Brian Daly

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights Application to include details about her departure from the workplace and a claim for wage loss.

Two of the respondents consented to the amendments, while the third did not respond.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no prejudice to the respondents given the early stage of the proceedings and the lack of a scheduled hearing date.

The applicant, Anishinabek Police Service, sought judicial review of two arbitration awards that allowed grievances regarding an unpaid suspension and subsequent termination of a First Nations Constable to proceed to arbitration.

The applicant argued that the doctrines of issue estoppel and abuse of process barred the arbitration because the constable's dismissal had already been adjudicated under the employer's Code of Conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the adjudicator under the Code of Conduct was not exercising a statutory function and did not make a judicial decision.

Therefore, the prior adjudication did not preclude the union from pursuing grievances under the collective agreement and the Canada Labour Code.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that she and her husband fraudulently conveyed their matrimonial home to her alone to defeat creditors.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the husband had acquired a beneficial interest when the property was previously transferred into joint names to secure a mortgage, and that the subsequent reconveyance to the appellant alone was intended to defeat creditors.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part regarding interest, reducing the rate from 1% per month to the Courts of Justice Act rate of 3.3% per annum, and changing the start date.

The respondents brought a Request for Order during Proceedings to strike a letter from the record.

The letter was an offer to settle the human rights complaint and was written on a without prejudice basis.

The applicant objected, arguing the privilege was hers to waive.

The Tribunal held that the letter was privileged, the privilege belonged to the respondents, and it had not been waived.

The Request for Order was granted and the letter was sealed.