Andrew Montague-Reinholdt

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against her former employer for wrongful dismissal and against the employer and insurers for denial of long-term disability (LTD) benefits.

The court granted summary judgment on the wrongful dismissal claim, finding a four-month notice period reasonable given the plaintiff's 15-month tenure and health vulnerabilities.

However, the court dismissed the motion for summary judgment regarding the LTD claim, finding that conflicting evidence regarding coverage dates, representations made, and the plaintiff's disability status presented genuine issues requiring a trial.

An aircraft struck the ground while attempting to land at Halifax Stanfield International Airport during a snowstorm, injuring passengers who subsequently commenced a class action.

The aircraft manufacturer brought an interlocutory motion to compel the Transportation Safety Board to produce the cockpit voice recorder and transcripts, which were protected by statutory privilege under s. 28 of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act.

The Board sought to make submissions in the absence of the public and other parties, which the chambers judge refused.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Board's appeal, holding that s. 28(6)(b) does not confer a general right on the Board to make submissions in the absence of other parties, and that the chambers judge did not commit a reviewable error in ordering disclosure after concluding that the public interest in the proper administration of justice outweighed the statutory privilege.

The majority held the test under s. 28(6)(c) requires the moving party to establish that the recording is relevant, probative, and necessary to resolve the dispute — not merely relevant — and that disclosure should not be routine.

Côté and Brown JJ. dissented, finding the chambers judge committed multiple reviewable errors in his balancing analysis.

Democracy Watch filed two applications for judicial review of decisions by the Lobbying Commissioner concerning whether two lobbyists breached the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct.

The Attorney General moved to strike the applications on the basis that they were bereft of any chance of success and that Democracy Watch lacked standing.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the reviewability of the Lobbying Commissioner's reports was a justiciable issue.

The Court granted Democracy Watch public interest standing but struck portions of the applications that attempted to re-litigate previously decided issues regarding alleged bias in the Lobbying Commissioner's appointment.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario addressed whether "termination of employment for any reason that does not relate to a breach of discipline or misconduct" in s. 236(3) of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act (FPSLRA) includes constructive dismissal.

The appellant, an undesignated separate agency, sought to dismiss the employee's constructive dismissal claim for lack of jurisdiction, arguing it should be resolved via grievance.

The Court affirmed the motion judge's decision, holding that constructive dismissal falls within the broad meaning of "termination for any reason" under s. 236(3), thereby preserving the employee's right to sue in court, as undesignated separate agency employees lack access to third-party adjudication for non-disciplinary terminations under the FPSLRA.

The appeal was dismissed.