Human Rights - SCJ

The plaintiff sued the Ottawa Police Services Board and several officers for false arrest, false imprisonment, negligent investigation, and breaches of her Charter rights following her arrest for keeping a bawdy house.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion, finding that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the plaintiff based on their investigation of her massage parlour.

Although a criminal court had previously excluded evidence due to a s. 8 Charter breach regarding the search warrant, the court held that the exclusion of evidence and subsequent dismissal of criminal charges adequately fulfilled the functional objectives of the Charter, making an award of damages inappropriate.

The appellant, an anti-abortion activist, appealed her convictions for mischief and breach of probation arising from her attendance at an abortion clinic.

She argued that a foetus is a human being and sought to challenge the constitutionality of section 223 of the Criminal Code, asserting defences of defence of others, necessity, and mistake of fact.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's decision to decline a full evidentiary hearing on the biological status of a foetus, as binding appellate jurisprudence establishes that a foetus does not possess legal personhood or Charter rights.

The court also affirmed that the appellant's proposed defences were unavailable in law and that her probation conditions were reasonable.

A case conference was held in an action brought by a self-represented plaintiff alleging Charter breaches due to frequent lockdowns at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

The court approved the parties' agreed discovery plan, scheduled a further case conference to discuss next steps, and issued general case management directions, including that no motions may be brought without leave.

The plaintiff brought an action for wrongful dismissal and human rights violations after her employment was terminated while on maternity leave.

The defendant moved to strike a paragraph in the statement of claim alleging that the defendant had a history of terminating pregnant women under the guise of restructuring, citing a specific similar incident.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the similar fact evidence was properly pleaded, had significant probative value regarding the claims for human rights violations and punitive damages, and was not scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious.

The plaintiff sued the defendant cafe for $140,000, alleging discrimination under the Human Rights Code after the cafe allegedly refused to provide a glass with ice to the plaintiff's hearing-disabled friend.

The plaintiff also alleged various building and fire code violations.

The defendant requested a dismissal under Rule 2.1.01.

The court found that the claim appeared on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, as the plaintiff pleaded no basis to sue for insults to his friend or for building standard violations, and human rights complaints belong before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The court directed the registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.01 and stayed the action pending the written hearing.

The applicant, a Greek Orthodox parent, sought a declaration of parental authority and an order requiring the respondent school board to provide advance notice of curriculum topics conflicting with his religious beliefs, specifically regarding human sexuality, and to allow his children to be withdrawn from those classes.

The applicant argued the board's equity policy infringed his freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter and the Human Rights Code.

The court dismissed the application, finding the board's decision to deny the accommodation was reasonable as it proportionately balanced the applicant's Charter rights with the statutory objectives of inclusion and equality.

The court also held it lacked jurisdiction to hear the standalone Human Rights Code claim.

The plaintiff brought a wrongful dismissal action against his former employer and its owners, alleging age discrimination.

The personal defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the age discrimination claims against them.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for summary judgment on the entire claim.

The court granted the personal defendants' motion, finding no employment relationship and no factual foundation for the age discrimination claim.

On the plaintiff's motion, the court found no cause for termination and that the plaintiff had mitigated his damages, leaving only the quantum of notice to be determined at a later date.

The applicant children's aid society apprehended a child at birth and sought Crown wardship.

The respondent father, who identified as Métis, brought a constitutional challenge arguing that the definitions of 'Indian', 'Native person', and 'Native child' in section 3(1) of the Child and Family Services Act violated section 15(1) of the Charter by excluding Métis children.

The court found that the definitions created a distinction based on analogous grounds that perpetuated disadvantage for Métis children and their families.

The court declared the definitions invalid but suspended the declaration for 10 months to allow the legislature to amend the Act.

The court also granted an individual remedy under section 24(1) of the Charter, ordering that the child be treated as an Indian or Native child for the purposes of the proceedings.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against two police officers and the Toronto Police Services Board, alleging harassment, racial profiling, breach of trust, and conspiracy after being questioned by police in a parking lot.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim under Rules 21.01 and 25.11.

The court found that the torts of harassment and racial profiling were not properly pleaded or recognized, and that the claims for breach of trust and conspiracy lacked material facts.

The court struck the statement of claim without leave to amend, concluding it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous and vexatious.

The applicant sought a publication ban, sealing order, and anonymity for a physician-assisted dying application under the Carter exemption.

The applicant also requested to dispense with notice of the motion to the media.

The court declined to hear the motion without notice to the media, emphasizing the open court principle and the presumption that the media must be notified of requests for sealing orders.

The motion and application were adjourned to allow for notice to the media.

The self-represented applicant, a resident of a homeless shelter, brought an application against the shelter and its manager alleging bullying, negligence, and violations of his Charter rights under sections 2, 12, and 15.

Following a summary trial, the court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to provide any evidentiary or legal basis to support his allegations of cruel and unusual treatment, discrimination, or negligence.

The respondents' evidence demonstrated that they acted reasonably and that the applicant was aggressive and refused to follow shelter rules.

A class member challenged a court-approved Distribution Protocol in a class action settlement, alleging it contravened the Ontario Human Rights Code by requiring family members to pool their claims for minimum compensation, thereby discriminating on the basis of family and marital status.

The court held that the Human Rights Code does not apply to court orders or distribution schemes under the Class Proceedings Act.

Furthermore, even if the Code applied, the pooling requirement did not constitute discrimination, as it was a justified mechanism to encourage claims while preventing windfall overcompensation.

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.

The applicants, two Aboriginal men facing murder charges, brought a pre-trial application challenging the representativeness of the 2015 Thunder Bay jury roll under ss. 11(d) and 11(f) of the Charter.

They argued the state failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain source lists and deliver jury notices to on-reserve First Nations residents.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's framework in Kokopenace, the court reviewed the state's efforts, including the creation of an Aboriginal Jury Coordinator position, pilot projects offering compensation to bands for lists and delivery, and follow-ups on returned mail.

The court found that the state made reasonable efforts and provided a fair opportunity for a broad cross-section of society to participate, dismissing the application.

The media applicants brought an application for a declaration that the police practice of impersonating journalists for criminal investigation and surveillance of public protests violates s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The court found no evidence that plainclothes officers engaging in surveillance held themselves out as journalists.

The court held that the evidentiary record did not support a finding that the practice of plainclothes surveillance in the presence of media had a chilling effect on news gathering.

The application was dismissed.

The accused, charged with drug trafficking and facing a potential four-year penitentiary sentence, applied for a Rowbotham order for state-funded counsel after being denied Legal Aid due to his WSIB pension slightly exceeding the financial cut-off.

The court found that the accused lacked the means to retain counsel and that the complexity of the case, combined with the serious potential consequences, required representation to ensure a fair trial.

The application was granted, and a conditional stay of proceedings was ordered until state funding for counsel is arranged.

The plaintiff, a Scheduling Assistant at a long-term care home, was terminated without cause and provided two weeks' pay in lieu of notice after a nine-month probationary period.

She sued for wrongful dismissal and human rights violations, claiming she was discriminated against due to her Newfoundland accent and pregnancy, and sought $750,000 in damages.

The court found the employer had sufficient grounds for termination due to ongoing performance issues but opted to terminate without cause.

The court held that the two weeks' notice was reasonable under the Bardal factors and dismissed the human rights claims due to inconsistent and insufficient evidence.