Donald B. Jarvis

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision that dismissed one of her two allegations of breach of a settlement agreement for being untimely.

The HRTO found that the two alleged breaches did not constitute a 'series of contraventions' under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, meaning the first breach was filed outside the six-month limitation period.

The Divisional Court held that the HRTO's interpretation was reasonable and consistent with its established jurisprudence.

The court also dismissed the applicant's claims of procedural unfairness and bias, finding no evidentiary basis for them.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order dismissing her action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal but stayed the motion judge's order pending the outcome of proceedings under the collective agreement and before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

Given the mixed success on the appeal, the court issued a costs endorsement ordering that no costs be awarded.

The appellant, a former police officer, sued the police board and chief of police for breach of a resignation agreement and misfeasance in public office after the chief swore an affidavit in a separate class action that allegedly identified her.

The motion judge dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, finding the essential character of the dispute arose from her employment and was subject to the collective agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the dispute's essential character fell within the collective agreement and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, but varied the order to stay the action rather than dismiss it, pending the exhaustion of the appellant's arbitral and statutory remedies.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, a former police officer, sued for breach of a resignation agreement negotiated between herself, the police board, and the police association.

The court first determined that the jurisdictional issue was not res judicata, as a previous motion judge had struck the claim on other grounds without deciding the jurisdictional question.

Applying the Weber exclusive jurisdiction model, the court found that the essential character of the dispute arose from the collective agreement.

Therefore, exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the dispute lay with a labour arbitrator, not the Superior Court.

The action was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement awarding costs to the appellant in connection with both the appeal and the motion before the motion judge.

The appellant, acting in person, was awarded all-inclusive costs of $4,000 for the appeal and $3,500 for the motion.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order dismissing her action against the respondents under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure without leave to amend.

The appellant alleged that the respondents breached a settlement agreement by: (1) appealing her WSIB benefits claim in violation of a release clause, and (2) breaching confidentiality provisions by disclosing settlement agreement information in an affidavit filed in a class proceeding.

The motion judge struck both claims and dismissed the action against the individual respondent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding it was not plain and obvious that the claims could not succeed, and granted leave to amend the claim against the individual respondent.

The plaintiff, a former police officer, sued for breach of a Resignation Agreement, alleging the defendants appealed her workers' compensation claim and disclosed her identity in an affidavit, contrary to confidentiality terms.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the Amended Statement of Claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The court found that parties cannot contract out of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, and that the affidavit, prepared for a court proceeding, was protected by absolute privilege.

Consequently, both grounds for the breach of contract claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and the claim was struck without leave to amend.

The applicant, a former police officer, brought an application under section 137.1(3) of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss an application brought by the respondent Police Services Board before the Human Rights Tribunal for Ontario.

The respondent's tribunal application sought to enforce a confidentiality provision in a resignation agreement.

The Superior Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the tribunal proceeding, as the term 'proceeding' in section 137.1(3) is limited to civil proceedings before a court and does not extend to proceedings before administrative tribunals.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on mental health by the respondent Police Services Board.

The respondent requested to defer the application pending the conclusion of ongoing proceedings under the Police Services Act (PSA) involving the applicant.

The Tribunal found significant factual and legal overlap between the two proceedings and noted the PSA matter was at a more advanced stage.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the PSA matter.

The applicant, a police constable, alleged discrimination on the basis of family status, claiming his work schedule conflicted with his child custody arrangements.

He sought an interim remedy requiring the respondent to alter his shifts.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the interim remedy was necessary to ensure a complete and effective remedy at the end of the hearing, and noting that the applicant was about to be transferred to a position that would address his scheduling concerns.

The applicant, a police constable, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and disability, as well as reprisal, against his employer, his union (the Association), and a third-party ability management service.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the allegations against the Association had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations that the Association failed to assist the applicant in the accommodation process, organized a mediation meeting without his consent, and supported the use of the third-party service.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations regarding the denial of access to the central sick leave bank and the development of a new sick leave policy to proceed against the Association.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after his temporary employment contract was not extended past February 29, 2012.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process because the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal found that the applicant signed the release knowing his employment would end on that date and that other employees were being extended.

The Tribunal concluded that proceeding with the application would be an abuse of process and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on citizenship, colour, and race.

The respondents submitted that the corporate respondent, which provides airport ground handling and cargo services, is a federally regulated enterprise and therefore outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the services provided are an integral part of a federally-regulated undertaking.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

The respondents requested the removal of a named personal respondent, which the applicant consented to, and the Tribunal granted the request.

The Waterloo Regional Police Association (WRPA), the applicant's union, requested intervenor status.

The applicant opposed the intervention, alleging the WRPA had failed to assist him and discriminated against him by refusing legal funding.

The Tribunal granted the WRPA's request to intervene, finding that a union typically has a substantial interest in a member's human rights application and that the applicant's allegations against the union did not constitute exceptional circumstances to deny intervention.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the production of documents relating to job competitions prior to June 2008.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing it should not be put to the time and expense of producing over 2000 documents and that the allegations should be dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the respondent's request to dismiss the allegations had already been denied in a previous interim decision.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to disclose documents arguably relevant to the job competitions between 1991 and 2006.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the applicant's human rights application, arguing that allegations predating November 12, 2009 were untimely, lacked particularity, and failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the historical allegations constituted a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code, bringing them within the time limit.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the allegations for lack of a prima facie case but ordered the applicant to provide further particulars regarding job competitions between 1992 and 2006.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of age, sex, and race regarding the claimant's employment and termination.

The respondents argued the application was filed outside the one-year time limit under s. 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the last incident of alleged discrimination occurred on June 4, 2008, when the employer made a settlement offer, and that subsequent steps in the grievance procedure did not constitute new incidents.

As the application was filed on June 30, 2009, it was out of time.

The Tribunal also found the delay was not incurred in good faith, as waiting for the conclusion of a grievance process or being out of the country were not reasonable explanations.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process.

The applicant opposed the deferral due to delays and an impending workplace closure.

The Tribunal found that the grievances were virtually identical to the subject matter of the application and deferred the application to avoid adjudicative duplication.

The allegation of discrimination based on 'record of offences' was struck on consent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the termination of his employment.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release as part of a settlement agreement following his termination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had signed the release, which specifically contemplated the Human Rights Code, and there was no evidence of duress.

The Tribunal concluded that allowing the application to proceed would constitute an abuse of process and dismissed the application.

During a hearing for an occupational health and safety reprisal application, the applicant's counsel sought to cross-examine an employer witness on the identity of a confidential source who had informed the employer of the applicant's driver's licence suspension.

The employer objected on the grounds of relevance and privilege.

The Board upheld the objection, finding that the identity of the source was not relevant to the core issue of whether the applicant was disciplined as a reprisal for advancing health and safety concerns.