James A. LeNoury

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of decisions by two medical clinics and the Ministry of Health regarding patient transfer policies and his dismissal as a patient.

The respondent clinics brought a motion to quash the application, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction as they were not exercising statutory powers, and that the application was premature and an abuse of process given parallel proceedings before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The applicant also brought a motion to add several hospitals as respondents.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding the clinics were private entities not exercising state authority, and dismissed the motion to add respondents on similar jurisdictional grounds and as an abuse of process.

An independent contractor was engaged under a six-month Independent Consulting Agreement to provide technological consulting services for a Canadian Tire project.

The contractor disclosed a dated criminal record before commencing work and complied with security checks.

When the security report revealed the criminal record, Canadian Tire requested the contractor's replacement.

The company terminated the engagement one month into the contract under a termination clause allowing termination at the company's sole discretion.

The contractor sued for breach of contract, claiming six months' remuneration.

The motion judge awarded full damages plus costs, finding the company breached its duty of good faith performance.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that although the termination clause was facially unfettered, it was subject to an implied obligation of good faith performance, and the contractor was entitled to damages for the unexpired term of the fixed-term contract with no duty to mitigate.

The applicant's human rights application was initially dismissed as abandoned after he failed to comply with a Case Assessment Direction requiring the exchange of documents and witness lists.

The self-represented applicant requested reconsideration, explaining that he had attempted to comply by emailing the Tribunal but failed to copy the respondent, leading to the rejection of his filing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not intend to abandon his application and that this factor outweighed the public interest in finality.

The request for reconsideration was granted, and the application was reinstated, with the applicant restricted to his own testimony and previously filed documents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ancestry, place of origin, and sex, related to her termination following a pregnancy and parental leave.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the applicant had an ongoing proceeding under the Employment Standards Act concerning the same pregnancy and parental leave issues.

Despite the applicant's objection that her human rights claim included additional grounds, the Tribunal found substantial factual overlap and deferred the application pending the completion of the ESA proceeding.

The applicant filed an application alleging sexual harassment and solicitation.

Prior to filing their Response, the respondents requested an order for particulars and the early production of a tape recording referenced in the application.

The Tribunal denied the request for particulars, finding the application contained sufficient detail for the respondents to comprehend the allegations and file a response.

The Tribunal also denied the request for early production of the tape recording as premature, noting the respondents failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify departing from the standard rules for document exchange.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

In their response, the respondents requested early dismissal of the application, relying on a letter signed by the applicant upon termination.

The Tribunal found that the letter did not contain clear release language and it was unclear if it represented a settlement agreement.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine whether proceeding with the application would be an abuse of process.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after his fixed-term contract was not renewed.

He claimed the non-renewal was due to a slip and fall injury he sustained at work.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had initiated the process to not renew the applicant's contract for performance-related reasons before they were aware of any ongoing disability issues.

The application was dismissed as the disability was not a factor in the decision.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of disability, sex, and sexual orientation.

The respondents argued the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the last incident of alleged discrimination occurred more than a year before the application was filed, and rejected the applicant's argument that her resignation constituted a further incident.

As the applicant provided no satisfactory explanation for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging disability discrimination.

During the hearing, the applicant testified that his supervisor made derogatory comments about his injury, an allegation not included in the original complaint or the statement of additional facts.

The Tribunal ruled that this new allegation fell outside the scope of the complaint and could not be pursued, as it would be unfair to the respondents.

However, the Tribunal admitted a reply document previously filed by the applicant for the limited purpose of assessing credibility, responding to the respondents' implication that the allegation was recently fabricated.

The applicant sought a review of a refusal to issue an order to pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The parties subsequently entered into Minutes of Settlement resolving all issues in dispute, which included a payment of $9,500 to the applicant.

Pursuant to section 69.1(5) of the Act, the Board terminated the application.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the union's unfair labour practice application regarding the discharge of four employees and the removal of machinery.

The employer argued that because the union had raised these issues before an ongoing interest arbitration board settling a first collective agreement, the union had elected its forum and the Board should dismiss the application to avoid dual proceedings.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the issues and public policy concerns before the Board and the interest board are distinct, and there is no statutory requirement to elect between the two forums under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

However, the Board adjourned the proceedings pending the outcome of the interest arbitration, as the award could render the issues moot or significantly impact the proceedings.

The applicant union sought disclosure of information regarding employees outside the bargaining unit to assist in negotiating a pay equity plan, as there were no male comparators within the unit.

The respondent employer refused to provide compensation schedules and job descriptions, arguing they were not yet relevant, and refused to provide names citing confidentiality.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that the employer must disclose job titles, gender composition, compensation schedules, and existing job descriptions for all positions outside the bargaining unit to enable informed and rational bargaining.

The Tribunal declined to order the disclosure of employee names at this preliminary stage.