4 total
Motion for extension of time to seek judicial review dismissed as an abuse of process.
The moving party sought an extension of time to apply for judicial review of a 2021 Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that dismissed his duty of fair representation complaint as premature.
The court initiated a process under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to consider dismissing the proceeding as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.
Despite being granted multiple extensions and accommodations for medical issues, the moving party failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the three-year delay or demonstrate apparent grounds for relief.
The court found the proceeding met the test under Rule 2.1 and dismissed the motion.
The Court of Appeal dismissed three appeals as frivolous and vexatious and revoked the appellant's fee waivers.
The appellant, Ahmad Mohammad (also known as Ahmad Yousef), brought three appeals from Superior Court orders dismissing his actions under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court of Appeal considered dismissing the appeals and revoking the appellant's fee waivers under the Administration of Justice Act.
The court found the proceedings to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, lacking intelligible grounds or causes of action.
The panel review motions for two appeals (McMaster University and Chaimowitz) were dismissed under r. 2.1.02, and the third appeal (Google) was dismissed under r. 2.1.01 for failure to perfect.
The court also revoked the appellant's fee waivers and prohibited further fee waiver requests without judicial permission.
No costs were awarded.
School boards have statutory authority under the Education Act to pay post-retirement benefits for employees over 65.
The Minister of Education brought a Stated Case asking the Divisional Court to determine whether the Education Act permits school boards to pay for life insurance and health benefits for retired employees over 65 years of age.
The Minister argued that the Act only permits payments to current employees and that specific statutory authority is required for such expenditures.
The Court held that while ss. 177(3) and 177(4) do not authorize these payments, other sections of the Act, including ss. 58.5(1), 170(1)18, 171(1)3, and 177(1), when read together and in context, provide the necessary authority.
The Court found that school boards have the power to negotiate and pay for post-retirement benefits as part of employee compensation packages.
Motion to intervene in judicial review denied for one union but granted for another.
The proposed interveners, two unions, brought motions for leave to intervene in an application for judicial review concerning the payment of post-retirement benefits by a school board.
The judicial review was scheduled to be heard immediately after a related Stated Case in which both proposed interveners were already participating.
The court dismissed one union's motion to intervene, finding it could efficiently make its arguments in the Stated Case proceeding without prolonging the judicial review.
However, the court added the other union as a responding party because it was a joint signatory to the collective agreement at issue in the underlying arbitration.