Toby G. Young

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing his complaint as abandoned after he failed to respond to a single email inquiring about the status of related WSIB proceedings.

The Tribunal had refused to reconsider the dismissal, focusing solely on whether the email was delivered rather than conducting a contextual analysis of abandonment.

The Divisional Court held that inferring abandonment from the failure to respond to one email, given the applicant's history of compliance and the ongoing nature of the WSIB proceedings, was unreasonable.

The application was granted, the dismissal order was quashed, and costs were awarded to the applicant.

The appellant, an international student eligible for a Post-Graduate Work Permit (PGWP), was offered an entry-level engineering position by the respondent employer.

The offer was conditional on proof of permanent eligibility to work in Canada (Canadian citizenship or permanent residency).

When the appellant disclosed he would be working on a PGWP, the employer withdrew the offer.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found the employer discriminated against the appellant on the basis of citizenship.

The Divisional Court set aside the tribunal's decision.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the tribunal's decision, holding that it was reasonable for the tribunal to find that a policy excluding PGWP-holders—who are legally entitled to work full-time in Canada—constitutes discrimination on the basis of citizenship, even if the policy excepts permanent residents.

The Durham Regional Police Services Board and Christopher Delaney appealed a Divisional Court decision that found the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario's (HRTO) decisions unreasonable.

The HRTO had ruled that a settlement agreement for a second human rights application also settled a prior, undecided first application by Joseph Briggs, and subsequently cancelled a favourable decision for Briggs on the first application as an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court reversed the HRTO, finding its interpretation of the settlement unreasonable and deciding the matter itself rather than remitting it.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's finding that the HRTO's decision was unreasonable due to its narrow interpretation of the factual matrix and exclusion of relevant evidence (Form 25).

The Court of Appeal also affirmed the Divisional Court's discretion to decide the matter rather than remitting it, citing the inordinate delay and the binary nature of the issue.

The appeal was dismissed, confirming that the settlement did not cover the first application.

The South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario and the Colour of Poverty/Colour of Change Network sought leave to intervene as friends of the court in an appeal concerning an employer's policy requiring permanent residency for job applicants, which was alleged to be discriminatory on the basis of citizenship.

The employer opposed the intervention, while the original applicant and tribunal took no position.

The court granted intervener status, finding that the appeal raised issues of public importance regarding the interpretation of human rights legislation and that the proposed interveners possessed expertise to offer a useful and distinct perspective on the Post-Graduation Work Permit program and partial discrimination.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision finding it had discriminated against a job applicant on the basis of citizenship.

The employer had rescinded a job offer after discovering the applicant, an international student, lied about being eligible to work permanently in Canada.

The Divisional Court quashed the HRTO's decision, holding that it was unreasonable to conflate 'permanent residence' with 'citizenship' to find direct discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The court found that permanent residency is a separate status from citizenship, and the HRTO's expansion of the protected ground was not justified.

The applicant sought judicial review of two HRTO decisions regarding the interpretation of a release signed to settle a human rights complaint against the police.

The HRTO had ruled that the release also covered an earlier, separate human rights complaint that was under reserve, and subsequently set aside its merits decision in that earlier complaint.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's interpretation of the release unreasonable, as it failed to properly consider the factual matrix and ambiguity in the settlement documents.

The court set aside both HRTO decisions, concluding the release did not apply to the earlier complaint.

A case management conference was held to schedule an application for judicial review of two decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The court set a hearing date of August 6, 2020, by videoconference, and provided detailed directions for the filing of materials, including the use of an electronic drop box, hyperlinked factums, and compendiums.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding them liable for sex discrimination, a poisoned work environment, and reprisal.

The Tribunal had awarded the respondent $30,000 in general damages after she was terminated for complaining about sexualized comments and conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the adjudicator's factual findings, damages award, and treatment of the incidents as a continuous series were reasonable.

The court also rejected the argument that the adjudicator's partial reproduction of the respondent's submissions compromised his independence.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario refusing to dismiss a human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent had alleged racial profiling during a traffic stop, an issue previously raised and dismissed in a criminal proceeding before the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court found exceptional circumstances to review the interlocutory decision and held that the Tribunal's decision was unreasonable.

The Tribunal failed to properly apply the principles of issue estoppel and fairness as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada, relying instead on generalized public policy concerns rather than a case-specific analysis.

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

The applicants sought judicial review of interim decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which declined to dismiss human rights applications under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicants argued that prior proceedings under the Police Services Act and the Regulated Health Professions Act should bar the human rights complaints based on issue estoppel and finality principles.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding the Tribunal reasonably applied the Supreme Court's fairness principles from Penner to conclude that it would be unfair to dismiss the human rights applications, given the different purposes, lack of financial stakes, and statutory contexts of the prior proceedings.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding they discriminated against three Muslim employees by requiring them to taste pork, failing to accommodate religious holidays, and engaging in reprisals.

The applicants argued the Tribunal made unreasonable findings of fact, erred in its treatment of s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, and improperly ignored unsworn willsay statements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's fact-finding was reasonable, the s. 45.1 argument was not raised before the Tribunal, and willsay statements of uncalled witnesses are not evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding he created a poisoned work environment through racial and sexual comments.

The Divisional Court found that the adjudicator's conclusions on two of the four allegations were unreasonable, particularly regarding the improper reliance on hearsay evidence to determine the content of a conversation.

As the finding of a poisoned work environment relied on the cumulative effect of all four incidents, the decision was set aside and remitted for a new hearing.

The court also struck down the systemic remedy requiring the applicant to notify former employees of a new human rights policy.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision finding it discriminated against the respondent employee on the basis of gender and reprised against her for asserting her human rights.

The employee had been disciplined for swearing, while male employees were not, and was terminated after refusing to sign a written warning she believed was discriminatory.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's conclusions on discrimination, reprisal, and the award of $15,000 in general damages plus six months' lost wages were reasonable.

The City of Toronto sought judicial review of two interim decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which had rejected the City's request for early dismissal of a human rights application challenging municipal zoning by-laws regarding group homes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal's decision to defer the jurisdictional challenge until a full evidentiary record was established was reasonable.

The Court also held that the application for judicial review was premature, as there were no exceptional circumstances warranting intervention in the Tribunal's interim procedural decisions.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that found they had discriminated against an employee on the basis of ancestry, ethnic origin, creed, and sex.

The Divisional Court set aside the Tribunal's decision, finding it to be patently unreasonable and procedurally unfair.

The adjudicator erred by refusing to accommodate a key witness for the employer, drawing an adverse inference from that witness's absence, and making findings of discrimination regarding a microwave policy and dress code that were unsupported by factual findings or logical legal reasoning.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The City of Ottawa appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that found it to be a 'landlord' under the Tenant Protection Act after it reinstated a rent supplement for a tenant facing eviction.

The Divisional Court found that the underlying dispute between the tenant and the property owner had been resolved, as the tenant had vacated the premises and no arrears were owed.

Applying the Borowski test, the court concluded the appeal was moot and declined to exercise its discretion to hear it, noting that the issue of whether the City is a landlord is best left to the legislature.

The tenant appealed a Tribunal decision regarding her ability to reasonably participate in a proceeding and a motion to set aside a default order.

The Divisional Court found the appeal to be moot.

Applying the Borowski factors, the court declined to hear the appeal, concluding that the issue was not of public importance requiring prompt resolution.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $1,500.