Estée Garfin

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) brought a Charter challenge alleging that Sections 2(1) and 5 of the Agricultural Employees Protection Act (AEPA) violated the freedom of association rights of agricultural workers at a medical marijuana facility under Section 2(d) of the Charter.

The Tribunal found that the AEPA provides a meaningful process of collective bargaining, including employee choice, independence, and a duty of good faith.

The Tribunal concluded that the absence of a statutory right to strike or a Wagner Act model of collective bargaining did not render the AEPA unconstitutional.

The Charter challenge was dismissed.

In a group of six child protection appeals, the appellant J.B. brought a motion to reconstitute the panel, seeking to replace one of the judges due to her involvement in a prior unanimous decision that had reinstated a no-access order against J.B. The appellant argued for a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal denied the motion, reaffirming the strong presumption of judicial impartiality and the high burden on the party alleging bias.

The court held that a judge's prior ruling against a party on a legal issue in a different case does not create a reasonable apprehension of bias for a new case involving different legal issues, even if the parties are the same.

This appeal concerned the liability of Children's Aid Societies (CAS) and the Ontario government for damages arising from flawed hair follicle drug and alcohol test results from the Motherisk Drug Testing Laboratory (MDTL) used in child protection proceedings.

Family members (parents and siblings) of children apprehended by CASs sued for negligence, negligent investigation/supervision, intentional infliction of mental distress, bad faith, breach of fiduciary duty, misfeasance in public office, and Charter breaches.

The motions judge dismissed these claims, finding that CASs and Ontario did not owe a private law duty of care to parents or family members, as their primary duty is to the child's best interests, creating an untenable conflict of interest.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's decision, affirming that the CAS's duty is solely to the child, and Ontario's duties are general public duties, not private law duties to individuals in child protection matters or related to laboratory oversight.

The court also rejected claims of bad faith and Charter breaches as being disguised negligence claims, and dismissed claims for breach of fiduciary duty and s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, finding these duties are owed to the Indigenous child, not the Indigenous parent.

The Attorney General brought a motion to strike portions of the UFCW's affidavit evidence-in-chief on the first day of a scheduled constitutional challenge hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it was brought too late and would unnecessarily disrupt the hearing schedule.

The Tribunal noted its broad discretion under section 15 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to admit evidence that might be inadmissible in court, and stated that issues of reliability and weight could be addressed during the hearing.

The Attorney General moved to strike portions of the UFCW's affidavit evidence-in-chief on the first day of a constitutional challenge hearing before the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it was brought too late and would disrupt the hearing schedule.

The Tribunal also noted its broad discretion under section 15 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to admit evidence that might be inadmissible in a court of law, leaving issues of reliability and weight for later determination.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules seeking a finding that a child was in need of protection under section 37(2)(b)(i)(ii) of the Child and Family Services Act and a dispositional order for crown wardship with a view to adoption.

The respondent father opposed both orders and sought return of the child under a supervision order.

The respondent mother consented to the crown wardship order.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial on the finding of need of protection or on the crown wardship order, and granted both.

However, the court determined that the access issue raised complex triable issues requiring a viva voce hearing and ordered a trial of that issue, appointing the Children's Lawyer to represent the child.

A temporary care and custody motion under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning two children apprehended by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

The respondent mother sought the return of the younger child to her care under a supervision order.

The court applied the two-part test from section 51(3) of the Act and found that the society established reasonable grounds to believe the child would likely suffer harm if returned to the mother's care, and that the child could not be adequately protected by supervision terms alone.

The court ordered the child remain in the society's temporary care with restricted access provisions.

This is a child protection status review application involving a two-year-old child with a complex history of multiple placements and three separate child protection agencies.

The mother brought a motion for return of the child to her care or increased access.

The paternal great-aunt brought motions for party status and access.

The court dismissed the mother's motions, finding no material change in circumstances warranting modification of the temporary care order.

The court granted the paternal great-aunt party status and access, finding her plan merited consideration as an alternative placement option.

This is a motion for access brought by the father to his two children within the context of a temporary care and custody motion in a child protection application.

The father faced criminal charges for sexual assault and sexual interference with his daughter.

The Children's Aid Society opposed access, arguing that contact with the alleged abuser would be harmful to the child during trauma assessment and treatment.

The court found credible and trustworthy evidence of sexual molestation but determined that supervised access could be safely structured.

The court rejected the Society's reliance on an unqualified expert opinion and found a presumption in favour of access under the Child and Family Services Act.

The court granted temporary supervised access at the Society's office at least twice per week, subject to specific conditions.

An appeal from an Ontario Court of Justice decision granting summary judgment in a child protection proceeding and making two children Crown wards.

The appellants argued that the motions judge erred in law by failing to follow the statutory pathway under the Child and Family Services Act and by not properly considering a parental plan involving support from a grandparent.

The appeal judge reviewed the record and admitted fresh evidence concerning the parent’s continued substance abuse and instability.

The court found that the motions judge applied the correct legal test, considered less disruptive alternatives, and properly evaluated the proposed family support plan.

The appeal was dismissed and the Crown wardship disposition upheld.

The landlord of a retail shopping mall redesigned the development without notifying the franchisor or the franchisee, who had relied on the original site plan attached to their leases.

The franchisee suffered business losses due to the redesign and construction.

The trial judge found the landlord liable for negligent misrepresentation and the franchisor liable for innocent misrepresentation and breach of the duty of good faith, awarding the franchisee $400,000 in damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the liability and damages findings, concluding that the site plan constituted a representation of the mall's layout.

However, the Court allowed the landlord's appeal regarding the franchisor's claim for contribution and indemnity, finding the franchisor was estopped by its contradictory litigation conduct.