4 total
IIROC has authority to order electronic hearings; videoconference satisfies the right to be heard in person.
The applicant sought a review of an IIROC hearing panel decision that ordered his merits hearing to proceed electronically by videoconference due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The applicant argued that IIROC lacked jurisdiction to change the hearing mode over his objection and that the IIROC Rules entitled him to an in-person oral hearing.
The Ontario Securities Commission upheld the IIROC decision, finding that the IIROC Rules permit a hearing panel to choose the hearing mode and that a videoconference hearing satisfies a respondent's entitlement to attend and be heard 'in person'.
Reconsideration request dismissed as application is barred by section 34(11) due to concurrent civil action.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had filed a civil action based on the same factual situation, which could give rise to a remedy for discrimination, even though a breach of the Code was not specifically pleaded.
The Tribunal held that section 34(11) is intended to preclude duplicate proceedings and dismissed the reconsideration request.
Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to ongoing civil proceeding on same facts.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination by the respondent police services board and officers.
The applicant had also commenced a civil action against the respondents alleging malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and breach of Charter and human rights arising from the same factual context.
The Tribunal held that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code bars an application where a civil proceeding seeking remedies for the same alleged Code infringement is ongoing.
The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Solicitor negligence appeal dismissed, but trial costs award reduced to $35,000.
The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their solicitor's negligence claim and awarding substantial indemnity costs to the respondents.
They also alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias against the trial judge.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the bias and negligence grounds, finding the trial judge's factual findings supported by the evidence.
However, the Court granted leave to appeal costs and reduced the trial costs award to $35,000, while maintaining the substantial indemnity scale due to the nature of the allegations made by the appellants.
The appeal was otherwise dismissed with no costs of the appeal.
