Shibil Siddiqi

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her application for disability-based discrimination.

The applicant alleged she was terminated after disclosing her bipolar disorder and requesting accommodations.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by allowing the respondent employer to file a second, more detailed witness statement during the hearing without permitting the applicant to cross-examine the witness on the discrepancies between his two statements.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted to a differently constituted panel of the Tribunal for a new hearing.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order granting a rent abatement to a tenant for noise interference caused by a neighbouring child with autism.

The LTB had found the landlord failed to investigate soundproofing options.

On appeal, the landlord argued the LTB failed to consider its limitations under the Human Rights Code regarding the child's disability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the issue was raised for the first time on appeal and the LTB's order to investigate soundproofing did not require an impermissible eviction or discriminate against the child.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decisions that dismissed his claim of discrimination based on disability.

The applicant, who suffered a work-related foot injury, argued that his employer discriminated against him by applying its absenteeism policy and failing to accommodate him.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review is reasonableness and found that the HRTO reasonably concluded the employer's application of its policies was not discriminatory, as the employer was entitled to rely on the WSIB's finding that the injury did not prevent the applicant from working.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant requested to amend his human rights applications to increase the monetary compensation sought from $150 to $25,000.

The respondents took no position on the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that amendments to remedies are regularly permitted up to the date of the hearing.

The applicant filed two human rights applications against the respondents.

While the first application was under reserve following a hearing, the parties settled the second application and signed Minutes of Settlement containing a broad release.

The respondents argued the release settled both applications, while the applicant argued it only applied to the second.

The Tribunal found the release language was unambiguous and, applying principles of contract interpretation, concluded that the broad 'any and all applications' language covered the first application, which was outstanding at the time the settlement was signed.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board which found that he had abandoned his rental unit.

The Board had concluded that rent was in arrears because the September 2010 rent cheque was paid by a third party rather than the tenant.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Residential Tenancies Act permits rent to be paid on behalf of a tenant by a third party.

Since the rent was paid, the statutory precondition for abandonment was not met, and the matter was remitted to the Board to determine a remedy.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing his request for a review of an eviction order.

The tenant had failed to attend the initial hearing and requested a review, citing a substance abuse problem as the potential reason for his absence.

The Board dismissed the review without holding a hearing.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board breached the principles of natural justice by failing to conduct a further inquiry or hearing into the tenant's reasons for non-attendance, particularly given the quasi-constitutional status of the Human Rights Code.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a new review hearing.