Clarence L. Bennett

This decision concerns a motion by Paula Boutis to amend her statement of claim in an employment and civil liability action against The Corporation of the County of Norfolk, the Board of Health for Haldimand-Norfolk Health Unit, Kristal Chopp, and Jason Burgess.

The court reviews the proposed amendments, including new causes of action such as breaches of the Human Rights Code, intrusion upon seclusion, intentional interference with contractual relations, negligent infliction of mental suffering, and defamation.

The court applies the principles governing amendments to pleadings, limitation periods, and the rules of pleading, granting or refusing leave to amend specific paragraphs accordingly.

The defendants brought two motions: one to set aside a certificate of non-attendance for a cross-examination and another to compel the plaintiff to answer refused questions and questions taken under advisement during her cross-examination on two affidavits.

The court granted both motions in favour of the defendants.

The certificate of non-attendance was set aside, as the plaintiff's counsel acted unreasonably in obtaining it.

The plaintiff was compelled to answer most of the refused questions, as the court found them relevant to the underlying contempt motion and the dismissal motion, and in some instances, solicitor-client privilege was impliedly waived.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a substantial indemnity basis for the certificate motion due to the plaintiff's unreasonable conduct, and on a partial indemnity basis for the refusals motion.

The applicant brought two human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of family status after his request for an extension to complete a nursing program was denied.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal consolidated the two applications on consent.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for production of extension requests made by other students, finding that the documents were not arguably relevant to the issue of whether the applicant's family status-related needs were properly considered and accommodated.

The Court allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was constructively dismissed when he was indefinitely suspended with pay without adequate justification, and that his pension benefits were not deductible from wrongful dismissal damages.

The appellant, a non-unionized public employee holding office 'at pleasure', was dismissed without cause and given four months' pay in lieu of notice.

He grieved the dismissal, and an adjudicator ordered his reinstatement, finding a breach of procedural fairness and interpreting the governing legislation as requiring cause for dismissal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the adjudicator's statutory interpretation was unreasonable and that public employees governed by a contract of employment are not owed a public law duty of procedural fairness upon dismissal.

In doing so, the Court fundamentally restructured the framework for judicial review of administrative decisions, collapsing the three previous standards of review into two: correctness and reasonableness.