Giovanna Di Sauro

The appellant, Knights of Columbus, appealed an order dismissing their motion for a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration.

The motion judge had concluded that the respondent was an employee and that the arbitration clauses in subsequent contracts were invalid for want of fresh consideration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming its jurisdiction to hear the appeal despite s. 7(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, because the motion judge found no valid arbitration agreement existed.

The Court upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no fresh consideration for the contracts containing the arbitration clauses, making them invalid.

It also clarified that the motion judge's preliminary finding on the respondent's employment status was not a final determination for the underlying action.

The appellant, Knights of Columbus, brought a motion to file a five-page reply factum in an appeal concerning the dismissal of their motion to stay an action in favour of arbitration.

The respondent, Neil Goberdhan, did not oppose the motion but sought conditions, including permission to file a sur-reply factum.

The motion judge dismissed the request for a reply factum, emphasizing that the Rules of Civil Procedure do not generally provide for such filings in civil appeals, except for leave to appeal motions, and that oral argument is the appropriate stage to clarify issues.

The court found the case was not exceptional enough to justify a reply factum and dismissed the motion without costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions dismissing her application against her employer for alleged disability discrimination.

The Tribunal had found that the employer's actions, including placing the applicant on administrative leave, requesting an independent medical examination, and transferring her to another school, were not discriminatory and did not breach the duty to accommodate.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review, finding that the Tribunal's factual conclusions were supported by the evidence and that the applicant was improperly seeking to have the court reweigh the evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the respondent 24 months' notice and bonus entitlements for wrongful dismissal.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in interpreting the employment contract, resignation, and release in the context of a commercial share sale.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable errors of law in the motion judge's contractual interpretation, upholding the finding that the release of ESA rights was void, and affirming the 24-month notice period and bonus entitlement.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the respondent employee common law reasonable notice damages.

The motion judge had found that the termination clause in the employment agreement was ambiguous and did not clearly rebut the presumption of common law notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge made no palpable and overriding error in interpreting the contract.

The court found that the termination clause, when read in the context of the entire agreement, lacked the necessary clarity to limit the employee's entitlements to the statutory minimums under the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant, a provincially incorporated company that installs and maintains fibre optic cable for telecommunications networks, sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying its bargaining unit under provincial law.

The applicant argued its operations were vital, essential, or integral to federally regulated telecommunications companies and thus subject to federal jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the applicant's work was highly integrated with and integral to the ongoing operations of federal telecommunications undertakings.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the OLRB decision was quashed.

A parent sought accommodation from a school board to receive advance notice of classroom instruction on topics he considered "false teachings" based on his sincere Christian and Greek Orthodox beliefs, including matters related to sexual orientation, gender identity, and moral relativism.

The parent requested the ability to withdraw his children from such classes.

The school board refused, citing its statutory mandate to provide an inclusive and non-discriminatory educational environment.

The application judge found that while the board's refusal engaged the parent's freedom of religion, it was reasonable and proportionate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the parent failed to establish any objective interference with his religious freedom, as he provided no evidence of actual harm to his children despite years of attendance at the school.

The applicant filed requests to amend her human rights application and to expedite the proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend in part, allowing new allegations regarding the back-to-work process but denying amendments related to a recent job posting to avoid prejudicing the respondent.

The request to expedite was denied, as the applicant's stress and financial situation did not meet the high threshold of true urgency required by the Tribunal's jurisprudence, especially given the impending hearing dates.

The applicant, a Greek Orthodox parent, sought a declaration of parental authority and an order requiring the respondent school board to provide advance notice of curriculum topics conflicting with his religious beliefs, specifically regarding human sexuality, and to allow his children to be withdrawn from those classes.

The applicant argued the board's equity policy infringed his freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter and the Human Rights Code.

The court dismissed the application, finding the board's decision to deny the accommodation was reasonable as it proportionately balanced the applicant's Charter rights with the statutory objectives of inclusion and equality.

The court also held it lacked jurisdiction to hear the standalone Human Rights Code claim.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination by the respondent school board and several personal respondents.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several procedural requests.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request for anonymization on consent.

The applicant's request to expedite the hearing due to psychological strain was denied, as the circumstances did not meet the high threshold for urgency.

The Tribunal removed the personal respondents from the proceeding because the school board conceded liability for their actions in the course of employment.

The applicant was permitted to amend her application, except for allegations relating to settlement discussions and counsel conduct.

A request for document production was denied as premature.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that determined two policy grievances regarding the employer's Nuclear Resourcing Policy.

The arbitrator had found that the employer's reassignment of employees to available work within their job classification did not violate the job posting provisions of the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and held that the arbitrator's interpretation fell within a range of reasonable outcomes, as it followed established arbitral jurisprudence and considered the collective agreement as a whole.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.