Raj Kanwal Anand

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Director under the Discriminatory Business Practices Act.

The Director had concluded that the Act was not engaged by agreements between the University of Windsor and student groups regarding protest encampments, which included a provision limiting institutional academic agreements with Israeli universities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Director's conclusion that the University was not 'engaging in business' under the Act to be reasonable.

The court also upheld the Director's alternative finding that the agreements did not mandate a refusal to employ or promote, as required by section 4(1)3(ii) of the Act.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of a negligence claim brought by the plaintiff against his former solicitor.

The defendant, having successfully defended the claim, sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff failed to submit any costs submissions.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs, fixed at $152,851.50, inclusive of fees, taxes, and disbursements, payable within 60 days.

The court found the amount reasonable, considering the complexity of the solicitor's negligence claim, the serious allegations of fraud made against the defendant, the plaintiff's unrealistic expectations, and his failure to cooperate during litigation.

The plaintiff, an experienced real estate agent, sued his former solicitor for professional negligence arising from the purchase of several properties and subsequent legal services.

The plaintiff alleged the solicitor failed to advise him of a 1995 by-law registered on title that restricted development.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff was a sophisticated purchaser who instructed the solicitor not to conduct detailed title searches to save costs.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to call expert evidence to establish the standard of care, failed to prove causation as his inability to develop the properties was due to financial constraints, and failed to adequately prove his damages.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal against an organization and several individual respondents.

The respondents requested the removal of five individual respondents, arguing the organization was liable for their alleged conduct.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no compelling reason to keep them as parties.

The Tribunal also granted a request by another individual respondent for a summary hearing to determine if the application against him has no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, a property owner, sought access to youth criminal justice records of seven young persons charged in connection with a house fire that destroyed his property.

The applicant sought the records to support his civil lawsuit against the youth and various organizations.

The youth respondents opposed disclosure.

The court granted partial access to police records and the Crown brief for use solely in the civil proceedings, subject to strict confidentiality conditions and identification by initials only.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint that s. 10(5) of the Coroners Act discriminates against migrant farm workers by denying them mandatory inquests into workplace deaths, a benefit extended to mining and construction workers.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal reasonably applied the two-step Kapp test for discrimination and reasonably concluded that the exclusion of migrant farm workers from mandatory inquests did not violate s. 1 of the Human Rights Code, given their lower risk of fatal workplace injury and lesser variety of hazards compared to construction and mining workers.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision that upheld the employer's prorating of an employee's vacation entitlements due to an unpaid leave of absence.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable because it ignored the presumption that vacation entitlements based on service continue to accrue during authorized leaves absent clear language to the contrary in the collective agreement.

The application was allowed, the award set aside, and the matter remitted to a new arbitrator.

The applicant, a justice of the peace, sought judicial review of a Hearing Panel's decision removing him from office for judicial misconduct involving sexual harassment of female staff, and denying him compensation for his legal expenses.

The Divisional Court upheld the findings of misconduct and the penalty of removal, finding the panel's decisions reasonable given the applicant's lack of insight and the need to preserve public confidence in the judiciary.

However, the Court set aside the decision denying compensation for legal fees, finding the panel erred by presuming that a judicial officer found guilty of misconduct should not be compensated, and remitted that issue for reconsideration.

The applicant, a registered nurse, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the College of Nurses of Ontario during its fitness to practise and disciplinary proceedings against her.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the application was based almost exclusively on information, documents, and decisions from the College's proceedings, which are strictly inadmissible in civil proceedings under section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

Without this evidence, the application had no reasonable prospect of success and was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld the College of Physicians and Surgeons' decision to take no action on her complaint against a physician.

The applicant alleged the tribunal failed to address all her allegations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the tribunal was not required to address every allegation and that its decision was reasonable based on the evidence.

The respondent College of Nurses of Ontario brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to have its motion to dismiss heard at the outset of the hearing, or alternatively to bifurcate the liability phase, and to strike certain witness statements.

The Tribunal denied the requests for a summary hearing and bifurcation, finding them to be attempts to re-litigate previously decided issues.

The Tribunal granted the request to exclude certain witness evidence during the liability phase, as the proposed evidence related to remedial issues such as the impact of the alleged discrimination on the applicant's career and finances.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in the College of Nurses of Ontario's registration process requested an interim order for the production of historical versions of a declaration form and related council minutes.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the requested documents were not arguably relevant to the specific allegations in the applicant's pleadings, which focused on the automatic revocation of temporary registration rather than the requirement to disclose physical or mental conditions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the College of Nurses of Ontario's registration process discriminates against applicants with disabilities.

The Ontario Nurses Association (ONA) requested intervenor status, arguing it has an interest in the outcome as it represents nurses and the applicant was a member.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing ONA's participation would cause delay and duplication, as ONA and the applicant share the same legal counsel.

The Tribunal granted ONA intervenor status but limited its participation to making written and oral submissions following the completion of evidence, finding that broader participatory rights would unnecessarily lengthen and complicate the hearing.

The respondent College of Nurses of Ontario requested an order to bifurcate the hearing into three phases, separating the allegations against the College from those against Ontario, and separating liability from remedy.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing the issues were intertwined.

The Tribunal found that the liability issues against both respondents were intertwined and should be heard together to avoid duplicating evidence.

However, given the complex and unusual remedies sought, the Tribunal ordered the hearing bifurcated into two stages: liability first, followed by remedy if necessary.

The applicant alleged reprisal under the Human Rights Code based on questions asked by the respondent's counsel during his spouse's human rights hearing.

The Tribunal convened a summary hearing on its own initiative to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the common law principle of absolute privilege protects statements made by legal counsel and their clients during judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.

The applicant, a nurse, alleged that her employer and the nursing regulatory college discriminated against her and engaged in reprisal.

The employer placed the applicant on medical leave after she exhibited concerning behaviour and made allegations of patient abuse.

The college subsequently suspended her certificate of registration after finding her incapacitated due to a psychotic disorder.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant's reprisal claims failed because reporting patient abuse is not an enforcement of a human rights right, and her disability discrimination claims failed because the employer's actions in placing her on leave due to perceived incapacity were not discriminatory.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of disability (hearing impairment) against a duty counsel.

The applicant claimed the respondent failed to provide a note-taker or request an adjournment on his behalf in family court.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success because providing a note-taker or appearing in court for the applicant were outside the respondent's mandate as duty counsel, and thus no differential treatment occurred.

In an ongoing human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services, the Tribunal previously ordered the applicant to produce a recording of his arrest or file submissions opposing its production.

The applicant was unable to comply with the original time limit.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision granting an extension, ordering the applicant to provide a copy of the recording or written submissions explaining his opposition by April 19, 2013.

In an ongoing human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services, the Tribunal addressed the production of a recording of the applicant's arrest.

The recording was in the possession of the applicant's criminal counsel, not the respondent police services board.

With the respondents' consent and the Crown indicating no objection to the use of police-generated materials where the police are defending themselves, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to obtain and produce the recording to the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services by the respondent police services board and officers.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the conduct of the upcoming hearing and outstanding production issues.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce specific documents related to the applicant's arrests and seized computer, subject to a strict confidentiality order.