Cara Gibbons

The City of Toronto applied for judicial review of WSIAT decisions granting breast cancer benefits to three communications dispatchers under the firefighter occupational disease presumption.

The WSIAT had ruled that evidence of the dispatchers' lack of exposure to fire suppression hazards could not be considered to rebut the presumption.

The Divisional Court found this interpretation unreasonable, as it contradicted the plain meaning of the statute and the binding WSIB policy, which allowed the presumption to be rebutted by evidence that employment was not a significant contributing factor.

The WSIAT decisions were quashed and the original WSIB decisions denying benefits were restored.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, failure to accommodate, and reprisal by her employer.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed grievances regarding the same issues, which were proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the allegations in the application substantially overlapped with the issues before the arbitrator, who had the authority to address the human rights claims.

To avoid the risk of inconsistent findings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the resolution of the grievance procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the Constable Selection System's hearing standards.

The respondent Toronto Police Services Board requested an order to add the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services as a respondent, arguing the Ministry developed the standards.

Applying the three-part test for adding a respondent, the Tribunal granted the request, noting the Ministry consented to being added and there was no apparent prejudice to the parties.

Eight police officers sought judicial review of decisions by the Toronto Police Services Board allowing the Chief of Police to delay serving Notices of Hearing for public complaints arising from the G20 summit.

The respondents moved to dismiss the application for prematurity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify judicial review of an interlocutory administrative decision.

The court noted the officers had an adequate alternative remedy to raise the issue of prejudice caused by delay through an abuse of process motion before the hearing officer.