Ernest G. Guiste

The applicant filed human rights complaints against his former employer and his union, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, race, and ethnic origin.

The employer and union brought requests for early dismissal.

The Tribunal denied the employer's request to dismiss allegations older than one year, finding they formed a series of incidents culminating in the applicant's termination.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the complaint against the union regarding its handling of the termination grievance under section 45.1, issue estoppel, or abuse of process, as the OLRB had not addressed the discrimination issue, though the applicant was barred from re-litigating the OLRB's factual findings.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the union regarding a May 2006 accommodation request due to unexplained delay.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his defamation claim against his former employer.

The claim was based on the employer submitting a statutory form to employment insurance authorities stating the appellant had been 'dismissed' and a follow-up statement that the dismissal was for breach of policy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error by the motion judge.

The court held that the statements were protected by qualified privilege and there was no evidence of malice to overcome that privilege.

The applicant's application for judicial review of a human rights commission decision was dismissed.

The respondents sought costs of $5,000 each.

The applicant argued she should be relieved of paying costs because her case raised public policy issues and she was impecunious.

The Divisional Court declined to award costs against the applicant, finding it appropriate to relieve her of the obligation due to the public interest issues raised and her difficult financial circumstances.

The appellant was unsuccessful at trial, where the trial judge made no order as to costs due to her impecuniosity.

The appellant subsequently pursued an appeal and was again entirely unsuccessful.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the respondents, holding that they should not be deprived of their costs a second time despite the appellant's financial circumstances.

The appellant, a former Tim Horton's employee, was charged with theft after management viewed a videotape and contacted police.

She was acquitted and subsequently sued the arresting officer and the restaurant owner for malicious prosecution, wrongful dismissal, intentional infliction of mental distress, and defamation.

A jury found against her on all issues.

On appeal, she argued the trial judge misdirected the jury on the definition of theft, failed to outline her position, and improperly allowed the defendants to expand the theft allegation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the jury's verdict and concluding the jury was properly instructed.

The appellant, a former Tim Horton's employee, was acquitted of criminal theft charges and subsequently sued her employer and the arresting officer for malicious prosecution, wrongful dismissal, and other claims.

A jury dismissed all her claims.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge misdirected the jury on the definition of theft and failed to properly outline her position.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, as the jury was entitled to reach its factual conclusions based on the evidence.

The appellants appealed an order granting summary judgment to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the respondents' blanket denials of wrongdoing satisfied the threshold for a Rule 20 motion, and that the appellants' materials failed to raise a genuine issue for trial.

Leave to appeal costs was denied, and costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant police officer was convicted of dangerous driving following an off-duty road rage incident and sentenced to 30 days in jail.

Based on this criminal conviction, a Hearing Officer found the appellant guilty of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act and ordered his dismissal.

The appellant appealed the disciplinary conviction and penalty, arguing the hearing should have been stayed pending his criminal appeal and that his alternate version of events should have been accepted.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to stay the proceedings absent a Crown request, and holding that the Hearing Officer properly relied on the criminal conviction without re-litigating the facts.

The penalty of dismissal was upheld as there was no manifest error in principle.

The appellant police officer was convicted of dangerous driving following an off-duty road rage incident and sentenced to 30 days in jail.

Based on this criminal conviction, a Hearing Officer found him guilty of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act and ordered his dismissal.

The officer appealed to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, arguing the hearing should have been stayed pending his criminal appeal and that his alternate version of events should have been accepted.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Hearing Officer's reliance on the criminal conviction or the penalty of dismissal.

The appellant police officer was convicted of dangerous driving following an off-duty road rage incident and sentenced to 30 days in jail.

Based on this criminal conviction, a Hearing Officer found him guilty of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act and ordered his dismissal.

The officer appealed, arguing the disciplinary hearing should have been stayed pending his criminal appeal and that the Hearing Officer should have accepted his alternate version of events.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Hearing Officer's reliance on the criminal conviction or in the penalty of dismissal, noting the Crown had not requested a stay of the disciplinary proceedings.

The appellant was arrested for sexual assault during an undercover police operation targeting public sex in a park.

After the criminal charge was withdrawn, the appellant sued the police for negligence, malicious prosecution, and Charter breaches.

The trial judge dismissed the action.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in rejecting proposed expert evidence, failing to consider his section 15(1) Charter discrimination claim, and dismissing the malicious prosecution claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the expert evidence was unnecessary, the trial judge properly considered and rejected the Charter claim, and there was no evidence of malice to support malicious prosecution.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a claim for damages for alleged wrongful dismissal.

The Court of Appeal held the matter was fact driven and found no significant error in the trial judge's factual findings or application of law.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant challenged the dismissal of his action against counsel retained by his union to present his grievance under a collective agreement.

The Court of Appeal held that, in essence, the dispute arose from the administration of the collective agreement and the only duty owed to the appellant was the union’s duty of fair representation under s. 37 of the Canada Labour Code.

Because complaints alleging breach of that duty fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Relations Board, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the action.

The court therefore dismissed the appeal and found it unnecessary to address issue estoppel.