Sara Weinrib

The applicants, including the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, brought applications for judicial review challenging the Ontario government's decision to withdraw the 2015 sex education curriculum and replace it with the 2010 curriculum.

They argued the directive infringed teachers' freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, and students' rights under ss. 7 and 15(1) of the Charter.

The Divisional Court granted the applicants public interest standing but dismissed the applications on the merits.

The court found no infringement of s. 2(b) because teachers remained free to address topics from the 2015 curriculum, and no infringement of ss. 7 or 15(1) because the 2010 curriculum did not inherently deprive students of security of the person or substantively discriminate against protected groups.

The applicants initiated a constitutional challenge to sections of the Children’s Law Reform Act and Vital Statistics Act concerning parental recognition for LGBTQ parents.

The respondent failed to file an Answer within the 30-day period and subsequently brought motions for an open-ended extension and directions.

The applicants brought a cross-motion.

The court dismissed all motions but, recognizing the complexity and importance of the constitutional issues, granted the respondent an extension to file an Answer and set a timetable for the litigation.

The respondent was sanctioned with $2,000 in costs for its unreasonable procedural conduct in delaying the filing of its motion for extension.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application for a declaration that the name 'Domestic Violence Court' violated his rights under sections 7, 12, and 15 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the application judge that the appellant failed to demonstrate serious state-imposed psychological harm, cruel and unusual treatment, or discrimination.

The court noted that such applications risk trivializing important Charter rights.

The applicant challenged the constitutionality of a regulation under the Highway Traffic Act that requires drivers 80 years of age and older to undergo biennial testing to renew their driver's licences.

The applicant argued this requirement discriminated on the basis of age contrary to s. 15 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the testing program is individualized, sensitive to the potential problems of aging, and not based on arbitrary or demeaning stereotypes.

The court concluded the regulation does not violate s. 15 of the Charter.

The appellant, a disabled senior, received an overpayment of ODSP income support due to an innocent reporting error regarding his rent.

The Director ordered full repayment.

The Social Benefits Tribunal reduced the recovery to half the amount, but the Divisional Court overturned this, finding no discretion to forgive a Crown debt.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Director's discretion under section 14(4) of the ODSPA includes the authority to forgo recovery of an overpayment, and that the Tribunal has the same discretion on appeal.

The appellant, an Aboriginal offender, appealed his 8-month sentence for sexual interference against a child and challenged the constitutionality of the 14-day mandatory minimum sentence under s. 15(1) and s. 7 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the constitutional challenges, finding that the mandatory minimum did not disproportionately disadvantage Aboriginal offenders in a discriminatory manner and did not create institutional bias.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeal, reducing the sentence to 90 days intermittent custody followed by three years' probation, citing fresh evidence of the appellant's remorse and the significant delay in the proceedings.