Robert Charney

The applicant alleged that the respondent school board breached the Human Rights Code on the basis of age when his health benefits ended at age 65.

The Tribunal previously found that s. 25(2.1) of the Code is a complete defence unless it is found to be unconstitutional.

The Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA) requested to intervene in the constitutional challenge.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that OCUFA has a significant interest in the issues and will make a special contribution to the case given its longstanding advocacy regarding mandatory retirement and the rights of faculty working past age 65.

The respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the Application to the extent it related to events outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a bottom-line decision dismissing the request, finding that the Application as pleaded constituted a 'series of incidents' within the meaning of sub-section 34(1)(b) of the Code.

Full reasons were to follow.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Ministry of Education, alleging discrimination on the basis of creed regarding the distribution of religious materials in public schools and the operation of a Protestant separate school board.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant lacked standing to challenge the actions of school boards outside his jurisdiction based merely on his status as a taxpayer.

Furthermore, the challenge to the Protestant separate school board was barred by s. 19(1) of the Human Rights Code and s. 93(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Finally, the Tribunal held that the Ministry of Education could not be held liable for the alleged discriminatory actions of independent local school boards.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The complainant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

After failing to provide required materials, the Tribunal dismissed the claims related to food allergies, hearing loss, and osteoarthritis as abandoned.

The Tribunal issued directions and a deadline for the complainant to file materials if she wished to pursue her remaining claim regarding cardiovascular disease.

The complainant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims relating to chronic constipation and heartburn as abandoned because the complainant failed to file required materials.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to provide reasons for denying special diet benefits for hepatitis C, and set a deadline for the complainant to file materials regarding the claim for cardiovascular disease, failing which it would also be dismissed.

The complainant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims relating to chronic constipation, hepatic disorder, dysphagia, and food allergies as abandoned because the complainant failed to file the required materials.

The Tribunal provided directions for the complainant to pursue the remaining claim regarding cardiovascular disease, warning that failure to comply would result in that claim also being dismissed as abandoned.

The complainant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim regarding diverticular disease as abandoned because the complainant failed to file required materials.

The Tribunal issued directions requiring the complainant to file materials by a specified date to pursue remaining claims regarding extreme obesity and cardiovascular disease, failing which those claims would also be dismissed.

The applicants, children with disabilities attending a private school, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability because they did not receive certain educational supports funded by the respondents.

The respondents requested dismissal of the application, arguing it had no reasonable prospect of success given the Divisional Court's decision in Cooper v. Ontario, which held that O. Reg. 386/99 is not discriminatory.

The Tribunal agreed, finding it was bound by the Divisional Court's determination that the regulation does not discriminate on the basis of disability.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found it was an abuse of process to relitigate the delisting of sex reassignment surgery (SRS) as an insured service.

The original decision applied the ruling in Hogan, which denied accommodation to individuals who began transitioning after SRS was delisted.

The complainant argued the decision was factually inaccurate, inconsistent with Hogan, and contrary to the public interest.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the complainant commenced her transition after the delisting and was therefore not entitled to accommodation under Hogan.

The Tribunal also held that relitigating the issue on the same evidence and legal theory was an abuse of process.

The complainants challenged the 1998 delisting of sex reassignment surgery as an insured service under OHIP.

The Tribunal previously ruled on this exact issue in Hogan v. Ontario, finding the delisting was not discriminatory but the grandparenting provision failed to accommodate those already transitioning.

The Commission and complainants sought to relitigate the delisting issue using the same evidence and legal theory as in Hogan.

The Tribunal dismissed the complaints as an abuse of process, holding that attempting to reargue the same case before a different panel to obtain a contrary result violates principles of judicial economy, consistency, finality, and the integrity of the administration of justice.

The applicants, children attending private faith-based schools, challenged Ontario's failure to provide them with special education benefits available in public schools.

They argued this exclusion violated their freedom of religion and equality rights under the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Supreme Court's decision in Adler v. Ontario foreclosed the freedom of religion claim.

The court also held that the challenged regulation, O. Reg. 386/99, which provides some health services to private school students, is an ameliorative program under s. 15(2) of the Charter and does not discriminate on the basis of disability.

A secondary claim seeking language therapy under the regulation was also dismissed, with the court finding a rational basis for the province's distinction between speech and language disorders.

The Complainant brought a motion to amend his human rights complaints to claim general and liquidated damages for alleged harm to his medical condition caused by the denial of access to services, as well as legal fees.

The Respondents opposed the amendments, arguing prejudice due to delay and the Complainant's previous abandonment of these claims.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments for general and liquidated damages, finding that the Respondents failed to establish actual prejudice that could not be cured by an adjournment.

However, the Tribunal denied the request to amend the complaints to claim legal fees, as it lacks jurisdiction to award costs to a complainant under the Human Rights Code.

The Crown appealed a Divisional Court decision permitting the Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters to examine the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources regarding the cancellation of the spring bear hunt.

The applicants alleged the Minister failed to exercise independent discretion and was improperly influenced by the Premier and political expediency.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the summonses, holding that the motives for passing a regulation are irrelevant to its validity, and there was no justiciable issue or reasonable evidentiary basis to permit the examinations.

A motion to introduce fresh evidence was also dismissed.

EGALE Canada Inc. moved for intervenor status as an added party in an application brought by same-sex couples seeking marriage licences.

The Attorney General of Canada opposed the motion.

The court granted EGALE intervenor status under Rule 13.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding that EGALE had a direct interest in the subject matter and could make a useful contribution by providing a different perspective from the applicants, specifically regarding relationship options and national context.

To prevent undue delay and prejudice, the court imposed strict conditions on EGALE's participation, limiting its evidence and cross-examination to its unique perspectives.

The complainant, a gay man, filed a human rights complaint against his employer, the Government of Ontario, alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation for denying employment benefits to his same-sex partner.

Great West Life Assurance Company, the insurer for the health and dental plans, brought a motion to be added as a party or granted intervenor status.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion to add Great West Life as a party, finding it was not alleged to have infringed the right and its addition would unduly delay the proceedings.

However, the Board granted Great West Life intervenor status as a friend of the court to provide written argument on the complex legal and public policy issues.