David Garth Leitch

Several First Nations and a mining company brought motions to intervene in an appeal concerning Aboriginal harvesting rights under Treaty 3 and Ontario's jurisdiction to grant logging permits.

The court granted friend of the court status to Grand Council of Treaty 3, Lac Seul First Nation, Big Grassy First Nation, and Treaty 6 First Nations, finding their perspectives would assist the court.

The court granted party status to Goldcorp Inc. and Wabauskang First Nation, finding they had a direct interest in the subject matter and could be adversely affected by the broad declaration under appeal.

The interveners were ordered to accept the record as it is and not expand the issues.

The complainant alleged that his employment was terminated contrary to section 24(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act because he planned to circulate a petition requesting a lunchroom.

The respondent employer maintained that the complainant was discharged for overall poor performance, including chronic lateness and complaints from co-workers.

The Board found that the employer had no knowledge of the petition activity and that the termination was not motivated by any health and safety concerns.

The Board also declined to exercise its discretion under section 24(7) to modify the penalty, as there was no nexus between the employer's actions and the complainant's health and safety activity.

The complaint was dismissed, with one Board Member dissenting.

The appellant lost his employment due to a work stoppage and subsequently found full-time secondary employment, from which he was later laid off.

His claim for unemployment benefits was initially rejected.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed his appeal, following its concurrent decision in Abrahams v. Attorney General of Canada regarding the interpretation of 'regularly engaged in some other occupation' under section 44(1)(c) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.