Case information

Charter of Rights — Right to equality — Discrimination based on mental or physical disability — Administrative law — Judicial review — Natural justice — Procedure — Applicant attempting to seek relief from payment of municipal property taxes — Assessment review board denying claim for relief — Courts below dismissing application for judicial review — Dismissal of requests for extensions of time to appeal or review decision — Whether s. 15(1) of the Charter encompasses a right for every individual litigant to an impartial process, both real and apparent — Whether the common law principle of “automatic disqualification” applies in Canada, and, if so, in what form — Whether Rule 62.02 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure is unconstitutional, in that it permits a complaint of bias to be finally barred at the court of first instance without a hearing on merits — Whether a court of first instance has an obligation to hear a complaint of bias on merits — What test should apply for granting leave to appeal at first instance in exceptional circumstances involving a reasonable apprehension of bias? — Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 62.02.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant, Gabriella Lengyel, is the owner of a property located in the City of Toronto (the respondent “City”). In 2022, Ms. Lengyel submitted applications to the Ontario Assessment Review Board (the respondent “Board”), to cancel, reduce, or refund certain municipal property taxes amounts, for the 2015 and 2017 taxation years. Both applications were dismissed by the Board. Ms. Lengyel then brought an application for judicial review of the decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed Ms. Lengyel’s application for judicial review of the Board’s decision. Ms. Lengyel attempted to seek leave to appeal the Divisional Court judgment before the Court of Appeal, but required an extension of time to do so. A single judge of the Court of Appeal dismissed her motion for an extension of time, and her subsequent request for an extension of time to review that order was also dismissed. A different judge of the Court of Appeal then granted her request for an extension of time to review the immediately preceding order, and directed that a panel of the Court of Appeal hear her motion for leave to appeal as soon as possible. A unanimous panel of the Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.