Zachary Louis Albert Green

The applicant sought judicial authorization for physician-assisted death during the interim constitutional exemption regime established by Carter.

The court held that the evidentiary record established all five Carter criteria, including adult capacity, a grievous and irremediable medical condition, intolerable suffering, absence of acceptable alleviating treatment, and clear consent.

The court further held that a court-authorized physician-assisted death in these circumstances did not trigger the notification provisions in s. 10(1) of the Coroners Act.

The application and ancillary declaratory relief were granted.

The applicant, an 80-year-old man with advanced-stage aggressive lymphoma, brought a preliminary motion for confidentiality orders in his application for physician-assisted death under the Carter framework.

He sought orders allowing him, his family, and his physicians to proceed anonymously, a publication ban on identifying information, and a sealing order for the application record, proposing to file a redacted version for the public.

The media respondents opposed the anonymity of the physicians and requested a 'counsel's eyes only' review of the unredacted record.

The court granted the motion, finding that the applicant's proposal struck the appropriate balance between the open court principle and the need to protect the privacy and dignity of the applicant, as well as the public interest in not deterring physicians from participating in such applications.

The respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the Application to the extent it related to events outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a bottom-line decision dismissing the request, finding that the Application as pleaded constituted a 'series of incidents' within the meaning of sub-section 34(1)(b) of the Code.

Full reasons were to follow.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination based on disability and sex due to the respondent's refusal to fund in vitro fertilization treatments.

Following the scheduling of hearing dates, the Government of Ontario announced a policy change regarding IVF funding and invited one of the applicants to participate in an expert advisory panel.

The parties jointly requested an adjournment of the hearing to allow the advisory process to run its course, which they believed would likely result in a settlement.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the respondent's willingness to consider the applicants' perspective in formulating a new policy constituted exceptional circumstances justifying the delay.

The appellant physician appealed decisions of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons finding her guilty of professional misconduct and incompetence following the death of a patient who underwent high-volume liposuction.

The Committee found she breached standards of practice regarding extraction volumes, informed consent, and post-operative care, and that her website advertising violated regulations banning testimonials and superlatives.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Committee's findings on the standard of practice, its evidentiary rulings, and its conclusion that the advertising ban was a justified limit on freedom of expression under s. 1 of the Charter.

The penalty restricting her practice to acting as a surgical assistant in a hospital was also upheld as reasonable.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the respondent County's refusal to cover the costs of medical marihuana.

The applicant subsequently filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking disclosure and production of various documents relating to provincial health care services, wait times, and the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the requested documents related to broad allegations regarding health care delivery that the Tribunal had previously refused to add to the scope of the Application.

The applicants, who receive ODSP benefits, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after being denied funding to apply for a criminal pardon.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several Requests for an Order During Proceedings (RFOPs).

The Tribunal granted the applicants' unopposed request to amend their applications.

The Tribunal also granted the respondent's request to amend its response to include new information that it had recently approved the funding request, finding the amendment timely and without prejudice to the applicants.

The complainant, who holds an authorization to possess medical marijuana, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after being banned from the respondent restaurant.

The respondents asserted the complainant was banned for repeatedly smoking marijuana in close proximity to the restaurant's entrance, despite requests to stop, raising concerns about second-hand smoke and their liquor licence.

The Tribunal found the complainant did not establish a disability-related need to smoke near the entrance and was not disadvantaged by the requirement to smoke elsewhere.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability regarding the respondent's refusal to cover the costs of medical marijuana.

The applicant subsequently filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend the application by adding numerous new allegations and several new respondents.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the new allegations, finding them too broad and disconnected from the original issue.

The Tribunal also denied the request to add Bruce County and Simcoe County as respondents, but permitted the addition of the Province of Ontario and related ministries as they appeared involved in the funding and eligibility of benefits coverage.

The request for interim relief was denied.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion questioning the constitutional validity and application of section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, as well as a costs order made by the application judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding it had no merit.

The court held that the quantum of costs awarded was reasonable and that there was no error in awarding costs against a self-represented litigant.

The appellant appealed a judgment declaring him to be a vexatious litigant pursuant to section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's thorough reasons explaining the factual and legal grounds for the declaration.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The applicant, whose driver's license was suspended due to alcohol dependence, alleged that the Ministry of Transportation's practice of automatically suspending licenses based on physician reports and requiring a 12-month abstinence period for reinstatement discriminated against him on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal found that the suspension was based on an individualized assessment of driving risk rather than the disability itself.

Furthermore, the 12-month abstinence policy was grounded in medical consensus regarding addiction recovery and road safety.

The Tribunal concluded that the policies did not perpetuate prejudice or stereotyping and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a manager of a hazardous waste facility, sought judicial review of a justice of the peace's order compelling him to submit to an interview and produce documents under s. 163.1(2) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The Divisional Court granted the application and quashed the order, finding that the statutory provision authorizes investigators to use devices and techniques but does not explicitly confer the power to compel third parties to answer questions or produce documents.