On November 7, 2025, the Income Security Advocacy Centre (ISAC) intervened in coalition with other civil society organisations in Knauff v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario et al. at the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The case is an opportunity to modernize the test for leave to appeal in a way that improves access to justice for vulnerable litigants in Ontario.
In this case, the appellant, Mr. Knauff, was seeking leave to appeal a decision of the Divisional Court that he believed affected his human rights. When a party wants to appeal a decision of the Divisional Court to the Court of Appeal, they need permission – also called leave – from the Court of Appeal to do so. The Court of Appeal has not updated the test for leave to appeal in 50 years. Two recent Court of Appeal decisions came to different conclusions on whether the test should be updated. The Court convened a special five judge panel to reconsider the test in Knauff.
ISAC, along with our our sister legal clinic the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario, Animal Justice, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Centre for Free Expression, and Democracy Watch intervened in coalition to say that the old test should be refreshed to focus on the “public importance” of an appeal.
Why this matters
This case is important to ISAC’s client communities because decisions of administrative tribunals deeply affect people’s access to last-resort social assistance, evictions from homes, employment rights, and human rights, among other rights and interests. If a person disagrees with an administrative tribunal’s decision, they can apply to the Divisional Court for a judicial review. If they believe the Divisional Court came to the wrong decision, the Court of Appeal for Ontario is usually their last opportunity to appeal.
The coalition of interveners encouraged the Court of Appeal to consider the impact of a decision on important interests and the vulnerability of the affected party as part of determining whether an appeal has “public importance”. How the Court of Appeal refreshes the test will have important implications for access to justice.
The five judge panel at the Court of Appeal appeared open to the intervener coalition’s submissions, and our counsel was able to address some of the Court’s key concerns. The Court reserved its decision, meaning we will not know the result of the case until the court releases written reasons.
The intervener coalition’s factum is posted in our Publications section here.
ISAC Staff Lawyers Anu Bakshi and Robin Nobleman worked on this case. Thank you to our pro bono counsel, Sujit Choudhry and Mani Kakkar of Circle Barristers for their excellent representation and our colleagues at Animal Justice for leading the intervener coalition.