Robin Kumar Basu

The applicant, a young adult with severe autism, filed a human rights complaint alleging that the Ministry of Education discriminated against her by failing to provide appropriate special education programs, specifically Intensive Behavioural Intervention (IBI).

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the complaint had already been dealt with in the Wynberg litigation and by the Special Education Tribunal.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the core issue—the failure to provide IBI in schools—was the same question litigated and ultimately dismissed by the Court of Appeal in Wynberg.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant challenged the constitutionality of the Ontario Civil Remedies Act, 2001, arguing that its civil forfeiture provisions were ultra vires the province because they encroached on the federal criminal law power.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the legislation is valid under the province's power over property and civil rights.

The Court found that the dominant purpose of the Act is to compensate victims and suppress conditions leading to crime by removing financial incentives, rather than to punish criminal offenders.

Furthermore, the Court concluded there was no operational conflict between the provincial forfeiture scheme and the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code.

The appellants challenged the constitutionality of the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, 2002, arguing it violated their rights under sections 2(d) and 15 of the Charter by excluding agricultural workers from the Labour Relations Act and failing to provide statutory protections for collective bargaining.

The Court of Appeal held that the Act violates section 2(d) by substantially impairing the ability of agricultural workers to engage in meaningful collective bargaining, as it lacks a duty to bargain in good faith, recognition of majoritarian exclusivity, and dispute resolution mechanisms.

The court dismissed the section 15 claim, finding no discrimination on an analogous ground.

The section 2(d) violation was not saved under section 1, as the wholesale exclusion of agricultural workers was not rationally connected to the objective of protecting the family farm and did not minimally impair the right.

The Act was declared invalid, with the declaration suspended for 12 months.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario moved for leave to appeal an order dismissing its motions to strike out applications brought by four physicians.

The physicians had applied to the Superior Court challenging the constitutionality of s. 76(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code.

The College argued the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction and the matters should be heard by the administrative tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding the motions judge correctly applied the test for striking pleadings and properly concluded it was not plain and obvious the applications would fail, as the Superior Court retains residual jurisdiction over Charter challenges.

The complainants requested reconsideration of an interim decision that refused to add the Ministry of Education and various individuals as full party respondents to their human rights complaints regarding special education.

The Tribunal reviewed its new reconsideration powers under the amended Human Rights Code and its Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal determined that while interim decisions disposing of central issues can be subject to reconsideration, the complainants failed to establish any new facts, conflict with established jurisprudence, or other compelling factors to justify reconsidering the original decision.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA), an intervening party in an appeal concerning the constitutional validity of the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, brought a motion for leave to file a factum exceeding thirty pages.

The appellants opposed the motion, while the respondent consented.

The court granted the motion, allowing the OFA to file a factum of up to forty-five pages, noting the significance of the issues for agricultural labour relations and finding that the OFA's perspective would provide added value to the appellate process.

The complainants, two students with disabilities, brought motions to add the Ministry of Education, the Premier, current and former Ministers of Education, Ministry staff, a special education teacher, and a school board trustee as party respondents to their human rights complaints against the school board.

The Tribunal granted the motion to add the Ministry of Education (Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario) to the Sigrist complaint, finding a sufficient basis in the Ministry's alleged failure to take timely action to assist the parents in resolving their concerns.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion to add the Ministry to the Carson complaint.

The Tribunal also declined to add the individual politicians, Ministry staff, the teacher, and the trustee as personal respondents, noting the corporate respondents' ability to respond to the allegations and provide remedies, and the lack of compelling juridical reasons to add the individuals.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought an application for civil forfeiture of cash and marijuana grow equipment seized from the appellant's vehicle under the Civil Remedies Act.

The appellant challenged the constitutionality of the Act, arguing it was ultra vires the province and violated the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding the Act's pith and substance relates to property and civil rights, not criminal law.

The court also held that section 11 of the Charter does not apply to civil forfeiture proceedings as they do not result in true penal consequences.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, a deaf person, filed a human rights complaint alleging that the failure of the Building Code to require rear window captioning in movie theatres constituted discrimination.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission decided not to refer the complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal, finding insufficient evidence of a denial of a service and noting that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to amend legislation.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Commission's gate-keeping decision was not patently unreasonable, as the Tribunal cannot read in provisions to the Building Code to make it comply with the Human Rights Code.

The complainants, minors with autism spectrum disorder, brought a motion challenging the constitutionality of the definition of 'age' in subsection 10(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The definition restricted age discrimination protections to individuals aged 18 or older.

The complainants argued this exclusion violated their equality rights under subsection 15(1) of the Charter.

The Tribunal found that the definition of age in the Code discriminated against children by denying them access to the human rights system, thereby marginalizing them and treating them as less worthy.

The Tribunal further held that this infringement was not demonstrably justified under section 1 of the Charter.

The Tribunal declared the definition of age in subsection 10(1) of the Code to be of no force or effect for the purpose of the complaints, allowing the complainants to amend their pleadings to include discrimination based on age.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario convened a pre-hearing conference to address procedural matters in multiple combined complaints regarding autism services.

The Tribunal confirmed changes in representation, combined newly referred complaints with the existing groups, and established a schedule for the production of disclosure.

The Tribunal also reserved dates for the hearing on the merits and a constitutional question, while encouraging the parties to continue cooperating in the disclosure process.

The Tribunal heard four motions regarding complaints filed by children with autism alleging discrimination by Ontario in the provision of Intensive Behavioural Intervention (IBI) services.

Ontario moved to dismiss the complaints, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the claims were based on an age under 18, which is excluded from the Code's definition of age.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding it had jurisdiction to hear the complaints and the constitutional challenge to the age definition.

Ontario's alternative motion to stay the proceedings pending related Superior Court decisions was also denied.

The Commission and Complainants moved for substantive interim relief to compel Ontario to fund IBI treatment pending the hearing.

The Tribunal denied this motion, ruling it lacked statutory authority under the Code or the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to grant interlocutory injunctive relief.

Finally, the Tribunal determined on its own motion that it lacked jurisdiction to appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor complainants.

The complainant, a child with autism, brought a motion before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario seeking interim injunctive relief to reinstate funding for his intensive behavioural intervention therapy.

Concurrently, the complainant and others obtained an interim interim mandatory order from the Superior Court of Justice reinstating the same funding pending an interlocutory injunction hearing.

The Tribunal found that the relief sought was identical to that granted by the Court.

Applying the doctrine of mootness, the Tribunal dismissed the motion, concluding that the factual underpinning for the urgency and irreparable harm no longer existed, and declined to decide the abstract question of its jurisdiction to grant such relief.