4 total
Motion to set aside administrative dismissal granted as plaintiff adequately explained delay and defendant suffered no prejudice.
The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing his wrongful dismissal action for delay.
The court applied the contextual test for setting aside administrative dismissals, balancing the explanation for delay, inadvertence, timeliness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendant.
Finding that the plaintiff adequately explained the delay, moved promptly to set aside the order, and that the defendant suffered no actual prejudice, the court granted the motion and set aside the dismissal order.
Request for production denied as respondents had already disclosed all relevant documents in their possession.
The applicant in a human rights application alleging sex discrimination based on pregnancy filed a request for production of documents relating to her job performance, the respondents' progressive discipline policy, and email tracking records.
The respondents submitted that they had already disclosed all relevant documents in their possession and had no formal discipline policy.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondents had disclosed all relevant documents they possessed and noting that the applicant would have the opportunity to question the respondents' witness regarding the receipt of emails.
Proposed intervenor denied leave where participation would not meaningfully assist the court.
A proposed intervenor sought leave to participate extensively in a constitutional application challenging the Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, legislation enacted to end a postal workers’ strike.
The proposed intervenor requested rights to adduce evidence, cross‑examine witnesses, and make full submissions similar to the parties.
The court applied Rule 13.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the governing intervention principles, including whether the intervenor would make a useful contribution without causing injustice to the existing parties.
The court held that the proposed evidence was largely argumentative and duplicative of arguments available to existing parties, particularly Canada Post and the Attorney General.
Finding the intervention would not assist the court and could expand the record unnecessarily, the motion was dismissed.
Arbitration award quashed as unreasonable due to inconsistent factual findings regarding equitable estoppel.
The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that held the union was estopped from proceeding with a grievance regarding the contracting out of a position.
The arbitrator had found that the union's conduct led the company to rely on a settlement to its detriment.
The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's findings on estoppel were inconsistent with his earlier factual findings that the company's representative had merely made an assumption about the union's intentions.
The court concluded the arbitrator's decision was unreasonable, quashed the award, and remitted the grievance to a different arbitrator.
