21 total
Appeal dismissed; tribunal lacks jurisdiction over school exclusions ordered under the Immunization of School Pupils Act.
The appellant appealed a school board's decision to suspend and subsequently exclude their child from school.
The suspension was ordered by the Medical Officer of Health under the Immunization of School Pupils Act due to missing immunization records.
When the parents refused to comply, the school issued a notice of exclusion under the Education Act.
The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the exclusion was based on a medical order, not an expulsion under the Education Act.
Appeal dismissed; Board lacks jurisdiction over school exclusion based on public health immunization order.
The appellant parent appealed a school board's decision to exclude their child from school, arguing it constituted an expulsion under the Education Act.
The child had been suspended and subsequently excluded pursuant to an order from the medical officer of health under the Immunization of School Pupils Act.
The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that the exclusion was a medical refusal to admit the student under section 265(1)(m) of the Education Act, not an expulsion, and therefore the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Interlocutory injunction granted suspending OFSAA regulations pending a Charter challenge regarding minority language education rights.
The applicants, a French-language public school board and a parent, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to suspend new regulations enacted by the Ontario Federation of School Athletics Associations (OFSAA).
The applicants argued that the regulations, which restricted students outside designated attendance zones from participating in OFSAA-sanctioned competitions in their designated sport, violated section 23 of the Charter by disproportionately impacting minority language students attending a specialized sports-study program.
The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding a serious constitutional issue, irreparable harm due to the potential assimilation and loss of students, and a balance of convenience favouring the applicants.
The interlocutory injunction was granted.
Request to amend human rights application granted; respondent's request to defer denied as parallel proceedings concluded.
The applicant requested to amend his human rights application to include allegations of ongoing discrimination regarding special education accommodations for the 2014-2015 school year.
The respondent opposed the amendment and requested a deferral pending the conclusion of special education proceedings under the Education Act.
The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding it timely and preferable to requiring a new application, and denied the deferral request because the special education proceedings had already concluded.
Request to intervene by proposed intervenor denied in educational services discrimination application.
The proposed intervenor, Justice for Children and Youth, filed a request to intervene in an application alleging discrimination with respect to educational services.
The respondents opposed the request.
The Tribunal denied the request to intervene, finding that the applicant was already represented by counsel, the allegations involved direct interactions rather than systemic issues, and the issues raised fell squarely within the Tribunal's expertise.
Tribunal allows amendment of discrimination application and schedules summary hearing on delay and prospect of success.
The applicants, a father acting as litigation guardian for his two minor sons and on behalf of his adult son, alleged discrimination and reprisal by the respondent school board regarding disciplinary measures.
The applicants requested to amend the application to add further allegations and new respondents.
The Tribunal granted the request to add allegations but deferred adding the new respondents.
The Tribunal ordered a summary hearing by teleconference to determine whether the application should be dismissed for delay or for having no reasonable prospect of success.
No Charter breach where school bus stop located short distance from residence.
Parents brought an application alleging that the refusal to provide a door‑to‑door school bus stop for their children attending a French-language Catholic elementary school violated their rights under s. 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
They sought an order compelling the school transportation consortium to provide a stop directly in front of their residence.
The court held that the consortium’s transportation decisions were subject to Charter scrutiny because the consortium exercised a governmental function delegated by school boards.
However, the applicants failed to demonstrate that the existing bus stops, located approximately 60 metres and 150 metres from the residence, created a meaningful barrier to access to French-language education.
The court concluded that the inconvenience of walking that distance did not constitute a denial of minority-language education rights under s. 23.
Teacher's certificate revoked for failing to report sexual abuse of a student and fostering intimidation.
The Discipline Committee held a penalty hearing after finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct for failing to report a staff member's sexual abuse of a student, fostering a climate of intimidation, and mismanaging funds.
The College sought revocation, while the Member's counsel argued against publication and raised procedural objections.
The Committee ordered the revocation of the Member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration, imposed a five-year waiting period for reinstatement, and ordered publication of the decision with the Member's name, emphasizing the need for specific and general deterrence and the protection of the public interest.
Request to amend human rights application to add reprisal allegations and additional remedies granted.
The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights application to include allegations of reprisal and additional remedies related to sick, disability, and pension entitlements.
The respondent did not object, provided it could file an amended response.
The Tribunal granted the request, finding the proposed amendments flowed directly from the original allegations of discrimination and were closely connected in time and substance.
Costs of premature summary judgment motion ordered in the cause.
The defendant sought costs following a motion that combined a motion to strike the statement of claim and a motion for summary judgment.
The court had previously indicated the original pleading disclosed no viable cause of action and permitted the plaintiff to file a fresh amended statement of claim with costs thrown away.
The defendant claimed over $115,000 in costs, arguing the amended pleading introduced entirely new causes of action and rendered extensive preparation for the summary judgment motion wasted.
The court held that the costs relating to the summary judgment motion should be treated as costs in the cause because it was unclear whether the motion would ultimately have succeeded or whether it had been premature under the principles articulated in Combined Air Mechanical Services v. Flesch.
Costs for the successful motion to strike were fixed and ordered payable immediately, while the balance relating to summary judgment was deferred pending the outcome of the action.
Interim remedy denied and summary hearing directed as francophone students failed to show arguable discrimination case regarding athletic eligibility rules.
The applicants, francophone students attending a designated Sports School outside their residential boundaries, alleged that the respondent's by-law modification restricting athletic eligibility for out-of-boundary students disproportionately affected them based on ancestry and ethnic origin.
They requested an interim remedy to suspend the modification.
The Tribunal denied the interim remedy, finding no arguable case that the modification disproportionately affected francophone students compared to anglophone students.
Consequently, the Tribunal directed a summary hearing on its own initiative to determine if the applications should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
Human rights application dismissed as an abuse of process due to applicant's refusal to undergo cross-examination.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent failed to accommodate her daughter's disability.
During the proceedings, the applicant repeatedly refused to comply with the Tribunal's direction to undergo cross-examination until certain preliminary issues were determined to her satisfaction.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's refusal to abide by its directions demonstrated a lack of respect for the Tribunal's process and impeded its ability to fairly and efficiently determine the issues.
The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.
Request for adjudicator's recusal dismissed; disagreement with procedural rulings does not establish reasonable apprehension of bias.
The applicant brought a request for an order during proceedings asking the adjudicator to recuse herself, alleging that various procedural rulings favoured the respondent and demonstrated bias.
The adjudicator reviewed the history of the proceedings, including rulings on expert witnesses, document disclosure, and scheduling.
Applying the test for reasonable apprehension of bias, the adjudicator concluded that the applicant's disagreement with procedural decisions did not establish bias.
The request for recusal was dismissed.
Tribunal orders full-time congregated special education placement for autistic student, rejecting mandatory partial integration.
The appellant parent appealed the school board's decision regarding the special education placement of his 17-year-old child, who is identified with autism and a developmental disability.
The student had not attended school for over two years.
While both parties agreed that a Senior Education for Community Living (ECL) class was appropriate, they disagreed on the location, the transition plan, and the partial integration component.
The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal despite the lack of a Special Education Appeal Board decision, as the school board had failed to convene one.
The Tribunal ordered that the student be placed in a full-time congregated special education class (either ECL or Developmental Education) without mandatory partial integration at this time, following an expedited transition process.
Tribunal denies successful applicant's request for legal costs, finding no statutory jurisdiction to award them.
Following a successful human rights application where the applicant was awarded monetary compensation and future compliance remedies, the applicant sought an order for legal costs on a full indemnity scale.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario reviewed its statutory authority under section 45.2 of the Human Rights Code and section 17.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.
The Tribunal concluded that, consistent with prior jurisprudence and the absence of specific Tribunal rules regarding costs, it does not have the jurisdiction to award legal costs to a successful applicant.
The request for costs was denied.
Motion granted ordering the applicant to provide her original school agenda to the respondent for inspection.
The respondent filed a motion for an order compelling the applicant to produce the original copy of her 2003-2004 school agenda for inspection.
The applicant opposed the motion, arguing she had already provided photocopies of certain pages and was willing to provide the original to the Tribunal, but not to the respondent.
The Tribunal found that the entire agenda was arguably relevant and ordered the applicant to provide the original agenda to the respondent's representative for a two-day inspection period.
School board discriminated against autistic student by requiring a daycare licence for transportation to a caregiving location.
The applicant, a five-year-old student with severe autism, sought transportation from his morning Intensive Behavioural Intervention (IBI) therapy centre to his afternoon special education program.
The school board denied the request because the therapy centre did not have a daycare licence, a requirement under its unwritten transportation practices.
The Tribunal found that the daycare licence requirement discriminated against the applicant, as his severe disability prevented him from attending a regular licensed daycare.
The Tribunal held that the board failed to establish that accommodating the applicant would cause undue hardship and failed in its procedural duty to accommodate by not assessing his individual needs.
The board was ordered to pay $10,000 in general damages, out-of-pocket transportation expenses, and to amend its transportation policies.
Tribunal ruled it will consider evidence of child's progress subsequent to the original IPRC decision.
In a preliminary conference before the Ontario Special Education Tribunal, the parties disputed the temporal scope of evidence admissible for an upcoming appeal regarding a student's placement.
The school board argued the Tribunal's mandate was limited to the date of the July 10, 2003 IPRC decision, while the parents sought to include evidence up to the hearing date.
The Tribunal ruled that to properly determine the child's current needs and make a binding decision on placement, it must consider all relevant evidence from the 2003 IPRC date up to the child's most recent report card.
Tribunal retains jurisdiction over special education appeal despite child's indeterminate medical absence; temporary home instruction ordered.
The applicant mother appealed the school board's placement decision for her child, who has Down syndrome.
The child was absent from school for an indeterminate period due to obstructive sleep apnea.
The school board argued the appeal was moot due to the absence.
The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction, finding the issue was not moot as the placement dispute remained unresolved.
The Tribunal ordered temporary home instruction until the child's sleep apnea is controlled, deferred the psycho-educational evaluation until the child is ready to return to class, and ordered partial disclosure of relevant medical documents while denying the board's request for the complete medical file.
Appeal dismissed; reasonable efforts clause applied only to non-solicitation, and no proprietary interest in confidential information.
The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding alleged breaches of non-solicitation and non-competition clauses, as well as misuse of confidential information.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the reasonable efforts clause in the addendum applied only to the non-solicitation clause, which was not breached.
Furthermore, the court held that the appellant had no proprietary interest in the allegedly confidential information and therefore could not assert a claim for its misuse.
