Elichai Shaffir

Several trade unions and the Canadian Labour Congress brought motions for leave to intervene as added parties or as friends of the court in an action challenging the constitution of the Amalgamated Transit Union.

The moving parties argued they had an interest in the proceeding because their own constitutions contained similar provisions and they could be adversely affected by the precedent.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that an interest based solely on the potential precedential effect of a decision is insufficient for intervention as an added party under Rule 13.01.

The court also denied leave to intervene as friends of the court under Rule 13.02, concluding that the proposed interveners' submissions would largely duplicate the arguments of the defendant union and would not provide a materially different perspective.

The defendants, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario, sought costs on a partial indemnity scale after successfully dismissing the plaintiff's action against the Assembly for lack of jurisdiction and striking out the plaintiff's statement of claim against the Ombudsman for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court awarded the Legislative Assembly $49,983.67 and the Ombudsman $18,551.81, finding their initial claims for costs to be excessive but acknowledging the legal complexity and importance of the motions.

The plaintiff's financial circumstances were considered but not determinative in the costs award.

The plaintiff, a former Ombudsman of Ontario, commenced an action against the Office of the Ombudsman and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, seeking declaratory relief and damages for wrongful dismissal and negligent misrepresentation.

The Office of the Ombudsman moved to strike the statement of claim, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action as the Office is a statutory position, not a legal entity capable of an employment contract with the Ombudsman.

The Legislative Assembly moved to dismiss or stay the action for lack of jurisdiction, asserting parliamentary privilege over the appointment and management of parliamentary officers.

The court granted both motions, finding that the Office of the Ombudsman is not a separate legal entity capable of employing the Ombudsman, and that the Assembly's decisions regarding the appointment and non-reappointment of a parliamentary officer are protected by parliamentary privilege, thus falling outside the court's jurisdiction.

This costs endorsement follows a judgment dismissing appeals by The Humane Society of Canada (HSC).

The court found HSC's conduct, including frivolous and vexatious appeals and unfounded accusations, to be reprehensible and egregious.

Mr. Gates, the plaintiff/respondent, sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court awarded Mr. Gates $8,000 in substantial indemnity costs, finding HSC's conduct fully justified the award and that HSC was not entitled to use its charitable status to shield its misconduct.

The defendant union brought a motion to bifurcate the trial of three related wrongful dismissal actions, seeking to separate the employment contract issues from the election and membership issues raised by some plaintiffs.

The defendant also sought to have the actions assigned to case management.

The court dismissed the motion for bifurcation, finding that the issues were complex and intertwined, and the defendant failed to demonstrate a clear benefit to severing them.

The court also declined to order case management, as there was no demonstrated need for court intervention at this time.

The actions were ordered to be tried together on consent.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against his former employer, several management employees, his union, a union representative, and the lawyers who acted for the employer and the union during a grievance arbitration.

The grievance had been settled on the day of the arbitration in June 2012.

All defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim.

The court granted the motions and dismissed the action against all defendants.

The claims against the lawyers were struck as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, as opposing counsel owes no duty of care to an opposing party, and the claims against the union lawyer fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Furthermore, the court found that all claims against all defendants were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the action was commenced more than two years after the claims were discovered.

An advocacy organization challenged the constitutionality of federal legislation repealing the long‑gun registry created under the Firearms Act.

The applicant argued that eliminating the registration requirement for non‑restricted firearms violated s. 7 of the Charter by increasing risks to life and security of the person, and violated s. 15 by disproportionately endangering women, particularly in situations of intimate partner violence.

The court held that the alleged harm resulted from private violence rather than state action and that s. 7 does not impose a positive obligation on the state to maintain a risk‑reduction regulatory scheme.

The evidentiary record failed to establish a causal link between repeal of the registry and increased violence or gender‑based harm.

The legislation was therefore constitutional and represented a policy choice within Parliament’s authority.

Former union members brought a civil action seeking damages for wrongful dismissal and declarations that their expulsion from union membership was invalid and contrary to the union’s constitution and principles of natural justice.

The international union moved under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to bar portions of the claim on the basis that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust internal union appeal mechanisms and, alternatively, that a forum selection clause required the dispute to be litigated in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia.

The court held it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiffs were precluded from pursuing the claims without first exhausting internal remedies because the evidentiary record was insufficient to determine whether those remedies were unreasonable, impracticable, or illusory.

The court also held that a forum selection clause does not deprive Ontario courts of jurisdiction simpliciter and that jurisdiction and forum non conveniens issues had not been properly argued.

The motion was dismissed.