Wafa Khan

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on creed after her employment was terminated for failing to comply with a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness, found no denial of procedural fairness, and concluded that the Tribunal's determination that the applicant's singular belief against the vaccine did not constitute a 'creed' under the Human Rights Code was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant father sought primary weekday parenting time and interim child support for the parties' two children.

The respondent mother cross-moved for dismissal, declaratory orders for torts of family violence and battered women's syndrome, supervised visits for the father, sole decision-making, and child support.

The court dismissed the respondent's tort claims, affirming no such torts exist in Ontario.

The court criticized the respondent's motion materials for non-compliance with practice directions.

The court found both parties engaged in family violence: the respondent through emotional/psychological abuse by withholding children and misusing police contact, and the applicant through financial abuse by not paying support and attempting to divert child benefits.

The court ordered a shared parenting schedule, rejecting the father's request for primary weekday care and the mother's request for supervised visits and sole decision-making.

Interim child support was ordered, with the applicant paying retroactive and ongoing set-off support based on imputed incomes.

Detailed communication and transition orders were also made, superseding criminal undertaking conditions.

The plaintiff, a residential tenant, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction against a neighbouring bar and its landlords, alleging nuisance from amplified sound and noise vibrations.

The plaintiff sought orders restricting the bar's operations, requiring the installation of a noise limiter, and compelling police response to complaints.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured an injunction under the RJR-MacDonald test.

The court also found the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case of nuisance under the alternative Hamilton test, noting the lack of expert evidence regarding sound levels in the plaintiff's apartment.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment after the defendant failed to file a defence to an action for negligence and breach of contract regarding substandard concrete work.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's affidavit and oral evidence, awarding damages for necessary repairs to the property and for loss of enjoyment.

The claim for loss of reputation was dismissed due to lack of evidence.

The plaintiffs sold a construction business to the defendants, with a portion of the purchase price secured by a vendor take back promissory note.

The defendants refused to pay the note, claiming set-offs for intercompany debt, retained bank balances, and a bookkeeping error that overstated accounts receivable.

The court held that the purchase price was fixed and not subject to adjustment for the intercompany debt, and that the bookkeeping error did not constitute a breach of warranty.

However, the court allowed a set-off for the retained bank balance, which the plaintiffs conceded should have been transferred on closing, reducing the amount owing on the promissory note.