3 total
Civil action against union organizers stayed as matters fell within exclusive jurisdiction of labour board.
The plaintiff employer brought a civil action against union organizers for economic torts, including inducing breach of contract and civil conspiracy, alleging they improperly obtained confidential employee information during a union organizing campaign.
The defendant organizers moved to stay the action.
The Superior Court granted the stay, finding that the essential character of the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The court also found the civil action was an abuse of process, as the employer had already raised the same factual issues before the Board in ongoing certification proceedings.
Third party pre-writ election spending limit struck down for violating the right to vote.
The appellant sought to uphold a provincial spending limit restricting third party political advertising to $600,000 in the year before a fixed-date election, while political parties faced no limits in the first six months of that period.
The majority held that the spending limit infringes s. 3 of the Charter by creating an absolute disproportionality in the political discourse, allowing political parties to drown out third party voices during a critical democratic period.
The majority further held the limit could not be saved under s. 1 as it failed the minimal impairment stage.
Two sets of dissenting judges would have allowed the appeal, finding the limit did not infringe s. 3 of the Charter on the evidentiary record, with the dissenters disagreeing on whether an expressive component exists within s. 3.
WSIAT decision quashed; employer can use lack of workplace exposure to rebut firefighter occupational disease presumption.
The City of Toronto applied for judicial review of WSIAT decisions granting breast cancer benefits to three communications dispatchers under the firefighter occupational disease presumption.
The WSIAT had ruled that evidence of the dispatchers' lack of exposure to fire suppression hazards could not be considered to rebut the presumption.
The Divisional Court found this interpretation unreasonable, as it contradicted the plain meaning of the statute and the binding WSIB policy, which allowed the presumption to be rebutted by evidence that employment was not a significant contributing factor.
The WSIAT decisions were quashed and the original WSIB decisions denying benefits were restored.