Rochelle S. Fox

The respondent requested an extension of time to implement a future compliance remedy ordered by the Tribunal regarding special diet benefits.

The government announced the elimination of the Special Diet Allowance and the creation of a new nutritional supplement program, requiring 9-12 months to implement.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction under its general remedial powers to extend the time limit without treating the request as a reconsideration.

The Tribunal granted the extension to April 13, 2011, finding it consistent with remedial principles to allow the government a reasonable period to implement comprehensive policy changes to achieve Code compliance.

Three lead complainants alleged that the special diet allowance component of the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) discriminated against them on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal established a four-part test to determine discrimination in the program: the claimant must have a disability, there must be general medical recognition that a special diet is required, the diet must lead to additional food costs, and the funding must be non-existent or significantly disproportionate to the costs.

The Tribunal found that the program discriminated against W. by failing to fund hypoproteinemia and underfunding hypertension and hypercholesterolemia.

S. was discriminated against due to underfunding for extreme obesity, and B. was discriminated against due to underfunding for hypercholesterolemia.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide retroactive and ongoing benefits in accordance with the Code principles, but declined to award general damages or order a specific redesign of the program.

The appellants appealed an order striking their amended statement of claim.

A previous motion judge had struck substantially all of the original claims but granted leave to amend with guidance on curing the defects.

The subsequent motion judge found that the amended claim repeated the struck allegations, failed to remedy the defects, and added non-viable claims.

The Court of Appeal agreed and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants, contractors and their employees, were charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following a workplace accident during an expansion project at Pearson International Airport.

A justice of the peace quashed the charges, finding the appellants' work was integral to a core federal aeronautics undertaking and thus immune from provincial legislation.

The application judge granted certiorari and mandamus, setting aside the decision and directing a trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants' normal operations as going concerns were not integral to the federal undertaking, and the application of provincial workplace safety standards did not impair the core of federal jurisdiction over aeronautics.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision finalizing a procedural order to manage multiple complaints regarding the special diet allowance.

The order establishes a timetable for selecting lead cases, disclosing documents, identifying issues, and filing evidence and pleadings.

The Tribunal incorporated minor changes requested by the respondent and the clinic caseworkers representing the complainants.

The respondent's right to request a stay of proceedings due to concurrent litigation before the Social Benefits Tribunal was preserved.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario held a case management conference to determine the procedure for 77 related complaints challenging the special diet allowance regime.

The Tribunal adopted a joint proposal by counsel to proceed with two to six lead cases to be heard together, finding it to be a fair, just, and expeditious manner of resolving the complex complaints.

The Tribunal also addressed privacy concerns by ordering that disclosure be exchanged only among parties to the lead cases and that lead complainants remain anonymous in public documents.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Minister's decision to close the Collège des Grands Lacs, a francophone college.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application primarily due to the applicants' undue delay of 29 months in perfecting the application, which caused significant prejudice.

In the alternative, the court found that the Minister did not breach the unwritten constitutional principle of protection of minorities, as the college was failing and alternative francophone education was arranged.

The court also held that the Minister had the statutory authority to close the college and the decision was not patently unreasonable.

The defendants, commercial trucking companies, were charged under s. 84.1 of the Highway Traffic Act after wheels separated from their vehicles on a highway.

The offence is one of absolute liability, expressly precluding the defence of due diligence, but carries no risk of imprisonment.

The defendants argued that the creation of an absolute liability offence violated their rights under ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal held that s. 11(d) does not prevent the legislature from eliminating a common law defence.

Furthermore, the court found no violation of s. 7, concluding that the diminished stigma attached to a regulatory offence and the absence of imprisonment do not trigger the security of the person guarantee.

The Crown's appeal was allowed and the defendant's appeal was dismissed.

The Crown sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that required it to continue funding Intensive Behavioural Intervention (IBI) therapy for a six-year-old autistic child, despite the program's maximum age limit of six.

The motion judge had granted the mandatory order based on the RJR-MacDonald test, finding that the child would suffer irreparable harm without continued treatment and that the balance of convenience favoured the child.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error in principle in the motion judge's exercise of discretion and rejecting the Crown's argument that the order amounted to a suspension of the legislation.

Following an appeal where success was divided, the court issued an endorsement on costs.

The court ordered that no costs of the appeal be awarded to either party.

Furthermore, the court declined to clarify its reasons, directing the parties to settle the order in accordance with Rule 59.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant, Meditrust Healthcare Inc., operated a national mail-order pharmacy business through subsidiaries to comply with provincial regulations.

Meditrust sued the respondents for various economic torts, alleging a conspiracy to destroy its business.

The motions judge granted partial summary judgment dismissing most claims, holding that under the rule in Foss v. Harbottle, Meditrust could not sue for damages that were derivative of those suffered by its subsidiaries.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's decision on all grounds except for Meditrust's claim for loss of goodwill, finding that damage to reputation could constitute a direct, personal loss to the shareholder.

Class counsel brought a motion to quash appeals filed by the defendants and intervenors from an order approving class counsel fees under s. 32 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellants had no standing to appeal because they were not parties to the fee agreements, the settlement agreement did not reserve their rights to participate in fixing fees, and their rights were not affected by the fee approval order.

The appeals were quashed.