Patrick T. Brode

The appellant brought a motion for costs against the City of Windsor following a successful appeal of a minor variance decision.

The appellant argued that the City acted unreasonably and in bad faith by withdrawing from the hearing and refusing to consent to an order allowing the appeal, thereby forcing the appellant to incur unnecessary hearing costs.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the City provided timely notice of its non-attendance and had no obligation to participate or consent, especially given the presence of participants whose inputs required consideration at a hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing his discrimination complaint.

He argued the Tribunal unfairly refused to hear three allegations, improperly conducted the hearing by teleconference, and reached an unreasonable decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal reasonably declined to re-litigate allegations already decided in another complainant's hearing, the applicant had agreed to the teleconference format, and the Tribunal's decision was defensible on the facts.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy) and family status.

The applicant had also filed a grievance under her collective agreement based on the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the outcome of the grievance arbitration.

Despite all parties opposing deferral, the Tribunal found that the grievance and application were based on the same facts and issues, and that the arbitrator had the power and responsibility to apply human rights legislation.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance and arbitration process.

The applicant, a pregnant firefighter, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and family status after her request for modified duties on her regular 24-hour shift was denied.

She requested an expedited process.

The respondents agreed to expedite but also requested dismissal or deferral because the applicant had filed a union grievance.

Given the circumstances, the Tribunal ordered expedited mediation and deferred the preliminary issues of dismissal and deferral in the event mediation does not result in a settlement.

The appellant municipality enacted a by-law requiring employees of adult entertainment parlours who work partially or fully nude to pay a special 'dancer' licence fee.

The respondents successfully challenged the by-law at first instance.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the municipality lacked the statutory authority under the Municipal Act, 2001 to create a separate class of employees based solely on their state of dress while performing services.

The court found the by-law discriminatory and ultra vires.

Furthermore, the court upheld the finding that the licence fee was improperly calculated as it included general policing costs not directly related to the administration and enforcement of the by-law.

The appeal was dismissed.