3 total
Judges cannot be appointed as class action referees without the Chief Justice's authorization.
The plaintiff appealed a Divisional Court decision setting aside a motion judge's order that appointed judges and judicial officers as referees to determine individual class members' claims under the Class Proceedings Act.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a court cannot appoint a judge or judicial officer to conduct a reference under s. 25(1)(b) of the Class Proceedings Act without first obtaining the authorization of the Chief Justice or her designate under s. 14(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.
The consent of individual judicial officers is not an adequate substitute for the Chief Justice's overarching responsibility for judicial assignments.
Arbitration board's conditional reinstatement of a teacher who wrote threatening letters was patently unreasonable.
The appellant Board of Education discharged a teacher after he wrote abusive and threatening letters to the Board's administration.
The teacher grieved the dismissal, and a majority of the arbitration board ordered his conditional reinstatement, finding his conduct was temporary due to stress.
The Divisional Court quashed the award, but the Court of Appeal restored it.
On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court held that the arbitration board's decision was patently unreasonable.
The evidence overwhelmingly showed the teacher's conduct was not temporary and that he was unfit to return to the classroom.
The appeal was allowed and the arbitration award quashed.
Special education placement based on child's best interests does not violate Charter equality rights.
The respondents' child, who has cerebral palsy, was placed in a special education class by a Tribunal contrary to the parents' wishes.
The Court of Appeal held this violated section 15 of the Charter and read in a presumption of integration into the Education Act.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the Court of Appeal erred in deciding the constitutional validity of the Act without the required statutory notice.
Furthermore, the Tribunal's decision did not violate section 15 of the Charter, as it was based on the child's best interests and actual needs, and did not impose a burden or disadvantage.
