H. Scher

The applicant sought an urgent injunction to prevent the respondent physician from performing an apnea test on the patient, who had suffered a severe brain injury, to determine neurological death.

The patient's mother, acting as substitute decision-maker, refused consent for the test and applied to the Consent and Capacity Board to determine if the test constituted 'treatment' under the Health Care Consent Act.

The physician argued the test was an assessment not requiring consent and that the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The court granted the injunction, holding that the Board is the appropriate body to determine at first instance whether an apnea test constitutes 'treatment' requiring consent under the Act, and that the RJR-MacDonald test for an interim injunction was met.

A unionized employee commenced a civil action alleging wrongful dismissal and seeking damages related to employment termination and retiree health benefits under a voluntary separation package and a related retiree benefits program.

The employer moved under Rule 21 to dismiss the action on the basis that the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitration under s. 48 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The employee sought leave to file a fresh as amended statement of claim focusing on entitlement to benefits under a retiree health benefits program.

Applying the Weber framework, the court held that the essential character of the dispute arose from the employment relationship governed by a collective agreement.

Because the claims were fundamentally employment-related and already the subject of a grievance process, the court lacked jurisdiction and the action had to proceed through labour arbitration.

The defendant employer brought a motion seeking leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing its motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The underlying motion sought to fix a reasonable notice period while dismissing claims for bad faith, punitive damages, and intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The court held that the motions judge reasonably concluded that the evidentiary record raised genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly regarding the circumstances of the termination and potential mental suffering damages.

Applying rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the order sufficient to justify leave.

Leave to appeal the costs order was also refused given the small quantum at issue and the motions judge’s broad discretion in fixing costs.

The defendant employer brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action where the employee had been terminated with eight months’ compensation in lieu of notice.

The employee claimed damages for wrongful dismissal, moral damages, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and punitive damages.

The court found that the termination occurred in the context of an investigation into alleged misconduct and that the circumstances surrounding the investigation and termination could support claims for additional damages.

Because the plaintiff raised triable issues regarding stigma, alleged bad faith in the termination process, and the assessment of damages, the court held that a full appreciation of the issues required a trial.