François Baril

In this constitutional and procedural appeal concerning minority-language education litigation, the Court upheld the finding that trial-level conduct created a reasonable apprehension of bias and warranted a new trial on remitted issues.

The Court confirmed that, absent territorial delegation, a minority-language school board cannot unilaterally expand admissions beyond criteria set by valid regulation under s. 23 of the Charter.

The Court rejected treating a judge’s community affiliation alone as a sufficient basis for bias without stronger contextual evidence.

It further held that statutory language-rights claims under territorial legislation should proceed at the new trial on a full evidentiary record.

The appeal was largely dismissed, with no order as to costs.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada that substituted a fine for a 30-day sentence of imprisonment imposed by a military judge.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal as of right under s. 245(2)(a) of the National Defence Act, finding that the dissent in the Court of Appeal was on a question of law.

The Court agreed with the dissenting judge that the Court of Appeal erred in interfering with the trial judge's decision, and restored the original sentence.

Le requérant a déposé une requête alléguant du harcèlement au travail fondé sur l'orientation sexuelle et des représailles.

Dans cette décision provisoire, le Tribunal a examiné plusieurs demandes préliminaires des deux parties.

Le Tribunal a rejeté la demande de traitement expéditif, la demande d'enquête du Tribunal, la demande de provision pour frais, ainsi que diverses demandes de mesures de réparation provisoires du requérant.

Le Tribunal a également rejeté la demande de l'intimé visant à reporter ou suspendre l'instance.

The appellant sued her gynaecologist for negligence after she fainted and injured her ankle while left unattended following a pelvic examination.

A jury found the physician was not negligent and the action was dismissed.

The appellant appealed, arguing that defence counsel's opening and closing addresses were inflammatory and that the trial judge's charge to the jury was inadequate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's correcting instructions adequately remedied any prejudice from counsel's inappropriate comments, and that the jury charge, while not perfect, sufficiently identified the issues and related them to the evidence and legal principles.

Alicia Payne, a Black woman, was hired through an employment agency to work as a booth receptionist for Otsuka Pharmaceutical at an international conference organized by Intertask and the Canadian Ophthalmological Society.

When she arrived, Otsuka's representative rejected her, stating he wanted "other girls please" and expressing concern about the "company's image".

The Board found that the representative discriminated against the complainant because she is Black.

The Board also found that the conference organizers had a duty not to condone or further the discrimination.

By conducting an inadequate investigation, unreasonably concluding it was a "misunderstanding", and assisting the representative in finding a replacement, they breached this duty.

The Board awarded general and mental anguish damages against all respondents, along with public interest remedies.

The defendants appealed an order dismissing their motion to enjoin the plaintiffs from seeking access to discovery evidence in parallel U.S. anti-trust litigation.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs were attempting to circumvent Ontario's discovery rules by obtaining discovery in the U.S. before certification of the class action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiffs were merely seeking passive access to evidence already discovered in the U.S. litigation, rather than actively conducting discovery.

The court held that such evidence gathering does not offend Ontario's discovery rules or the implied undertaking rule, and that the U.S. court should determine whether to grant access under its own protective order.

The complainant brought a motion to add eight party respondents to her human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race.

The Board of Inquiry considered whether it 'appeared' that the prospective respondents infringed the complainant's rights under the Human Rights Code and whether adding them would cause substantial prejudice.

The Board added the Canadian Ophthalmological Society, Intertask Group of Companies, and Leanne Akehurst as party respondents, finding a sufficient nexus to the alleged discrimination.

The Board declined to add the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, Hubert Drouin, and Paul Akehurst due to a lack of evidence of their involvement.

The Board also declined to add Manpower Services Canada Limited, finding that the five-year delay in providing notice caused substantial prejudice to its ability to mount a full defence.

The complainant's arguments regarding the Commission's pre-referral conduct and constitutional violations were dismissed as being outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The complainant brought a preliminary motion before the Board of Inquiry to add eight party respondents to her human rights complaint.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission had previously decided to refer the complaint against only two respondents, explicitly declining to refer it against the others.

The complainant argued the Board had jurisdiction to add the remaining respondents under s. 39(2)(d) of the Human Rights Code.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to add respondents where the Commission had already considered and expressly decided not to refer the complaint against them.

The Board held that reviewing the Commission's referral decision falls within the exclusive supervisory jurisdiction of the Divisional Court.