Iain David Aspenlieder

The plaintiff, who alleged injuries from an OC Transpo bus accident, brought a motion seeking an order that the defendant City of Ottawa pay interim costs to fund the disbursements required for his documentary discovery, citing his impecuniosity.

The court applied the test from Okanagan Indian Band and found that while the plaintiff was impecunious and had a prima facie case, there were no special circumstances to justify an extraordinary award of interim costs in a routine personal injury action.

The motion for interim costs was dismissed, but the court set a timetable for the completion of documentary and oral discovery.

The plaintiffs brought a Rule 21.01(a) motion seeking determination of legal questions raised in the pleadings relating to a negligence claim arising from a workplace vehicle incident and employment-related claims.

The defendant argued the negligence claim was barred by s. 28 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act and that employment-related claims fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the grievance arbitration process under the collective agreement and the Labour Relations Act.

The court held it was not plain and obvious that the negligence claim was barred, given that the workplace safety authority had previously denied benefits on the basis that the injury did not arise in the course of employment.

However, the plaintiffs conceded that the employment-related claims could not proceed in court due to the collective agreement and ongoing labour arbitration.

Those portions of the statement of claim were struck and the plaintiffs were ordered to deliver an amended pleading.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss a civil action on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute arose under a collective agreement and therefore fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitration.

The underlying action concerned an alleged overpayment of approximately $48,000 to a former employee resulting from administrative error despite an agreement that the employee’s salary would be “red-circled.” The court considered whether the essential character of the dispute arose from the interpretation, application, administration, or violation of the collective agreement.

Given that the employee was no longer employed, the memorandum governing the salary arrangement was not incorporated into the collective agreement, and the union itself took the position that the matter was not arbitrable, the court held the dispute did not fall within arbitral jurisdiction.

The motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was therefore denied.