David G. Cowling

The Durham Regional Police Service (Applicant) sought to prohibit the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (Commission) from disclosing two workplace investigation reports (Shearer Reports), claiming they were privileged.

The Commission, along with the Durham Regional Police Service Association (Intervenor), opposed these restrictions.

The court dismissed the application, finding that Shearer Report 1 was not privileged, and while Shearer Report 2's privilege was uncertain (as it was not produced for review), any privilege over either report had been waived or lost due to prior disclosures.

The court ordered the reports to be produced to the Commission without restriction, emphasizing the public interest in disclosure to protect employees from harassment and a toxic workplace, and noting the Commission's statutory obligations of confidentiality.

The Durham Regional Police Services Board and Christopher Delaney appealed a Divisional Court decision that found the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario's (HRTO) decisions unreasonable.

The HRTO had ruled that a settlement agreement for a second human rights application also settled a prior, undecided first application by Joseph Briggs, and subsequently cancelled a favourable decision for Briggs on the first application as an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court reversed the HRTO, finding its interpretation of the settlement unreasonable and deciding the matter itself rather than remitting it.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's finding that the HRTO's decision was unreasonable due to its narrow interpretation of the factual matrix and exclusion of relevant evidence (Form 25).

The Court of Appeal also affirmed the Divisional Court's discretion to decide the matter rather than remitting it, citing the inordinate delay and the binary nature of the issue.

The appeal was dismissed, confirming that the settlement did not cover the first application.

The moving party (appellant) sought to amend or vary a previous appeal decision to include severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, arguing that evidence of the respondent's payroll was implicitly in the trial record.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that it did not fall under Rule 59.06(1) for accidental slips or omissions, nor Rule 59.06(2) for new facts or fraud, as the moving party was attempting to re-argue an issue already considered and declined.

The court reiterated that it is not its role to scour the record for evidence not relied upon by parties.

The respondent's attempt to introduce fresh evidence without leave was also rejected.

The appellant employee appealed a judgment upholding his dismissal for cause after a workplace incident involving non-consensual touching of a co-worker.

The appeal challenged factual findings, the just cause conclusion, and sought Employment Standards Act (ESA) benefits and punitive damages for litigation misconduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding just cause and punitive damages, but allowed the appeal for ESA termination pay, finding the conduct did not meet the "wilful misconduct" standard for disentitlement.

The court also set aside the trial costs due to the respondent's egregious litigation misconduct, ordering no costs of the trial.

The Union defendants moved to stay or dismiss the plaintiffs' action, arguing the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) had exclusive jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs, creditors of a bankrupt company (SOCF), sought damages in tort for conspiracy to injure, unlawful interference with economic relations, and inducing breach of contract, stemming from the Union defendants' alleged improper use of the grievance procedure to coerce SOCF into signing a collective agreement.

The court applied the "essential character" test from Weber v. Ontario Hydro and found the dispute's core to be a labour relations matter, specifically an alleged unfair labour practice under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Consequently, the court determined it lacked jurisdiction and stayed the action indefinitely, directing the plaintiffs to pursue remedies before the OLRB.