Osborne Godfrey Barnwell

The applicant, who had recently reached the age of majority, requested an order to revert to being identified by his initials and to reinstate his mother as his litigation guardian.

The applicant's counsel subsequently withdrew the request for a litigation guardian, confirming the applicant's capacity to participate.

The Tribunal denied the request for anonymization, finding that the applicant's identification as an exceptional student did not constitute highly sensitive or intimate personal information that would justify the extraordinary measure of a publication ban overriding the open hearing principle.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Master's refusal to recuse herself from a construction lien reference due to alleged bias.

The Divisional Court considered whether the application was premature, as it challenged an interlocutory order before the underlying proceeding was completed.

Applying the factors from Air Canada v. Lorenz, the court weighed the potential hardship to the applicant against the adverse consequences of delay, waste, and fragmentation.

The court concluded that the adverse consequences of delay outweighed the possible hardship to the applicant, particularly given the statutory framework of the Construction Lien Act designed for speedy resolution.

The application was dismissed for prematurity.

The applicant requested an order for the disclosure of a study on safety and racism allegedly collected by a school board superintendent.

The respondents submitted that the school board does not collect such racialized data and that the requested study does not exist.

The Tribunal accepted the respondents' statement that the document does not exist and denied the applicant's request for disclosure.

In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff sought reconsideration of an earlier costs endorsement that awarded costs to neither party after both sides' summary judgment motions were dismissed.

The plaintiff argued her non-compliance with page limits was inadvertent and that her own motion was effectively provoked by the defendant's limitation-based summary judgment motion.

The court held that divided success remained the proper characterization because each party had unsuccessfully pursued summary judgment.

Reconsideration was refused and the no-costs disposition was maintained.

The applicant, a student who identified as black and had a learning disability, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in discipline and special education placements.

The applicant brought a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking the production of various documents, including suspension records, yearbooks, and photographs of other students to establish systemic discrimination.

The respondent school board opposed the request, arguing it was untimely, burdensome, and sought irrelevant or privileged information.

The Tribunal partially granted the request, ordering the production of anonymized data and records within the temporal scope of the application, finding the information arguably relevant to the applicant's allegations of systemic discrimination.

Following divided success on two summary judgment motions in a medical malpractice action, the court invited costs submissions.

The plaintiff submitted a 13-page document despite a four-page limit, prompting the court to read only the first four pages.

The court found no reason to depart from its presumptive view that costs should lie where they fall, noting that pre-motion squabbles between lawyers rarely influence costs.

No order as to costs was made.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking leave to amend his human rights application to add further particulars regarding an alleged reprisal.

The respondents did not oppose the request, provided no costs were ordered against them.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Aubin and granted the amendment, noting it was sought at an early stage and caused no prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal also confirmed it has no jurisdiction to award costs.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal had previously found that the applicant's work was integral to an interprovincial transportation undertaking, placing it under federal jurisdiction.

In his reconsideration request, the applicant attempted to re-argue the merits and raised concerns about the Canadian Human Rights Commission not yet accepting jurisdiction.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no conflict with established jurisprudence and noting that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that found discrimination in only two of five alleged instances involving Toronto police officers, awarding $13,000 in compensation.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by not conducting the hearing in French and erred in finding insufficient evidence of racial profiling.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable, noting the applicant never requested a French hearing and the Tribunal's factual findings on racial profiling and compensation were entitled to deference.

The applicant, employed as an offloader/lumper, filed a human rights application against his former employer.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to dismiss the application, arguing the corporate respondent was a federally-regulated inter-provincial transportation undertaking.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's work was functionally connected and integral to the employer's interprovincial transportation operations.

Consequently, the employment relationship fell under federal jurisdiction, and the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a student with a learning disability who identifies as black, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent school board.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's requests to amend the application, add nine school board employees as personal respondents, and order document production.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application to include recent allegations of reprisal and discrimination.

Applying the Smyth and Persaud tests, the Tribunal allowed three individuals (a superintendent, a principal, and a vice-principal) to be added as personal respondents because their alleged conduct in targeting the applicant for unjust discipline formed a central issue in the case.

The request to add the other six individuals was denied.

The document production request was dismissed as premature.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment and writ of possession obtained by the mortgagee after the defendant defaulted on a second mortgage secured against residential property.

The defendant argued she did not recall receiving the originating process due to mental health issues and advanced a proposed defence alleging a fiduciary relationship involving a bank that referred her to the mortgage broker.

The court held the defendant failed to provide a credible explanation for the default, noting evidence that she had been personally served and that her counsel was aware of the motion date but chose not to attend or send an agent.

The court further found that the proposed defence lacked an air of reality because the mortgage relationship between the parties remained a straightforward debtor‑creditor relationship.

The motion to set aside the default judgment was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that directed the application to proceed against the police services board as the sole respondent.

The applicant had failed to comply with a previous direction to serve a Request to Add a Party on the individual police officers he sought to add as respondents.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the test for reconsideration, as there were no compelling circumstances explaining his failure to comply with the Tribunal's clear direction.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant, a restaurant owner, alleged that a parking enforcement officer engaged in a campaign to drive him out of business by discriminatorily ticketing his customers' cars and making racist comments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence regarding the alleged racist comments and discriminatory ticketing was not credible or in harmony with the preponderance of probabilities.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to add 32 additional incidents of alleged racial profiling by police between 2006 and 2012, and to add 52 individual police officers as respondents.

The respondent objected, arguing the incidents were out of time and did not constitute a 'series of incidents'.

The Tribunal found that the additional incidents, which all involved the applicant being stopped by police while walking or driving, formed a series of incidents under s. 34(1) of the Code and were therefore timely.

The Tribunal allowed the amendment to add the incidents but ordered the applicant to serve the request on the individual officers before determining whether they could be added as respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging race and disability discrimination, as well as reprisal, during her employment with the respondent Ministry.

The respondents challenged the timeliness of the application, as most allegations occurred more than a year before filing.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the untimely allegations formed a 'series of incidents' with the timely reprisal claim or if the delay was incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal found that allegations prior to May 2009 were discrete and separated by temporal gaps, and thus did not form a series of incidents.

Furthermore, the applicant's pursuit of internal grievances did not constitute a good faith reason for the delay.

The allegations prior to May 2009 were dismissed as untimely.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing six days before it was scheduled to begin, citing his counsel's heavy workload and lack of preparation.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that a heavy workload does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance under its Practice Direction to justify a late adjournment request.

This is a remedy decision following a finding that the respondent police officers discriminated against the applicant by making a derogatory comment during fingerprinting and by inappropriately contacting his employer (the Department of National Defence) about his arrest.

The applicant sought over $1.4 million in damages, primarily for lost wages, arguing the police call caused his termination.

The Tribunal found the employer conducted its own investigation and the police call did not cause the job loss, denying the wage loss claim.

The Tribunal awarded $13,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect based on the objective seriousness of the call and the subjective impact of the events on the applicant.

Claims for legal and transcript costs were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because his counsel was required to appear in Superior Court.

The respondents did not consent.

The Tribunal found that the scheduling conflict constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment under its Practice Direction.

The request was granted and the parties were directed to propose new hearing dates.

The applicant, a Black woman employed as a temporary administrative assistant, alleged discrimination on the basis of race and colour when she was not hired for a permanent position.

The respondent employer asserted that the successful candidate had a broader skill set and that the applicant had minor performance issues.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination, the respondent provided a credible, non-discriminatory explanation for its hiring decision.

The Tribunal concluded that the decision was based on the successful candidate's experience and the applicant's past performance, rather than race or colour.

The application was dismissed.