Chantel Christine Goldsmith

The defendant Brad Brand, Executive Officer of the Special Investigations Unit, moved to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for defamation, slander, and intentional interference with economic relations on the grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, an SIU employee and OPSEU member, argued the dispute was personal rather than workplace-related.

The court found that the essential character of the claim, despite being pleaded as defamation, arose from alleged unfair treatment in the workplace and was therefore subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Grievance Settlement Board under the collective agreement.

The motion was granted and the action dismissed.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

The defendant, 3M Canada Company, brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim in its entirety, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The defendant contended that human rights claims fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and that there is no independent common law duty to accommodate.

The plaintiff's claim alleged constructive dismissal due to a poisoned work environment stemming from the defendant's failure to accommodate his disability and discriminatory treatment.

The court applied the "plain and obvious" test, reading the statement of claim generously.

It found that the claim, in pith and substance, was for constructive dismissal arising from a breach of the employment contract, not solely an infringement of the Human Rights Code.

The court affirmed that allegations of discrimination and failure to accommodate can be relevant to a constructive dismissal claim, distinguishing it from actions based solely on the Code.

The motion to strike was dismissed, and the plaintiff was awarded costs.

A young person, C.L., charged with sexual assault, brought an application to stay proceedings due to a breach of their s. 11(b) Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The total delay of 29 months exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court trials.

The Crown argued that court staff shortages, which caused significant trial delays and courtroom closures, constituted an "exceptional circumstance" to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness.

The court found that while a period of delay due to the complainant's illness was an exceptional circumstance, the systemic and long-standing issue of staff shortages was not "reasonably unforeseen or reasonably unavoidable" and was within the state's control.

As the Crown failed to provide justification or demonstrate meaningful action to rectify the problem, the court concluded that the staff shortages did not qualify as an exceptional circumstance.

Consequently, C.L.'s s. 11(b) Charter rights were violated, and the proceedings were stayed.

The Crown applied under Section 521 of the Criminal Code to review the respondent's bail release, seeking detention or surety supervision.

The application for detention or surety was denied, but the court found significant procedural errors in the original bail hearing where the Justice of the Peace unduly restricted the Crown's presentation of evidence.

The court emphasized the balance between efficiency and procedural fairness in bail hearings, noting that expedition should not compromise the Crown's right to be heard, especially regarding evidence pertinent to public safety.