Jackie Esmonde

The proposed intervener coalition sought leave to intervene in an employment-contract appeal concerning enforceability of termination provisions.

The court held the coalition would provide a distinct perspective on the effects of termination clauses on vulnerable and low-wage workers and granted leave on terms aligned with a prior intervener order.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that dismissed its grievance regarding the calculation of partial-day absences for relief letter carriers.

The arbitrator had found that the collective agreement did not require rounding up daily totals of partial absences and had considered the union's history of withdrawing similar grievances.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and use of extrinsic evidence were justified and internally coherent.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board had declined to consider the employer's late-filed notice under s. 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act challenging the union's estimate of the proposed bargaining unit size.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the basis of prematurity, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify interfering with the ongoing administrative certification process.

The University of Toronto brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to dismantle a protest encampment set up by students and others on Front Campus.

The protesters argued the encampment was a protected exercise of their rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly.

The court granted the injunction, finding that the University established a strong prima facie case of trespass and ejectment.

The court held that the protesters' appropriation of University property to the exclusion of others constituted irreparable harm.

The balance of convenience favoured the University, as the injunction only prohibited camping and erecting structures, while allowing the protesters to continue demonstrating elsewhere on campus.

In an alternative analysis, the court found that the Charter does not apply to the University's management of its property, and even if it did, the trespass notice was a justified limit under section 1.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard a motion by 94 former employees (proposed interveners) to intervene as an added party in an appeal between 2505243 Ontario Limited and Princes Gates GP Inc. The employees sought to protect a $2.063 million fund set aside for their potential termination claims by the trial judge.

The motion was opposed by Princes Gates GP Inc., while 2505243 Ontario Limited took no position.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that although the proposed interveners had a direct financial interest, their submissions would largely duplicate those of 2505243 Ontario Limited and risked introducing a new, unlitigated issue (common employer) from a separate class proceeding.

The Ministry of Health appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review of Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions.

The Tribunal had found that the Ministry engaged in systemic gender discrimination against Ontario midwives by abandoning equitable compensation principles established in 1993, leading to a significant compensation gap between midwives and community health clinic physicians.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the standard of review for the Tribunal's decisions is reasonableness, even post-Vavilov.

The Court held that the Adjudicator's liability and remedy decisions were reasonable, as they revealed a rational chain of analysis supported by the evidence, and dismissed the appeal.

The proposed intervenor, WIFN, brought a motion for leave to intervene as a party in an application between HDI and Ontario.

WIFN sought to intervene to contest HDI's claimed rights under the Nanfan Treaty, arguing that any court acknowledgment of such rights could prejudice WIFN's interests in future proceedings.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that WIFN had no interest in the substantive outcome of the procedural application and that adding WIFN would substantially delay and broaden the scope of the proceedings.

The court noted that WIFN's concerns were mitigated by HDI's voluntary amendment of its notice of application.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal denying him Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits.

The Tribunal had found that the appellant's impairments were not substantial at the time of the Director's decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by unreasonably disregarding a psychiatric report prepared after the Director's decision, which was admissible under s. 64(1) of O. Reg. 222/98.

The Tribunal also misapprehended medical imaging evidence regarding the appellant's physical condition and failed to consider medical opinions relating to his depression.

The matter was remitted to a new panel for a rehearing.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal denying him Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits.

The Tribunal had found that the appellant's impairments were not substantial at the time of the Director's decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by unreasonably disregarding a psychiatrist's report prepared after the Director's decision, which corroborated the appellant's physical and mental conditions.

The matter was remitted to a new panel of the Tribunal for a rehearing.

The appellant, an ODSP recipient, appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which held that the 'cost of transportation' for medical travel by private vehicle under O. Reg. 222/98 was limited to operating costs and excluded ownership costs.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's interpretation unreasonable.

The Court held that the plain meaning, context, and purpose of the legislation did not support excluding ownership costs from the calculation of the medical transportation benefit, and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for redetermination.

The appellant, a disabled senior, received an overpayment of ODSP income support due to an innocent reporting error regarding his rent.

The Director ordered full repayment.

The Social Benefits Tribunal reduced the recovery to half the amount, but the Divisional Court overturned this, finding no discretion to forgive a Crown debt.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Director's discretion under section 14(4) of the ODSPA includes the authority to forgo recovery of an overpayment, and that the Tribunal has the same discretion on appeal.

Three ODSP recipients appealed the Social Benefits Tribunal's decision denying them medical travel benefits to attend a therapeutic aquafitness program for severe mental illness.

The Tribunal had found the program was not a 'medical treatment' and questioned why alternative funding or programs were not used.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeals, holding that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to apply a purposive interpretation to the ODSPA.

The Court found the medically prescribed, psychiatrist-supervised aquafitness program constituted 'medical treatment' and that the regulation does not require applicants to prove no alternative programs or funding sources exist.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario considered the claims of 17 individuals alleging that the special diet allowance schedule under Ontario's social assistance system discriminated against them based on disability.

The claimants argued that the schedule failed to fund or underfunded special diets for 11 different medical conditions.

Applying the four-part test from Ball v. Ontario, the Tribunal dismissed the majority of the claims, finding that the claimants failed to establish that their conditions required modifications to a regular healthy diet, that the diets led to additional costs, or that the medical community generally recognized the need for such diets.

However, the Tribunal allowed the claims for Prader-Willi syndrome and unintended weight loss due to renal failure, as the respondent conceded these conditions met the Ball test.

The Tribunal ordered retroactive benefits for these two conditions, rejecting the respondent's argument that the recognition of Prader-Willi syndrome constituted a substantial change in the law that would preclude retroactive relief.

Several public interest organizations sought leave to intervene as friends of the court on a motion to strike a constitutional application alleging that federal and provincial housing policies violated sections 7 and 15 of the Charter by failing to ensure adequate housing.

The proposed interveners argued they could provide perspectives relating to poverty, disability, housing policy, international human rights obligations, and constitutional remedies.

The court emphasized that intervention on a Rule 21 motion is exceptional and requires a showing that the intervener will make a useful legal contribution beyond the parties’ submissions without prejudicing the proceeding.

Interventions focused primarily on social context or policy impacts were rejected because the motion concerned a narrow legal question regarding whether the application disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The court granted limited intervention status to three groups with specific expertise relevant to Charter interpretation, international human rights law, and constitutional remedies, while dismissing the remaining intervention motions.

The complainants, who receive Ontario Disability Support Program benefits and have been diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C, alleged that the special diet allowance program discriminated against them on the basis of disability.

Applying the test from Ball v. Ontario, the Tribunal found that there is general recognition in the Ontario medical community that individuals with chronic hepatitis C require modifications to a regular healthy diet, specifically increased protein and energy.

The Tribunal concluded that the complainants established disability-based discrimination and ordered the respondent to provide retroactive and ongoing special diet allowances for chronic hepatitis C.

The Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Tribunal had confirmed an overpayment of $3,050 against the respondent but ordered the Director to collect only half of it at $10 per month due to financial hardship.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that an overpayment is a debt due to the Crown and neither the Director nor the Tribunal has the statutory authority to forgive any part of it.

The Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program appealed a decision holding that child support payments made to the mother of a disabled adult were not 'income' attributable to the disabled adult under the ODSPA.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that characterizing child support paid to a custodial parent as the disabled adult's income would undermine the disabled adult's right to apply independently for benefits and would unfairly discriminate against disabled children of separated parents.

The child support payments are not payments made 'to or on behalf of or for the benefit of' the disabled adult until the mother actually uses them for the adult's benefit, at which point exemptions for disability-related expenses may apply.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing several preliminary matters in a complex human rights proceeding.

The request to amend the style of cause to reflect legal name changes was granted.

The request to bifurcate the hearing between liability and remedy was denied, as it would likely extend the cost and time of the proceeding.

The Hamilton Police Association's request to dismiss the complaints for failure to make out a prima facie case was dismissed as premature.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions regarding the request for dismissal on the basis of timeliness and ordered immediate compliance with disclosure obligations.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination based on disability and record of offences regarding his treatment at the Toronto Jail.

He subsequently commenced a civil action against the respondent Ministry seeking damages for negligence and Charter breaches based on the same factual allegations of failure to accommodate his disability.

The Tribunal held that the applications were barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, as the applicant was effectively claiming the equivalent of damages under section 46.1 of the Code in his civil action.

The applications were dismissed to prevent duplicate proceedings.

The applicants sought judicial review of decisions by two coroners refusing to issue a summons to a government official to testify about the composition of the jury roll in the Thunder Bay district, specifically regarding the representation of First Nations individuals.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, holding that coroners have no statutory authority under the Coroners Act to inquire into or remedy the process used by the sheriff to compile the jury roll under the Juries Act.

The court found no jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice in the coroners' refusals.