Heather McIvor

The Crown (appellant) sought costs of the appeal and the motion below after successfully appealing a decision and having the respondent's statement of claim struck as a nullity due to non-compliance with the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019.

The respondent, acting in person, opposed the costs order, arguing the Crown's appeal lacked legal basis and that the relevant statutory provision (s. 18(6) of the CLPA) was added after her action commenced.

The Court of Appeal found the Crown was entitled to costs as it was completely successful and s. 18(6) of the CLPA expressly applied to actions commenced before its enactment.

The court awarded the Crown $7,500 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, a reduced amount from their actual costs to reflect the respondent's self-represented status and financial situation.

The Crown appealed the dismissal of its motion to strike a statement of claim as a nullity.

The claim was brought by the respondent without the required 60-day notice under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019 (CLPA).

The motion judge dismissed the Crown's motion due to delay, but the Court of Appeal found this was an error in law, as the CLPA explicitly states such an action is a nullity from its commencement, and delay or estoppel cannot override this statutory provision.

The appeal was allowed, and the claim against the Crown was struck out as a nullity.

The plaintiff in a certified class action moved for an order approving the form, content, and distribution plan of short and long form notices to class members regarding a proposed settlement.

The court reviewed the motion record and granted the order as requested, noting the notice plan was similar to the one previously approved for certification.

The defendants brought a motion to strike parts of the plaintiff's statements of claim arising from alleged wrongful arrests related to an investigation into unpasteurized milk.

The Crown argued the claims against two police officers were statute-barred and the claims against a provincial investigator failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the claim against the officers was issued in time despite late service, and the pleadings against the investigator adequately alleged the necessary elements of the torts.

The applicant, Hudson's Bay Company, sought judicial review of a regulation that required its department stores to close during the COVID-19 pandemic while allowing big box stores that sell groceries to remain open.

The applicant argued the distinction was irrational and ultra vires the enabling statute.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the regulation was authorized by the Reopening Ontario Act and consistent with its purpose of balancing public health measures with economic concerns.

The court held that it is not the role of the judiciary to assess the wisdom or efficacy of the government's policy choices.

The appellants, two cottagers' associations, appealed a decision dismissing their application for a declaration that individual cottage sewage systems were subject to the Building Code Act rather than the Ontario Water Resources Act.

The central issue was whether the relevant "lot or parcel of land" for determining regulatory jurisdiction was the five registered parcels owned by the Grand River Conservation Authority or the individual cottage lots described in leases.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding that "lot or parcel of land" means land that is legally recognized for municipal and planning law purposes and for which title can be conveyed.

Since the individual cottage lots were not formally severed or registered, the five registered parcels constituted the relevant "lot or parcel of land" bringing the collective sewage systems (exceeding 10,000 litres per day) under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Environment.

In a discharge grievance, the parties addressed disclosure and production issues at the first hearing date.

The Vice Chair directed the Employer to contact the Greater Sudbury Police Service to collect and disclose all documents arguably relevant to the events leading to the Complainant's discharge.

The complainant, a Youth Services Manager with permanent medical restrictions, alleged the employer failed to accommodate him when it removed him from the assignment roster ahead of an anticipated strike.

The employer required managers to remain on-site 24/7 during the strike, which conflicted with the complainant's restriction requiring 8-10 hours away from the facility nightly.

The Board found the employer's decision reasonable, as it could not ensure safe access across a picket line and could not ignore the medical restrictions or its safety obligations.

The application was dismissed.

The union alleged that the employer breached the original Minutes of Settlement regarding a phased retirement arrangement by changing the grievor's Post-Retirement Benefits (PRB).

The employer argued that the issue was resolved by a subsequent corporate Memorandum of Settlement that addressed all outstanding matters related to PRB changes.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the corporate settlement's broad release and entire agreement clauses covered the grievor's situation, as the original settlement was silent on PRB.

The union's request for production of documents to support an allegation of bad faith was dismissed as a fishing expedition.

The grievor grieved his discharge from employment.

The parties agreed to an expedited process and requested a bottom-line decision without reasons.

After reviewing an Agreed Statement of Facts, video clips, and viva voce evidence regarding the context, mitigating factors, and the grievor's remorse, the Vice-Chair substituted the termination with a suspension without compensation from March 31, 2016, to December 31, 2016.

The grievor was ordered reinstated with full seniority effective January 1, 2017.

The grievor, a correctional officer with a workplace accommodation for a sinus condition sensitive to second-hand smoke, engaged in a work refusal after being assigned to a unit where she believed she would be exposed to smoke.

Due to severe operational pressures and labour unrest at the facility, the Employer failed to investigate her work refusal during her shift.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the Employer's failure to investigate was unreasonable and contravened section 43(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, there was no evidence of bad faith, harassment, or reprisal.

The Board granted declaratory relief but denied the Union's request for damages.

The grievor refused to sign a mandatory confidentiality agreement related to a Design-Build project, arguing it exceeded management's authority and conflicted with existing legislation.

He was subsequently removed from the project.

The Union filed a grievance alleging a breach of management rights and, on the eve of the hearing, raised a claim of unjust discipline.

The Employer brought preliminary motions arguing improper expansion of the grievance and failure to disclose a prima facie case.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed both motions, finding the unjust discipline claim was a distinct issue not inherent to the original grievance, and that the Employer's requirement to sign the confidentiality agreement did not violate the collective agreement or conflict with statutory obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal based on disability, claiming his manager gave him a negative performance appraisal in 2011 after he returned from medical leaves.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed as untimely.

The Tribunal found the last alleged incident occurred in 2011, making the 2015 application well outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's arguments that the delay was incurred in good faith due to internal complaints, health issues, lack of legal knowledge, or fear of reprisal.

The application was dismissed.

In a discharge grievance, the parties agreed at the first hearing date that a production order was necessary.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the Ministry to disclose and produce all arguably relevant documents in its possession.

The parties were also directed to discuss whether a subpoena was required for documents currently in the possession of the London Police Services.

The grievor, a registered nurse at a correctional facility, filed grievances alleging harassment, bullying, and discrimination by management, and claimed her resignation was forced under duress.

The employer argued she voluntarily resigned after being implicated in an inmate's suicide and facing potential termination and a report to the College of Nurses of Ontario.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined that the grievor had the opportunity to consider her options with union representation and exercised independent judgment.

The Board concluded the resignation was voluntary and denied the union's request for reinstatement.

The grievor's position was declared surplus, and she sought to exercise her displacement rights under the collective agreement to bump into an Assessment Officer position.

The employer denied the displacement, arguing she was not qualified to perform the core duties of the role, specifically the independent adjudication of complex surgical claims.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied the established test requiring a surplus employee to demonstrate the present ability to perform all major components of the job at a minimum level of competence without a training period.

The Board found that while the grievor had extensive experience as a Claims Assessor, the Assessment Officer role required specialized skills and months of on-the-job training to adjudicate complex claims independently.

As the grievor could not perform this core function without training, the grievance was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal after being issued a trespass notice barring him from a courthouse.

The application was filed more than three years after the incident and nearly two years after the applicant withdrew a previous, identical application.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a good faith reason for the delay under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code, as the new information he claimed to have discovered could have been obtained during the original proceedings.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process and for being out of time.

The Union filed policy and group grievances alleging the Employer failed to provide a healthy and safe working environment regarding air quality at the Sudbury Jail.

Prior to the hearing on the merits, the Employer brought a preliminary motion to limit the scope of the evidence to events occurring within 30 days or one year before the grievance was filed.

The Union argued the Employer had waived its right to bring preliminary objections when it agreed to bifurcate the hearing.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no such waiver occurred.

Balancing the Union's need to prove a systematic failure against the prejudice to the Employer from the passage of time, the Board limited the scope of the evidence to events occurring no more than three years before the date of the filing of the group grievance.

The complainants, Operational Managers, filed grievances alleging unauthorized pay deductions in breach of a prior settlement.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the complaints as moot, arguing that the complainants had since been paid for the dates worked and the parties agreed on the application of the settlement's procedural provisions.

The Board applied the Borowski test for mootness and found that the underlying dispute regarding pay and policy claims had been resolved.

The Board declined to award damages or costs, finding no basis for such remedies, and terminated the proceedings.

The Association filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to convert the grievor's temporary assignment to a permanent position.

The grievor had been in a temporary assignment for 34 months.

The central issue was whether there was a continuing need for the work of the temporary position to be performed on a full-time basis for greater than an additional 12 months beyond the initial 24 months.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that due to organizational restructuring, the special project work of the grievor's temporary position no longer existed.

The grievance was dismissed as the conditions for conversion were not met.