Peter F. Haber

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination by their landlord based on race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicants had also filed an application with the Landlord and Tenant Board of Ontario (LTBO) raising the same factual allegations.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicants did not file submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the applications pending the conclusion of the LTBO process to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent decisions.

The appellant appealed an order regarding his capacity with respect to treatment, arguing that the Consent and Capacity Board member misunderstood the law and that his case should be heard de novo by a three-person panel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board member properly understood the jurisprudence despite an unfortunate use of terminology, and that the assignment of a single member was reasonable.

The court also declined to award costs to the appellant for the lower court proceedings.

The matter was referred back to the Board.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order that struck her constructive trust claims on the basis of res judicata stemming from a consent order in Ireland.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that conflicting evidence regarding the scope of the Irish consent order and the respondent's domicile must be resolved at trial.

Furthermore, the Court rejected the respondent's argument that Ontario was forum non conveniens, noting that Ontario was the acknowledged appropriate forum for the appellant's support claims.

The patient, who was found incapable of making treatment decisions, had previously refused anti-psychotic medication while capable.

His mother, acting as his substitute decision-maker, refused consent to new anti-psychotic medication based on his prior wish.

The Consent and Capacity Board found the prior wish inapplicable due to the patient's deteriorated condition and the availability of new, more effective medication with fewer side effects, ordering the mother to consider his best interests.

The Superior Court overturned this decision as unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the psychiatrist's appeal, restoring the Board's decision, holding that it was reasonable for the Board to conclude the prior wish was not applicable to the changed circumstances and that the substitute decision-maker must act in the patient's best interests.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including weekly childcare and medical/rehabilitation benefits, after the Insurer terminated them.

The Arbitrator found the Applicant lacked credibility regarding her pre-accident activities and initial disability, denying weekly benefits for the period immediately following termination.

However, the Arbitrator accepted that a subsequent disc herniation and sciatica exacerbation were causally related to the accident, awarding weekly benefits for a limited period in 1995.

The Arbitrator also awarded various medical and rehabilitation expenses and ordered a $500 special award against the Insurer for unreasonably delaying certain payments.