Human Rights - ODC

The applicant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decisions that dismissed his discrimination application at a summary hearing.

The HRTO had found that most of his allegations were out of time and did not constitute a 'series of incidents' under the Human Rights Code, and that he had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Divisional Court granted the judicial review, finding that the HRTO misapplied the case law regarding a series of incidents and denied the applicant procedural fairness by restricting his submissions on available evidence.

The matter was remitted to the HRTO for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint of racial discrimination against a retail store employee, as well as the Tribunal's subsequent reconsideration decision.

The applicant argued the hearing was procedurally unfair because the Tribunal limited his cross-examination on will-say statements and restricted evidence regarding the adequacy of the store's internal investigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's evidentiary rulings and narrowing of the issues were procedurally fair.

The Court also held that the Tribunal's merits decision was reasonable, as it was transparent, intelligible, and justified by the evidentiary record.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision declaring her a vexatious litigant after she filed over 160 applications.

The applicant argued the HRTO hearing was procedurally unfair and the decision was unreasonable, seeking to adduce a surreptitious recording of the hearing as new evidence.

The Divisional Court admitted the recording but dismissed the application, finding that the HRTO provided a fair hearing and reasonably concluded the applicant's conduct was vexatious.

The applicant, a foreign-trained dentist, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his discrimination claim against the National Dental Examining Board of Canada for being filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's decision unreasonable because it mistakenly calculated the applicant's delay in filing as eight months instead of five days, which improperly grounded its finding that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The HRTO also unreasonably conflated the limitation periods for two separate claims of discrimination.

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

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of the OLRB's refusal to extend the time to appeal an inspector's order under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Pending the hearing, the applicant brought a motion for a stay of the OLRB's orders, to admit fresh evidence, and to deliver a Notice of Constitutional Question.

The court dismissed the request for a stay, noting that staying a refusal to extend time has no practical effect.

The court deferred the issue of fresh evidence to the panel hearing the application.

The request to deliver a Notice of Constitutional Question was dismissed because the Divisional Court lacks jurisdiction to hear general Charter and human rights complaints in this judicial review proceeding.

The applicant, a high school student, sought judicial review of a school board committee's decision upholding his 20-day suspension and subsequent exclusion orders.

The discipline was imposed after the applicant made derogatory and harassing comments regarding transgender students, which he claimed were expressions of his sincerely held religious beliefs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the committee's decision reasonable as it appropriately balanced the applicant's freedom of religion with the school's statutory duty to maintain a safe environment free from bullying and harassment.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her discrimination application against a grocery store for requiring her to wear a mask.

The Tribunal had dismissed the application because the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence substantiating a disability under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Tribunal's request for further medical evidence was reasonable and that the Tribunal did not breach procedural fairness, as the applicant was given multiple opportunities to provide the required information.

The moving party sought an extension of time to apply for judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions.

The Tribunal had dismissed his application alleging discrimination regarding a summer education program for Black youth, finding he lacked standing and the program was a valid special program under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for an extension of time, concluding there were no apparent grounds for relief because the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of HRTO decisions that summarily dismissed his complaints against various City of Toronto officials and departments.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on race and place of origin regarding the City's handling of his zoning by-law inquiries.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding the HRTO's conclusions that the complaints had no reasonable prospect of success and lacked a factual link to Code-protected grounds were reasonable and procedurally fair.

The applicants, families of adults with severe autism, sought judicial review of the Ministry's decision to discontinue special, non-statutory funding for Applied Behavioural Analysis (ABA) therapy and transition them to mainstream adult developmental services.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the allocation of public funds is a political decision not subject to judicial review absent bad faith.

The court also dismissed the applicants' Charter claims, reaffirming that section 7 does not impose a positive obligation on the state to fund specific health or social services, and finding no breach of sections 7, 9, or 12 regarding one applicant's involuntary hospitalization under the Mental Health Act.

The applicant municipality sought to stay a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) hearing pending a judicial review application.

The municipality argued that the HRTO's administrative delay and the death of its key witness caused irreparable harm, and that the HRTO had refused to hear its motion to stay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the stay application, finding it premature because the HRTO had indicated it would address the motion to stay at the upcoming hearing.

The court reiterated that administrative proceedings should run their full course before judicial review is sought.

The appellant, an ODSP recipient, appealed three Social Benefits Tribunal decisions upholding the denial of funding for medical cannabis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law.

The Director had no discretion to fund medical cannabis because it lacks a Drug Identification Number (DIN) and is not listed on the Ontario Drug Benefit formulary.

The Tribunal correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction to grant Charter remedies and that the appellant's Human Rights Code discrimination claim had no reasonable prospect of success, as the denial of funding applied equally to all ODSP recipients.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision to take no further action against a physician.

The complaint alleged the physician engaged in gender discrimination and directed improper use of involuntary psychiatric detention and driver's license review forms to increase profitability.

The Divisional Court found the ICRC's investigation was inadequate because it failed to interview any of the direct witnesses identified by the applicant.

The court quashed the HPARB and ICRC decisions and remitted the matter to the ICRC for a new investigation.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her discrimination and reprisal application against her former employer.

The HRTO had found that the applicant signed a full and final release during a mediation, and that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the judicial review, finding that the HRTO's procedural rulings were fair, its credibility assessments were entitled to deference, and its overall decision was reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) dismissing her discrimination application against her professional regulatory college.

The HRTO had dismissed the application because it was filed outside the one-year limitation period, challenged adjudicative functions protected by immunity, and relied on inadmissible investigation documents.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's decisions reasonable and procedurally fair, rejecting the applicant's arguments regarding the college's constitutional status, minor corrections made to the HRTO decision, and the same adjudicator hearing the reconsideration request.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision finding she breached a settlement agreement and ordering her to repay $15,216.00 to the respondent.

The applicant alleged procedural unfairness and bias by the HRTO.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's procedural rulings were fair, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and the conclusion that the applicant breached the settlement by advancing resolved claims in a civil action was manifestly reasonable.

The applicant, a tenured university professor, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his discrimination application as out of time, and a subsequent decision denying reconsideration.

The HRTO had found that the applicant's allegations regarding a workplace investigation did not form part of a 'series of incidents' with earlier alleged discriminatory acts by a dean, and thus the application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the HRTO's decisions, finding that the HRTO reasonably concluded the investigation was discrete and separate from the earlier incidents, and that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an application for judicial review.

The underlying application challenged the City of Hamilton's decision to reject an advertisement submitted by the applicants for display on the City's transit system.

The court applied the test for intervention and found that ARCC had a real, substantial, and identifiable interest in the issues, and would provide a useful and distinct perspective regarding the broader potential impact of the decision.

The motion for leave to intervene was granted subject to conditions limiting the scope and length of ARCC's submissions.

The applicant sought judicial review of an HRTO decision dismissing his human rights complaint under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The HRTO had found that the applicant's concurrent civil action for wrongful dismissal, which sought damages for intentional infliction of mental distress and moral damages based on the same factual matrix, barred the human rights application.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the HRTO's decision, finding it was reasonable to conclude that the civil claim essentially sought remedies for the same alleged Code infringements despite not explicitly pleading the Code.

The applicant, a medical resident, was suspended and required to attend a health program.

He unsuccessfully appealed the suspension through the university's internal processes before filing an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario alleging discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process, finding the applicant had unfairly split his case.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review post-Vavilov and upheld the Tribunal's decision, concluding it was not unreasonable to find that duplicative proceedings regarding the same underlying facts were unfair to the university.