David Cote

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2019 motor vehicle accident, claiming he sustained a catastrophic impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal assessed the applicant's impairments under criteria 7 and 8 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the applicant's whole person impairment rating was 46%, falling short of the 55% threshold required under criterion 7.

Under criterion 8, the Tribunal rejected the applicant's claim of a marked impairment in social functioning, finding his pre-accident history contradicted the expert's opinion.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claims for the cost of a catastrophic determination assessment, an award for unreasonable delay, and interest, as the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary onus.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing his application for permanent resident status on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The applicant suffers from a severe mental illness requiring daily supervision.

The Court found the officer's decision unreasonable as it failed to properly consider the applicant's family ties in Canada, his past inability to successfully manage his illness, his need for in-person support which could not be achieved remotely, the lack of appropriate outpatient services or residences in the West Bank, and the Canadian citizenship of his siblings.

The application was allowed and the matter remitted for reconsideration by a different officer.

Following a successful habeas corpus application resulting in his release from immigration detention, the applicant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondent opposed the quantum, arguing the applicant should have pursued judicial review in Federal Court.

The court found that the respondent had treated the matter as a test case to defend the jurisdiction of the Immigration Division, despite agreeing the applicant should be released.

The court awarded the applicant his full requested costs of $61,760.50 on a partial indemnity scale pursuant to section 24(1) of the Charter and Rule 57.01.

The applicant, a refugee claimant, sought a writ of habeas corpus to be released from immigration detention after being held for 17 months.

The detention was based on a series of alleged breaches of release conditions that were either inadvertent or based on errors by police and immigration authorities.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the application, finding that the continued detention lacked a valid purpose, was arbitrary, and violated the principles of fundamental justice under sections 7 and 9 of the Charter.

The court held that the Immigration Division's deference to the Canada Border Services Agency in determining breaches constituted procedural unfairness.

The complainant, a banquet waitress discharged for theft, alleged that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union had referred her grievance to expedited arbitration one day late, leading to a jurisdictional objection by the employer.

The union subsequently withdrew the expedited referral to pursue a three-person arbitration board, but the Divisional Court ultimately prohibited the board from hearing the grievance.

The complainant also rejected a settlement offer against the union's advice.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union's strategic decisions, including its interpretation of time limits and its advice to accept the settlement, were reasonable and not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) applied for a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that the Ontario Legal Aid Plan (OLAP) and four community legal clinics constituted a single employer.

OPSEU also alleged that OLAP engaged in intimidation or coercion contrary to section 70 of the Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that OLAP and the clinics were engaged in associated or related activities and were under common direction or control due to OLAP's significant involvement in the clinics' personnel and operational matters.

The Board exercised its discretion to declare OLAP a single employer with Neighbourhood Legal Services and Injured Workers' Consultants, but declined to do so for Community Legal Education Ontario.

The section 70 complaints were dismissed.

The applicant sought a declaration terminating the respondent union's bargaining rights.

Although 15 of 30 employees initially signed a petition against the union, two subsequently signed a counterpetition reaffirming their support before the assessment date.

The Board held that it must consider the last voluntary signification of wishes as of the assessment date.

Consequently, the applicant failed to demonstrate that at least 45 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit no longer wished to be represented by the union.

The application was dismissed, with one Board Member dissenting.