Cole Rudy Eisen

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action governed by the simplified procedure.

Both parties conducted cross-examinations on affidavits in breach of Rule 76.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and sought to rely on that evidence.

The court ruled the cross-examination evidence inadmissible, refusing to overlook the unqualified prohibition in the rule.

Based on the admissible affidavit evidence, the court found material credibility issues regarding whether the plaintiff was induced to leave her previous employment and her entitlement to a bonus.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the matter was directed to trial.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a motion to set aside a single judge's order dismissing her request for an extension of time to file a judicial review application.

The underlying dispute involved a duty of fair representation complaint against her union following an arbitration that reinstated her without compensation.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motion judge's decision, and noting that the proposed fresh evidence would not have altered the outcome.

The motion was dismissed without costs.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsideration decision.

The applicant sought to challenge the Board's finding that her union did not breach its duty of fair representation after it declined to seek judicial review of an arbitration award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the eight-month delay was not adequately explained, the delay caused substantial prejudice to the timely resolution of labour disputes, and the underlying application for judicial review lacked merit.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard a motion by 94 former employees (proposed interveners) to intervene as an added party in an appeal between 2505243 Ontario Limited and Princes Gates GP Inc. The employees sought to protect a $2.063 million fund set aside for their potential termination claims by the trial judge.

The motion was opposed by Princes Gates GP Inc., while 2505243 Ontario Limited took no position.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that although the proposed interveners had a direct financial interest, their submissions would largely duplicate those of 2505243 Ontario Limited and risked introducing a new, unlitigated issue (common employer) from a separate class proceeding.