William C. McDowell

Following a finding that the respondent university failed to provide reading materials in an accessible format to a visually impaired student in a timely manner, the Tribunal determined the appropriate remedy.

The Tribunal denied claims for tuition and medical expenses, finding the delay did not materially cause the applicant's failure to complete the program or her medical issues.

Applying the Arunachalam criteria, the Tribunal assessed damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect at $5,000.

However, the Tribunal reduced the award by $1,500 due to the applicant's misconduct in submitting a misleading medical report during the hearing, resulting in a final award of $3,500.

The applicant municipality successfully obtained an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondents from blockading various development sites and successfully defended a motion to quash its by-laws.

The applicant subsequently sought its costs of the proceedings.

The respondents argued they were public interest litigants and that costs should be in the cause or paid by the province.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the respondents' unlawful conduct necessitated the litigation and they were not acting in the public interest.

The court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $350,000, significantly reducing the $887,000 claimed due to duplication, excessive time, and the exclusion of costs for a court-ordered consultation process.

The applicant, a university student with a visual impairment, alleged discrimination by the university and several faculty members regarding the accommodation of her disability in a consecutive education program.

The Tribunal found that the university's failure to provide textbooks and course materials in an accessible format in a timely manner amounted to discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's other allegations, finding that her failure to successfully complete her practicum placements and course work was not related to her disability or a lack of accommodation.

In an appeal from Ontario, the appellants sought a stay of a defamation action on the basis of lack of jurisdiction and forum non conveniens.

The Court held that Ontario had a real and substantial connection because the alleged tort was published in Ontario and the plaintiff pleaded publication and reputational harm in that forum.

The Court also held that the appellants failed to show Quebec was clearly more appropriate, giving deference to the motion judge’s discretionary forum analysis.

The Court discussed concerns about forum shopping and noted, without deciding, that choice-of-law rules in multijurisdictional defamation may warrant future refinement.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

On a motion for directions in an application concerning settlement agreements related to the Ambassador Bridge between Windsor and Detroit, the moving parties sought broad documentary production from the federal government.

The court addressed disputes over the scope of relevance and proportionality in documentary disclosure within an application proceeding.

The court held that production must be limited to documents relevant and probative to interpreting the settlement agreements and their alleged ongoing obligations, rejecting requests for expansive historical government policy and legislative background materials.

The court provided guidance on specific document categories, directed the parties to exchange lists of litigation records from prior Canadian and U.S. proceedings, and required further review of settlement negotiation materials.

Directions were also given to narrow issues, schedule cross-examinations, and coordinate related proceedings.

The applicant, a resident and taxpayer of Mississauga, sought judicial review of the Report of the City of Mississauga Judicial Inquiry.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the application on the basis that the applicant lacked standing.

The court found that the applicant had no direct, personal interest in the inquiry's findings and therefore lacked private standing.

Furthermore, the court held that the applicant did not meet the test for public interest standing, as he was not directly affected and there were other individuals with a greater interest who could have challenged the inquiry.

The motion was granted and the application for judicial review was quashed.

The applicant, a foreign-trained lawyer, alleged that the respondent engaged in reprisal by requiring him to write two further examinations to obtain a Certificate of Qualification, following a previous human rights complaint.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove a link between the examination requirements and his prior efforts to enforce his rights under the Code, noting the respondent's non-discriminatory explanation for the requirements.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, former federal public servants, sued the Attorney General of Canada (AGC) for negligent misrepresentation after resigning to join a private company, Loba, and transferring their pensions to the Loba Plan, which was later revoked by the CRA.

The trial judge found the AGC liable for failing to disclose known risks about the Loba Plan and apportioned liability 80% to the AGC and 20% to the Loba Parties (third parties).

The AGC appealed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the findings of duty of care, misrepresentation, and causation against the AGC.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part regarding apportionment, finding the trial judge erred in her fiduciary analysis of the Loba Parties.

The Court adjusted the apportionment of liability to 60% for the AGC and 40% for the Loba Parties.

A separate appeal by one plaintiff regarding the calculation of his damages was dismissed.

The applicants sought an order quashing and permanently prohibiting a disciplinary proceeding against them before the Discipline Committee of the Professional Engineers of Ontario, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court found that the tribunal's administrative staff had inappropriately interfered in the scheduling process, demanded evidence for adjournments, and usurped the role of the Chair.

The Chair was found complicit in this conduct and interfered with the independence of a panel member who had ruled against the staff's request to be added as a party.

The court concluded that a reasonable apprehension of bias was established and permanently stayed the disciplinary proceedings.

The applicant, a foreign-trained lawyer from Russia, alleged that the National Committee on Accreditation (NCA) discriminated against her on the basis of ethnic and place of origin when it denied her advanced standing toward a Certificate of Equivalency.

The Tribunal assumed without deciding that the requirement for a Canadian LL.B. had an adverse effect on the applicant.

Applying the Meiorin test, the Tribunal found the requirement was adopted for a rational purpose in good faith, and was reasonably necessary because the NCA provided an appropriate individualized assessment of the applicant's foreign education and experience.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to decline jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that there was a real and substantial connection between the Ontario court and the claim, satisfying the test for jurisdiction simpliciter under both Muscutt and Van Breda.

The Court also found no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion regarding the forum non conveniens analysis, noting that even if recent Supreme Court jurisprudence attenuated the juridical advantage point, there were sufficient other bases to support the decision.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $12,000.

The complainant, a university professor, filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of creed and reprisal regarding the university's policy of cancelling classes on Jewish high holidays.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary motions.

The Tribunal removed the individual respondents from the proceeding, as the university assumed full responsibility for their actions.

The Tribunal declined to add the current university president as a respondent.

The Tribunal also refused to strike allegations relating to events previously litigated in a grievance arbitration, finding that the substance of the reprisal claim was not before the arbitrator, though it noted the complainant could not relitigate the arbitrator's factual findings.

Finally, the Tribunal struck allegations regarding unrelated Superior Court litigation.

The appellant sued multiple defendants for malicious prosecution, defamation, and other claims arising from a child sexual abuse investigation that resulted in criminal charges which were later stayed.

After his civil action was dismissed at trial, he appealed, primarily arguing ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the ineffective assistance claim was an abuse of process because the appellant had already sued his trial counsel for negligence and settled that action.

The court also rejected arguments that the trial judge should have ordered a mistrial and that the trial judge erred in dismissing the defamation claim against the child's grandmother.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing its application to declare invalid and set aside two building permits issued for a nine-storey transitional housing and shelter building.

The appellant argued the Chief Building Official erred in classifying the proposed use as a 'hostel' rather than a 'crisis care facility' under the zoning by-law, and that the pending Municipal Shelter By-law appeal should have prevented the permits' issuance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's acceptance of the CBO's zoning compliance determination or the finding that the pending by-law appeal did not constitute 'applicable law' preventing the permits' issuance.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought professional misconduct charges against a member alleging physical, sexual, verbal, psychological, or emotional abuse of a student and failure to maintain professional standards.

At the hearing, the parties presented a settlement agreement wherein all charges would be withdrawn, the member would receive a verbal reminder of professional responsibilities, complete a course on teacher-student boundaries, and undergo a psychological assessment.

The Discipline Committee approved the agreement, issued the verbal reminder, and ordered a publication ban on the member's name in the College's official publication.

The Ontario College of Teachers requested to withdraw the Notice of Hearing against the member.

The member was not present and was unrepresented.

The Discipline Committee agreed to withdraw the Notice of Hearing as requested.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member who pleaded guilty to criminal mischief and deliberately lied to his employer regarding his innocence.

The member had made a false insurance claim for items hidden in his garage prior to a fire at his home, and falsely reported a break and enter to the police.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, concluding that his actions contravened the Education Act and constituted disgraceful, dishonourable, and unbecoming conduct.

The Committee ordered the member's Certificates of Qualification and Registration suspended for 24 months.

The Ontario College of Teachers held a discipline hearing regarding a member who had been criminally convicted of sexual touching of a minor.

The member pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct, including sexual, psychological, and emotional abuse of a student.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct and ordered the immediate revocation of his Certificates of Qualification and Registration.

The Ontario College of Teachers held a discipline hearing regarding a member who had been convicted criminally of sexual assault and touching for a sexual purpose involving a person under 14 years of age.

The member did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, noting that his actions constituted a severe breach of trust given his position of authority.

The Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration.

The Ontario College of Teachers alleged that the member committed professional misconduct by providing false information about his professional qualifications, specifically claiming to have an engineering degree.

Following a hearing, the Discipline Committee found that the school principal had misinterpreted the member's qualifications during a telephone interview and that the member had not falsely represented himself as an engineer on his resume or otherwise.

The Committee found the member not guilty of all charges.