Daina Search

The applicant sought a review of a motion judge's decision that dismissed her motion to extend the time to perfect her motion for leave to appeal from a Divisional Court order.

The Divisional Court had dismissed her application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision, noting unacceptable delay and lack of merit in the proposed appeal, as the underlying Human Rights Tribunal decision was fact-based and the Divisional Court found no question of law warranting intervention.

The review motion was dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding the constitutionality of Bill 66, which amended the Labour Relations Act to deem municipalities as non-construction employers.

The union argued this violated section 2(d) of the Charter by nullifying their collective agreements and subcontracting protections.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board correctly applied binding precedent and that the amendments did not substantially interfere with the right to a meaningful process of collective bargaining.

The City of Hamilton successfully moved to dismiss an application challenging its mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy on the basis of mootness, after the City suspended the policy.

Both parties sought costs.

The court found that the applicants achieved significant success by prompting the policy's suspension and were entitled to partial indemnity costs up to that date.

The City was entitled to partial indemnity costs for its successful motion to dismiss.

The court set off the respective costs entitlements and ordered that no costs be paid by either party.

The applicants, non-unionized employees of the City of Hamilton, challenged the termination provisions of the City's mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy under the Charter.

After the application was commenced, the City suspended the termination provisions indefinitely and brought a motion to dismiss the application for mootness.

The court granted the motion, finding no live controversy existed because the provisions were suspended and no applicants had suffered adverse consequences.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot case, citing judicial economy and the hypothetical nature of any ruling on a suspended policy.

The applicant, a police officer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, race, and reprisal against the Police Services Board, the Police Association, and a third-party disability management provider.

At a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered the applicant's requests to amend his application, the respondents' requests to dismiss certain allegations for delay and as having been dealt with in a prior proceeding, and the third-party provider's request to be removed as a respondent.

The Tribunal allowed some amendments but denied others due to delay, struck allegations previously dealt with by the OHRC, dismissed several historical allegations for delay as they did not form a series of incidents, and refused to remove the third-party provider as a respondent because its role in adjudicating sick leave and accommodation requests was inextricably linked to the applicant's employment.