Roger Love

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario that summarily dismissed his application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and reprisal by a retail store.

The Tribunal had found no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant failed to point to evidence establishing a link between the store's actions and his race or colour.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal's decisions were transparent, intelligible, and fell within the range of reasonable outcomes.

The applicants filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent breached Minutes of Settlement by failing to pay $7,000 in agreed-upon damages.

The respondent did not participate in the proceeding.

The Tribunal found the respondent breached the settlement and ordered him to pay the $7,000 owed, plus an additional $2,500 to each applicant as compensation for the emotional harm and frustration caused by the breach.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondents contravened a settlement agreement resolving a human rights complaint.

The respondents failed to pay the agreed $1,300 in general damages and failed to complete the required human rights training, though the applicant could not prove they failed to post a Human Rights Code card.

The Tribunal found the respondents in breach of the settlement and ordered them to pay the original $1,300 plus an additional $2,000 as damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect caused by the breach.

The applicant requested to amend his human rights application to add particulars, add reprisal as a ground of discrimination, and add the corporate president as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal granted the amendments, finding they only clarified existing allegations without significantly expanding the scope of the hearing.

The Tribunal also added the president as a personal respondent because the allegations, if proven, could support a finding of personal liability for harassment under section 5(2) of the Code, for which the corporate respondent would not be vicariously liable.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario refusing to dismiss a human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent had alleged racial profiling during a traffic stop, an issue previously raised and dismissed in a criminal proceeding before the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court found exceptional circumstances to review the interlocutory decision and held that the Tribunal's decision was unreasonable.

The Tribunal failed to properly apply the principles of issue estoppel and fairness as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada, relying instead on generalized public policy concerns rather than a case-specific analysis.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted to a differently constituted panel.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to add an allegation of reprisal, claiming the respondents' school was over-monitoring him after he filed the initial application.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding the amendments were linked to the original allegations, the request was filed well ahead of the hearing, and there was no prejudice to the respondents.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to a conflicting medical appointment and the recent retention of counsel.

The applicants opposed the request.

The Tribunal found that retaining counsel shortly before a hearing is not an exceptional circumstance warranting an adjournment.

However, the Tribunal held that the respondent's conflicting medical appointment constituted an exceptional circumstance.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment in part, cancelling the first day of the hearing but ordering the second day to proceed.

The applicant brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add two individuals as personal respondents, to compel production of addresses and business structure documents, and to amend her Application to add a claim of reprisal and increase the monetary remedy sought.

The Tribunal granted the request to add one individual as a personal respondent, finding there were allegations that could support a Code violation and uncertainty regarding the corporate respondent's liability.

The request to add the second individual was denied as he had not been served.

The Tribunal also ordered the production of addresses and documents, and permitted the applicant to amend her Application.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing for over a year because its counsel was taking a pregnancy and parental leave and the respondent preferred to retain her.

The applicant opposed the lengthy delay, citing prejudice due to the passage of time, the death of a key witness, and lost records.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that a delay of that length would not be fair, just, or expeditious, and that the respondent could assign another lawyer from the same firm to the file.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial profiling by police during a traffic stop, vehicle search, and subsequent reprisal.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance was appropriately dealt with when the Ontario Court of Justice dismissed the applicant's Charter motion during his Provincial Offences Act trial.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the quasi-criminal proceeding only addressed the initial stop, not the subsequent search or reprisal allegations.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held it would be unfair to preclude the human rights claim given the significant differences in purposes, processes, and stakes between a quasi-criminal defence and a human rights application.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request for production of police training materials.

The applicant, a personal support worker, alleged she was sexually harassed by a client of the respondent.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success and to address the applicant's request for document production.

The Tribunal found that the application should not be dismissed at this preliminary stage, as there were factual and legal disputes requiring a full evidentiary record.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request for production of the client's log books, investigation notes, employment contracts, and workplace policies, finding them arguably relevant to the issues in dispute, subject to redactions for privacy.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Toronto Police Services Board's decision refusing to purge a 'person of interest' record from his Police Vulnerable Sector Check regarding an unproven 2000 allegation.

On this motion, the applicant sought an order allowing him to proceed anonymously using initials and redacting identifying information from the record.

The court granted the request to use initials and redact his identifying information, finding a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm if his name was disclosed, and that the balance of convenience favoured protecting his privacy to allow the judicial review to proceed.

The request to redact information about his relatives was denied.

The applicant, a young African-Canadian man, filed a human rights complaint alleging racial profiling after being stopped by police.

The Commission and the police settled the complaint, agreeing to a limited data collection project, but the applicant sought broader systemic remedies, including data collection for pedestrian stops.

The Human Rights Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request without a full hearing, deferring to the settlement and finding it lacked jurisdiction to order remedies for pedestrian stops.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court set aside the Tribunal's decision, holding that while the summary process was procedurally fair, the Tribunal's conclusions on jurisdiction and its complete deference to the Commission's settlement were unreasonable.