualification constituted neither 'treatment' nor 'punishment' under s. 12.

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

The applicant alleged he was terminated due to a perceived disability after being exposed to COVID-19.

The Tribunal found he was terminated for violating workplace policies by failing to inform his spouse, a co-worker, of his exposure.

The Divisional Court held the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair, noting that a full merits hearing is not an absolute right and the Tribunal reasonably relied on the termination letter.

Ontario sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario finding that changes to the Ontario Autism Program (OAP) discriminated against a child with autism on the basis of disability.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and quashed the Tribunal's decision, finding it unreasonable.

The Court held that the Tribunal failed to provide a rational chain of analysis to support its conclusion that the child experienced adverse treatment based on her disability, as the OAP's funding caps were designed to address inequities and ensure all eligible children received some beneficial services.

The Court declined to remit the issue of disability discrimination back to the Tribunal, concluding that no rational analysis could lead to a finding of discrimination on these facts.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision reinstating five employees who were terminated for engaging in a sexually harassing WhatsApp group chat.

The arbitrator had found the investigation flawed because the targeted employee refused to file a formal complaint and the conduct occurred off-duty.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, holding that the arbitrator's reasoning was unreasonable as it failed to recognize the employer's statutory duty under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to investigate incidents of workplace harassment regardless of whether a formal complaint is filed.

The matter was remitted to a different arbitrator.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding a workplace investigation into an incident between a Black grievor and a white colleague.

While the arbitrator found the investigation procedurally flawed, he dismissed the claim that it was tainted by anti-Black racism or unconscious bias.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the proper articulation of the test for prima facie discrimination is a question of central importance subject to a correctness standard of review.

The court held that the arbitrator misapprehended the test by requiring racism to be the 'dominant possibility' and by misapplying the shifting evidential burdens.

The discrimination claim was remitted to the arbitrator.

The applicant, a racialized individual with no criminal record, applied for a Special Constable position with the Toronto Community Housing Corporation.

He was denied the position after failing a pre-screen background check conducted by the Toronto Police Services Board (TPSB).

The TPSB refused to provide reasons or disclose the information relied upon.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court held that the TPSB's decision was of sufficient public character to be subject to judicial review and that the TPSB breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide the applicant with reasons and an opportunity to respond.

The decision was quashed and remitted to the TPSB.

The applicant sought judicial review of several Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions, including three decisions from 2017 and 2019.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering dismissing the applications regarding the older decisions due to excessive delay.

The applicant provided submissions, but the court found the delay of over four to five years to be inordinate with no credible explanation.

The court dismissed the applications for judicial review of the 2017 and 2019 decisions as abuses of process that were doomed to fail.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision that partially dismissed his claims of discrimination in the hiring process for a law firm associate position.

The HRTO had found age discrimination, racial discrimination, and reprisal by the respondents, but dismissed other allegations.

On judicial review, the applicant argued the HRTO Vice-Chair breached procedural fairness, misapprehended evidence, and committed errors of law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's process was fair, free of bias, and its conclusions were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The applicant police officers sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision ordering the production of their personnel files in relation to a human rights complaint.

After the police service confirmed no responsive records existed, the respondents argued the application was moot.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding no live controversy remained.

The Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot case, noting that recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence regarding police disciplinary records should be applied in a genuine adversarial context.

The Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program appealed a Social Benefits Tribunal decision finding that s. 5(2) of the ODSPA, which denies benefits to individuals whose sole impairment is addiction, violated the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's finding that the respondents, who were disabled by alcoholism, were discriminated against.

The Court confirmed that the Tribunal was not required to apply the third, dignity-focused step of the Law test to establish discrimination under the Code.

The complainant, who had bipolar disorder, was hired as a software program tester.

Shortly after starting, he disclosed his condition to his supervisor and began exhibiting pre-manic symptoms.

The employer terminated him ten days into his employment, claiming he misrepresented his ability to perform the job.

The Human Rights Tribunal found the employer discriminated against the complainant and failed its procedural and substantive duties to accommodate his disability, awarding damages and public interest remedies.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's findings on discrimination, accommodation, and damages, but modified some of the public interest remedies.

The applicant, Toronto Police Services Board, brought a motion for a stay of proceedings before the Human Rights Tribunal pending its application for judicial review.

The applicant argued it was denied procedural fairness when the Ontario Human Rights Commission referred the complaint to the Tribunal without providing an amended complaint or addressing the complainant's delay.

The Divisional Court found the applicant satisfied the three-part test for a stay, noting serious issues regarding procedural fairness and jurisdiction, and that proceeding before the Tribunal would render the judicial review moot.

The motion for a stay was granted and an expedited hearing for the judicial review was directed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission to not deal with her complaint against the University of Windsor.

The applicant alleged that the university's policy of keeping her failed first-year marks on her transcript was discriminatory.

The Commission dismissed the complaint because it was filed beyond the six-month limitation period and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commission's decision reasonable and holding that the ongoing presence of the marks on the transcript constituted continuing effects of a past act, not a continuing contravention of the Code.

The applicants sought judicial review to quash a decision of the Ontario Human Rights Commission referring a discrimination complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The applicants argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the postulancy process is not a 'service' under the Human Rights Code and the subject matter of the complaint had ceased to exist.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the preliminary jurisdictional issue of whether the relationship constitutes a 'service' is best decided in the first instance by the Tribunal, and that the amended complaint was properly before the Tribunal.