Yavar Hameed

The applicant, a medical resident, sought judicial review of a decision by the university's Senate Appeals Committee that upheld her placement on academic probation due to poor performance and patient safety concerns.

The applicant argued that the committee violated procedural fairness and that its decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the committee provided a high degree of procedural fairness, cured any minor procedural defects through a de novo hearing, and reached a reasonable decision within its academic expertise.

The applicants sought to subdivide land and appealed draft conditions to the Ontario Municipal Board, arguing Charter violations.

The City successfully moved to strike the Charter issues.

Nine months later, the applicants sought reconsideration, which the Board refused.

A single judge of the Divisional Court denied leave to appeal that refusal.

The applicants then moved before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court to set aside the single judge's decision.

The panel dismissed the motion, finding the single judge did not decline jurisdiction and reasonably concluded the Board's emphasis on finality and procedural rules was appropriate.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a civil action alleging assault, battery, excessive force, malicious prosecution, and Charter breaches arising from an incident at the Senate of Canada.

The plaintiff relied solely on reasons from a prior criminal trial in which he had been acquitted of charges related to the same incident, arguing that relitigation would constitute an abuse of process under the principles in Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79.

The court held that the defendants had not been parties to the criminal proceeding and had not had the opportunity to defend themselves or advance defences such as parliamentary privilege.

The court found that allowing the defendants to defend the civil claim would not amount to an abuse of process and that genuine issues requiring a trial remained.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services based on disability, sex, gender identity, and family status, relating to her experiences as a litigant in the Ontario court system.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the allegations related to interactions with judges and their procedural and substantive decisions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that judicial decisions do not constitute a service under the Code and that judicial immunity applies.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability following the termination of her internship.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay, as it was filed more than one year after the termination and subsequent communications.

The applicant argued that her delay was due to her disability, specifically chronic fatigue syndrome exacerbated by stress.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence did not establish that her disability was so debilitating as to prevent her from pursuing her rights within the statutory time limit.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

A not‑for‑profit organization sought an interlocutory injunction preventing a bank from terminating its banking relationship pending trial or the outcome of related Federal Court of Appeal proceedings.

The bank had provided approximately four months’ notice of termination after the organization’s charitable status had been revoked by the Canada Revenue Agency.

The court held that banks may terminate banking relationships without cause provided reasonable notice is given and that reasonableness should be assessed in ordinary circumstances rather than based on the plaintiff’s regulatory difficulties.

Applying the RJR‑MacDonald test, the court found the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case, failed to prove irreparable harm, and did not satisfy the balance of convenience.

The request for mandatory injunctive relief was therefore refused.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Chair, which dismissed their request for review of an earlier OMB decision regarding draft plan conditions for a subdivision.

The applicants argued the Chair erred in applying the public interest test to deny an extension of time, applied the wrong legal test to strike Charter arguments, failed to recognize Charter rights related to home ownership, and ignored new evidence about inconsistent slope setbacks.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness or reasonableness of the Chair's decision on any of the grounds raised.

Following a finding of reprisal and discrimination, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario determined the appropriate remedy for the applicant.

The Tribunal declined to award lost wages, finding the applicant's wage loss was not directly attributable to the respondents' conduct.

However, to remedy the loss of opportunity caused by the respondents' reprisal, the Tribunal ordered the respondents to offer the applicant the opportunity to become a shareholder at fair market value as of April 2007.

The Tribunal also awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the respondents to retain a human rights professional to review and improve their policies for selecting shareholders.

The applicant sought declarations that operational policies adopted under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act were unconstitutional and contrary to s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The issue before the court was whether the Superior Court had jurisdiction to determine the matter by application or whether it had to proceed as a judicial review before the Divisional Court.

The court held that the impugned policies constituted the exercise of statutory power under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

Because the applicant sought only declarations regarding the legality of those policies and no civil action was pending, the matter properly fell within the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court by way of judicial review.

The applicant, a university student with a disability, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after she was assigned a failing grade (INC) when she could not complete a deferred exam.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the application for delay, arguing the events occurred more than one year before filing.

The Tribunal found that the respondents' subsequent refusals to retroactively withdraw the applicant from the course were not a series of fresh incidents, but rather the continuing effects of the original discrete decision to assign the INC grade.

As the applicant did not establish that the delay was incurred in good faith, the application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant student group filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent university discriminated against three of its members on the basis of ancestry, ethnic origin, and place of origin.

The dispute arose after the university removed and refused to approve the posting of a controversial political poster promoting 'Israeli Apartheid Week', and subsequently sent a campus-wide email regarding human rights and civil discourse.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the university's actions were motivated by genuine, good faith concerns about student safety and escalating campus tensions following an unprecedented number of hate-related incidents, rather than any discriminatory animus against Palestinians or their supporters.

The applicant, a teacher who had previously been disciplined for allegedly having a student sit on his lap, filed a human rights application alleging that a school board poster depicting a student sitting on a teacher's lap constituted indirect discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the poster did not constitute a workplace rule or requirement, nor did the applicant establish any link between the poster's alleged disproportionate impact and a protected ground under the Code.

The applicant, a taxi owner of Pakistani origin, alleged that the respondent taxi brokerage and its shareholders discriminated against him on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, place of origin, and creed, and engaged in reprisal by refusing to allow him to affiliate his taxi with their company.

The Tribunal found that the relationship between a taxi owner and a brokerage falls within the scope of employment under section 5(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal concluded that while the initial refusals to accept the applicant were not discriminatory, the actions of key shareholders at an April 2007 meeting constituted reprisal for the applicant's previous advocacy against discrimination in the taxi industry.

One shareholder was also found to have discriminated against the applicant on the basis of creed.

The Tribunal deferred its decision on remedy to allow the parties to attempt a resolution.

The respondents successfully sued the appellants in Small Claims Court for a portion of legal fees incurred in a British Columbia action regarding a condominium complex they all owned units in.

The trial judge found no contract but awarded damages based on unjust enrichment, which the Divisional Court upheld.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that while the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction to grant equitable relief (such as unjust enrichment) when the remedy is a monetary payment within its limits, the trial judge erred in finding unjust enrichment on the facts.

The appellants were not incontrovertibly benefited by the legal services, nor did the respondents suffer a deprivation.

The appeal was allowed and the action dismissed.

The applicants, members of the Raelian Church of Canada, alleged that the respondent school board terminated their service contracts because of their creed.

The parties consented to mediation-arbitration and asked the Tribunal to determine the issue of discrimination based on written submissions.

The Tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the applicants by terminating their service contracts because of their creed, contrary to section 3 of the Human Rights Code.

The parties reached a settlement agreement regarding remedies.

Le requérant allègue avoir subi de la discrimination fondée sur le sexe et l'orientation sexuelle dans le cadre de son emploi.

Le Tribunal a examiné deux questions préliminaires.

Premièrement, le Tribunal a décidé de ne pas reporter la requête, car le grief syndical portant sur les mêmes faits avait été retiré.

Deuxièmement, le Tribunal a accueilli la demande de l'intimé visant à rayer une employée à titre d'intimée personnelle, puisque le Conseil scolaire a accepté la responsabilité de ses actes et qu'il n'y avait aucune raison convaincante de la maintenir comme partie à l'instance.

The complainant filed human rights complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and disability, as well as reprisals, against his former employer, a school board, and two individuals.

He had also commenced a civil action against the school board for wrongful dismissal and intentional infliction of mental suffering arising from the same events.

The Tribunal held that the complaint against the school board and its human resources director was barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the civil action sought remedies for the same alleged Code infringements.

The complaint against the individual respondent who was not named in the civil action was permitted to proceed.