Jeremy Daniel Schwartz

A municipality contracted with a constructor to repair a water main and dispatched quality control inspectors to the project site.

A pedestrian was fatally struck by construction equipment at an intersection where required safety measures — a fence and signallers — were absent.

The municipality was charged as an employer under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for failing to ensure that prescribed regulatory measures were carried out in the workplace.

On equal division, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, with the majority holding that proof of control over workers or the workplace is not required to establish the actus reus of the employer's duty under s. 25(1)(c); control is relevant only to the due diligence defence.

The dissent would have either remitted the matter or restored the acquittals on the basis that regulatory measures apply only to work within the employer's sphere of control.

K-Line Maintenance and Construction Limited appealed four convictions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, stemming from a workplace accident that severely injured an employee.

The primary ground of appeal was that the Justice of the Peace failed to provide adequate reasons for the decision, thereby denying K-Line a meaningful right to appeal.

The court found the reasons provided by the Justice of the Peace to be factually and legally insufficient, making it impossible to understand the basis of the findings or the legal analysis.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy), naming both her former employer and her direct supervisor as respondents.

The corporate respondent brought a request to remove the supervisor as a personal respondent, accepting vicarious liability for her actions and undertaking to make her available to testify.

The applicant did not contest the request.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to maintain the supervisor as a personal respondent and ordered her removed from the proceeding.

The applicants, an employee and the employer, sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board and the Minister of Labour regarding the negotiation of a first collective agreement.

The Board had ordered first agreement arbitration, and the Minister subsequently cancelled a scheduled final offer vote.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the Board did not breach its duty of fairness, the Vice-Chair was not biased, the decision to order arbitration was reasonable, and the Minister had the jurisdiction to cancel the vote.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and failure to accommodate after his employment was terminated.

The respondent requested to defer the application pending the outcome of the applicant's ongoing WSIB claim, which involved overlapping issues of disability, accommodation, and loss of earnings.

The Tribunal granted the request to defer, finding that proceeding concurrently could lead to inconsistent results and would not be an efficient use of adjudicative resources.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of race, ethnic origin, sexual solicitation or advances, and reprisal by his condominium corporation.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed at a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations of sexual solicitation and reprisal, finding no evidence to support them.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations of discrimination based on race and ethnic origin to proceed, ordering the applicant to provide further particulars regarding alleged racial slurs and a 'black list' used by the condominium board chairman.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his condominium corporation and its property manager, alleging discrimination on multiple grounds including race, age, disability, and reprisal.

The respondents requested summary dismissal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the applicant's allegations, which primarily stemmed from his belief that he was treated poorly after criticizing the property manager, lacked any evidence linking the treatment to Code-protected grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under Rule 19A.1 as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant employee sought a stay of a first contract arbitration ordered by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, pending a judicial review of the Board's and Minister of Labour's decisions.

The applicant argued that the Board and Minister breached the employees' rights to natural justice and procedural fairness by not providing notice or an opportunity to participate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, as the mere imposition of a collective agreement pending the judicial review would not exacerbate the alleged harm.