Unknown

The Applicant sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for pain and suffering resulting from an alleged physical assault and uttering of threats by the Alleged Offender during a property dispute involving a bulldozer.

The Board dismissed the claim for the physical assault, finding insufficient evidence that the bulldozer struck the Applicant.

However, the Board awarded $3,000 for pain and suffering caused by the threat of bodily harm, which exacerbated the Applicant's anxiety and caused post-traumatic stress symptoms.

The Applicant sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for injuries sustained during an aggravated assault.

The Applicant was assaulted with a hammer by an offender while attending a residence to participate in the illegal drug trade.

The Board found that the Applicant was a victim of a crime of violence.

However, applying section 17(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, the Board refused compensation due to the Applicant's extensive criminal history of violent offences and his contributory behaviour in knowingly participating in illegal drug activities with individuals known to be violent.

The 12-year-old applicant child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review her emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres.

The Board excluded hearsay medical documents authored by the admitting psychiatrist, citing procedural fairness.

Upon reviewing the evidence, the Board found that Youthdale failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the child had a mental disorder at the time of admission, as required by s. 124(2)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board concluded the child's behaviours were an expected reaction to recent trauma and apprehension, rather than a substantial disorder of emotional processes.

The application was granted and the child was released.

The applicant, a police officer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and sexual harassment against her former employer, the Ottawa Police Service (OPS), and her current employer, the Peel Regional Police Services Board, as well as their respective police associations.

The OPS and the Ottawa Police Association requested that the application against them be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the allegations against the Ottawa respondents did not constitute a 'series of incidents' connecting them to the Peel respondents.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to demonstrate that her delay in filing against the Ottawa respondents was incurred in good faith, noting she had previously sought legal advice and raised concerns internally.

The application was dismissed as against the OPS and the Ottawa Police Association.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and age in his dismissal from employment.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or as an abuse of process, arguing that the substance of the application was dealt with in a prior grievance arbitration.

The applicant, who did not attend the arbitration, alleged he was not notified by his union and raised concerns about the union's representation.

The Tribunal ordered an in-person hearing to consider the request to dismiss and directed the applicant to provide an affidavit detailing his assertions regarding the fairness of the arbitration process.

The appellant sought access to police notebook entries regarding an incident involving the local transit authority.

The Police granted partial access, withholding information relating to a witness under the personal privacy exemption.

In a previous interim order, the Assistant Commissioner found the Police failed to exercise their discretion under section 38(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

After reviewing the Police's subsequent representations on their exercise of discretion, the Assistant Commissioner found the Police still failed to properly balance the competing interests of access and privacy, and ordered them to reconsider their exercise of discretion.