|
Human Rights (Ont) - Hearings. Oulds v. Attorney General of Ontario, et al.
In Oulds v. Attorney General of Ontario, et al. (Div Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court dismissed a JR, this against HRTO decisions that "dismissed the complaint on the basis that it did not have jurisdiction as Oulds had failed to establish that her choice not to be vaccinated was based on “creed”".
Here the court considered whether a written hearing was adequate to achieve procedural fairness:[43] Under s. 40 of the Code, the Tribunal has the power to adopt procedures and practices which, in its opinion, "offer the best opportunity for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits" of the applications. In choosing to proceed by way of written submissions, the Tribunal was within its statutory authority and was following HRTO procedures, and, specifically, Rules 13.1 and 13.2 of the HRTO Rules of Procedure. This court has determined this process to be procedurally fair: Wu v. Toronto Ombudsman, 2023 ONSC 6192, at paras. 40-41. . Petrykowski v. Federation of Law Societies of Canada
In Petrykowski v. Federation of Law Societies of Canada (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court dismissed a JR against the Federation of Law Societies of Canada ('FLSC'), here against a dismissal of an HRTO application involving a FLSC foreign (UK) law degree accreditation decision.
Here the court finds that conducting an HRTO proceeding by way of written hearing was procedurally fair:[12] The Applicant submits that the process was unfair because it was conducted in writing. This Court has previously found that this streamlined, in writing process is not unfair: Wu v. Toronto Ombudsman, 2023 ONSC 6192, at paras. 40-41. Both the HRTO rules and this Court recognize that in an individual matter, a different process may be needed. However, this application does not raise issues that require a different process in order to be fair.
|
