Rosanne Giulietti

The defendants brought a Rule 21.01 motion to strike a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim alleging unlawful interference with a towing and parking enforcement business and seeking reinstatement of a licence suspended by police.

The plaintiffs alleged that police deliberately failed to enter tow cards into CPIC, resulting in theft charges and business losses.

The court held that municipalities exercising regulatory powers in good faith enjoy relative immunity unless their conduct is irrational, and the pleadings failed to properly particularize allegations of malice.

The court also found that the challenge to the licence suspension constituted a matter for judicial review before the Divisional Court rather than an action in the Superior Court.

The statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was struck.

A natural gas distributor applied to quash a municipal by-law imposing a pavement degradation fee on entities excavating city roads, arguing the fee was ultra vires under the City of Toronto Act, 2006 and O. Reg. 595/06.

The applicant contended the fee impermissibly targeted gas distributors, was unrelated to permit issuance costs, and improperly related to the transportation of natural resources.

The municipality argued the fee formed part of a broader regulatory scheme governing road excavation and utility cuts and was authorized as a permit-related charge.

The court applied a broad and purposive interpretation of municipal powers and held the fee was reasonably connected to a regulatory scheme managing road infrastructure and excavation permits.

The application to quash the by-law was dismissed.

The applicant brought multiple human rights applications against various taxi companies and the City of Toronto.

During a teleconference hearing to address preliminary issues, the applicant withdrew her allegations against the City of Toronto.

The Tribunal granted the withdrawal and issued directions regarding the representation of a non-participating respondent, the potential consolidation of the applications, and the scheduling of a further hearing to determine whether an additional corporate respondent should be added.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that a City of Toronto by-law prohibiting the possession, consumption, and sale of shark fin products discriminated against him on the basis of race, ancestry, and ethnic origin.

The respondent municipality brought a request to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the mere passage of a municipal by-law under general legislative authority is an exercise of political powers and does not constitute a 'service' under the Human Rights Code.

As the applicant did not allege that the by-law affected him in any protected social area, the matter fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The respondent requested a stay of the Tribunal proceeding pending the determination of an application for judicial review of an earlier interim decision.

The Tribunal applied the three-part test for a stay and found that the respondent failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The Commission also requested to add the Chief of Police as an additional respondent, which the Tribunal denied because the Chief of Police is an individual and not an entity subject to deemed liability under section 46.3(1) of the Code.

Both requests were dismissed.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed three preliminary matters in a complaint alleging sexual orientation discrimination by police officers.

The Tribunal ordered the hearing bifurcated into liability and remedy phases.

It dismissed the Toronto Police Services Board's request to dismiss the complaint, finding the Board could be held vicariously liable for the actions of individual officers under s. 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code.

Finally, the Tribunal ordered the production of an officer's personnel file and relevant policy documents, declining to apply an extraordinary O'Connor-type procedure for the disclosure of the personnel records.

The applicant police officers sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision ordering the production of their personnel files in relation to a human rights complaint.

After the police service confirmed no responsive records existed, the respondents argued the application was moot.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding no live controversy remained.

The Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot case, noting that recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence regarding police disciplinary records should be applied in a genuine adversarial context.

The complainant filed human rights complaints against the Toronto Police Services Board, the Chief of Police, and the Toronto Transit Commission.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed three preliminary issues.

First, the Toronto Police Association was granted limited intervenor status to address production requests.

Second, the Tribunal dismissed the respondents' argument that the Ontario Human Rights Commission was not a party as of right, finding that the statutory requirements under the transition provisions of the Human Rights Code were met.

Third, regarding the production of records governed by the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Tribunal directed the parties to address the issue at the resumed Initial Conference Call.

The affected police officers requested a stay of a Tribunal order requiring the disclosure of documents relating to other complaints of sexual orientation discrimination against them, pending their application for judicial review.

The Tribunal applied the three-part test for a stay.

While acknowledging a serious issue to be tried, the Tribunal found the officers would not suffer irreparable harm, as the documents would only be disclosed to the Commission and complainant subject to an implied undertaking, and any privacy concerns could be addressed if the documents were later tendered as evidence.

The Tribunal also found the balance of convenience did not favour a stay, as it would unduly delay a proceeding that had already been ongoing for four years.

The request for a stay was denied.

The Commission referred a human rights complaint to the Tribunal under s. 33(6) of the Human Rights Code after the respondent police board refused to produce certain documents during the investigation.

The complaint alleged discrimination based on sexual orientation during an arrest and detention.

The Commission brought a motion seeking production of various documents, including officer notes, video logs, personnel files, and arrest statistics, prior to filing its hearing brief.

The Tribunal held that while preliminary matters should generally not be raised before hearing briefs are filed, the specific circumstances warranted severing the disclosure requirement from the hearing brief filing.

The Tribunal ordered the production of arguably relevant documents, including prior complaints of sexual orientation discrimination against the involved officers and relevant video monitoring information, but denied overbroad requests for complete personnel files and statistical data on arrests.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Toronto Licensing Tribunal decision revoking their tow truck operator licenses.

They argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment when their agent failed to appear, instead allowing two police witnesses to testify in chief.

The majority of the Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the agent's subsequent refusal to cross-examine the witnesses and the Tribunal's overall fair conduct cured any initial prejudice.

A dissenting judge would have ordered a new hearing, finding the initial refusal to adjourn and the admission of highly prejudicial, uninterrupted testimony fundamentally unfair.

The applicant, a non-profit organization serving the Vietnamese community, sought judicial review of the City's decision refusing permission to fly the flag of the former South Vietnam on a courtesy flagpole at City Hall.

The City's policy restricted national flags to those of nations recognized by the federal Department of Foreign Affairs.

The Divisional Court held that it had jurisdiction to review the decision but dismissed the application.

The court found no violation of freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, as the flagpole was not a public forum and the policy did not aim to suppress expression.

The court also rejected arguments based on legitimate expectations and unreasonableness.

The City of Toronto applied for judicial review of decisions by the Toronto Licensing Tribunal to continue, subject to conditions, the restaurant licences of four establishments with histories of public health violations.

The City argued the decisions were patently unreasonable and that the Tribunal breached the rules of natural justice by misunderstanding its jurisdiction, failing to provide adequate reasons, and interfering in the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decisions were supported by the evidence and that the hearings were conducted fairly without any breach of natural justice.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario revoking its liquor licence.

The Divisional Court admitted fresh evidence regarding noise issues that had the potential to fundamentally alter the Board's conclusion on the public interest.

Consequently, the Court set aside the Board's order and remitted the matter to a differently constituted Board for a new hearing, with interim conditions imposed on the appellant's operations.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Toronto Licensing Tribunal suspending his taxicab driver's licence for thirty days for breaching the municipal code.

The applicant, representing himself, alleged a conspiracy by city employees to harass him.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal proceedings were conducted fairly, in accordance with natural justice, and that the findings were supported by evidence.

Costs of $500 were awarded to the respondent.