Brian Abraham Blumenthal

The appellant was acquitted of Occupational Health and Safety Act charges at trial.

The Crown successfully appealed to the Provincial Offences Appeal Court, where the appeal judge permitted the Crown to rely on a new theory of liability regarding supervisor status and raised additional dispositive issues on her own motion without allowing submissions.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appellant's appeal, holding that it is improper for the Crown to advance a new theory of liability on an appeal against acquittal, and that the appellant was denied a fair hearing when the appeal judge decided the case on unargued grounds.

A new hearing was ordered.

The corporate respondents sought costs of $32,950.29 on a partial indemnity basis following their success on an application for judicial review.

The applicants, represented by community legal clinics, argued no costs should be awarded as the application raised an issue of public interest regarding the related employer provisions of the Employment Standards Act.

The Divisional Court declined to award costs, finding the applicants were individuals of limited means who brought the application in good faith to enforce protective legislation, and the case raised an issue of importance for other vulnerable employees.

The respondents in an application for judicial review brought a motion to compel the applicant's affiants to re-attend cross-examinations to answer questions regarding their personal financial positions.

The applicant employer had sought judicial review of an Employment Standards Officer's order to pay wages, claiming impecuniosity to avoid the statutory requirement to pay the order amount into trust.

The court ordered the affiants to answer the questions so the judicial review panel would have a complete record to determine relevance.

The court also ordered the applicant to serve the affected employees with the notice of application.

The respondent employer was charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker was fatally injured by a reversing dump truck while acting as both a signaller and a spreader operator.

The trial judge directed a verdict of acquittal, ruling that the Crown could not prove a failure to provide a signaller under section 104 of the Regulation by showing the signaller failed to perform the duties prescribed by section 106.

The summary conviction appeal court dismissed the Crown's appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that sections 104 and 106 must be read together to promote the public safety purpose of the legislation, and ordered a new trial.

The applicant employer appealed an Order to Pay issued under the Employment Standards Act.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to appear or request an adjournment.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Order to Pay.

The applicant applied for a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to make an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing despite being duly notified.

Consequently, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

The applicant employer sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's order to pay severance to an employee who was forced to retire at age 65.

The employer argued that mandatory retirement at age 65 was an implied term of the employment contract and did not constitute a 'termination' under the Employment Standards Act.

The Board found that the employee did not voluntarily resign and was unilaterally terminated by the employer.

Because the employee was retired without an unreduced pension benefit, the Board held that the retirement constituted a termination under section 58 of the Act, entitling the employee to severance pay.

The application for review was dismissed.

The applicant constructor appealed health and safety orders issued by an inspector, including orders directed at its subcontractors.

The responding party Ministry of Labour moved to dismiss the appeals regarding the subcontractors' orders, arguing the constructor lacked standing as an 'aggrieved' party under s. 61(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the constructor had standing because s. 23(1)(b) of the Act imposes a legal obligation on the constructor to ensure all subcontractors comply with the Act and regulations.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order to pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

After waiting the customary time, the Board convened the hearing in the presence of counsel for the responding parties.

As the applicant was absent without explanation and no evidence was presented to support the application, the Board dismissed the application for review.

The applicants, a superintendent couple, sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision not to issue an order against their former employer, a condominium corporation.

The applicants alleged they were terminated because the wife took maternity leave, contrary to the Employment Standards Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer successfully rebutted the presumption of reprisal, demonstrating that the terminations were motivated by a change in the board of directors, a new property management company, and a legitimate reorganization of building services.

The application was dismissed.