Jacqueline Joyce Luksha

The court considered a motion to strike all claims against Patricia France, the former President of St. Clair College, in an action by Waseem Habash for breach of contract, defamation, injurious falsehood, and related torts.

The court partially granted the motion, striking only the claim for intentional interference with contractual and/or economic relations, but granted leave to amend the claim for inducing breach of contract.

The court found that the pleadings for defamation and injurious falsehood were sufficient to proceed, as was the claim for inducing breach of contract (subject to amendment), and that there was an arguable basis for personal liability against Ms. France.

The defendant brought a motion seeking an order to permit a former employee, Ms. Cheryl Downing, to provide evidence by video conference from Texas during the trial.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the defendant failed to provide direct evidence of the witness's unwillingness or unavailability to testify in person, and that the general principle of oral evidence in open court should be upheld.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the affidavit evidence, which relied on double hearsay regarding the witness's refusal to attend in person, to be non-compliant with Rule 39.01(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court emphasized the importance of direct evidence for critical witnesses and the general principle of oral testimony in open court, as outlined in Rule 1.08.

These applications concerned whether pay equity achieved through proxy pay equity plans in female-dominated long-term care workplaces must be maintained by continued reference to proxy establishments.

The Tribunal held that the Pay Equity Act imposes a maintenance obligation on proxy plans, but that maintenance does not require ongoing monitoring of changes in compensation or job value in the proxy employer’s establishment.

Instead, maintenance is to be carried out internally by monitoring the compensation/value relationship already established for the key and non-key female job classes.

The Tribunal also rejected the section 15 Charter challenge and held that workplace changes affecting job value made the existing $1.50 plans inappropriate absent a negotiated gender-neutral comparison system.

The matter was adjourned for nine months with directions to negotiate an amendment to the plans.

The applicant alleged discrimination under the Human Rights Code following the termination of her employment.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the resolution of a concurrent grievance filed on her behalf.

Finding that the issues in the application and the grievance overlapped significantly, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested the production of certain documents from the respondents, who objected on the basis that the documents contained personal health information.

The Tribunal held that the documents were arguably relevant to the proceeding and ordered their production, subject to the redaction of any information that would identify patients.

The Tribunal also addressed a request by the respondents for the production of materials from the applicant and a co-respondent, issuing directions for the filing of witness statements and notes by a specified deadline.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award which found the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to hear grievances regarding the hospital's pension contribution deductions.

The arbitrator had concluded that the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the pension plan administrator, not the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found the arbitrator's decision was justified, transparent, and intelligible, noting the arbitrator properly considered the collective agreement, agreed facts, and relevant jurisprudence including the Weber essential character test.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision assessing damages against her former employer for breaches of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, including reprisal and unpaid overtime.

The applicant argued the Board's damages award was insufficient and sought additional compensation for lost bonus pay, pension contributions, and extended wage loss.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's exercise of discretion under s. 104 of the Act was reasonable and fell within a range of acceptable outcomes.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision upholding an employee's termination for failing to maintain equipment and falsifying records.

The union argued it was denied procedural fairness because the arbitrator based the decision on willful neglect rather than deliberate sabotage.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the employer had clearly argued willful neglect before the arbitrator and the union had ample opportunity to respond.