Helen A. Rady

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint that s. 10(5) of the Coroners Act discriminates against migrant farm workers by denying them mandatory inquests into workplace deaths, a benefit extended to mining and construction workers.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal reasonably applied the two-step Kapp test for discrimination and reasonably concluded that the exclusion of migrant farm workers from mandatory inquests did not violate s. 1 of the Human Rights Code, given their lower risk of fatal workplace injury and lesser variety of hazards compared to construction and mining workers.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellants, residential tenants, appealed orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancies and denying relief from eviction.

The tenants had been temporarily relocated to other units owned by the landlord during the redevelopment of their original building, pursuant to a s. 37 Planning Act agreement.

When the new building was ready, the tenants refused to vacate the temporary units.

The Board found this substantially interfered with the landlord's lawful rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the standard of review was reasonableness, the eviction notices were valid, and the Board reasonably concluded that the agreement to terminate the temporary tenancies did not violate s. 37(5) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The moving party, Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG), brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for supplementary health benefits as barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff had previously settled a long-term disability claim with Great-West Life, which retroactively acknowledged her disability.

OLG argued the plaintiff knew her benefits were cancelled in 2008 for non-payment of premiums.

The court found multiple factual and legal issues requiring a trial, including whether OLG was obliged to pay the premiums during the acknowledged disability period, conflicting evidence regarding reinstatement agreements, and the effect of OLG's prior premium refunds.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The plaintiff moved for judgment to enforce a settlement with Coca-Cola Bottling Company regarding short-term disability benefits.

The dispute centered on the scope of the release demanded by Coca-Cola, which sought to include all future benefits, including group health and pension benefits, arguing it was part of a global settlement.

The court found that the settlement was solely for short-term disability benefits and not a global settlement, thus the broader release was not contemplated or negotiated.

The plaintiff's motion was granted.

BDO Canada Limited, the court-appointed receiver of Delta Logistics Transportation Inc., moved for an order requiring 2337764 Ontario Inc. to deliver possession of seven trucks over which 233 asserted a possessory lien under the Repair & Storage Liens Act (RSLA).

The receiver sought to take possession and sell the trucks for the benefit of creditors, arguing its powers derived from the broad court appointment order under the Bankruptcy & Insolvency Act (BIA). 2337764 Ontario Inc. contended that the court lacked jurisdiction, asserting its possessory lien rights and arguing that the matter should proceed under the RSLA's dispute resolution provisions.

The court distinguished the powers of a court-appointed receiver from those of a trustee in bankruptcy, emphasizing the receiver's fiduciary duty to all stakeholders and the supremacy of the court order.

The motion was granted, requiring 2337764 Ontario Inc. to deliver the vehicles to the receiver, with the lien claim to be determined later from the sale proceeds.

The defendant insurer moved for an order compelling the plaintiff to undergo a neuropsychological examination, arguing the plaintiff had placed his cognitive abilities in issue in his claim for long-term disability benefits.

The plaintiff opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had not put his neuropsychological function in issue, none of his treating physicians had recommended such an assessment, and there was no evidence from a medical professional that the examination was necessary.

The plaintiff brought a motion on consent to certify a multi-jurisdictional class action for settlement purposes and to approve the notices of hearing and dissemination plan.

The action alleged a conspiracy by the defendants to fix the price of gem grade diamonds.

The court granted the motion, finding that the certification criteria under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act were met and that the proposed notices and dissemination plan were adequate.

The appellant, a minority shareholder, appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing part of his oppression remedy claim as statute-barred.

The motions judge found the appellant was aware of the constituent elements of his claim regarding a corporate dilution transaction more than three years before commencing the action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motions judge's conclusion on discoverability, noting that a fresh and discrete act of oppression did not occur to extend the limitation period.

The appellant appealed an order directing the sale of the matrimonial home and the payment of child and spousal support.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellant did not have leave to appeal the support orders and acknowledged he could not purchase the respondent's interest in the matrimonial home.

The court advised that any change in circumstances should be addressed through a motion to change.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering her eviction for rent arrears.

By the time the appeal reached the Divisional Court, the tenant had paid the arrears in full, rendering the eviction order void and the appeal moot.

The sole issue before the court was the disposition of costs.

Although the court noted the landlord acted precipitously in seeking eviction, the landlord was legally entitled to do so.

The appeal was dismissed without costs.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to file an additional affidavit, continue the cross-examination of the plaintiff, and compel production of evidence from a related bank action, after cross-examinations had already concluded.

The motion was brought shortly before a scheduled summary judgment motion, following a change of counsel for the defendants.

Applying the four-factor test from First Capital Realty, the court granted leave to file the additional affidavit, noting the importance of a full evidentiary record for a summary judgment motion and the lack of non-compensable prejudice.

However, the court denied the requests to continue the cross-examination and compel production of the bank action evidence.

The moving party defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01 to strike the plaintiffs' claim against the former Chief of Police.

The plaintiffs' action arose from a police investigation into a noise complaint, alleging false and malicious statements in police records.

The court granted the motion, finding that the claim sought no substantive relief against the former Chief, was commenced after the expiry of the limitation period, and failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action as the Police Services Act does not impose vicarious liability on chiefs of police for the tortious conduct of force members.

The claim was struck without leave to amend.

The plaintiff, a former Crown employee, brought an action for conspiracy, misfeasance, abuse of process, and defamation against the Crown and several individuals arising from a workplace investigation and his subsequent termination.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action under Rule 21.01(3), arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute fell under a collective agreement.

Applying the test from Weber v. Ontario Hydro, the court found that the essential character of the dispute was workplace-related and fell squarely within the ambit of the collective agreement's arbitration provisions.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiff was injured in a bicycle accident in a construction zone and initially sued the municipality.

After the municipality issued a third-party claim against the contractor, the plaintiff commenced a separate action against the contractor.

The contractor moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period and constituted an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding when the plaintiff reasonably could have discovered the contractor's involvement, given her injuries and the lack of clarity about the construction site.

The court also found no abuse of process and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to consolidate the actions.

Brennan Nicholas, charged with first-degree murder, applied to vary a non-communication order made by a Justice of the Peace, which prohibited him from communicating with his mother and other family members.

The Crown consented to removing siblings and cousins but maintained the prohibition against the mother, Denise Desormeaux, citing past interference with justice.

The court found the original order was made without jurisdiction under s. 516(2) of the Criminal Code, and should have been made under s. 515(12), which is reviewable.

On the merits, the court found no compelling reason to maintain the non-communication order against the mother, noting her protective actions were understandable given the accused's youth, mental health issues, and Indigenous heritage, and that she posed no risk of interfering with the current proceedings.

The application to vary the order was granted, allowing communication with his mother.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss a personal injury claim arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The central issue was whether the plaintiff, Mr. Mailloux, and his derivative claimants were barred from recovery under the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act and the Insurance Act due to Mr. Mailloux driving without a valid license and insurance.

The court found that Mr. Mailloux was the de facto lessee of the vehicle, knew he was unlicensed and uninsured, and that the insurance policy obtained by Mrs. Mailloux involved material misrepresentations and non-disclosures, rendering it void ab initio.

Consequently, Mr. Mailloux was in breach of the CAIA and barred from recovery, leading to the dismissal of all claims.

The defendants and a statutory third party moved for summary judgment to dismiss a Family Law Act claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident that resulted in the death of Glen Isaac.

The court considered the doctrines of volenti non fit injuria and emergency, and the deceased being the author of his own misfortune.

The motion was granted, finding that the deceased's aggressive actions initiated the confrontation and led to his death, thus precluding the derivative claims.

The defendant, Pizza Pizza Limited, successfully moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for damages.

The plaintiff, Paul Porchak, suffered a radial head fracture after tripping over a bicycle rack outside the defendant's leased premises.

The plaintiff alleged negligence, including unsafe sidewalk conditions and failure to inspect.

The court, applying principles of negligence and summary judgment, found no evidence of an objectively unreasonable risk of harm.

It noted the rack was plainly visible, the plaintiff was aware of its general presence, and there were no prior incidents.

The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to maintain a proper lookout for his own safety, and therefore, the defendant did not breach its duty of care.

The Crown applied for a ruling on the voluntariness of the defendant's statement made to police during a cautioned interview.

The defendant, Michael Sutton, was charged with assault, sexual assault, and attempted murder.

The court reviewed the circumstances of the interview, including the defendant's state after being awakened and arrested, police conduct, and the absence of threats or inducements.

Applying the confessions rule, the court found that the statement was voluntarily given beyond a reasonable doubt, dismissing the defendant's arguments regarding sleep deprivation, lack of food, an uncomfortable cell, and an oppressive interview atmosphere.

A non-party, 2501427 Ontario Limited, brought a motion for an injunction to prevent the closing of a real estate purchase and sale transaction initiated by the plaintiff, 1943237 Ontario Corporation, under a power of sale.

The moving party, which had purchased the defendants' shares, argued the notice of sale was defective and that they were misled.

The court applied the three-part test for injunctions from *RJR MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General)*.

The court found no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience did not favour the moving party.

The motion was dismissed.