Daniel Guttman

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister's decision to revoke his appointment to an industry advisory committee.

The Minister revoked the appointment after learning the applicant was a member of the Hell's Angels.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Minister's exercise of discretion was not unreasonable and that the revocation did not violate the applicant's freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter.

A dissenting judge would have quashed the decision, finding the revocation unreasonable given the applicant's good character, qualifications, and the fixed term of the appointment.

The Attorney General of Ontario requested costs for a motion for a stay, despite no costs being requested in relation to the appeal.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs of the motion for a stay to the Attorney General, fixed at $5,000 all inclusive.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) brought a motion for a stay of an order restraining its members from picketing at courthouses during a lawful strike, pending an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

OPSEU argued that peaceful informational picketing is a protected form of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter and that a total ban was unnecessary.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test for granting a stay.

While tentatively accepting jurisdiction as a single judge to hear the motion, the court dismissed the motion on the balance of convenience branch.

The court held that the public interest in ensuring unimpeded access to the courts, as established in BCGEU, outweighed the harm flowing from the infringement of the picketers' constitutional rights.

During a lawful strike by court workers, a Superior Court judge issued an ex parte injunction on his own motion restraining picketing outside courthouses in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

The union appealed, arguing the injunction infringed its members' freedom of expression.

The Court of Appeal held that while the order infringed freedom of expression, it was justified under section 1 of the Charter to ensure unimpeded public access to the courts.

However, the court deleted a paragraph of the order prohibiting 'any activities whatsoever' as there was no evidence of non-picketing interference.