4 total
Tribunal dismisses Charter challenge, finding the AEPA provides a constitutional process for agricultural collective bargaining.
The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) brought a Charter challenge alleging that Sections 2(1) and 5 of the Agricultural Employees Protection Act (AEPA) violated the freedom of association rights of agricultural workers at a medical marijuana facility under Section 2(d) of the Charter.
The Tribunal found that the AEPA provides a meaningful process of collective bargaining, including employee choice, independence, and a duty of good faith.
The Tribunal concluded that the absence of a statutory right to strike or a Wagner Act model of collective bargaining did not render the AEPA unconstitutional.
The Charter challenge was dismissed.
The court struck down legislative provisions restricting joint adoption to spouses, finding they unconstitutionally discriminated based on marital status.
The applicants, two women in a platonic relationship, sought to jointly adopt a Crown ward.
The Child, Youth and Family Services Act (and its predecessor, the Child and Family Services Act) restricted joint adoption applications to individuals who are "spouses of one another" defined as married or in a conjugal relationship.
The applicants challenged this restriction as discriminatory under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing it violated their equality rights based on marital status.
The Attorney General of Ontario intervened and conceded constitutional invalidity.
The court found the legislation created a distinction based on marital status, an analogous ground, and perpetuated prejudice and stereotyping by excluding non-spousal couples from joint adoption without merit-based assessment.
The court further found the infringement was not justified under section 1 of the Charter, as it lacked rational connection and minimal impairment, and its deleterious effects outweighed any benefits.
The court declared the words "who are spouses of one another" in the relevant sections of both Acts to be of no force and effect for public adoptions.
Unfair labour practice complaint dismissed; employer did not thwart union organizing or refuse representations.
The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) and several individual complainants filed a complaint against MedReleaf Corp. under the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, 2002 (AEPA).
The complainants alleged that MedReleaf failed to provide the union a reasonable opportunity to make representations and thwarted attempts to organize through threats, intimidation, and coercion.
The Tribunal found that MedReleaf did not violate the AEPA.
MedReleaf had reasonably requested confirmation of the union's representational status, which the union refused to provide.
Furthermore, MedReleaf discharged its reverse onus under the AEPA, proving that it did not engage in an anti-union campaign, did not use external agents to intimidate employees, and did not unlawfully discipline or dismiss employees.
Human rights application against Ministry regarding access to addiction treatment dismissed at summary hearing.
The applicant, a person with substance abuse and mental illness, alleged discrimination based on disability against the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care regarding access to addiction treatment facilities.
The allegations included long wait times, restrictive admission criteria, and inadequate coordination of care compared to other medical conditions.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success because the Ministry is not responsible for the day-to-day operations or admission criteria of independent public hospitals and community health service providers.
