Sharon Ffolkes Abrahams

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Human Rights Commission not to deal with one of her complaints due to delay and not to refer six other complaints to a Tribunal for lack of sufficient evidence.

The applicant argued the decisions were unreasonable, that conciliation was not attempted, and that she was denied procedural fairness and subjected to bias by investigators.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commission's discretionary decisions were reasonable, conciliation had been attempted, and there was no merit to the allegations of bias or denial of procedural fairness.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion before a panel of the Divisional Court to set aside an order of a single judge.

The single judge had struck several respondents, documents, an affidavit, and claims for damages from the applicant's application for judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the single judge was correct in all respects, as the struck respondents were not proper parties, the struck documents and affidavit were not before the Commission, and the Divisional Court lacks jurisdiction to award damages on judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission not to refer his discrimination complaint against his former employer to the Human Rights Tribunal.

He named the employer, various employees, the Commission, Commission employees, and the Crown as respondents, seeking damages in tort and other relief.

The respondents brought motions to strike the claims and remove parties.

The Divisional Court held that it has no jurisdiction to award damages on an application for judicial review.

The court also found that the Crown and Commission employees did not exercise a statutory power of decision and were not proper parties.

The respondents' motions were granted, the applicant's affidavit was struck, and the applicant's motions for additional information were dismissed.

The applicant, a non-custodial parent, sought access to his son's medical records through the Ontario Human Rights Commission, alleging discrimination on the basis of family or marital status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to usurp the Family Court's role in determining parental access rights.

The court found no discrimination and upheld the tribunal's procedural fairness, awarding $1,000 in costs to the Commission.