Derek Van Dusen

The applicant, a mobile patrol officer, informed her employer she was pregnant.

Within minutes, the employer removed her from the work schedule, claiming her job was too dangerous for a pregnant woman, and directed her to apply for sick benefits.

When the applicant learned she was ineligible for sick benefits and found part-time work elsewhere to mitigate her complete loss of income, the employer terminated her employment for working for a competitor.

The Tribunal found the employer's actions were arbitrary, based on unsupported stereotypes about pregnant women, and constituted discrimination on the basis of sex.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with lost wages, and ordered the employer to complete human rights training and develop an accommodation policy.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying him compensation for injuries sustained during an assault.

The Board found the appellant contributed to his injuries by participating in illegal drug-related activities.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by admitting hearsay evidence from a police officer without adequate prior notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board is permitted to admit hearsay evidence and the appellant received sufficient notice of the allegations to satisfy the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The appellant mother appealed a summary judgment order making her child a Crown ward.

The motion judge had found no genuine issue for trial regarding whether it was in the child's best interests to return to the mother's care, given the mother's health issues and inability to provide a stable environment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence of the Society's efforts to assist the family and no adequate plan from the mother to care for the child.

Fresh evidence filed on appeal did not raise a triable issue.